INDIAN DISUNITY.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVI, Issue 166, 15 June 1936, Page 7

INDIAN DISUNITY.

GANDHI AND NEHRU. CONGRESS PARTY’S PROBLEMS. Political developments within the Indian Congress Party indicate a. growing divergence between the followers of Pandit Nehru and those who accept the Gandhian philosophy. “Although Mr Gandhi is ostensibly concerning himself with village affairs,” savs the Simla correspondent of the London Times, “a majority of Congressmen still look to him as their national political guide. Nehru is in the curious position of leading a party, most of whose members disagree with his political views. The difference between the two schools is one of method rather than aim. Each is working for a nebulous political freedom which is scarcely distinguishable from complete independence. “Mr Gandhi accepts certain realities, such as the communal award (by which seats in the Legislatures were distributed among the peoples of India). Yet he recognises that it retards the early achievement of greater independence than is inherent in the new Constitution. Nehru contends that the communal award and the other disunities in Indian political life are unimportant by comparison with political freedom. " These and other cleavages may be expected to lead to the formation of sircific parties. “The Indian Press is trying to evolve a policy from conflicting ideals and is hoping that the working committee of Congress will reach a decision on policy which Nehru, as its president, will be able to accept. “Nehru’s recent speeches indicate that lie intends to follow an independent line in the hope of educating the country generally in favour of his Socialist State. AID are agreed that political freedom is the ultimate goal, but many doubt whether it will be attained by following the revolutionary methods of Nehru. There is a large body of opinion that is wholly hostile to his Socialist creed, on the ground that India is neither ready for nor an appropriate field for what is actually Communism. Liberals and the moderates have definitely shown opposition to Naliru’s scheme of civil liberties and union. The claim is made in some quarters that the Congress Party in the past has restricted liberties to such an extent that many Government coun-er-measures have been necessary in the interest of individual liberty. “Now it is generally accepted that the Congress Party will contest the elections and accept oflice where there are secure majorities. Nehru is against the acceptance of oflice, and favours the continuance of agitation outside the Legislatures, but not necessarily civil disobedience. His insistence on a full-fledged Socialist policy is embarrassing the more orthodox members of the party, who have not agreed to a scheme to abolish landlordism, even on a basis of partial compensation. Though Nehru prefers a non-violent revolution, ho agrees to expropriation by force if necessary. “Meanwhile the Congress Party is having difficulty in obtaining funds. This is a natural outcome of leadership by an extremist. Many of the largest contributors in the past have been industrialists and others who have reaped a trade harvest from the civil disobedience and boycott movements. Now that they are threatened with a Communist regime, they have tightened their purse-strings, and it is doubtful whether the large sums required for propaganda will be forthcoming from the ordinary members of the party.”