The resolutions adopted at the Calcutta special session of the Congress
were to be confirmed at its annual session at Nagpur. Here again, as
at Calcutta there was a great rush of visitors and delegates. The
number of delegates in the Congress had not been limited yet. As a
result, so far as I can remember, the figure on this occasion
reached about fourteen thousand. Lalaji pressed for a slight
amendment to the clause about the boycott of schools, which I
accepted. Similarly some amendments were made at the instance of the
Deshabandhu, after which the non-co-operation resolution was passed
unanimously.
The resolution regarding the revision of the Congress constitution
too was to be taken up at this session of the Congress. The sub-committee's draft was presented at the Calcutta special session. The
matter had therefore been thoroughly ventilated and thrashed out. At
the Nagpur session, where it came up for final disposal, Sjt. C.
Vijayaraghavacharia was the President. The Subjects Committee
passed the draft with only one important change. In my draft the
number of delegates had been fixed, I think, at 1,500; the Subjects
Committee substituted in its place the figure 6,000. In my opinion
this increase was the result of hasty judgment, and experience of
all these years has only confirmed me in my view. I hold it to be an
utter delusion to believe that a large number of delegates is in any
way a help to the better conduct of the business, or that it
safeguards the principle of democracy. Fifteen hundred delegates,
jealous of the interests of the people, broad-minded and truthful,
would any day be a better safeguard for democracy than six thousand
irresponsible men chosen anyhow. To safeguard democracy the people
must have a keen sense of independence, self-respect and their
oneness, and should insist upon choosing as their representatives
only such persons as are good and true. But obsessed with the idea
of numbers as the Subjects Committee was, it would have liked to go
even beyond the figure of six thousand. The limit of six thousand
was therefore in the nature of a compromise.
The question of the goal of the Congress formed a subject for keen
discussion. In the constitution that I had presented, the goal of
the Congress was the attainment of Swaraj within the British Empire if possible and without if necessary. A party in the Congress wanted
to limit the goal to Swaraj within the British Empire only. Its
viewpoint was put forth by Pandit Malaviyaji and Mr. Jinnah. But
they were not able to get many votes. Again the draft constitution
provided that the means for the attainment were to be peaceful and
legitimate. This condition too came in for opposition, it being
contended that there should be no restriction upon the means to be
adopted. But the Congress adopted the original draft after an
instructive and frank discussion. I am of opinion that, if this
constitution had been worked out by the people honestly,
intelligently and zealously, it would have become a potent
instrument of mass education, and the very process of working it out
would have brought us Swaraj. But a discussion of the theme would be
irrelevant here.
Resolutions about Hindu-Muslim unity, the removal of untouchability
and khadi too were passed in this Congress, and since then the Hindu
members of the Congress have taken upon themselves the
responsibility of ridding Hinduism of the curse of untouchability,
and the Congress has established a living bond of relationship with
the 'skeletons' of India through khadi. The adoption of
non-co-operation for the sake of the Khilafat was itself a great
practical attempt made by the Congress to bring about Hindu-Muslim
unity.