ITALY AND INDIA
EDITOR: It is well that you have instanced Italy. Mazzini was a great
and good man; Garibaldi was a great warrior. Both are adorable; from
their lives we can learn much. But the condition of Italy was different
from that of India. In the first instance the difference between Mazzini
and Garibaldi is worth noting. Mazzini's ambition was not, and has not
yet been realised, regarding Italy. Mazzini has shown in his writings on
the duty of man that every man must learn how to rule himself. This has
not happened in Italy. Garibaldi did not hold this view of Mazzini's.
Garibaldi gave, and every Italian took arms. Italy and Austria had the
same civilization; they were cousins in this respect. It was a matter of
tit for tat. Garibaldi simply wanted Italy to be free from the Austrian
yoke. The machinations of Minister Cavour disgrace that portion of the
history of Italy. And what has been the result? If you believe that,
because Italians rule Italy, the Italian nation is happy, you are
groping in darkness. Mazzini has shown conclusively that Italy did not
become free. Victor Emanuel gave one meaning to the expression; Mazzini
gave another. According to Emanuel, Cavour, and even Garibaldi, Italy
meant the King of Italy and his henchmen. According to Mazzini, it meant
the whole of the Italian people, that is, its agriculturists. Emanuel
was only its servant. The Italy of Mazzini still remains in a state of
slavery. At the time of the so-called national war, it was a game of
chess between two rival kings, with the people of Italy as pawns. The
working classes in that land are still unhappy. They therefore indulge
in assassination, rise in revolt, and rebellion on their part is always
expected. What substantial gain did Italy obtain after the withdrawal of
the Austrian troops? The gain was only nominal. The reforms, for the
sake of which the war was supposed to have been undertaken, have not yet
been granted. The condition of the people, in general, still remains the
same. I am sure you do not wish to reproduce such a condition in India.
I believe that you want the millions of India to be happy, not that you
want the reins of Government in your hands. If that be so, we have to
consider only one thing: how can the millions obtain self-rule? You will
admit that people under several Indian princes are being ground down.
The latter mercilessly crush them. Their tyranny is greater than that of
the English, and, if you want such tyranny in India, that we shall
never agree. My patriotism does not teach me that I am to allow people
to be crushed under the heel of Indian princes, if only the English
retire. If I have the power, I should resist the tyranny of Indian
princes just as much as that of the English. By patriotism I mean the
welfare of the whole people, and, if I could secure it at the hands of
the English, I should bow down my head to them. If any Englishman
dedicated his life to securing the freedom of India, resisting tyranny
and serving the land, I should welcome that Englishman as an Indian.
Again, India can fight like Italy only when she has arms. You have not
considered this problem at all. The English are splendidly armed; that
does not frighten me, but it is clear that, to fit ourselves against
them in arms, thousands of Indians must be armed. If such a thing be
possible, how many years will it take. Moreover, to arm India on a large
scale is to Europeanise it. Then her condition will be just as pitiable
as that of Europe. This means, in short, that India must accept European
civilization, and if that is what we want, the best thing is that we
have among us those who are so well trained in that civilization. We
will then fight for a few rights, will get what we can and so pass our
days. But the fact is that the Indian nation will not adopt arms, and it
is well that it does not.
READER: You are overassuming facts. All need not be armed. At first, we
will assassinate a few Englishmen and strike terror; then a few men who
will have been armed will fight openly. We may have to lose a quarter of
a million men, more or less, but we will regain our land. We will
undertake guerilla warfare, and defeat the English.
EDITOR: That is to say, you want to make the holy land of India unholy.
Do you not tremble to think of freeing India by assassination? What we
need to do is to kill ourselves. It is a cowardly thought, that of
killing others. Whom do you suppose to free by assassination? The
millions of India do not desire it. Those who are intoxicated by the
wretched modern civilization think of these things. Those who will rise
to power by murder will certainly not make the nation happy. Those who
believe that India has gained by Dhingra's act and such other acts in
India make a serious mistake. Dhingra was a patriot, but his love was
blind. He gave his body in a wrong way; its ultimate result can only be
mischievous.
READER: But you will admit that the English have been frightened by
these murders, and that Lord Morley's reforms are due to fear.
EDITOR: The English are both a timid and a brave nation. She is, I
believe, easily influenced by the use of gunpowder. It is possible that
Lord Morley has granted the reforms through fear, but what is granted
under fear can be retained only so long as the fear lasts.