"Causes and Aims of the War." Speech delivered
at Glasgow, on being presented with the freedom
of that city, June 29, 1917.
Every nation has a fundamental right to determine, fix and work out her
own ideals. Any interference with this right by individuals or nations
of foreign origin is unnatural and unjust. The consent of the governed
is the only logical and just basis of governments. These principles have
been reiterated with added force and masterly eloquence by President
Wilson in his addresses during the War. They have been accepted and
adopted by the Allied statesmen. No statesman or publicist of standing
in any of the Allied countries can dare question the principles. The
difficulty, however, arises when we come to apply them practically. At
this point the practical politician's genius for diplomacy discovers
flaws that provide excuses for the non-application of those principles
if such course seems helpful to his nation or his sovereign.
President Wilson has asseverated that "the day of conquest and
aggrandisement is gone," which, in plain language, means that the day of
Imperialism is over. And, in conformity with the principle stated in the
Declaration of Independence, that "All nations have the right to assume
among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which
the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them," President Wilson has
also said that "every people have a right to choose the sovereignty
under which they shall live"; that "national aspirations must be
respected, and that 'self determination' is not a mere phrase; it is an
imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore
at their peril." Yet as _practical men_ we must not ignore the facts of
life. The world is not at once going to be an ideal place to live in
even if it may become one. It may be that the advanced nations of the
earth which just now divide the political and economic control of the
world between themselves may accept the underlying policy of the
following statement (of President Wilson) that
"This war had its roots in the disregard of the rights of small
nations and of nationalities which lacked the union and the force
to make good their claim to determine their own allegiance and
their own forms of political life."
and the proposed League of Nations might see that a continuance of the
injustice thus far done to small or backward nations is no longer
permitted. Being practical men, however, we cannot build on the
assumption that at the end of this war the world is at once to be
transformed into a paradise and that full justice will be done to all
nations and all peoples alike. We already notice a tendency to restrict
the application and the enforcement of these principles to the nations
of Europe by the more frequent use of the term "free nations." "Free
nations" do not need to be freed. It will be wise, therefore not to be
carried off our feet by these declarations and statements. Mr. Montagu
and Lord Chelmsford have pointedly reminded us of the Indian saying,
"hanoz Delhi Dúr Ast" (i.e. "Delhi is yet far away"). But even if they
had not done so we were not so simple as to be swept away by the mere
language of the war declarations. The wording of the announcement of
August 20, 1917, itself did not leave us in doubt about the truth of the
saying quoted by Mr. Montagu and Lord Chelmsford. We have, therefore, to
test our ideals and aspirations by the touchstone of practicability and
expediency. Happily for us there is, in theory, at least, a full
agreement between the political goal set up by the Indian Nationalists
of the Congress school (since endorsed by the Home Rulers) and that set
up by the authors of the announcement of August 20th. This goal is
"Self-Government within the Empire on terms of equality with the other
parts of it," in the language of the Congress school or, "Responsible
Government as an integral part of the British Empire," in the language
of the announcement. There is a party of Indian politicians who want
complete independence, but at present their number is so limited that we
need not take serious consideration of their position in the matter. The
vast bulk of the educated classes are agreed:
(_a_) That they are content to remain within the British Empire if
they are allowed a status of equality with the self-governing
dominions of the Empire.
(_b_) That what they want is an autonomous Government on the lines
of Canada, Australia and the South African Union.
(_c_) That they do not want any affiliation with any other Foreign
Government.
Much has been written and said about the loyalty of the people of India
to the British Government. Opinions, however, differ as to its nature.
Some say it is the loyalty of a helpless people or, in other words, a
loyalty dictated by fear or force. Others say it is the loyalty of
opportunism. The British maintain that the loyalty is the outcome of a
genuine and sincere appreciation of the blessings of the British Empire.
Be that as it may, it is in the interest of both to bring about
circumstances and conditions which would transform this loyalty whatever
its nature into one of genuine affection and interest. The announcement
of August 20, 1917, may be considered as a first step towards the
creation of such loyalty, but much will depend on the steps that are
taken to give practical effect to the policy embodied in the said
announcement and on the spirit in which the proposed reforms are carried
out. Mr. Montagu and Lord Chelmsford's conception of the "eventual
future of India is a sisterhood of states, self-governing in all matters
of purely local or provincial interest, in some cases corresponding to
existing provinces, in others perhaps modified in area according to the
character and economic interests of their people. Over this congeries
of States should preside a Central Government increasingly
representative of and responsible to the people of all of them; dealing
with matters, both internal and external, of common interest to the
whole of India; acting as arbiter in interstate relations and
representing the interests of all India on equal terms with the
self-governing units of the British Empire."[1] The only changes that we
would propose in the language of this statement are (i) the omission of
the word "increasingly" which is rather misplaced in the conception of
an ideal, and (ii) the substitution of the word "Commonwealth" in place
of "Empire." His Highness the Aga Khan considers the use of the term
"responsible" government instead of "self-government" in the
announcement as unfortunate because it carries the technical meaning of
a government responsible for its existence to an assembly elected by the
people. On the other hand, self-government can comprise many and varied
forms of expression of the popular will. Further, he is convinced that
the words "responsible government" were used in order to carry with the
Secretary of State and the Prime Minister some more conservative members
of the small war cabinet. It was camouflaged so that the Executive
government hereafter might contain Englishmen, while at the same time
the administration became sufficiently liberal to be responsible to the
people. With due respect to the Aga Khan we do not see the logical
connection between the two. Responsible government may or may not
involve the necessary inclusion of Englishmen in the Cabinet. Although
we may not approve of the interpretation of the expression
"responsible" government given to it by the authors of the report, in
our judgment its use as an ideal to be attained expresses more forcibly
the right of the people to choose their government than the use of the
general term "self government" would.