In celebrating the birthday of Ranade
we must not overlook what the critics and opponents are likely to say. The
critics will ask what is the point in celebrating the birthday of Ranade.
That the days of hero-worship are gone long past will be the line of their
argument. The opponents will say if I condemn idolatry when it pertains
to Mr. Gandhi
and to Mr. Jinnah
how do I join in idolizing Mr. Ranade ? These are very pertinent questions. True hero-worship
is dying. Of that there is no doubt. It was dying even in the days of Carlyle
who indignantly complained against his age saying—
" This is an age that as it were denies the
existence of great men : denies the inevitableness of great men."
" Show our critics a great man ",
he said and "
They begin to what they call ' account for him ' ; not to worship him but take the dimensions of him."
But hero-worship is certainly not
dead in India. India is still par excellence the land of idolatry. There is idolatry in
religion, there is idolatry in politics. Heroes and hero-worship is a hard if
unfortunate, fact in India's political life. I agree that hero-worship is demoralizing for the devotee and dangerous to the country. I welcome the
criticism in so far as it conveys a caution that you must know that your man is
really great before you start worshipping him. This unfortunately is not an
easy task. For in these days, with the Press in hand, it is easy to manufacture
great men. Carlyle used a happy phrase when he described the great men of
history as so many Bank Notes. Like Bank Notes they represent gold. What we have to see is
that they are not forged notes. I admit that we ought to be more cautious in our worship of
great men. For in this country we have perhaps arrived at such a stage when
alongside the notice boards saying " beware of pickpockets " we need to have notice boards saying "
beware of great men ".
Even Carlyle who defended the
worship of great men warned his readers how :
" Multitudes of men have figured in history as
great men who were false and selfish." He regretted deeply that "The
World's wages (of homage) are pocketed (by these so-called great men), the
World's work is not done. Heroes have gone out; quacks have come in."
Ranade never received the honours of apotheosis as these great men
of India today are destined to receive. How could he ? He did not come with a message hot from Senai.
He performed no miracles and promised no speedy deliverance and splendour. He
was not a genius and he had no superhuman qualities. But there are
compensations. If Ranade did not show splendour and dominance he brought us no
catastrophe. If he had no superhuman qualities to use in the service of India,
India was saved from ruin by its abuse. If he was not a genius, he did not
display that perverse supersubtlety of intellect and a temper of mind which is
fundamentally dishonest and which has sown the seeds of distrust and which has
made settlement so difficult of achievement. There is nothing exuberant and extravagant
in Ranade. He refused to reap cheap notoriety by playing the part of an
extremist. He refused to mislead people by playing upon and exploiting the
patriotic sentiments of the people. He refused to be a party to methods which
are crude
which have volume but no effect and which
are neither fool-proof nor knave-proof and which break the back even of the most earnest and sincere
servants of the country and disable them from further effort. In short Ranade was
like the wise Captain who knows that his duty is not to play with his ship
clever and masterful tricks, just for effect and show in the midst of the ocean
but to take it safely to its appointed port. In short Ranade was not a forged bank note and in worshipping him we
have no feeling of kneeling before anything that is false.
In the second place this
celebration of Ranade's birthday is not all an act of hero-worship.
Hero-worship in the sense of expressing our unbounded admiration is one thing.
To obey the hero is a totally different kind of hero-worship. There is nothing wrong in the former while
the latter is no doubt a most pernicious thing. The former is only man's
respect for everything which is noble and of which the great man is only an
embodiment. The latter is the villain's fealty to his lord. The former is
consistent with respect, but the latter is a sign of debasement. The former does not take away one's
intelligence to think and independence to act. The latter makes one a perfect
fool. The former involves no disaster to the State. The latter is the source of
positive danger to it. In short in celebrating Ranade's birthday we are not
worshipping a boss who is elected by no one, accountable to no one and
removable by no one, but paying our tribute of admiration to a leader who led
and did not drive people, who sought to give effect to their deliberate
judgement and did not try to impose his own will upon them by trickery or by violence.
In the third place it is not for
hero-worship for which this gathering has assembled. This is an occasion to
remind ourselves of the political philosophy of Ranade. To my mind it has become necessary to remind
ourselves of it from time to time. For his is a philosophy which is safe and
sound, sure if slow. Even if it does not glitter it is none the less gold. Do
any have doubt ?
