NOTE 9

BENGALEE LAWLESSNESS.

A very striking, and at the same time sober, picture of the conditions produced by Bengalee methods of agitation is to be found in the speech delivered at the opening of the Provincial Legislature of Eastern Bengal at Dacca on April 6, 1910, by Sir Lancelot Hare, the Lieutenant-Governor appointed in succession to Sir Bampfylde Fuller.  “We have had abundant experience,” he said, “in the last three years that the advocacy of the boycott at public meetings is invariably followed by acts of tyranny and brutality and illegal interference with the rights of a free people to buy and sell as they, and not as a particular set of agitators, prefer.  No district officer anxious to maintain the peace of his district can allow a recrudescence of these disturbances.  I have seen it denied that there have been such cases, but the state calendar of crime is there to refute such an assertion; and you and I well know that the cases which have been brought to trial bear a very small proportion to the cases which have arisen but which the raiyats have been afraid to press home.  When we remember the enormous power of the zemindar following from the unfortunate absence of any record of right upon which the tenant can lean, and rely, we can well understand how a raiyat hesitates to oppose his landlord’s will.  I have seen, it claimed that such advocacy of the boycott is a constitutional right.  The extraordinary fallacy of this assertion hardly needs refuting.  With a democratic Government an appeal to the public is an appeal to the Government, as it is an appeal to the voter who appoints the member of Parliament who appoints the Government.  Such a condition does not exist in this country, and when an agitator who wishes to press his views on Government says that the boycott will be preached until Government takes a particular course which Government has decided is not for the good of the people, and has announced that it will not adopt, such an appeal is not a constitutional act nor an appeal to Government but an act of defence and open resistance to Government.  This Government now as always will do what it believes to be in the best interests of the people.  It will always give such regard as it can to respectful representations, even when they come from a small minority only of the population; but appeals to force and violence, appeals to the mob for race hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness, do not constitute constitutional agitation.  I would say a few words on the mischief of the boycott agitation.  The boycott agitation has been the curse of this province for the past five years, causing endless suffering and unrest, obstructing the path of progress, exciting ill-feeling between Government and the people, and hindering their co-operation in the work of reconstitution and reform.  The agitation has displayed itself in many evil forms, all tending to oppression, and lawlessness.”