Page:A Nation in Making.djvu/306

to be pursued should be co-operation with the Government, or non-co-operation, opposing and fighting the Government. In the first years of my public life, it was all opposition—strenuous, per- sistent and unremitting. But when at last the Government showed signs of an advance to meet the popular demand, and took definite measures towards that end, my opposition gave place to a readiness for co-operation. Our ends being the same and our co-operation being invited for building up the fabric of responsible government, should not opposition, I asked, give place to co-operation, willing and active co-operation for the great end which we had in common? It is not we who have changed; there has been a fundamental change in the policy and the aims and aspirations of the Government. We welcomed it; we modified our attitude towards the Government, and we co-operated with it for the attainment of Self-government. To oppose where we should co-operate would be the height of un- patriotism; it would be something worse, it would be treason against the motherland. This is strong language, but it is the only language that rightly describes the situation. There were indeed those who regarded the Reforms as a sham and a delusion, who thought that they were a huge fraud sprung upon a credulous and unwary public. We quite concede that they were entitled to use every means they considered legitimate to oppose them, though they were not entitled to abuse us for holding a different view. Recognizing that the Reforms represented a definite advance towards responsible go- vernment, to have opposed them would have been a betrayal of our principles and a neglect of our duty to the country. We were, however, under no delusion. We accepted the Reforms for what they were worth. We knew their limitations. But in the existing circumstances it seemed to us that the best thing we could do was to work them, to qualify for more, and to press for more. Here was an opportunity for peaceful, orderly and progressive realization of responsible government. What alternative was there? None that we could think of. We had to accept this evolutionary movement, culminating, in due time, in full-fledged responsible government, or follow the dubious paths of a revolutionary programme, with its endless risks and uncertain triumphs. A revolutionary movement had indeed been tried in Bengal, backed by men whose selfless devotion to the country could not be called in question; and it failed; and the principal actors in that unhappy episode, recogniz- ing their failure, have for the most part settled down as peaceful citizens, bowing to the inevitable. In modern times, revolutionary