Triveni Journal

1927 | 11,233,916 words

Triveni is a journal dedicated to ancient Indian culture, history, philosophy, art, spirituality, music and all sorts of literature. Triveni was founded at Madras in 1927 and since that time various authors have donated their creativity in the form of articles, covering many aspects of public life....

To End the Deadlock

D. V. Gundappa

I

Oppressed by muggy weather, Mr. C. Rajagopalacharya blew a gentle whiff; but it has raised a storm. Special effort is now needed, even more than before, to get a clear and steady view of things. The dust and the din of controversy are becoming so heavy. If the camps into which the nation’s political forces happen at the moment to be divided are not any further to run at cross purposes, it is necessary that we should all set about at once to recover a proper sense of values.

The substance of Mr. Rajagopalacharya’s proposal (as the Madras Legislature Congress Party’s resolution of the 23rd of April puts it) is that the Congress should seek the collaboration of the Muslim League in the formation of a National Government for the duration of the war, on the understanding that when the time comes for framing a constitution for India after the war, the Congress would concede the Muslim League’s demand for the separation of certain areas from United India, if the people of those areas persist at that time in asking for separation.

The A. I. C. C. rejected the proposition (on the 2nd of May, by 120 votes against 15) and adopted on the contrary a resolution deprecating "any proposal to disintegrate India by giving liberty to any component State or territorial unit to secede from the Indian Union."

"Mr. Rajagopalacharya has declined to take the defeat and started a vigorous campaign to educate the public to his view, hoping that it may lead to the acceptance of his view by the general body of the Congress. A tug of war between him and the Congress executive is now in progress, and the public stands the more confused and the more bewildered.

It is clear from opinions so far published that there is a very considerable volume of support among Mussalmans, even among nationalist and independent Mussalmans, for the proposal mooted by Mr. Rajagopalacharya. The significance of this fact ought not to be overlooked by those who stand for India’s unity, whether they approve of his move or not.

There can be no two opinions as to the supreme worthiness of Mr. Rajagopalacharya’s main purpose. Without doubt that purpose is to bring a dissident section of the community under the possibly reconciliatory influences of common aim and conjoint action pursued during the war emergency. The difference between him and other Congress leaders is essentially not one of motive, but one of method. It is the difference made by difference in their reading of future probabilities and their evaluation of psychological reactions. This difference, we may take it, will in the last analysis have to be attributed largely to differences in the local circumstances of the disputants and in their personal temperaments. The case is thus one for objective examination from a non-party point of view and not for partisan affirmation.

Mr. Rajagopalacharya, in his recent statement to the press on his South Indian tour, seems inclined to regard the reception given to his addresses by those large audiences as a proof of the soundness of his position. If so much significance may be attached to the verdict of those public meetings, what is the inference to be made as to the quality of the Congress High Command and the A. I. C. C.? Were they unable to see and appreciate what the multitudes at Madura and Salem could? If the Congress President and Pandit Jawaharlal were now to tour in the same places, are not audiences likely to be just as eager and as appreciative? The value that belongs to popular verdicts has been a matter in dispute since the days of Homer (indeed of even Sri Rama); and well may we leave it so.

There are certain questions which Mr. Rajagopalacharya has to answer if his proposal should be endorsed by those who, while keeping an open mind as to that particular issue, are not at all in disagreement as to what he considers the basic desideratum for national independence, namely, Hindu-Muslim reconciliation. The questions are these:-

(1) If you are prepared to look upon Mussalmans as prospective or potential aliens and would yet seek their collaboration in the defence of India for the duration of the war, why should you not as well allow the other category of aliens, namely the British, to continue in command for the same purpose? If what grates upon you in the posture of the British is their assumption of a superior status, can you be certain that the would-be alien will not do the same?

(2-a) How would you deal with the cry for a Dravidastan? If the formula of self-determination is to be, applied without regard to the conditions of a case, how would you resist, or would you not resist at all, the cry for a Rajaputrastan, a Sikhistan, a Parsistan, a Christistan –aye, a Brahministan, even a Smarthastan, a Vaishnavastan and a Srivaishnavastan? The picture cannot be dismissed as fanciful. We have and seen how concessions made to communalism in the field of the public services have only served to multiply communities and complicate public life. Where would you stop? Which is to be your irreducible and indivisible unit of the Nation or the State in India?

