|
Introduction
to
Dreamland
He
discusses
philosophy
in
the
beginning.
This
philosophy
is
the
backbone
of
all
the
revolutionary
movement
of
Bengal
as
well
as of
the
Punjab.
I
differ
from
him
on
this
point
very
widely.
His
interpretation
of
the
universe
is
teleological
and
metaphysical,
which
I am
a
materialist
and
my
interpretation
of
the
phenomenon
would
be
causal.
Nevertheless,
it is
by no
means
out
of
place
or
out
of
date.
The
general
ideal
that
are
prevailing
in
our
country,
are
more
in
accordance
with
those
expressed
by
him.
To
fight
that
depressing
mood
he
resorted
to
prayers
as is
evident
that
the
whole
of
the
beginning
of
the
book
is
devoted
to
God,
His
praise,
His
definition.
Belief
in
God
is
the
outcome
of
mysticism
which
is
the
natural
consequence
of
depression.
That
this
world
is
'Maya'
or
Mithya',
a
dream
or a
fiction,
is
clear
mysticism
which
has
been
originated
and
developed
by
Hindu
sages
of
old
ages,
such
as
Shankaracharya
and
others.
But
in
the
materialist
philosophy
this
mode
of
thinking
has
got
absolutely
no
place.
But
this
mysticism
of
the
thinking
has
got
absolutely
no
place.
But
this
mysticism
of
the
author
is by
no
means
ignoble
or
deplorable.
It
has
its
own
of
them
are
doing
very
productive
labour.
The
only
difference
that
the
socialist
society
expects
is
that
the
mental
workers
shall
no
longer
be
regarded
superior
to
the
manual
workers
shall
no
longer
be
regarded
superior
to
the
manual
workers.
L.
Ram
Saran
Das's
idea
about
free
education
is
really
worth
considering,
and
the
socialist
government
has
adopted
somewhat
the
same
course
in
Russia.
His
discussion
about
crime
is
really
the
most
advanced
school
of
thought.
Crime
is
the
most
serious
social
problem
which
needs
a
very
tactful
treatment.
He
has
been
in
jail
for
the
better
part
of
his
life.
He
has
got
the
practical
experience.
At
one
place
he
employs
the
typical
jail
terms,
'the
light
labour,
the
medium
labour
and
the
hard
labour',
etc.
Like
all
other
socialists
he
suggests
that,
instead
of
retribution,
i.e.,
retaliation
the
reformative
theory
should
form
the
basis
of
punishment.
Not
to
punish
but
to
reclaim
should
be
the
guiding
principle
of
the
administration
of
justice.
Jails
should
be
reformatories
and
not
veritable
hells.
In
this
connection
the
readers
should
study
the
Russian
prison
system.
While
dealing
with
militia
he
discusses
war
as
well.
In my
opinion
war
as an
institution
shall
only
occupy
a few
pages
in
the
Encyclopaedia
then,
and
war
materials
shall
adorn
the
no
conflicting
or
diverse
interests
that
cause
war.
At
the
utmost
we
can
say
that
war
shall
have
to be
retained
as an
institution
for
the
transitional
period.
We
can
easily
understand
if we
take
the
example
of
the
present-day
Russia.
There
is
the
dictatorship
of
the
proletariat
at
present.
They
want
to
establish
a
socialist
society.
Meanwhile
they
have
to
maintain
an
army
to
defend
themselves
against
the
capitalist
society.
But
the
war-aims
would
be
different.
Imperialist
designs
shall
no
more
actuate
our
dreamland
people
to
wage
wars.
There
shall
be no
more
war
trophies.
The
revolutionary
armies
shall
march
to
other
lands
not
to
rulers
down
from
their
thrones
and
stop
their
blood-sucking
exploitation
and
thus
to
liberate
the
toiling
masses.
But,
there
shall
not
be
the
primitive
national
or
racial
hatred
to
goad
our
men
to
fight.
World-federation
is
the
most
popular
and
immediate
object
of
all
the
free
thinking
people,
and
the
author
has
well
dilated
on
the
subject,
and
his
criticism
of
the
so-called
League
of
Nations
is
beautiful.
In
a
footnote
under
stanza
571
(572)
the
author
touches,
though
briefly,
the
question
of
methods.
He
says:
"Such
a
kingdom
cannot
be
brought
about
by
physical
violent
revolutions.
It
cannot
be
forced
upon
society
from
without.
It
must
grow
from
within.
. . .
This
can
be
brought
about
by
the
gradual
process
of
Evolution,
by
educating
the
masses
on
the
lines
mentioned
above",
etc.
This
statement
does
not
in
itself
contain
any
discrepancy.
It is
quite
correct,
but
having
not
been
fully
explained,
is
liable
to
crate
some
misunderstanding,
or
worse
still,
a
confusion.
Does
it
mean
that
L.
Ram
Saran
Das
has
realised
the
futility
of
the
cult
of
force?
Has
he
become
an
orthodox
believer
in
non-violence?
No,
it
does
not
mean
that.
Let
me
explain
what
the
above
quoted
statement
amounts
to.
The
revolutionaries
know
better
than
anybody
else
that
the
socialist
society
cannot
be
brought
about
by
violent
means,
but
that
it
should
grow
and
evolve
from
whitin.
The
author
suggests
education
as
the
only
weapon
to be
employed.
But,
everybody
can
easily
realise
that
the
present
government
here,
or,
as a
matter
of
fact,
all
the
capitalist
governments
are
not
only
not
going
to
help
any
such
effort,
but
on
the
contrary,
suppress
it
mercilessly.
Then,
what
will
his
'evolution'
achieve?
We
the
revolutionaries
are
striving
to
capture
power
in
our
hands
and
to
organize
a
revolutionary
government
which
should
employ
all
its
resources
for
mass
education,
as is
being
done
in
Russia
today.
After
capturing
power,
peaceful
methods
shall
be
employed
for
constructive
work,
force
shall
be
employed
to
crush
the
obstacles.
If
that
is
what
the
author
means,
then
we
are
at
one.
And I
am
confidant
that
it is
exactly
this
what
he
means.
I
have
discussed
the
book
at
great
length.
I
have
rather
criticised
it.
But,
I am
not
going
to
ask
any
alteration
in
it,
because
this
has
got
its
historical
value.
These
were
the
ideas
of
1914-15
revolutionaries.
I
strongly
recommend
this
book
to
young
men
in
particular,
but
with
a
warning.
Please
do
not
read
it to
follow
blindly
and
take
for
granted
what
is
written
in
it.
Read
it,
criticise
it,
think
over
it,
try
to
formulate
your
own
ideas
with
its
help.
|
