Friends, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for the high honour you have done me by requesting me to preside over the deliberations of the Sixth Session of the Maharashtra Provincial Conference. You are probably aware that I did not at first venture to accept the kind invitation, but by referring to the old relations between Bengal and Maharashtra some of my friends touched themost tender chord in my heart. The appeal then proved to be irresistible and every other consideration had to stand aside. I assure you that we look back with hjoy and pride to the days when Bengal and Maharashtra fought side by side under one banner; and my friends in Bengal will bear me out when I say that after my release from incarceration, my first and foremost desire was that these two provinces should once again figure in the same political camp. However unworthy we may be today, the traditions built up by Lokmanya Tilak, Srijut Aurobindo Ghosh and Deshbandu Chittaranjan Das still live; and in our adversity we fondly cling to them.

Lokmanya’s greatness

I knew that Lokmanya Tilak was one of the greatest men produced by India in recent times. I had often tried to contemplate the loftiness of his character and to comprehend the versatility of his intellect. I had often pondered over the mystery of his rich and wonderful personality; but I confess that not till I was thrust inside the stone walls of Mandalay jail did the magnitude of his greatness reveal itself to me. I had the privilege of living for two years under the shadow of that wooden cage – it was not a Masonic building – where Lokmanya Tilak lived in complete isolation for nearly six years. And until one has lived in Mandalay jail for some time it is not possible to realize the soul-killing atmosphere and the inhuman conditions to which Lokmanya had been subjected during his incarceration. Words fail to express the greatness of one who could come out of this ordeal triumphant, whose sould could break through the parched stones of Mandalay jail and blossom forth in richness and grandeur. Lokmanya alone could rise above such dismal surroundings and convert the dark and dreary hours into one long tapasya, the consummation of which manifested itself in his sublime creation, “Gita Rahasya.”

Bengal and Maharashtra

The political entente between Bengal and Maharashtra dating from the time of Lokmanya Tilak did not spring into existence all of a sudden. It has grown up against a background of cultural affinity and intimacy. Moth Marathi and Bengali are the offshoots of the same language , viz Magadhi Prakrit and that is why we find on the one side geniuses like Hari Narayan Apte interpreting the literature of Bengal to the Maharashtrians and on the other side, Bengali scholars devoting themselves to a scientific study of Mahratta language and Mahratta history.

But intellectual cooperation between these two provinces commenced long before the present era in Indian history. It is said that the Gaud Sarawat Brahmans who produced great generals like Jiva Dada and Lokhba Dada and civil administrators like Naroram and Malhar originally migrated from Bengal. The Sarawats have their Sothi Pujam (Shashthi Puja in Bengal) like their Bengali brothers and both worship the goddess Durga. The chief place of pilgrimage of the former is Chandranath in Portuguese India while that of the latter is Chandranath in Chittagong. Further, the royal saint Gopichand of Bengal and his mother Maynawati, who are probably remembered in the province by antiquarians alone, are better known in Maharashtra and even the Marathi poet Mahipat Baba knew that they hailed from the province of Gaud Bengal and were the son and consort respectively of Trilok Chand Nripabar.

The Bengali saint Chaitanya, so tradition says, traveled to Maharashtra and preached Vaishnavism there. It is said that the great Tukaram drew inspiration from Chaitanya in the same manner in which Mahipati derived inspiration from the former.

Coming to more recent times, we find that the first modern biography of Chhatrapati Shivaji was written by a Bengali Pandit – Satya Charan Sastri – who traveled to Satara nearly 35 years ago to study the original sources of Shivaji’s biography. Shivaji has been immortalized by most of the poets, dramatists and authors of Bengal. The Bengali novelist Ramesh Chandra Dutta wrote his “Maharashtra Jivan Prabhat” even before the inimitable “Ushah Kal” of your Hari Narayan Apte. The dramatist Girish Chandra Ghosh in his proscribed book “Chhatrapati,” Jagendra Nath Bose in his epic “Shivaji” – as well as the poets Nabin Chandra Sen and Rabindra Nath Tagore have sung of the great Mahratta hero. Brochures have also been written on Baji Rao, Ahalya Bai and other noble characters of Maharashtra and it is by these means that cultural contact between the two provinces has been effected.