(2-b) At the A. I. C. C. you spoke of the Province of Madras having to cut itself off from the rest of India in order to secure a popular ministry. If any Districts of the Province do not agree, would you let them cut themselves off? Would you then restrict your National Government move to the Salem District? To Hosur Taluka? To Chudasandram village? Is that the road to independence–in days when economic and cultural bonds are drawing the nations together from the ends of the earth into one family and a World State is in view?

(3) If the promise of separate statehood is held dangling in the offing, can you be sure that it will not serve as an encouragement to advocates of separation all the time and sterilise whatever fraternizing effects we may look for from such interim unity as you are trying to secure on an admittedly temporary footing?

(4) If you would concede the status of distinct nationhood to Indian Mussalmans and let them segregate themselves from the rest of India, why should you not frankly recognize the Hindus also as an independent nation and allow the Hindu Mahasabha’s claims in full, winding up the Congress and advising the Sikhs, the Christians, the Parsis and others either to accept Hindu or Muslim imperialism or to carve out little States for themselves too?

These are some of the questions that must remain to be faced even when the fundamental assumptions of Mr. Rajagopalacharya are taken for granted. But there are doubters there too. Firstly, there is no ground for feeling assured that Mr. Jinnah and the League will regard the concession proposed by Mr. Rajagopalacharya as sufficient and satisfactory. Secondly, even if the League were to relent, Britain has not given the slightest evidence of her willingness to relax her hold. Is the Hindu-Muslim argument the last of the weapons in her armoury? Are there not the Princes, the Depressed Classes and so many others? It is idle to hope that the Hindu-Muslim combination is going to be invincible and truly overwhelming in its strength and that others will not count beside them. Is there not the Churchill-Cripps doctrine of majority-minority-balancing to be invoked in any event?

II

The fundamental point about India’s unity is that it is a thing to be desired for its own sake, altogether apart from its value as the means of throwing off the foreign yoke. Unity must continue to be a thing valued more than everything else, even when the last foreigner has left this land for good. All-Indian unity is the first condition of safety and well being for every Province and every area, even when we are a wholly independent nation. It is a good in itself and a supreme good. To look upon it merely as a means to the securing of independence is to miss its essential significance and magnify one of its incidental merits.

The desire for unity is much more than a sentiment,–a very ancient and very great sentiment though it undoubtedly is. The integrity of the people and the territories of a country, so vast and so variously endowed by nature and by history as India is, is their greatest asset both morally and materially, and from that fact it becomes the source of their influence and worth in the world. Partition is bound to diminish their common strength and weaken each part in its isolation. There is no point in the argument that unity has only been an aspiration till now in our history and that it is only recently that it has, in a measure at least, come to be achieved. The non-achievement, on the political plane, of that unity which was surely achieved ages ago on the cultural plane, is to be explained by the absence, in ancient times, of the facilities of rapid communication and the means of centralised administration which the development of science has made available to us. The unity of even Britain, and of even America, are comparatively achievements of only recent times. Without the help of science Britain should have remained only shires and counties or provinces, as Greece only city states. To let go undeveloped the strength which science enables us to acquire is obviously not the course of wisdom.

The objection to the creation of a Pakistan and a "Hindudom" alike is not simply that it makes for a subtraction from the total strength of India; it is equally emphatically that it makes for our reversion to the stage of theocracy. A State formed on the basis of religion is an anachronism today. The world has progressed to the stage when organized civil life is considered as much an integral part of a scheme of good life as religion is. Institutions of civil life have their own large province in our life, commanding our allegiance independently of church and priest. "Render unto Cesar the things that are Cesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s." The two jurisdictions are distinct, coordinate, independent–neither to be confused nor to be put in conflict with each other. To import things from one jurisdiction into another is to falsify the values of both. Nationalism and citizenship are capable of rising to their highest only when they are independent of all theocratic or a sacerdotal considerations. This applies, of course, as much to Hindus as to Mussalmans or Christians. Indeed the modern State is not concerned to know to what church or denomination its citizen belongs. It is only concerned to secure to him the fullest possible freedom for exercising his membership of whichever church or denomination he has chosen for himself. It is from this point of view that the creation of’ ‘stans’ and ‘doms’ on the foundations of religious differences is to be deprecated. Mr. Rajagopalacharya is yielding recognition to a radically wrong and dangerous idea out of his faith in a doubtful method of securing a temporary advantage.