If they have let them ponder over the
following utterances of Bismark, Balfour
and Morley. Bismark the great German Statesman said :
" Politics is the game of the possible."
" If we would find the true basis of the long
drawn process which has gradually converted medieval monarchy into a modern democracy
the process by which so much has been changed and so little destroyed, we must
study temperament and character rather than intellect and theory. This is a
truth which those who recommend the wholesale adoption of British Institutions
in strange lands might remember with advantage. Such an experiment can hardly
be without its dangers. Constitutions are easily copied ; temperaments are not ; and if it should happen that the
borrowed constitution and the native temperament fail to correspond, the misfit may have serious
results. It matters little what other gifts a people may possess if they are
wanting in these which, from this point of view, are of most importance. If,
for example, they have no capacity for grading their loyalties as well as for
being moved by them; If they have no natural inclination to liberty and no
natural respect for law; If they lack good humour and tolerate foul play; If they know not how to compromise or when ; If they have not that distrust of
extreme conclusions which is sometimes misdescribed as want of logic ; If corruption does not repel them
; and if their divisions tend to be
either too numerous or too profound, the successful working of British Institutions may be difficult
or impossible. It may indeed be least possible where the arts of Parliamentary
persuasion and the dexterities of party management are brought to their highest
perfection."
" To hurry on after logical perfection is to
show one's self-ignorant of the material of that
social structure with which the politician has to deal. To disdain anything
short of an organic change in thought or institution is infatuation. To be
willing to make such changes too frequently, even when they are possible, is
foolhardiness. That fatal French saying about small reforms being the worst
enemies of great reforms is, in the sense in which it is commonly used, a
formula of social ruin."
These are the principles on which
success in Politics depends. Are they different from those which Ranade
enunciated? It bespeaks greatness in Ranade that he should have propounded them years before Bismark,
Balfour and
Morley.
The generation which Ranade served
was wise in taking him as its political guide, friend and philosopher. His
greatness lies in the fact that he can be a guide, friend and philosopher to
this present, nay even to future generations.
There is one charge against Ranade
which is frequently made and which I think must be met. It is said of Ranade
that he believed that the conquest of India by the British was Providential, that it
was in the best interest of India, that she should remain within the British
Empire and that therein lay her final destiny. In short Ranade is accused of
being opposed to India's Independence.
" It cannot be easily assumed that in God's Providence, such vast multitudes
as those who inhabit India were placed centuries together under influences and
restraints of alien domination, unless such influences and restraints were
calculated to do lasting service in the building up of the strength and character of
the people in directions in which the Indian races were most deficient. Of one thing we are
certain, that after lasting over five hundred years, the Mohammedan Empire gave way, and made room for the re-establishment of the old native races in the Punjab, and throughout
Central Hindusthan
and Southern India, on foundations of a much more solid character than those
which yielded so easily before the assaults of the early Mohammedan conquerors."
" Both Hindus and Mohammedans lack many of those
virtues represented by the love of order and regulated authority. Both are
wanting in the love of municipal freedom, in the exercise of virtues necessary
for civic life, and in aptitudes for mechanical skill, in the love of science and research in the love and
daring of adventurous discovery, the resolution to master difficulties, and in chivalrous
respect for womankind. Neither the old Hindus nor the old Mohammedan
civilization was in a condition to train these virtues in a way to bring up the
races of India on a level with those of Western Europe, and so the work of
education had to be renewed, and it has been now going on for the past century and more
under the Pax Brittanica with results—which all of us are witnesses to in
ourselves."
A mere glance at these statements
is enough to show that the charge is based on a misunderstanding if not on a
misreading of the statements. The statements are plain and simple and they
cannot even by inference be said to lead to the conclusion that Ranade
was opposed to India's independence. In that sense the charge is false and
without foundation.
These statements of Ranade
far from casting any reflection upon his self-respect testify to his wisdom and
to his sagacity. What did Ranade want to convey by these statements? As I understand
them, I think, Ranade
wanted to convey two things. The
first thing he wanted to convey was that the conquest of India by Britain has
given India the time, the opportunity and the necessary shelter for rebuilding,
renovating and repairing her economic and social structure, to refit herself for bearing the strain of any foreign aggression when
she does become free. The second thing Ranade wanted to convey was that going out of the British
Empire by India before she had satisfied and solidified herself into a single
nation, unified in thought, in feeling, and charged with a sense of a common
destiny, was to invite chaos and
disruption in the name of independence.
