The real position
WE have already said that Pandit Motilal Nehru’s statement regarding the circumstances under which the All-parties Conference, or rather the sub-committee appointed under its auspices for the settlement of Hindu-Muslim differences, was adjourned sine die after merely informal consultations cannot satisfy the public curiosity. The broad facts of the case certainly called for a fuller and franker statement of the real position. In order to understand that position, it is necessary to bear in mind that the All-parties Conference at Bombay was originally summoned primarily with the object of devising means for restoring the unity of the Congress and secondarily for the purpose of condemning the Bengal ordinance. In actual practice, the conference only did the second. All that it did as regards the first was to refer the question to a committee. This committee itself was charged with three duties: (1) exploring the possibilities of a united Congress, (2) the framing of a Swaraj Constitution, and (3) as part of the latter, the settling of Hindu-Muslim differences in their political aspect. The success or otherwise of its recent meeting at Delhi must, therefore, be clearly judged by what it did as regards any or all of these objects. One need not have been behind the scenes to know that the first subject was not even considered. As regards the second, we know from the published proceedings that it needed all the strenuous advocacy of which Annie Besant was capable as well as a good deal of plain-speaking on the part of other leaders for the conference to even appoint a committee for the purpose of drawing up a Constitution.
