In pursuance of the resolution passed at the last session of the Congress held in Calcutta, this Congress now declares that “Swaraj” in Congress creed means full independence implying thereby complete severance of British connection.

In order to bring about the overthrow of British Imperialism and its Indian Allies and achieve complete independence, this Congress resolves on the one hand to carry on ceaseless campaign in favour of independence with a view to establishing parrallel Government in India and on the other hand launch the campaign of civil disobedience including non-payment of taxes and general strikes wherever and whenever possible.

With a view to give effect to the above two-fold programme, this Congress calls upon the people of the country to undertake at once the task of organising the youths, workers and peasants and other oppressed sections of the Indian people.

In order to ensure concentration on the above programme and in conformity with the new Congress creed, this Congress declares complete boycott of the central and provincial legislatures committees appointed by the Government, local bodies including the institution like Port Trusts and Law courts and calls upon the Congressmen to abstain from participation in future elections upon the present members of the legislatures, committees and local bodies to resign their seats and upon the lawyers to suspend their practices forthwith.

This Congress further authorises the All-India Congress Committee to give effect to the above programme according to the circumstances prevailing in the country and to meet any situation that may arise while executing the above programme.

Moving the resolution Bose said

Before I proceed to lay my case I take this opportunity of conveying my cordial and hearty thanks to Mahaima Gandhi for coming forward to move a resolution which declares Swaraj to mean complete independence. But I move this amendment because I believe that the programme laid down by his resolution is not such as to carry us towards the goal of complete independence. My amendment is consistent with the goal, and in keeping with the spirit of the times. My amendment is a complete, whole and workable programme. I have no doubt it will find favour with the younger generation in this country, it not now at least in the next Congress.

My programme has two distinct parts, constructive as well as destructive. I cannot see how we can reach our goal except by setting up a parallel Government based on the goodwill of the people. The example of the Sinn Feiners of Ireland is a case in point. It is not that I want the people to emulate Ireland in their campaign. But it is to show that the scheme of a parallel government is only a scheme to achieve the object. This is the constructive part of my programme.

I believe if we make the programme virile and fighting we shall succeed in bringing many who are still standing outside. I mean the kisans, workers and youngmen. These sections have economic or social grievances against the Congress and hence they kept out because the Congress ought to remove the grievances, social and economical and be not content with the political ones only. We ought to bring them into our fold and harness their energies and resources. Unless the Congress is able to identify itself with the cause of the oppressed classes, I cannot see how the congress can push forward its political programme.

Mine is a programme of all-round boycott. I do not think it will be of any use taking up one item in the programme of boycott and leaving out others. It will not be consistent with our creed of independence to go and practise in the law courts. It will not be consistent either to enter local bodies, some of which, like the Calcutta Corporation, require the oath of allegiance to be taken. There is another reason why you should give them all up. The task before us is so arduous, and the responsibility on our shoulders is so great, that we shall have to concentrate our whole time and energy on the programme of work. I should like to submit, at this stage, that if you are not prepared to go in for complete boycott, it will be no use your boycotting the Councils only.

Let us be consistent. Let us be for complete boycott or none at all. I am an extremist and my principle is — all or none. If I am to advocate a policy of the capture of public bodies I would like to capture every public body. If we are to boycott at all, why not boycott completely and concentrate our attention and energy on some other programme? Therefore I would earnestly plead for the acceptance of my amendment.

If boycott is to be made useful, intelligible and effective, a wholesale boycott programme will have to be taken up before we achieve our object. I cannot see the utility of partial boycott. In politics some times it is necessary to bow down to exigencies of circumstances as the Sinn Feiners did and entered parliament after taking the oath of allegiance. And so was the case of the Communists sitting there. From a practical point of view I believe, it is not inconsistent to go to the local bodies with the creed of independence. But I want to say that I am of opinion that complete boycott is essential at this stage. I know public opinion in India today requires it.

You know that when the treaty was drawn up between Britain and South Africa, the conclusions reached at the conference of both the parties were regarded as sacred by both. I know for a fact that in the case of the South African constitution drawn up at the conference, in spite of its grammatical errors, it had to be ratified by the British Government, and the British Parliament could not even correct those grammatical errors. That is what a round table conference means. What is the character of the conference that has been offered to India? The Simon Commission and its paraphernalia are to be there, and the conclusions of the conference are to go before the Parliament It is not merely the people of India that should send representatives to the conference but the European Chambers of Commerce and the Ruling Chiefs. Is there a fight between the British Government, on the one hand, and the European Chambers and Ruling Chiefs on the other? Is there any fight proceeding between Government and the loyalists? I know of no such fight When there are these bodies to send in their representatives to the conference, I say it is not a round table conference. But, unfortunately, people in this country insist on calling it so and the Britishers are equally insistent on not calling it a round table conference.

One argument more and I have done. The resolution refers to the constructive programme as the method whereby we have to achieve the political emancipation of India. I would like the House to consider whether the constructive programme, which the Congress has been pursuing for the last few years, is something which is sufficient to enable us to reach the goal of complete independence. No doubt there is a reference to civil disobedience in the resolution. But I submit that the civil disobedience will never come until we can organize the workers and peasants and depressed classes on their specific grievances. If my programme is adopted, it will be sufficiently effective for us to march on the road to independence.

Last year at the Calcutta Congress we wanted the creed to be changed to that of Independence. It was put off. I think we have waited one year. I would beg of you to consider what you have gained by not changing the creed. One year is wasted. If this amendment is not accepted, God willing, it will be accepted in the near future, probably next year.

Mahatma Gandhi's resolution will not find favour with the youth of the country. I appeal to the supporters of the resolution to note the altered circumstances and feelings of the people, particularly the younger generation, and accept my motion. Once again before I resume my seat I thank Mahatma Gandhi for bringing forward this goal before the country.

.