How very important these truths are
? People do not realize the part
that shelter plays in the smooth working out of social, economic and political
conflicts which are inevitable in every society which desires to advance. The late Prof. Maitland
was once asked to explain why Parliamentary Institutions flourished in England
but failed to take roots in Europe. His answer reveals the importance of
shelter. He said the difference was due to the English channel. By this answer
what he meant to convey was that by reason of the English channel England was immune from foreign
aggression while she was repairing her own body politic and therefore it became
safe for people to fight against their King for Liberty and also safe for the
King to allow it to his people. This importance of shelter was also emphasized
by Abraham Lincoln. In a speech devoted to showing why American Political
Institutions were destined to remain perpetual, Lincoln said :
" All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa
combined. . . with a Bonaparte for a Commander, could not by force take a drink from Ohio, or
make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years."
In this Lincoln was also
emphasizing the importance and the necessity for shelter for social
reconstruction. India is not a sheltered country as England and America are.
She lies across and on the roads, whether the roads are land routes, sea routes
or air routes. As she has no shelter the fear is that she will be broken up if
she is attacked from outside while she is engaged in refitting herself. India
needs a dry dock as a shelter for the period of her refitting and the British
Empire is a dry dock for her. Who can say that Ranade was not wise in asking his countrymen to bear in mind
the importance of a shelter which the British Empire can give and which India
needs so much?
A servient nation is always eager to cut the knot and declare
its independence of the dominant nation. But it seldom stops to consider the
effect of independence on itself. Such a consideration is however very
important. It is not often realized that the knot which binds the servient nation to the dominant
nation is more necessary to the servient nation than to the dominant nation. It
depends upon the conditions inside the servient nation. The servient nation may
be one whole. The servient nation may consist of parts. The parts may be such
that they will never become one whole. Or the parts may be such that they are not yet
one whole but if held together longer they will become one whole. The effect which the
cutting of the knot will have on the servient nation will depend upon the
internal condition of the servient nation. There may be every good in cutting
the knot by a servient nation which is one whole. Nothing good or nothing worse
can happen—depends upon how one looks at it—by the cutting of the knot by a
nation in which the parts can never become one whole. But there is positive danger in the third case. The
premature cutting of the knot is sure to lead to disintegration where
integration is desirable and possible. It would be a wanton act. This is the
second danger which Ranade wanted to caution his countrymen against.
Who can say that Ranade was not
wise in giving this caution ? Those who are inclined to question its necessity have
only to look to China. It is 30 years since the Chinese Revolution took place. Have the Chinese settled down ?
No. People are still asking "
when will the Chinese revolution stop revolving ? " and those who know the conditions in China cannot do
better than say " Perhaps in another hundred years." Has China
found a stable Government having the allegiance of all Chinese ? Far from it. Indeed if truth be
told, China after the revolution has been a land of disunity and disruption far
more than she was ever before. The
Revolution has produced a chaos of such magnitude that her very independence
has been put in peril. Few Indians are aware of the fact that if China has not
lost her independence as a result of the chaos caused by the Revolution it is
only because she had too many enemies who could not agree as to which of
them should devour her. The Chinese Revolution was a great mistake. That was
the opinion of Yuan Shih-kai
who said:
" I doubt whether the people of China are at
present ripe for a Republic or whether under present conditions a Republic is
adapted to the Chinese people... The adoption of a limited monarchy would bring
conditions back to the normal and would bring stability much more rapidly than that
end could be attained through any experimental form of Government unsuited to
the genius of the people or to the present conditions in China. My only reason for favouring the retention of the
present Emperor is that I believe in a constitutional monarchy. If we are to
have that form of Government, there is nobody else whom the people would agree
upon for his place. My sole aim, in this crisis is to save China from
dissolution and the many evils that would follow."
Those who think that China should
be rather a warning to Indians than an example will, far from accusing Ranade
for opposing India's independence
will be happy that he had the wisdom to foresee the evils, of a premature revolution
and warn his countrymen against taking a similar step.
Comments
Social Counter