Shivaji’s untiring crusade against the imperial throne at Delhi has stirred the heart of modern India in a manner which it is difficult for foreigners to realise. Time has wiped out the limitations of age and personality and in Shivaji modern India today visualises nationalism struggling against imperialist autocracy. Every age produces its heroes according to its own requirements. And it is in the fitness of things that Poona, which throughout the ages has been the cradle of many a freedom movement, should in this century find in Lokmanya Tilak a modern Shivaji who could lead the crusade against imperial Delhi. I look upon Poona as a city of dreams – as much as a city of realities – and I congratulate myself that in this session of the Maharashtra Provincial Conference I should be standing on holy ground, surrounded by sacred memories and endeavouring to dream the dreams of our noble ancestors.

Is our movement of exotic origin?

Before I proceed to place before you my view with regard to our present policy and programme, I would like to raise some fundamental problems and attempt to answer them. It is sometimes urged by foreigners that the new awakening in India is entirely an exotic product inspired by alien ideals and methods. This is by no means true. I do not for one moment dispute the fact that the impact of the West has helped to rouse us from intellectual and moral torpor. But that impact has restored self-consciousness to our people, and the movement that has resulted therefrom and which we witness today is a genuine Swadeshi movement. India has long passed through the traditional period of blind imitation — of reflex action, if you put it in psychological language. She has now recovered her own soul and is busy reconstructing her national movement along national lines and in the light of national ideals. It is not against political servitude or economic bondage alone that we are now chafing but against the cultural domination of the West and the revolt of Asia today is at bottom a cultural one. Probably our greatest indictment against British rule in India is that, unlike the avalanche-like attacks of Alexander or Chengiz Khan, it has like and octopus embedded its tentacles into the very heart of our social and cultural life, seeking (though in vain) to denationalise and emasculate our whole race.

I agree with Sir Flinders Patric that civilizations, like individuals grow and die in a cycle fashion and that each civilization has certain span of life vouchsafed to it. I also agree with him that, under certain conditions, it is possible for a particular civilization to be reborn after it has spent itself. When this rebirth is to take place, the vital impetus, the elan vital, comes not from without but from within. In this manner has Indian civilization been reborn over and over again at the end of each cycle, and that is why India in spite of her hoary antiquity is still young and fresh. The dark ages immediately preceding the advent of the British, represented the nadir of the last cycle. India at present is mounting a wave which during the next few centuries will lead her on from victory to victory and from achievement to achievement.

In the attempt to revise her social code, revalue her moral standards, enact fresh legislation, assimilate outside influences and remodel her national institutions, India today is but repeating what she has done time and again in her past history. And this she would have done even if the British had not come, owing to her own inner impulse and the requirements of her present age. Neither Great Britain nor the West need therefore take undue credit for the new awakening in India.

Is democracy an occidental institution?

The charge has often been levelled against us that since democracy is an occidental institution, India, by accepting democratic or semi-democratic institutions, is being Westernized. Some European writers — Lord Ronaldshay for instance — go so far as to say that democracy is unsuited to the oriental temperament and political advancement in India should not, therefore, be made in that direction. Ignorance and effrontery could not go further. Democracy is by no means a Western institution; it is a human institution. Wherever man has attempted to evolve political institutions, he has hit upon this wonderful institution of democracy. The past history of India is replete with instances of democratic institutions. Mr. K. P. Jayaswal in his wonderful book, 'Hindu Polity', has dealt with this matter at great length and has given a list of 81 republics in ancient India.

