Today That Day - V J Patel Elected President - Boycott of Viceregal Visit

Today That Day - V J Patel Elected President - Boycott of Viceregal Visit

V. J. Patel elected President

In April, 1924 he was elected President of the Bombay Municipal Corporation for the year 1924. In his place K. F. Nariman was appointed leader of the Party. In his regime as the President of the Corporation the Nationalist members succeeded in presenting a Corporation address to Mr. Gandhi on 29th August 1924.

Boycott of Viceregal Visit

On 25th November 1924 V. J. Patel as President of the Municipal Corporation declined the invitation to attend Viceregal functions on 2nd December, 1924. He was supported by the Nationalist Municipal Party in this attitude. The Bombay Corporation thereupon called an urgent meeting of the Corporation on 1st December 1924 in order to decide whether Mr. Patel should attend the Viceregal functions. The Corporation then resolved that Mr. Patel should attend the Viceregal functions. V. J. Patel, thereupon resigned the Presidentship of the Corporation on 5th December, 1924 as he did not wish to abide by the resolution of the. Corporation. He was congratulated on this attitude by the  Nationalist Municipal Party and other bodies at a public meeting held on 6th December, when the people were asked to be careful at the next elections not to reelect those Corporators who had acted against the voters' wishes in the Corporation.

At the next meeting of the Corporation, however, he was allowed to occupy the Presidential chair.

On the 5th January, 1925, V. J. Patel was re-elected as President of the Corporation. He

secured 50 votes as against 45 of Dr. M. C. Javle, his competitor. Mr. Patel said " Since he had resigned there were several members who cast their favours or disfavours but he had noticed that the Corporation had all along supported him in the chair.

Mr. J. M. Mehta—Except on the 1st of December.

Mr. Patel, continuing, hoped that the Corporation would take him as he was. They knew him well and also his method of work and trusted they would bear with him if he voted against their wishes.

Mr. Patel then recapitulated the reasons of his tendering the resignation. He said His

Excellency the Viceroy had come to Bombay and a few days before the arrival he received all the invitations to the Viceregal functions. He refused to attend the Viceregal functions and at once intimated the fact to the Corporation as he was their representative. Some members naturally felt annoyed for which he did not find fault with them. They brought a requisition and a meeting was called to consider the action he had taken in the matter. The majority passed a resolution asking him to attend the functions. That resolution was passed before the functions took place and he had time and opportunities to attend the functions. It was, however, against his convictions to attend the functions and he deliberately refused to do so and he regarded his election as a reward for standing

by his convictions. He hoped they would take it in the same light.

"Mrs. Harry Hodgkinson—You say, Sir, in your speech that your re-election proves that the Corporation approves of your conduct in refusing to attend the Viceroy's reception. I wish to say, Sir, that I, a member of the Corporation, disapprove of your conduct entirely on that occasion and continue strongly to protest against it.

President—You may differ from me.

Mr. K. F. Nariman— Mrs. Hodgkinson is not the Corporation.

Ref : Source Material for a History of the Freedom Movement in India (Government of Maharashtra - Mumbai)

sardar patel, sardar vallabhbhai patel, vallabhbhai patel, sardar vallabhbhai patel in hindi, rashtriya ekta diwas, about sardar vallabhbhai patel, sardar vallabhbhai, sardar vallabhbhai patel information, sardar vallabhbhai patel biography, the collected works of sardar vallabhbhai patel, sardar patel college, maniben patel

THE HINDU MARRIAGE VALIDITY ACT - Mr. V. J. PATEL LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL MEMBER

I - THE REFORMER'S VIEW POINT

The honorable Mr. Patel is signalising his entrance into the Imperial Legislative Council by displaying his wonted activity at the very first session which he is attending. Among other things he is raising the question of inter-caste marriages among the Hindus and the debate on the leave to introduce the bill was to have taken place yesterday. Although the report of the debate is not available to us at the moment of writing, it would not be amiss to put forward some obvious considerations on the subject once again before the public.