III

But if the positive side of Mr. Rajagopalacharya’s position is thus exposed to attack, its negative side has however a compelling argument. The Congress High Command admits the need for action towards unity. But what has it done? It is no answer to raise the counter-question: - "What could it do?" It is true that Mr. Jinnah has been refractory. He has chosen to express himself in phrases and gestures which repel all sensitive men. Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Nehru and Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru have all tried to enter into negotiations with him, but with no useful result. Mr. Jinnah wants the Congress to surrender its claims to a representative capacity so far at least as the Mussalmans are concerned, and indeed to accept for itself the role of a Hindu organization. To agree to these terms would be for the Congress to wipe out its whole history and forswear all its ideals. Making totalitarian claims for his own organization on behalf of the Muslim world, Mr. Jinnah has no tolerance for the totalitarianism of the Congress.

The Congress has certainly seemed totalitarian to others. It insists on being taken as the all-inclusive and all-sufficient organ of the nation, and holds that there is no room for any other party in the country. The Liberals, the Responsive Cooperationists, the Democratic Swarajists, and others wearing similar progressive labels, are simply nobodies in its eye. This totalitarian attitude of the Congress has repelled the other parties as much as the mysticism in its political philosophy. To other parties and schools, politics is a secular affair in which human calculation and prudence and the scale of values normally accepted in the community are to be of service. Between these secularist parties and the rather occult Congress, there is a large tract of common ground in sentiment and aspiration on which to stand and work together. But the Congress has not cared to turn it to advantage. Totalitarianism may be a necessary development if singleness of purpose and spearhead sharpness of point are to be imparted to the nation’s struggle. The nation should stand as one man–with one voice and one aim and one policy. But in the circumstances of India, totalitarianism looks impossible. There are many to challenge such a claim. Most of all there is Mr. Jinnah. Mr. Rajagopalacharya speaks as a realist in insisting that the Congress must reckon with him and his League. Either win his friendship or put him to rout. If the Congress would do the latter, it must bring about a coalition of all non-League elements in the country for a fight against the Pakistan ideology first of all, and afterwards for dealing with England.

If there is on the one hand a considerable body of opinion, even among nationalist Muslims, favouring a gesture of concession–to putit at the lowest–to separatists, there is on the other hand a body of opinion at least as strong among the Hindus opposed to any degree of compromise on the question of unity. If a disgruntled and fretful Muslim community is to be feared as a source of perpetual trouble, not less is to be feared from a similarly mutinous Hindu community. It may be accepted on all sides as a general proposition that an unrecounciled and unassimilated population, whether Hindu or Muslim or Harijan or Sikh or any other, is bound to prove disturbing to the health of the body politic, like an undigested chunk in the gizzard. Therefore if there should be unity, it should be an accepted unity, not merely an imposed one; that is to say, it should be a unity based upon concessions made to the suspicious and the unwilling and accepted by them, if not as a permanent and final settlement, at least as a settlement to serve as the basis for further negotiations through agreed constitutional means.

The antithesis postulated as between independence and unity is a fallacious one, so far at any rate as India is concerned. They are practically synonymous terms to us. Unity is indeed the condition of independence. A Pakistan free to pursue its own foreign policy regardless of the interests of its Hindu or Sikh neighbours, is sure to prove as much of a menace to the independence of the latter as a ‘Hindudom’ not obliged to think of its Muslim or Sikh or Parsi neighbour is likely to prove to the independence of these. Of the two ideals, Unity and Independence, the former is the one which the Congress has cherished since its birth fifty seven years ago, while the other is a later concept added some twenty years ago. The chronological order is also the logical. To say that Independence, in the sense of the withdrawal of Britain, is sure to be followed by Unity is simply a way of suggesting that the foreign hand is responsible for fomenting differences amongst us with an eye to its own profit. The presence of a powerful third party which can take sides and load the dice at its own will can only encourage conflict and discourage conciliation. If this party would be so good as to retire from the scene, reconciliation is bound to follow. In other words, the seeds of unity lie embedded in the Indian soil; and it is only the super-imposed stone-slab of the foreign power that is preventing their germination.

