Sri Aurobindo
Karmayogin
Political Writings and Speeches — 1909-1910
Karmayogin: A Weekly Review
Saturday 27th November 1909 —No.21
Facts and Opinions
The Bomb Case and Anglo-India
The comments of the Anglo-Indian papers on the result of the appeal in the Alipur case are neither particularly edifying nor do they tend to remove the impression shared by us with many thoughtful Englishmen that the imperial race is being seriously demoralised by empire.
From the Englishman we expect nothing better, and in fact we are agreeably surprised at the comparative harmlessness of its triumphant article on the day after the judgment.
Its reference to the nonsense about there being no sedition in India and no party of Revolution leaves our withers unwrung.
We ourselves belong to a party of peaceful revolution, for it is a rapid revolution in the system of Government in India which is the aim of our political efforts, and it is idle to object to us that there have been no peaceful revolutions and cannot be.
History gives the lie to that statement, whether it proceeds from Mr. Gokhale or from Anglo-India.
We have also always admitted that there is a Terrorist party, for bombs are not thrown without hands and men are not shot for political reasons unless there is Terrorism in the background.
All we have contended,— and our contention is not overthrown by the judgment in the Alipur appeal, which merely proves that the conspiracy was not childish, and by no means that it was a big 
or widespread organisation,— is that the attempt of the Anglo-Indian papers to blacken the whole movement, and especially the whole Nationalist party, is either an erroneous or an unscrupulous attempt, and the disposition of the police to arrest every young Swadeshi worker as a rebel and a dacoit is foolish, wrong-headed, often dishonest, and may easily become fatal to the chances of a peaceful solution of the dispute between the Government and the people.
The Englishman, however, represents a lower grade of intellect and refinement to which these considerations are not likely to present themselves.
The average respectable Englishman is better represented by the Statesman, and the one dominating note in the Statesman is that of regret that the Courts had to go through the ordinary procedure of the law and could not effect a swift, dramatic and terror-striking vindication of the inviolability of the British Government.
One would have thought that a nation with the legal and political traditions of the English people would have been glad that the procedure of law had been preserved, the chances of error minimised and the State still safeguarded; and that no ground had been given for a charge of differentiating between a political and an ordinary trial to the prejudice of the accused.
It is evident, however, that the type of Englishman demoralised by empire and absolute power considers that, in political cases, the Law Courts should not occupy themselves with finding out the truth, but be used as a political instrument for vengeance and striking terror into political opponents.