At Nagpur

The resolutions adopted at the Calcutta special session of the Congress were to be confirmed at its annual session at Nagpur. Here again, as at Calcutta, there was a great rush of visitors and delegates. The number of delegates in the Congress had not been limited yet. As a result, so far as I can remember, the figure on this occasion reached about fourteen thousand. Lalaji pressed for a slight amendment to the clause about the boycott of schools which I accepted. Similarly, some amendments were made at the instance of the Deshabandhu after which the non-co-operation resolution was passed unanimously.

The resolutions adopted at the Congress’s special session in Calcutta were to be confirmed at its annual session in Nagpur. As at Calcutta, large numbers of visitors and delegates came to Nagpur. There was still no limit on the number of delegates to the Congress. As a result, as far as I can remember, there were about fourteen thousand delegates on this occasion. Lalaji pressed for a small change to the clause on the boycott of schools, and I accepted it. Some changes were also made at the request of the Deshabandhu. After that, the non-co-operation resolution was passed unanimously.

The resolution regarding the revision of the Congress constitution too was to be taken up at this session of the Congress. The sub-committee’s draft was presented at the Calcutta special session. The matter had therefore been thoroughly ventilated and thrashed out. At the Nagpur session, where it came up for final disposal, Sjt. C. Vijayaraghavachariar was the President. The Subjects Committee passed the draft with only one important change. In my draft the number of delegates had been fixed, I think, at 1,500; the Subjects Committee substituted in its place the figure 6,000. In my opinion this increase was the result of hasty judgment, and experience of all these years has only confirmed me in my view. I hold it to be an utter delusion to believe, that a large number of delegates is in any way a help to the better conduct of the business, or that it safeguards the principle of democracy. Fifteen hundred delegates, jealous of the interests of the people, broad-minded and truthful, would any day be a better safeguard for democracy than six thousand irresponsible men chosen anyhow. To safeguard democracy the people must have a keen sense of independence, self-respect and their oneness, and should insist upon choosing as their representatives only such persons as are good and true. But obsessed with the idea of numbers as the Subjects Committee was, it would have liked to go even beyond the figure of six thousand. The limit of six thousand was therefore in the nature of a compromise.

The resolution to revise the Congress constitution was also to be considered at this Congress session. The subcommittee’s draft had been presented at the special session in Calcutta. The matter had therefore been thoroughly discussed and debated. At the Nagpur session, where it came up for a final decision, Sjt. C. Vijayaraghavachariar was the President. The Subjects Committee approved the draft with only one important change. In my draft, I had fixed the number of delegates at 1,500, I think. The Subjects Committee changed the number to 6,000. In my opinion, this increase was the result of hasty judgment. Experience over all these years has only confirmed my view. I believe it is a complete illusion to think that a large number of delegates helps the conduct of business in any way. It is equally mistaken to think that large numbers safeguard the principle of democracy. Fifteen hundred delegates who are vigilant about the people’s interests, broad-minded and truthful would always be a better safeguard for democracy than six thousand irresponsible men chosen without care. To safeguard democracy, the people must have a keen sense of independence, self-respect and their oneness. They must also insist on choosing only good and honest people as their representatives. But the Subjects Committee was so obsessed with numbers that it would have liked to go beyond six thousand. The limit of six thousand was therefore a kind of compromise.

The question of the goal of the Congress formed a subject for keen discussion. In the constitution that I had presented, the goal of the Congress was the attainment of Swaraj within the British Empire if possible and without if necessary. A party in the Congress wanted to limit the goal to Swaraj within the British Empire only. Its viewpoint was put forth by Pandit Malaviyaji and Mr. Jinnah. But they were not able to get many votes. Again the draft constitution provided, that the means for the attainment were to be peaceful and legitimate. This condition too came in for opposition, it being contended, that there should be no restriction upon the means to be adopted. But the Congress adopted the original draft after an instructive and frank discussion. I am of opinion, that if this constitution had been worked out by the people honestly, intelligently and zealously, it would have become a potent instrument of mass education, and the very process of working it out would have brought us Swaraj. But a discussion of the theme would be irrelevant here.

The Congress’s goal was the subject of intense debate. In the constitution I had presented, the Congress’s goal was to achieve Swaraj within the British Empire if possible, and outside it if necessary. One group in the Congress wanted to limit the goal to Swaraj within the British Empire. Pandit Malaviyaji and Mr. Jinnah presented their view, but they did not win many votes. The draft constitution also stated that the means of achieving Swaraj must be peaceful and legitimate. This condition also met with opposition. Some argued that there should be no restriction on the means used. But after an open and instructive discussion, the Congress adopted the original draft. I believe that the constitution could have become a powerful instrument of mass education. This would have happened if the people had put it into practice honestly, intelligently, and with zeal. The very process of doing so would have brought us Swaraj. But a discussion of this subject would be out of place here.

Resolutions about Hindu Muslim unity, the removal of untouchability and Khadi too were passed in this Congress, and since then the Hindu members of the Congress have taken upon themselves the responsibility of ridding Hinduism of the curse of untouchability, and the Congress has established a living bond of relationship with the ‘skeletons’ of India through Khadi. The adoption of non-co-operation for the sake of the Khilafat was itself a great practical attempt made by the Congress to bring about Hindu Muslim unity.

At this Congress, resolutions were also passed on Hindu Muslim unity, the removal of untouchability, and Khadi. Since then, Hindu members of the Congress have taken responsibility for freeing Hinduism from the curse of untouchability. Through Khadi, the Congress has established a living bond with the ‘skeletons’ of India. By adopting non-co-operation for the sake of the Khilafat, the Congress made a major practical effort to bring about Hindu Muslim unity.