IV

The Congress has no doubt declared for the formula of self-determination. But how is that formula properly to be applied? The formula is by no means of the nature of a categorical imperative to be put in action without regard to attendant circumstances. The true occasion for it is to be ascertained from the context of its origin. Self-determination is a formula evolved out of the conditions of Europe as affected by the 1914-18 War. When two countries, each indubitably a sovereign State, lay claim to the possession of a common piece of territory whose sovereignty is thus brought into doubt, the dispute should be settled by the consensus of the wills of the people of the territory in dispute. Such is the legitimate occasion for the formula. To seek to apply it for the benefit of a secessionist section of the people of India is clearly to abuse it. We have no two long-established States fighting here, nor a separate third bit of territory forming the subject-matter of contention. What the pakistan-wallahs demand is the dismemberment of an ancient people marked out by nature and history alike as one country and one nation. Their objective is not the independence of India, but the contriving of a jumping board for themselves to the programme of a Pan-Islamic State to dominate world-politics. Could this have been among the purposes for which Woodrow Wilson devised the formula of self-determination? Is that aphorism meant to encourage and support movements of revolt and civil war?

The statement that the Mussalmans, if they insist on having a separate "stan" for themselves, may be sure of getting it can only mean one of two things: either that the British Government will grant it to them under cover of the doctrine of self-determination, or that if they push their agitation to the point of a civil war, they will win it. In either case, to see a contingency as probable or even inevitable is not necessarily to admit it to be of a nature deserving of welcome and not of resistance. The rights and wrongs of a thing are to be judged from considerations other than those of the prospects of its success or failure. To say that the Mussalmans are likely to get Pakistan is not the same thing as to say that it is right and good that they should get it. In the pre-Khilafat era, the Congress ideal was that every son of India should regard himself first of all as an Indian and then only as Hindu or Mussalman or Sikh or Parsi or Christian. But under the influence of the late Maulana brothers, the position was reversed; and that is the beginning of our present communal troubles. We are being asked today to regard ourselves as Hindus or Mussalmans first and as Indians only afterwards. Sacerdotalism is having its day once again. Sacerdotalism and nationalism incompatibles. The former is exclusive and unitarian; the latter is inclusive and composite. We have to learn to keep them apart, each restricted to its own sphere and not allowed to trespass into the other’s province. We need not be both citizens and churchmen at one and the same moment or in one and the same place. To develop a sense of their distinction is our first need.

V

No authoritative statement is available as to the precise contents of the scheme (if there be one) of Pakistan. There are two interpretations in the field: According to the impression formed by Sir Evelyn Wrench of the (London) Spectator (The Hindu of June 8, 1942), what Mr. Jinnah wants is the creation of two ‘zones’ or Provinces, to be fully autonomous and under Muslim control, but subordinate, like the remaining three or more ‘zones’ or Provinces in India, to an all-Indian central authority representing the British Crown in respect of foreign policy and defence. If this be the substance of the demand, the British Government can see in it nothing serious to object to, as it has in fact conceded the principle of provincial autonomy already. Nor can the Congress object, since it has accepted also the analogous principle of forming Provinces according to the prevalent languages of the areas. But will Pakistan be no more than a Province or component unit of federalized India? And will it insist on the continuance of Britain’s supremacy? It is only the latter condition that the Congress will and must reject. It is not for provincial autonomy under Britain’s domination that Congressmen have struggled and sacrificed; and it is not the prospect of such a small surface reform that has induced Mr. Rajagopalacharya to make his proposal. Immediately now he looks for National Government–with Defence in Indian hands; and together with this, he wants a guarantee of Independence to come when the war has stopped. How is the Pakistan party going to be of use to him? On the other hand, the Cripps proposals offered to Pakistan, if it came into being, "the same full status as to the Indian Union," "equal in every respect and in no way subordinate to the United Kingdom and other British Dominions." Chaudhuri Khaliquzzaman apparently favours this type of Pakistan and has been speaking of using it as a ‘jumping-off ground’ for an alliance with all the Muslim countries of the world. That this may not be all tall talk will be appreciated when we remember that the Mussalman population of India is larger than that of all the other countries of the world put together. And it cannot be said that Britain is not interested in the prospect of finding a new friend and ally established "in a key position in Central Asia". Either way, Pakistan is no disadvantage to Britain.

