Page:A Nation in Making.djvu/300

Our decision to abstain from the Congress was, as events have shown, a wise one, and I claim that we of the Moderate party saved the scheme. The combination against it was formidable. The Euro- pean Associations in India, now so earnest for the success of the Reforms, were severe in their criticisms; Lord Sydenham condemn- ed it in the Press and from his place in the House of Lords, strange- ly enough quoting Mr. Tilak in support of his views. The Manchester Guardian complained that the Indian Extremists were playing into the hands of Lord Sydenham and his party. In the midst of this formidable body of opposition, the only real and consistent support came from the Moderate party in India. If they had remained within the Congress fold, they would have been overwhelmed, their voice would have been that of a minority of little or no account. The British democracy would have said, in view of the practically unanimous opposition offered to the Scheme: Well, if you don't want it, let us drop it altogether.' And, there being no other scheme to take its place, the prospects of responsible government would thus have been indefinitely postponed. Our difficulties were aggra- vated by the non-committal attitude of the British Government, whose Indian policy would necessarily be largely inspired by Lord Curzon, who was then a member of the Cabinet. Our anxieties were deepened by the proposal to appoint a Joint Committee of both Houses to deal with the recommendations of the Bill before its introduction. At such a time and amid these accumulating diffi- culties a decisive policy in support of the scheme was called for, if it was to be saved from wreckage; and the Moderate party re- solved upon such a policy, even though separation from the Congress would be necessary. It was a heavy price to pay, but it had to be paid if the prospect of the speedy inauguration of the beginnings of responsible government were to be realized. We counted the cost and we made up our minds to incur it. To many of us, and to me in a special sense, separation from the Congress was a painful wrench. We had contributed to build up the great National Institution with our life-blood. We had raised it up from infancy to adolescence, from adolescence to maturity, and now, in full view of the crowning reward of our lifelong labours, we found the sacred temple of national unity swayed by divided counsels, resounding with the voice of conflict and controversy, and divorced from the healing accents of moderation and prudence. We could not but secede; for the difference between those who had captured the machinery of the Congress and ourselves was fundamental, and