The exact form of the modification must be left to future discussion. I
would, therefore, suggest as follows:
(1) That foreign propaganda, so summarily put an end to at the last
Congress, be resumed and if possible extended within proper bounds. The
Indian view has to be put forward before the civilised world. This is an
urgent need of the hour. The Government are doing it from their own
point of view, and we ought to do the same from ours.
(2) That the time limited be abandoned, for reasons mentioned in para 25
below.
(3) That the elections to Legislative Bodies, whenever a chance should
occur, should be contested perhaps with the limitation, that in the
Provinces, unless complete autonomy is introduced, Congressmen should
not accept office under the present system of Government. This may be,
if so desired, made conditional on Government agreeing to dissolve the
present Bodies.
(4) A large modification of the educational boycott, including the total
abrogation of the compulsory part of it. Attention should be
concentrated more on the creation of national institutions than on the
withdrawal of students as a set propaganda. When such institutions are
projected, and some of them actually in existence, and they compete
favorably with state aided institutions, I have no doubt that sufficient
impulses have been generated in the country to secure the exercise of
the option in favor of the former. Side by side with this, an intensive
propaganda should be carried on in the Councils and outside, having for
its object the popularisation of the Universities by a change of the Act
governing them, and also the "nationalisation" of the existing system of
state-aided education, so as to bring it into greater accord with the
present-day requirements and aspirations of the people. To me, it seems
to be such a pity that we have deserted this avenue of agitation, to be
feebly utilised by a few persons in the present Councils, struggling
against an unsuitable environment. Nine crores, which is nearly the
total output on State education, we are not in a position to despise,
and it seems wrong to wait for this reform till complete Swarajya is
attained, which may or may not be for some time yet. Considerable harm
has been done to the cause of education by the exclusion of this avenue
work from the programme of Congress activities. The fate of primary
education in the Bombay presidency will clearly illustrate the point I
am making.
(5) A large modification of the ban against lawyers, so as to admit of
several grades of sacrifice from complete abstention from practice to a
giving up of the entirety or a part of the earnings. A way should be
found for getting as many lawyers as possible to work in this movement
provided they are prepared to give the cause at least a part of their
time or money. The Congress ought to modify its call, so as to make it
possible for all honest-minded lawyers to bear the burden of the
country's cause, commensurate with their capacity to sacrifice.
Similarly, in the matter of conducting defences in British courts, some
curious departure have come to be made from the strict Congress rule.
These departures only indicate that, in its operation, the rule has been
found unpractical and irksome. Congressmen are not to engage pleaders
nor offer a defence with legal aid. They are simply to make a
"statement." A statement is as much an aid to the administration of
justice as a lawyer-made defence, and in so far, it equally supports the
prestige of British courts. Only, it has the disadvantage of being
prolix and unconvincing. It, therefore, fails of its mark more often
than a lawyer's defence.
Who can urge that the long and interesting statements made by the Ali
Brothers and their co-accused, in the trial at Karachi were out of
place? Yet they had all the features of a lawyer-made defence, as an aid
to the court. The evidence was discussed, legal objections raised,
relevancy commented on and the prosecution evidence answered. All this
assistance was given to the court, helping it to arrive at truth and
justice, precisely in the same way as a practising lawyer aids judicial
administration.
If a statement is permitted, why cannot a lawyer be employed in Court to
make it more convincing and exculpatory? A statement must be based on
facts, and these facts become material only when proved. On what
rational grounds can, therefore, a statement permitted and yet the
material evidence supporting it disallowed? It is no answer to say that
the statement is meant for the guidance of the _Swaraj_ Courts when the
same are established, for when that eventuality happens, a statement
supported by evidence will be any a better help to these Swaraj Courts
than a mere statement? It is obvious that no Swaraj Court will liberate
a man merely on his own statement, without further inquiry.