to ask him to preside over a public meeting. Now, Brahmabandhab used often to pour on the devoted head of Surendranath the vials of his abusive wrath in Sandhya in choice colloquial Bengali. So Surendranath replied “Bhabani (that was the name of Brahmabandhab before he had become a Sannyasin), how is it that you revile me and at the same time come to ask me to preside at a meeting?” Brahmabandhav replied, “Sir, who else there is in Bengal whom it is worthwhile to abuse, and who else there is who is fit to take the chair at the meeting we are going to hold?” The conversation was of course, in Bengali and more terse, Surendranath smiled and at once agreed to preside.
In fact, for a long series of years, no political or semi-political cause could obtain public attention in Bengal unless Surendranath took it up.
He did not belong to the school of Extremists or of Revolutionaries. But though he would not countenance their activities overtly or covertly, he never hesitated to help them in any way he could when they were in destitution or distress.
Throughout his career he was for constitutional agitation. But this phrase must be understood in a large sense in his case. Constitutional agitation, as practised by him, sometimes went beyond merely making representations, arguing and passing resolutions, etc. When he and the two dozen or more members of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation resigned their membership by way of protest, it was not mere constitutional agitation in the narrow sense. When in the days of the Bengal partition agitation boycott of British goods was adopted as a weapon by him and his colleagues and followers, it was not mere constitutional agitation in the narrow sense. When the Bengali delegates marched in procession, uttering the Bande Mataram cry, to the Barisal Provincial Conference Pandal, in defiance of the orders of Mr. Magistrate Emerson, and when in consequence the conference was broken up by the police by force and Surendranath had to appear before Mr. Emerson, that was not constitutional agitation in the narrow sense. In fact, Surendranath was not at all a Ahimsaist or votary of non-violence on principle; an ardent and sincere admirer of Mazzini, Garibaldi and Cavour, one who spoke inspiringly on the example set by these makers of United Italy, could not possibly have made a religion of non-violence, or of constitutional agitation, for that matter, in a narrow sense. At Bombay in the year when Sir Henry Cotton presided over the Indian National Congress, the present writer heard in a delegates’ tent words from Surendranath’s lips in private conversation and saw a gesture made by him which went to prove that he was not an opponent of a war of independence under any or all circumstances. He was for a peaceful solution of India’s political problem, because in his opinion in the circumstances in which India has been placed no other solution is practicable. That is our inference, which binds nobody else.
He was at the height of his power and popularity when he was sent to jail for contempt of court. The scenes of popular enthusiasm which the precincts of the High Court saw during his trial and which the area before the gate of the old Presidency Jail and his residence saw on the morning of his release from jail, will remain ever memorable in the annals of political agitation in Bengal. On the day of the trial Kumar Indra Chandra Sinha of Paikpara was present at the court room with a full purse prepared to pay any fine, however large, which might be inflicted on the people’s hero. But no fine was imposed. It may be mentioned here that in more recent years propertied people have ceased to show their sympathy for political sufferers in this open manner.
Surendranath was ever an optimist. He believed the people would be able to unsettle the “settled fact” of the partition of Bengal, and he was right.
There is a limit to the growth and adaptibility of every individual’s personality. Therefore the fact that Surendranath could not march with the times to the end of his days, does not detract from the work and achievement of his life. In fact, the most prominent members of the political parties opposed to his, have admitted, what is true, that they were only building on the foundations laid by Surendranath. Names need not be mentioned; but it is abundantly clear to-day that some persons joined the Non-cooperation movement either because they were carried away by the excitement of the moment or because they wanted not to lose their popularity. Some have toyed with Non-cooperation for the latter reason. That Surendranath did neither shows a certain steadfastness of principle. That he accepted a ministership
