Page:Modern review 1921 v29.pdf/622

 The only way to put a stop to this farce is to take upon ourselves the whole duty of our national progress.

Let no one think that I am advocating a policy of sullen aloofness. That would only be another form of sulking, which may have its place in a lover’s quarrel, but not here. What I say is the reverse. I am for courteous, diplomatic relations with the Government. In courtesy there is freedom. A relationship which is forced on us is but a form of slavery and cannot last. Free relations may mature into friendship later on.

Some of us seem to think that if only we could get all we are asking for from the government, a state of effusive friendliness would be sure to arise. But that is contrary to experience. Where can one find the end to begging on the one hand and granting of favours on the other? As our shastras put it, you cannot quench a flame by pouring oil thereon. The more the beggar gets, the more does he want and the less is he satisfied. Where getting depends, not on the earning of the recipient, but on the generosity of the giver, it is twice accurst,— it spoils both him that takes and him that gives.

But where the relationship is one of give and take on both sides, of an exchange of benefits, there amicable arrangements are always possible, and the gain to both is real. This can only be brought about if we establish our power on a foundation of good works. Mutual concessions between two powers are graceful as well as permanent, pleasing and honorable to both parties. That is why I say that, in order to get from the Government what is due from it to the country, up to the last farthing, the only way is to render in our turn the services which our country may expect from us ourselves, likewise to the last farthing. We may demand only by the measure of what we do give.

Here it may be asked, what if the Government should use its forces to hinder our rendering true service to the country? That, of course, is possible. Where interests are adverse such attempts are only to be expected. But that is no reason for our giving it up as a bad job. We should remember that it is not an easy matter to obstruct a person who is honestly engaged in doing his duty. Moreover we must not confuse such obstruction with the arbitrary withdrawal of favours. Take for instance the matter of self-government. We are crying ourselves hoarse because what Lord Ripon wanted to give, some other Lord took away. Shame on us for attaching such value to what others can give and others can take away. It was only our folly which led us to call such a thing by the name of self-government.

And yet self-government lies at our very door, waiting for us. No one has tried, nor is it possible for any one even if he does try, to deprive us of it. We can do everything we like for our villages—for their education, then sanitation, the improvement of their communications,—if only we make up our minds to set to work, if only we can act in unison. For this work we do not need the sanction of a government badge. But what if we cannot make up our minds? What if we will not be united? Then are there not ropes and stones enough for us to go and drown ourselves?

I repeat that our education is the thing which we should first of all take into our own hands. The doubter will ask, what if we do — who will then provide us with lucrative posts? That, also, we shall do ourselves. If the work of the country be in our own hands, where is the difficulty in remunerating those who do it? He who provides the employment is bound to be the master,— it cannot be otherwise. And in assessing our wages the foreign master will naturally not be neglectful of his own pocket. All the more reason, therefore, why the whole field of work, including education as an essential part, should be under our own control. We complain of the want of opportunity for acquiring technical knowledge. But we know to our cost that, if the master be an outsider, he will take particular care not to allow us any real opportunity.