Misreading history

A GLARING instance of how history is misread by interested partisans of political causes has just been furnished by CY Chintamani in an interview with a Free Press of India representative. Chintamani began by saying that he could not be expected to regret the differences that had arisen in the Swaraj party. Of course not. It is no more reasonable to expect him or any other Liberal leader to regret these differences than, to quote a historic parallel, to expect William Pitt to regret the memorable scene in the British House of Commons when Edmund Burke announced the termination of his friendship with Charles James Fox. Nor do we for a moment object to Chintamani’s claiming “an appreciable measure of success” for Liberalism during the last half a century. As we said in a recent issue, if Liberalism did nothing else, it gave the country the first lessons in political agitation, created a political awakening among a large section of the educated community and familiarised that section and the educated community generally with the catchwords of modern politics and the dynamic idea of political freedom. As a matter of fact, it did more. It was chiefly instrumental in making the first breach in the citadel of political orthodoxy in bureaucratically governed India, and all the earlier reforms in the administration of the country, whether partially or fully carried out, were mainly due to its initiative or its active efforts. But has it ever occurred to Chintamani and others of his way of thinking that the Liberalism that accomplished all this is as much the heritage of the advanced nationalist, whether of the Swarajist or non-cooperative variety, as their own heritage?