The Indian National Congress represents a movement which has sprung from the soil of India. It is the political organ of the Indian people and embodies their hopes, aspirations and ideals. It is an organization which has unlimited potentialities of growth and development-potentialities which are as limitless as those of the Indian nation itself. The growth and development of the Congress has taken place as the result of an inner urge which is primarily responsible for the birth of the Forward Bloc. Neither personal factors not accidental circumstances can account for this new phenomenon in Indian politics. The Forward Bloc has appeared because the Congress must enter on a new phase in its evolutionary process.

Now, how does this growth and development of the Congress take place? What is the law underlying it? Several theories may be put forward by way of explanation, but the one that appeals to me most and which in my view approximates to reality more than any other - is the Hegelian Dialectic. Progress is neither unilinear, nor is it always peaceful in character. Progress often takes place through conflict.

Out of the conflict between 'thesis' and 'antithesis', 'synthesis' is born. This 'synthesis' in its turn becomes the 'thesis' of next phase of evolution. This 'thesis' throws up an 'antithesis' and the conflict is resolved by a further 'synthesis'. Thus the wheels of progress move on and on.

Those who in season and out of season talk of unity and appeal for unity under all circumstances and at any price, lose sight of the fundamental law of evolution. We have to distinguish between real unity and false unity - between the unity of action and unity of inaction- between the unity which makes for progress and the unity which brings stagnation. Today the slogan of 'unity at any price and under all circumstances' is a convenient slogan in the mouths of those who have lost dynamism and revolutionary urge. Let us not be led astray by its fascinating appeals.

In every movement that is living or dynamic, there is a latent Left - a latent 'antithesis', if you will. This latent Left Wing becomes manifest in the fullness of time and through it, further growth and development takes place. To determine how best the Left Wing could be nurtured under a given set of circumstances requires political, and sometimes philosophical, insight. It often happens that through compromise and co-operation with the Right Wing, the Left Wing gathers strength and extends its influence. In a different set of circumstances, this may not prove possible. It may then be necessary for the Left Wing to expand its strength and following. In such circumstances, a sharp conflict, though painful for the time being, may in reality be conducive to progress and be, in fact, unavoidable. Organizational development invariably necessitates the appearance and growth of a Left Wing. Through co-operation with the Right or through conflict with it, the Left must continue to grow till it succeeds in capturing the organization or in winning the Right over to its side. When this is achieved and the possibilities of the Left Wing (now the majority party) are exhausted, history must repeat itself and a new Left Wing must emerge and ultimately oust the Left Wingers of yesterday. The Gandhites of 1920 were the Left Wing in the Congress, but it does not follow there from that they are the Left Wing today. The Leftists of yesterday often, if not always, become the Rightists of tomorrow. To say that there should be no differentiation between Right and Left within the Congress of today and to argue that this Congress as a whole is Left - is talking arrant nonsense. It is time we face facts - however unpleasant they may be.

Between 1936 and 1938 the Left Wing of the Congress has grown and developed as a result of co-operation with the Right. In September, 1938, the cry was first raised on behalf of the Right that co-operation with the Left was no longer possible and that the Left was becoming too noisy and troublesome to collaborate with. This new cry ultimately reached climax in 1939, when the Right Wing deliberately decided to end co-operation with the Left. What else is the deeper significance of the present-day insistence of the Rightists on a homogeneous Cabinet or Working Committee? For three years they could cooperate with the Left, but they cannot do so any more. Why? Because the Right Wing can no longer view with equanimity the growing strength of the Left in the Congress.

When the All India Congress Committee met in Calcutta on the 29th April, 1939, to settle this problem of the new Cabinet or Working Committee it was found that the Left wanted to co-operate with the Right and their slogan was that of a composite or mixed Cabinet. The Right, however, were not prepared to co-operate with the Left and their slogan was that of a homogeneous Cabinet. Consequently, it was the Rightists who ended compromise, co-operation and unity. The Right Wing today wants nothing less than complete surrender on the part of the Left. Should the Left agree to it on the score of unity? If they do so, what would the consequences be? Would we thereby lubricate the wheels of progress or would we buttress reaction within our ranks?

The Right Wing having refused co-operation with the Leftists would be justified in surrendering to them on the plea of unity, only if the Right Wing still had a dynamic role to pay. But it is unfortunately clear from the correspondence I had with Mahatma Gandhi in March and April last that he no longer thinks in terms of a coming struggle. The Ministers and their guides who now dominate the Congress do not contemplate a struggle either. To surrender to the Right under such circumstances and preserve the external façade of unity would in reality amount to perpetuating stagnation and reaction within the Congress. We cannot do so. We should not do so.

The time has therefore come for the Left Wing to differentiate itself from the Right and proceed to consolidate itself. When this is done, the Left will secure a majority within the Congress and then proceed to resume the struggle for independence in the name of the Indian National Congress. This is the task of the Left Wing today. To fulfill this task the Forward Bloc has come into existence.

It was open to the existing Leftist parties to accept this role of Left consolidation, but for some reason or other, they did not do so. Last year, when the proposal to form a left Bloc was being discussed by Left Wing Congressmen - it looked as if the Left Wing parties would accept this idea and try to put it into effect. But later on, they changed their mind. It then became indispensably necessary to inaugurate the Forward Bloc with the help of fresh elements from the Left. The Forward Bloc is therefore not only the creature of an inner urge within the Congress, but it is also the product of historical necessity. Moreover, the circumstances of the present day warrant its emergence. Having been born in this manner and under such circumstances, the Forward Bloc cannot die. It is an inevitable phenomenon in our political evolution. It has come to stay and it will grow from strength to strength as the days roll by. Let those who doubt the truth of what I say have patience and watch the future history of the Congress and of the Forward Bloc.