we shall be able to do the negative work that will have
to be done for the attainment of _Swaraj_. Positive work
will have to be done. Without positive training no self-government
will come to the boycotter. It will (come)
through the organization of our village life; of
our talukas and districts. Let our programme
include the setting up of machinery for popular administration,
and running parallel to, but independent of, the existing
administration of the Government.... In the Providence
of God we shall then be made rulers over many things.
This is our programme.

But Mr. Pal himself admits that even if this programme can be fulfilled,
this _Swaraj_, this absolute self-rule which he asks for, is
fundamentally incompatible with the maintenance of the British
connexion.

Is really self-government within the Empire a practicable
ideal? What would it mean? It would mean either no
real self-government for us or no real overlordship for England.
Would we be satisfied with the shadow of self-government?
If not, would England be satisfied with the shadow of overlordship?
In either case England would not be satisfied
with a shadowy overlordship, and we refuse to be satisfied
with a shadowy self-government. And therefore no compromise
is possible under such conditions between self-government
in India and the overlordship of England. If self-government
is conceded to us, what would be England's
position not only in India, but in the British Empire itself?
Self-government means the right of self-taxation; it means