The Indian languages are also rich in terminology required in connection with political institutions of an advanced type. Democratic institutions still exist in certain parts of India. Among the Khasis of Assam, for instance, it is still the custom to elect the ruling chief by a vote of the whole clan; and this custom has been handed down from time immemorial. The principle of democracy was also applied in India in the government of villages and towns. The other day while visiting the Varendra Research Society Museum at Rajshahi in North Bengal, I was shown a very interesting copper-plate inscription in which it was stated that civic administration in the good old days was vested in a committee of five, including the Nagar Sreshthi (i.e., our modern mayor). With regard to village self-government, it is not necessary to remind an Indian audience about the village Panchayats — democratic institutions handed down to us from days of yore. Not only democratic but other socio-political doctrines of an advanced character were not unknown to India in the past.

Communism, for instance, is not a Western institution. Among the Khasis of Assam, to whom I have referred, private property as an institution does not exist in theory even today. The clan as a whole owns the entire land. I am sure that similar instances can still be found in other parts of India and also in the past history of our country.

The problems that have confronted the human race in different ages and in different climes – and the solutions that have been invented – are about the same all the world over. Centuries ago the Greek philosophers laid down the dictum that political evolution follows a cyclic course. Monarchy is followed by aristocracy or oligarchy which in turn is followed by democracy. Democracy is sometimes overtaken by anarchy and there is then a return to one-man rule. If the above dictum is taken in a general way it will probably hold good not of Greece or Europe alone but of the whole world. We who represent one of the most ancient living civilisations of the world have through the ages witnessed in our land the rise and fall of political institutions of all types. The fact that during the centuries preceding the advent of the British, there was a powerful reaction in favour of autocracy or one-man rule, is no ground for saying that democratic institutions were unknown to India and are unsuited to the Indian temperament.

Nationalism and internationalism

I think it necessary at this stage to warn my countrymen, and my young friends in particular, about the attack that is being made on nationalism from more than one quarter. From the point of view of cultural internationalism, nationalism is sometimes assailed as narrow, selfish and aggressive. It is also regarded as a hindrance to the promotion of internationalism in the domain of culture. My reply to the charge is that Indian nationalism is neither narrow, nor selfish, nor aggressive. It is inspired by the highest ideals of the human race, viz., Satyam (the true), Shivam (the good), Sundaram (the beautiful). Nationalism in India has instilled into us truthfulness, honesty, manliness and the spirit of service and sacrifice. What is more, it has roused the creative faculties which for centuries had been lying dormant in our people and, as a result, we are experiencing a renaissance in the domain of Indian art. Without the magic touch of the breath of liberty, what would have been the fate of our art and culture?

There is another point I would also urge in reply. Though there is a fundamental unity underlying human art and culture, it has to be admitted that art and culture have distinctive types. It is not by obliterating these differences and introducing dull uniformity that art and culture can be best performed. I would rather maintain that it is only by developing these distinctive types along distinctive channels that human civilisation can be enriched. Unity we must have – but true unity can manifest itself only through diversity. Nationalism, to my mind, far from hindering the growth of art and culture acts as a most powerful incentive. Moreover, it is only by liberating India from the domination of alien ideals and methods that we can expect Indian art and culture to develop along distinctive channels in the light of our age-long ideals.

I hope I have said nothing which would in anyway minimise the importance of the labour movement in India. My object, on the other hand is to clear up all misunderstanding between labour and nationalism and to pave the way for a rapprochement and a coalition between the organized forces of labour and nationalism. In this connection we would do well to take a leaf out of recent Irish history.

