Sir,
Labour wants liberty. There is perhaps nothing new in this. What is new is
Labour’s conception of liberty. Labour’s conception of liberty is not merely
the negative conception of absence of restraint, nor is Labour’s conception of
liberty confined to the mere recognition of the right of the people to vote.
Labour’s conception of liberty is very positive. It involves the idea of
Government by the people. In the opinion of Labour, Government by the people does
not mean Parliamentary Democracy. Parliamentary Democracy is a form of
Government in which the function of the people has come to be to vote for their
masters and leave them to rule. Such a scheme of Government, in the opinion of
Labour,120 is a travesty of
Government by the people. Labour wants a Government which is the Government by
the people in140 (1) name
as well as in fact. Secondly, liberty as conceived by Labour includes the right
to equal opportunity and160
the duty of the State to provide the fullest facilities for growth to every
individual according to his needs. Labour wants equality. By equality Labour
means abolition of privileges of every kind in law, in the civil service, in
the Army, in taxation, in trade, and in industry. In fact, it means the
abolition of all processes which lead to inequality. Labour wants fraternity.
By fraternity it means an all-pervading sense of human brotherhood, unifying
all classes and all nations, 240
with peace on earth and goodwill towards man as its motto.
The nationalists are serious
opponents of Labour. They accuse Labour of taking an attitude which is said to
be inconsistent with and injurious to Indian nationalism. Their second
objection280 is that Labour
agrees to fight for the war without getting (2) any assurances about India’s
independence. These are questions so often posed and so seriously argued that
it is necessary to state what labour thinks of them. As to320 nationalism, Labour’s attitude is quite
clear. Labour is not prepared to make a fetish of nationalism. If
nationalism means the worship of the ancient past and discarding of everything
that is not local in origin and colour, then Labour cannot360 accept nationalism as its creed. Labour
cannot allow the living faith of the dead to become the dead faith of the
living. Labour will not allow the ever-expanding spirit of man to be strangled
by the hand of the past which has no meaning for the present and no hope for
the future: nor will it allow it to be cramped420
in a narrow jacket of local particularism. Labour must constantly insist upon
renovating the life of the people by being ever ready to borrow in order to
repair, transform and recreate (3) the body politic. If nationalism
stands in the way of this rebuilding and reshaping of life, then Labour must
deny nationalism. Labour’s creed is internationalism. Labour is480 interested in nationalism only because
the wheels of democracy such as representative Parliaments, responsible
Executive, constitutional conventions, etc., work better in a community united
by national sentiments. Nationalism to Labour is only a means to an end. It is
not an end in itself to which Labour can agree to sacrifice what it regards as
the most essential principles of life.
As
to independence, Labour fully recognises its importance. But Labour thinks that
there is a wrong approach to the question of560
independence and a misunderstanding about its importance. The independence of a
nation does not tie it up to any particular form of government or organisation
of society. External independence is quite compatible with internal slavery.
Independence means nothing600
more than that a nation has liberty to determine its form of government (4) and
its social order without dictation from outside. The worth of independence
depends upon the kind of government and the kind of society that is built up. 640 There is not much value in independence
if the form of government and the order of society are to be those against
which the world is fighting today. Labour thinks that more emphasis ought to
have been placed on New India, and less on ‘Quit India’. The appeal of a New
India with a New Order is bound to be greater than700 the appeal of independence. Indeed, the
vision of a New Order in a New India would greatly720 strengthen the determination to win
freedom. Such an approach would certainly have stopped the many embarrassing
questions which are being asked, namely, freedom for what and freedom for whom.
Secondly, Labour finds it difficult to understand the immediate realisation of
independence as a condition for support to the war effort. This condition marks
a (5) sudden development in the attitude of some people to the war
effort, and could be justified only if there was any sudden conspiracy to rob
India of800 her right to
freedom. But there is no evidence of any such conspiracy. Such conspiracy
cannot succeed no matter who the conspirators are. In the view of Labour, no one
can deprive India of her right to freedom if she840 demands it with the combined strength of united
people. If India’s independence is in the balance, it is because of disunity
among Indians. The enemies of India’s independence are Indians and no others.
Labour’s
attitude to this war is framed after a full realisation of what is involved in the
war. Labour is aware that it must win the war as well as peace if war is to be
banished from the world. Labour is aware that it is not enough to defeat the
Nazis and to destroy the possibilities of the New (6) Nazi Order. It is
not a war for the Old Order. It is a war on both the Old Order and the Nazi
Order. 960 Labour is aware
that the only compensation for the cost of this war is the establishment of a
New Order in which980 liberty,
equality, and fraternity, will not be mere slogans but will become facts of
life. But the question of all questions is how can the hope of this New Order
materialise? On this question Labour is quite emphatic. Labour insists that for
the materialisation of all these ideals there is one condition that is primary,
and that is success in the war. Without success in the war there can be no
self-government and self-determination for India. Without victory in the war,
independence will be an idle talk. This is the reason why Labour is determined
to win this war. 1080 This war
is full of potentialities for good. It promises to give birth to a (7)
New Order. Labour finds that this war is different from other wars. There
are two features which distinguish it from other wars. In the first1120 place, this war is not altogether a war
for the division of the world’s territory amongst the most powerful nations of
the world as the preceding wars have been. In this war the division of the
world’s territory is not the only cause. This is a war in which there is a
conflict of ideologies relating to the forms and systems of Government under
which humanity is to live. In the second place this war is not altogether a1200 mere war as other wars have been. Its
object is not merely to defeat the enemy, to march on to his capital and to
dictate a peace. This war besides being a war is also a revolution which
demands a fundamental change in the terms of associated life and a replanning
of the society. In this (8) sense, it is a people’s1260 war, and if it is not, it could and
should be made into a people’s war. Given these facts, 1280 Labour cannot be indifferent to this
war and to its outcome. Labour is aware how the efforts in the past for the
establishment of a New Order have been frustrated time and again. That is
because democracy, after it was brought into being, was left in the hands of
the Conservatives. If the people of the world take care to see that this
mistake is not committed again in future, Labour believes that by fighting this
war and establishing the New Order, the world can be made safe for democracy.
The
country needs a lead and the question is who can give this lead. I venture to
say that Labour is capable of giving to the country the lead it needs. 1400 Correct leadership apart from other
things, (9) requires idealism and free thought. Idealism is possible for
the Aristocracy, though free thought is not. Idealism and free thought are both
possible for Labour. But neither idealism nor free thought is possible for1440 the middle-class. The middle-class does
not possess the liberality of the Aristocracy, which is necessary to welcome
and nourish an ideal. It does not possess the hunger for the New Order, which
is the hope on which the labouring classes live. Labour, therefore, has a very
distinct contribution to make in bringing about a return to the sane and safe
ways of the past which Indians had been pursuing to reach their political
destiny. Labour’s lead to India and Indians is to get into the fight and be
united. The fruits of victory will be independence and a New Social Order. For
such a victory all (10) must fight. Then the fruits of victory will be
the patrimony of all, and there will be none to deny the rights
of a united India to share in that patrimony.1570
