Part 2 (2/2)
READER: That question also is useless. We may get it when we have the same powers; we shall then hoist our own flag. As is j.a.pan, so must India be. We must own our navy, our army, and we must have our own splendour, and then will India's voice ring through the world.
EDITOR: You have well drawn the picture. In effect it means this: that we want English rule without the Englishman. You want the tiger's nature, but not the tiger; that is to say, you would make India English, and when it becomes English, it will be called not Hindustan but Englistan. This is not the Swaraj that I want.
READER: I have placed before you my idea of Swaraj as I think it should be. If the education we have received be of any use, if the works of Spencer, Mill and others be of any importance and if the English Parliament be the mother of Parliaments, I certainly think that we should copy the English people and this to such an extent that, just as they do not allow others to obtain a footing in their country, so we should not allow them or others to obtain it in ours. What they have done in their own country has not been done in any other country. It is, therefore, proper for us to import their inst.i.tutions. But now I want to know your views.
EDITOR: There is need for patience. My views will develop of themselves in the course of this discourse. It is as difficult for me to understand the true nature of Swaraj as it seems to you to be easy. I shall, therefore, for the time being, content myself with endeavouring to show that what you call Swaraj is not truly Swaraj.
CHAPTER V
THE CONDITION OF ENGLAND
READER: Then from your statement, I deduce the Government of England is not desirable and not worth copying by us.
EDITOR: Your deduction is justified. The condition of England at present is pitiable. I pray to G.o.d that India may never be in that plight. That which you consider to be the Mother of Parliaments is like a sterile woman and a prost.i.tute. Both these are harsh terms, but exactly fit the case. That Parliament has not yet of its own accord done a single good thing, hence I have compared it to a sterile woman. The natural condition of that Parliament is such that, without outside pressure, it can do nothing. It is like a prost.i.tute because it is under the control of ministers who change from time to time. To-day it is under Mr.
Asquith, to-morrow it may be under Mr. Balfour.
READER: You have said this sarcastically. The term ”sterile woman” is not applicable. The Parliament, being elected by the people, must work under public pressure. This is its quality.
EDITOR: You are mistaken. Let us examine it a little more closely. The best men are supposed to be elected by the people. The members serve without pay and, therefore, it must be a.s.sumed only for the public weal.
The electors are considered to be educated and, therefore, we should a.s.sume that they would not generally make mistakes in their choice. Such a Parliament should not need the spur of pet.i.tions or any other pressure. Its work should be so smooth that its effect would be more apparent day by day. But, as a matter of fact, it is generally acknowledged that the members are hypocritical and selfish. Each thinks of his own little interest. It is fear that is the guiding motive. What is done to-day may be undone to-morrow. It is not possible to recall a single instance in which the finality can be predicted for its work.
When the greatest questions are debated its members have been seen to stretch themselves and to dose. Sometimes the members talk away until the listeners are disgusted. Carlyle has called it the ”talking shop of the world.” Members vote for their party without a thought. Their so-called discipline binds them to it. If any member, by way of exception, gives an independent vote, he is considered a renegade. If the money and the time wasted by the Parliament were entrusted to a few good men, the English nation would be occupying to-day a much higher platform. The Parliament is simply a costly toy of the nation. These views are, by no means, peculiar to me. Some great English thinkers have expressed them. One of the members of the Parliament recently said that a true Christian could not become a member of it. Another said that it was a baby. And, if it has remained a baby after an existence of seven hundred years, when will it outgrow its babyhood?
READER: You have set me thinking; you do not expect me to accept at once all you say. You give me entirely novel views. I shall have to digest them. Will you now explain the epithet ”prost.i.tute”?
EDITOR: That you cannot accept my views at once is only right. If you will read the literature on this subject, you will have some idea of it.
The Parliament is without a real master. Under the Prime Minister, its movement is not steady, but it is buffeted about like a prost.i.tute. The Prime Minister is more concerned about his power than about the welfare of the Parliament. His energy is concentrated upon securing the success of his party. His care is not always that the Parliament shall do right.
Prime Ministers are known to have made the Parliament do things merely for party advantage. All this is worth thinking over.
READER: Then you are really attacking the very men whom we have hitherto considered to be patriotic and honest?
EDITOR: Yes, that is true; I can have nothing against Prime Ministers, but what I have seen leads me to think that they cannot be considered really patriotic. If they are to be considered honest because they do not take what is generally known as bribery, let them be so considered, but they are open to subtler influences. In order to gain their ends, they certainly bribe people with honours. I do not hesitate to say that they have neither real honesty nor a living conscience.
READER: As you express these views about the Parliament, I would like to hear you on the English people, so that I may have your views of their Government.
EDITOR: To the English voters their newspaper is their Bible. They take cue from their newspapers, which latter are often dishonest. The same fact is differently interpreted by different newspapers, according to the party in whose interests they are edited. One newspaper would consider a great Englishman to be a paragon of honesty, another would consider him dishonest. What must be the condition of the people whose newspapers are of this type?
<script>