স্বাধীনতার বিরুদ্ধে বৃহৎ ব্রিটিশ লাঠির যুক্তি কথায় বলে মূৰ্খস্য লাঠৌষধি ৷ বঙ্গের লাট লর্ড লিটন বোধ হয় ভারতের লোকদিগকে মুর্থ মনে করিয়া তাহাদের মধ্যে যাহারা স্বাধীনতালাভেচ্ছা রোগে আক্রান্ত তাহাদিগকে বৃটিশ লাঠি দেখাইয়াছেন । বিগত ১১ই এপ্রিল, ইউরোপীয়ান এসোসিয়েশন লঙ লিটনকে অভিনন্দিত করিয়া একটি অভিভাষণ পড়েন । তাহার উত্তরে বক্তৃত করিয়া লড লিটন অম্লান্ত কথার মধ্যে বলেন – I see in the task ahead of us—the task I mean of progressing towards self-government or Swaraj—two possible interpretations of Swaraj, two alternative lines of advalice, one of which is clear and open, bright with hope and free fron obstacles, the other is encumbered with the thickest of barbed wire entanglements, ossers no field for co-operation, and is dark with the menace of racial storms. The first interpretation of Swaraj is the constitutional independence of India. Self-government in the sense of government by the Indian Parliaments as distinct from Government by the British Parliament but in association with the other self-governing Dominions, and allegiance to our contmon King-Emperor. This can be attained by building up a constitution suited to Indian conditions, by the establishment of an efficient adininistration in India in which Indians and Europeans are equally interested, in which they are both represented and work side by side freed from the necessity of reference to or control by a Secretary of State of the Imperial Parliament. The hallmark of such Swaraj would be the threefold requirements of efficiency in administration, racial co-operation and constitutional freedom. That is a goal towards which Indians and Europeans can advance together, the rate of advance towards which is practically in their own hands and the ultimate attainment of which will be ---a fa- India ånd ønnd for Britain. The second interpretation of Śwaraj is racial independence, th: Government of India by Indians as distinct from Government by the British, and it is sought to attain it by substituting Indians for Europeans in every branch of the administration and subordinating considerations of efficiency to considerations of race, with the ultimate goal of complete scparation. - ** That is a goal which the British, whether in India or in Britain, can never accept—they cannot advance towards it with Indians, but must contest every inch of the way with them. To prevent its ever being reached the whole strength of our people would, if necessary, be used. These two policies are in my opinion too often confused, becau e the policy of racial independence includes also constitutional independence and the policy of constitutional independence necessarily involves the consideration of many racial questions—the readjustment in many respects of the relationship between the two races and the provision of equal opportunities for both. But there is a fundamental difference between the two. They are in fact irreconcilable. They have a different starting point and a different objective. One is constructive and based upon love. It consequently strives to avoid racial controversies and, when they arise, to adjust them by consultation and agreement. The other is destructive and based upon hate. It seeks to make racial issues the main test of the sincerity of Government professions, and presses for their settlement by immediate legislation, whether agreement concerning them can be obtained or not. It is essential that these two should be kept distinct, and the difference between them understood. If the latter has to be stoutly resisted, the former should be sincerely encouraged. এখানে লাটসাহেব ফুরকম স্বরাজের কথা বলিয়াছেন। প্রথম, ইংলগুের সঙ্গে যুক্ত থাকিয়া নিয়মত প্রণালীসমত স্বাধীনতা ; দ্বিতীয়, ইংলণ্ড হইতে পৃথক হইয়া সম্পূর্ণ प्राँशौनङ लोज़ ।
