Speech | Chittaranjan Das

Speech

        At the very outset we ought to define our attitude in relation to the present struggle. What is our aim? Where are we going? I think that most people would agree that we are out to secure freedom, freedom from foreign subjection, freedom from foreign interference. It is as well, however, that we should have a clear grasp of what is meant by the word ‘freedom’. In the first place, it does not imply an absence of all restraint. Secondly, freedom does not necessarily imply the absence of the idea of dependence. Dependence there must be so long as we live in a society, and need its protection. There is no necessary opposition between freedom and such dependence that is willingly suffered by the people.

What then is freedom? It is impossible to define the term, but one may describe it as that state, that condition, which makes it possible for a nation to realize its own individuality and to evolve its own destiny. The history of mankind is full of stirring stories as to how nations have fought for freedom in order to retain their nationalism… and their individuality inviolate and untarnished. We stand then for freedom, because we claim the right to develop our own selves, evolve our own destiny based on our rules, and not be ashamed of what Western civilization has to teach us, and be unhampered by the institutions which have been imposed on us.

I, for one, will not be party to the perpetuation of British domination in India. Freedom is my birth right, and I demand a recognition of that right, not in instalments or compartments, but whole and entire. I do not doubt that victory will be ours; but supposing we fail, we would at least have preserved, inviolate, our national self-respect and dignity. At any rate we would have repudiated the insult on which the Government of India Act is based.

There, the only method of warfare open to us is non-co-operation and that is the programme which we adopted at two successive Congresses. We are devoted to the doctrine of non-co-operation. Do not expect me to discuss its ethics, but there are friendly critics whose doubts we ought to dispel, if it is within our power to do so. They say that the doctrine of non-co-operation is a doctrine of negation, a doctrine of despair; they stand against: at the narrowness, the exclusiveness such a doctrine implies. They draw our attention to the trend of political events in the world, and they ask us whether there is any hope for a nation is determined to live a life of isolation. I feel bound to answer the question which has been raised by these critics, and in doing so, I must ask myself the question, ‘What is non-co-operation?’ I find it easier to answer it by considering for a moment what is not non-co-operation. Non-co-operation is not a refusal to cooperate with the English people because they are English. Non-co-operation does not advocate a policy of separation or isolation. What then is non-co-operation? I cannot do better than quote the eloquent words of Mr Stokes: ‘It is the refusal to be a party to preventable evil; it is the refusal to accept or have any part in injustice; it is the refusal to acquiesce in wrongs that can be righted, or to submit to a state of affairs which is manifestly inconsistent with the dictates of righteousness.’

But it is, however, argued that the whole doctrine is a doctrine of negation, a doctrine of despair. I agree, that in form the doctrine is one of negation, but I maintain that in substance it is one of affirmation. We break in order to build; we destroy in order to construct; we reject in order to accept. This is the history of human endeavour. If subjection be an evil, then we are bound not to cooperate with every agency that seeks to perpetuate our subjection. That is a negation; but it affirms our determination to be free, to win our liberty at any cost. Nor do I agree that the doctrine is one of despair. It is a doctrine of hope, confidence and unbounded faith in its efficacy.