Communal separatism

WE have already said that in her second speech at the Gujranwala Conference which was delivered in English, so that the whole country might have the benefit of the views she expressed, Sarojini Naidu strongly condemned separate communal representation. The condemnation is couched in such admirable words and is so clear, unqualified and unmistakable that we cannot do better than quote the whole of this part of Naidu’s observations, as reported by our representative. “Separate communal representation,” she said, “is a vicious principle which militates against the very idea of a common nationality. Unless we have mutual trust and interdependence, we cannot have freedom. We cannot build Swaraj on foundations which have fissures, and are laid not on the solid rock of unity, but on the shifting sands of communal considerations. It is a great stigma on the communities which desire separate communal representation to say that their political existence requires such representation. They are degrading themselves by insisting on communal representation.” Are not these the very sentiments which have been expressed again and again by nationalist leaders of the Hindu Sabha movement whom Naidu ran down in her first speech? A few more such utterances and Naidu will doubtless become just as unpopular with the separatists as so many others have become, but the unpopularity will be temporary and will be fully worth incurring. In her case, it will also be confined only to the extreme wing of the separatist camp, for in the other wing she has got a large number of powerful friends who know her far too well to treat anything coming from her as suspect.