About six years ago the Hon'ble Mr. Bhupendranath Basu introduced a bill in the Imperial Legislative Council with the object of doing away with the necessity of abjuring one's religion before one is able to contract a valid marriage under the Special Marriage Act. That bill of course met with opposition from many orthodox Hindu circles, and as it was also opposed by Government it was not successful. Even at that time however, it was, remarked that the bill met with a very considerable amount of support from some unexpected quarters, e.g. the Maratta in this Presidency, Many thinking men have come to realise that for the consolidation of an Indian nationality the old religious obstacles to individual action should be as far as possible removed, and therefore they have no objection to permissive bill like Mr. Basu's. But the Government of those days opposed the bill on this very ground and did not want to give this small facility to enable enterprising members of different communities to contract legal alliances, seeing in this proposal a future political danger.

There were some Hindus who opposed Mr. Basu's bill on account of its going to far in that it proposed to validate marriages between members of different religions. They were ready, they said, to accept a bill validating marriages between different castes and sub-castes among the Hindus, between which, according to the best legal opinion of the country, there cannot be lawful marriages. We have never seen the force of this objection, for to the orthodox the marriage between a Brahman and a Shudra is as unthinkable as one between a Hindu and a Parsi. When the fight is one for a principle in this case that of individual liberty to contract marriage, it is best not to compromise it by trying to conciliate a class of opponents who after all can never be really conciliated, and one might "as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb."

The Hon. Mr. Patel has attempted to choose this apparently easier path, and though we have not much hope of its success under a Government which is in mortal dread of any measures of social reform we trust that his effort will meet with enough public support to allow another bill of a wider scope to pass the expanded legislative council of the future. We hope that Mr. Patel will make his position quite clear; otherwise in this case a small reform will once again prove the enemy of a large reform. Mr. Patel's bill really consists of a single clause, and we are afraid that it has not been well drawn up. The question of marriage is bound up with a host of other questions which will have to be faced by the legislator. We do not wish to raise objections for objection's sake and we do wish that Mr. Patel or some other member will bring in a comprehensive measure which will take account of all the logical consequences of the validation of intercaste marriages. The work is absolutely necessary in the interests of the Hindu community if it is not to suffer from gradual attrition. 

We shall enumerate only a few of these consequences. In the first place a marriage act involves a divorce act as an immediate corollary. Then various questions of inheritance will also immediately arise. Is a mau who has married out of caste and who has consequently been excommunicated still entitled to claim his share of the ancestral house for living in it? Are his children by a wife of a different caste to claim an equal share with his children by a former wife of his own caste? Can a man marry two wives of different castes and can he enforce the restitution of conjugal rights in the case of a wife of higher caste who refuses to live with a co-wife of a lower caste? Again what is to be the caste of the children of these inter-caste marriages and what is the law of succession to which they would be subject? For although there is a general law of succession common to all Hindus, still there are several customary differences for different castes. Again a legislator ought to take care that in trying to do away with caste rigidity he does not unconsciously add to it, for there is likely to result different new castes from different combinations of two other castes. Further, there should be settled the question of anuloma and pratiloma marriages.

These and various other questions will each require separate detailed treatment, impossible in one article. Suffice it to say that we ourselves are prepared to follow up the logical consequences of the principle of individual liberty, when the similar liberty of others is not endangered. If we have mentioned several objections to Mr. Patel's bill it is only the role of a friendly critic who wishes him to seek expert advice in the matter of drafting and bring out his results once again in a complete and self contained measure.