Nationalism is not in any way opposed to internationalism; the latter rather presupposes the former. I believe in internationalism as firmly as anybody else; but I also maintain that the approach to internationalism must necessarily be through the gates of nationalism. Internationalism, whether in the cultural or in the political sphere, is possible only when distinctive cultures have first been produced or separate nationalities brought into existence. The fabric of internationalism can be built only on a federal basis and federations – we shall all agree – exemplify the principle of unity in diversity. My conception of internationalism is a federation of cultures on one side and a federation of nationalities on the other. By developing our national culture and working for India’s freedom we are really making India fit for internationalism. I would also like to add in this connection that India seems to me to be an epitome of the world. Through her the world problem is struggling for a solution. When the synthesis of cultures and the federation of self governing states become a fait accompli in India – it will be an object lesson to all the nations.

Labour and nationalism

I have already hinted that I plead for a coalition between labour and nationalism (I am using 'labour' here in a wider sense to include the peasants as well). It has to be admitted that though we have passed resolutions from the Congress platform time and again regarding the desirability of organising labour, much has not been achieved in that direction. This has been due mainly to two reasons. In the first place, we have not been able to produce a sufficient number of workers who are fit – physically, intellectually and morally –for work among our labour. Further, those who have gone in for this sort of work have had reason to complain of a certain amount of apathy on the part of Congressmen in general. In the second place, it has to be admitted that in our programme we have not always been able to include items, the promotion of which would ipso facto further the interests of labour. In all countries under the sun, comparatively few men desire freedom for its own sake – while the majority join the freedom movement because freedom is the panacea for their earthly ills. Personally, I have no doubt in my own mind that we can rescue India from her economic bondage only after we have made her politically free and that is why I believe that all those who desire India’s economic emancipation should swell the ranks of the Indian National Congress and liberate India from foreign yoke.

If we view the programme of the Congress during the last few years we shall find that only in our Khadi programme have we been able to offer to our masses something which means bread and butter to them. Khadi, I am glad to say, has brought food to thousands and thousands of hungry mouths all over India. Given money and organization there is plenty of scope for pushing on Khadi. There are lakhs and lakhs of poor Indians living on the verge of starvation to whom Khadi can offer a means of subsistence. But the appeal of Khadi cannot be universal. We find from bitter experience in some parts of Bengal that as soon as the masses are a little better off, their Charkhas lie idle and that the peasant who gets a better return from paddy or jute cultivation refuses to cultivate cotton. In the same province where uniform conditions prevail, Khadi does not make much headway in those tracts which are less poverty stricken. In other words, as long as economic condition of the masses is below a certain level, they gladly take to the spinning wheel; but when that level is reached they have a tendency to look out for a more lucrative employment, whether in agriculture or in industry.

Except when Congressmen have joined the Kisan movement, as in the U.P. or have taken up the question of jute cultivation, as in Bengal, or have undertaken a campaign for nonpayment of taxes in order to resist illegal taxation or oppressive legislation, as in Gujarat, we have seldom been able to make a direct appeal to the economic interests of the masses. And until this is done — human nature being what it is—how can we expect the masses to join the freedom movement?

There is another reason why I consider it imperative that the Congress should be more alive to the interests of the masses. Mass consciousness has been roused in India, thanks to the extensive and intensive propaganda undertaken during the non-co-operation movement; and the mass movement cannot possibly be checked now. The only question is along what lines this mass consciousness should manifest itself. If the Congress neglects the masses it is inevitable that a sectional — and if I may say so, anti-national movement will come into existence and class war among our people will appear even before we have achieved our political emancipation. It would be disastrous in the highest degree if we were to launch class war while we are all bed-fellows in slavery, in order that we may afford amusement to the common enemy. I regret to say that there is at present a tendency among some Indian labourites to belittle the Congress and to condemn the Congress programme. This recrimination should cease and the organised forces of labour and of the Congress should join hands for furthering the economic interests of the masses and promoting the cause of India's political emancipation.

I doubt if it would be possible to lay down a uniform programme for the whole of India which would attract the masses by making a direct appeal to the economic interests – because the conditions vary so much in the different provinces. But even if a uniform programme be not possible, each Provincial Congress Committee can and should draw up a programme for itself. What this programme should be will depend on the conditions prevailing in each province.

.