If the Muslim League, instead of dogmatically holding to the phrase ‘Pakistan’, would consider what guarantees would be necessary for it to feel perfectly assure as to the rights and interests of Muslims under a common composite Indian Government, the devising of safeguards towards that end may not prove a task beyond the inventive power of Indian brains. The League of Nations has tackled the problem of minorities protection. Even stronger and ampler provisions may be designed for the protection of the religion, the language, the peculiar social usage, the special social and personal laws, the civic rights, the educational facilities and other interests of the Mussalman community – and of every other religious, linguistic or social minority – without breaking up the integrity of India’s body politic. The limiting of the purview of the legislatures in such matters, the creation of special boards of arbitration, and the institution of special agencies to carry out special provisions are among the ways of affording protection to minority rights.

VI

If the winning of Independence for an undivided and indivisible India is the object, three courses seem to lie open before the country: -

(1) Creating a United National Front composed of all parties and groups sworn to achieve the two-fold object.

(2) Handing over the leadership to Mr. Jinnah and the Muslim League on the definite understanding that the cry for Pakistan will be given up and the struggle for national success is freedom for an undivided and indivisible India prosecuted till attained.

(3) Asking the Congress and other non-communal political bodies to stand aside and leave it to the Muslim League and the Hindu Mahasabha to fight out the issue between themselves, till the forces of communalism will have exhausted themselves and left the field clear for broad-visioned nationalism.

Of the three courses the last one seems the least promising. It is bound to be a prolonged and vexatious process; and the chances are that it will turn into a blood-spilling civil strife, sowing seeds of bitterness and hate to grow and last for many generations.

The second course, namely, the hegemony of the Muslim League, may not commend itself to many sections of the public including several Muslim groups. But if the first course mentioned above is not feasible, this seems undoubtedly the next best. It is in any case much better than the course suggested by Mr. Rajagopalacharya. It is more straightforward and more likely to win confidence. Mahatma Gandhi has expressed himself as willing to place a blank cheque in the hands of the Mussalmans. If an agreed course of united action for all parties is found impracticable, this blank cheque offer has the merit of showing complete trust in the good faith of Mussalmans and entrusting the interests and rights of others to their sense of honour and justice. And it should once for all put an end to all talk of separate ‘stans’. But even if the Congress were to adopt such a course, it is exceedingly doubtful whether the other parties in the country such as the Hindu Mahasabha, the Sikhs, etc., will agree to come into line. If the Congress and other important organizations will not adopt this line nor try the first line of joint all-party action, then they will have only let the country drift towards a fight to the finish between the communalist parties.

VII

Thus the first line of policy seems to deserve the best consideration. The initial move towards it is best made by the Congress as our premier political organization. The Congress should invite to a conference all political organizations which accept the two-fold ideal of Unity and Independence, including in the latter ideal the concept of Dominion-hood in the British Commonwealth with power and status equal to England’s. The purpose of the conference would be to consider the communal issue–that one issue chiefly, but in every detail and in all its bearings upon national politics. Afterwards, with the communal issue no longer an obstacle, a united demand may be presented to England on lines generally assented to. The Liberal Party, the Non-Party Conference, the Swarajist Party, the Hindu Mahasabha, the organizations of the Momins, the Ahrars, the Azad Mussalman’s and others, the Justice Party, the several Harijan organizations, the organizations of Indian Christians, of Sikhs, and of the Parsis, the organizations of Anglo-Indians and of Domiciled Europeans, those indeed of every section or group of people who own India as their homeland, should be asked to participate in the conference through their representatives. The Muslim League too should be invited to join.

A preliminary committee of representatives of those organizations that readily express their willingness to join in the move should tentatively decide questions like these:- to which other organizations invitations should be extended; which organizations offering co-operation of their own accord should be welcomed; what the principles and methods of representation for the various organizations at the conference should be; who should be chosen to preside; what the business procedure should be at the initial stages; what the provisional agenda; and such other preliminary questions. The decisions of this committee would naturally be meant to facilitate the making of just a beginning, and therefore be subject to revision by the plenary sessions of the conference. The conference would naturally have to work for two weeks or three and largely through sub-committees. If those who form the conference pledge themselves not to leave the conference before agreement is reached, and not to break away from the conference in a mood of peevishness or pessimism, it is not too much to hope that a settlement will be reached, which, if it cannot, be universally satisfying and likely to last for all time, may at least be taken as an initial basis for inter-communal good relations in independent India,–a basis to be, revised and made better from time to time through instruments agreed upon and forming part of the constitutional machinery of the country.