R. P. Paranjpye.

Source : THE SERVANT OF INDIA SOCIETY - September 5, 1918

VANDE MATARAM

THE CONGRESS OUTLOOK

While the Tribune and the Mahratta welcome the resolution of the Nagpur Congress Committee urging the necessity of revising the programme of the Indian National Congress, we are surprised to see Mr. V. J. Patel and others protesting against the scheme which has been drawn up, it is understood, by an Indian administrator who has studied the introduction and working of responsible Government in one important Dominion which he visited more than once for the purpose. It is, we think, proposed that the scheme should be first circulated for opinion to several Indian leaders, that it should be revised in the light of the suggestions that they may make, that the revised scheme should be placed before a Convention of representatives of all political schools, and that, if the Convention agrees, a Dominion Status League may be formed for the sole, special purpose of bringing about the adoption of the scheme in place of the present Reforms scheme. Mr. Patel's argument is if the scheme is consistent with the Congress programme, it is superfluous; if it goes beyond it, it is mischievous; so in either case, it is useless. In the same breath, he says that the Congress is open to all schools of political thought and that all should join it and work within it. If Mr. Patel's attitude to the mere announcement that a scheme is in preparation to work out the details of full Dominion status, represents the position of the Congress, it is idle to insist, as he does, that it is open to all schools of political thought to work within it. It can only mean that the Congress, so far from being a broad national movement, is a narrow cult where the Khaddar cap, so easy to put on, counts for everything, and the Gandhi heart, so difficult to acquire, is nothing. No group of politicians can be allowed to acquire vested interests in a national movement. The result, it is plain to us is bound to be that the Congress will within the next year or two disintegrate into several small groups without any coherent purpose.

The full Congress programme formulated at Ahmedabad last December left a good deal to Mahatma Gandhi who, it was assumed, would be always available to infuse life and spirit into the dry bones of the several clauses. The most important parts of this programme have been rendered obsolete by the course of events but so long as they are not expressly repealed, it is open to any literalist in the Congress to point the finger of scorn at a fellow-Congressman who has children attending recognised schools where spinning is not a part of the curriculum, who has not given up the profession for which his training and talents are most suited, or whose Swadeshism includes mill made as well as hand-woven cloth. The Bardoli programme as amended at Delhi labours under the same disadvantage. It is not every one that can bend the bow of Ulysses and a programme which was safe and sure in the Mahatma's hands may not be so in less mighty ones. It is, therefore, necessary as a first step towards assuring those who are opposed to non-co-operation that there is a recognised place for them within the Congress, that the dead branches of the Ahmedabad programme should be lopped off and that the constructive parts of it should be so revised as to be sufficiently expressive in themselves now that unfortunately the Mahatma is not available for constant reference as to their precise meaning and purport. Constant repetition of the Mahatma's name does not make one an intelligent worker in the true spirit of the Mahatma. We strongly deprecate the tendency to represent the Congress as a semi-religious cult founded by the Mahatma from which the slightest departure should be expiated in political purgatory. This kind of thing is a positive hindrance in the way of awakening the masses to true political consciousness.

The most intelligent opinion the Congress and outside is agreed that full responsible government is the solution of our national problems. Mr. Patel says, let us have the promise first of full responsible government and then there will be no difficulty in drawing up a scheme. But that is not the right view to take about the matter. We should first show how and in what manner and in what period of time, the present system can be converted into a full responsible one with the least delay and dislocation. A definite scheme is also necessary to instruct the people as to their own duties and responsibilities under self government. The object of the proposal of a Dominion Status League outside the Congress and other political organisations, is to carry propaganda work both in the country and in Great Britain. Owing to the adoption of the policy of Non-Co-operation by the majority of Congressmen, the Congress is precluded from undertaking work which is essential to carry conviction to the British Government that the grant of full responsible government to India is prudent as well as practicable. Further there are many Liberals and others who are prepared to work for full responsible government but who are not prepared to join the Congress. The League, of one is started, will merely be the application of the principle of division of labour to political work.

The Congress as the oldest political movement in the country, rich in tradition, should not be allowed to fall to pieces. A strong effort should be made, in which all should join hands, to place the movement on a broad national footing. Mahatma Gandhi perceived this clearly and, since the Bardoli meeting, he has been most anxious to bring it about. If this is made impossible by the intolerance of those who find themselves in control of the Congress machinery of opinion in the country which believes as little in Non-Co-operation as in Diarchy for which India has had to pay dearly.

VANDE MATARAM