It is quite possible that the Muslim League may not agree to participate in such a conference or to accept its decisions. In that event, the League will stand clearly isolated. The conference will have effectively demonstrated the measure of the hold of nationalism upon the country and the comparative negligibility of pro-Pakistan opinion. That will be an impressive answer to the Ameries and the Halifaxes; and if there is anything like world public opinion to be counted (as there is said to be in America and elsewhere), the significance of the conference cannot be lost upon it. In the creation of such a United National Front lies the one hope of a real solution of India’s political deadlock. That will give solidarity to the forces of progress and weaken those who are wedded to the ideology of a theocratic State and a religious ridden nationality. After all, as is commonly admitted, our best weapon is in the consolidation of our own inner strength. Independence for India is as good as won when once the ideas of basing the State and its citizenship on religion and caste are rooted out from the minds of our people, and they are won over for the ideal of free and equal citizenship in a national and cosmopolitan society living harmoniously as a unit in the world-family of nations.

VIII

Mr. Rajagopalacharya is a far-seeing thinker and shrewd judge. He has a firm hold of principle and is not the kind of man that places the advantage of the hour above the larger and lasting interests of the country. Why then does he think of surrendering, even in theory and even in a conditional and roundabout manner, a principle which he has upheld all his life and is even now not good to sacrifice? One can understand the change in him only in the light of two circumstances acting in combination. The first is the threat of invasion by Japan, and the second is the sense of the utter inadequacy of the policy of political inaction which has come to reign in our national institution. Khadi, Hindi, Harijan uplift, Liquor Prohibition – all these have their uses, but not against Japan. Some form of direct political action is called for, and this is the point of Mr. Rajagopalacharya’s move. It is no small gain to national politics that a man of Mr. Rajagopalacharya’s record of self-sacrifice and of ability in parliamentary management and public administration has been converted from acquiescence in mystical negativism to an attitude of positive activism. Non-violence and non-cooperation undoubtedly have their occasions in human affairs. But there are other occasions also. No single formula can be great enough to suffice for all sorts of occasions that inevitably arise in the life of the world. Mr. Rajagopalacharya has come to perceive, during the last year or two, the need that there is for a realistic political programme.

One cannot help reflecting, while one thinks of this matter, what the course of Indian history might have been if a realistic outlook had prevailed in Congress politics five years ago, or at least three years, ago. If the Federation part of the 1935 Act had not been rejected out of hand as it was, the British Government could have found no great excuse to put it by; and if the Congress had got Federation introduced even in that admittedly defective form, we may be sure Pakistan would have found no foot hold today, and even the Princes could have been won over by now in appreciable strength of numbers. And if the Congress had not thrown away power three years ago, Mr. Rajagopalacharya would not have had to engage himself in a barren propaganda of the kind he is now engaged in. With Federation as an accomplished fact in part at least, with the Congress firm in the saddle all these years, and with the power and status offered through Sir Stafford Cripps coming on top of both, the position of India today should have been a gratifying contrast to what it is today. This regret for a might-have-been is also a warning against impulsive or fanatical moves in politics.

The risks of such moves are minimized if the party that is in strength remembers how easily it may grow over-confident and go wrong, and how necessary it is for its own mental health, no less than for the strength of its cause, that it should constantly take counsel with other parties in the country and study the consensus of feeling outside its own ranks. A coalition with other parties wherever possible is way of minimizing error, securing wider sympathy and avoiding antagonisms.

When moving his resolution at the A.I.C.C. (2nd May), Mr. Rajagopalacharya recalled the Hindu mythological story of the churning of the ocean by gods on the one side and by demons on the other, and drew the moral from it that the birth of poison is a prelude to the birth of ambrosia. The metaphor may fittingly be continued. There was then found a Shiva to devour the poison and enable the churners to forget it and go on with their high-spirited enterprise. Men of good will of all communities in India today should act the part of Shiva. It is for them so to speak and act that the passions roused by Mr. Rajagopalacharya’s move may soon fall into oblivion and there may be no longer any schism in the Congress ranks and that its search for ambrosia may go on uninterrupted till it is obtained.

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: