1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
2705
2706
2707
2708
2709
2710
2711
2712
2713
2714
2715
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
2722
2723
2724
2725
2726
2727
2728
2729
2730
2731
2732
2733
2734
2735
2736
2737
2738
2739
2740
2741
2742
2743
2744
2745
2746
2747
2748
2749
2750
2751
2752
2753
2754
2755
2756
2757
2758
2759
2760
2761
2762
2763
2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769
2770
2771
2772
2773
2774
2775
2776
2777
2778
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
2786
2787
2788
2789
2790
2791
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
2804
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
2810
2811
2812
2813
2814
2815
2816
2817
2818
2819
2820
2821
2822
2823
2824
2825
2826
2827
2828
2829
2830
2831
2832
2833
2834
2835
2836
2837
2838
2839
2840
2841
2842
2843
2844
2845
2846
2847
2848
2849
2850
2851
2852
2853
2854
2855
2856
2857
2858
2859
2860
2861
2862
2863
2864
2865
2866
2867
2868
2869
2870
2871
2872
2873
2874
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879
2880
2881
2882
2883
2884
2885
2886
2887
2888
2889
2890
2891
2892
2893
2894
2895
2896
2897
2898
2899
2900
2901
2902
2903
2904
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2916
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930
2931
2932
2933
2934
2935
2936
2937
2938
2939
2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
2945
2946
2947
2948
2949
2950
2951
2952
2953
2954
2955
2956
2957
2958
2959
2960
2961
2962
2963
2964
2965
2966
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2973
2974
2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
2980
2981
2982
2983
2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989
2990
2991
2992
2993
2994
2995
2996
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008
3009
3010
3011
3012
3013
3014
3015
3016
3017
3018
3019
3020
3021
3022
3023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037
3038
3039
3040
3041
3042
3043
3044
3045
3046
3047
3048
3049
3050
3051
3052
3053
3054
3055
3056
3057
3058
3059
3060
3061
3062
3063
3064
3065
3066
3067
3068
3069
3070
3071
3072
3073
3074
3075
3076
3077
3078
3079
3080
3081
3082
3083
3084
3085
3086
3087
3088
3089
3090
3091
3092
3093
3094
3095
3096
3097
3098
3099
3100
3101
3102
3103
3104
3105
3106
3107
3108
3109
3110
3111
3112
3113
3114
3115
3116
3117
3118
3119
3120
3121
3122
3123
3124
3125
3126
3127
3128
3129
3130
3131
3132
3133
3134
3135
3136
3137
3138
3139
3140
3141
3142
3143
3144
3145
3146
3147
3148
3149
3150
3151
3152
3153
3154
3155
3156
3157
3158
3159
3160
3161
3162
3163
3164
3165
3166
3167
3168
3169
3170
3171
3172
3173
3174
3175
3176
3177
3178
3179
3180
3181
3182
3183
3184
3185
3186
3187
3188
3189
3190
3191
3192
3193
3194
3195
3196
3197
3198
3199
3200
3201
3202
3203
3204
3205
3206
3207
3208
3209
3210
3211
3212
3213
3214
3215
3216
3217
3218
3219
3220
3221
3222
3223
3224
3225
3226
3227
3228
3229
3230
3231
3232
3233
3234
3235
3236
3237
3238
3239
3240
3241
3242
3243
3244
3245
3246
3247
3248
3249
3250
3251
3252
3253
3254
3255
3256
3257
3258
3259
3260
3261
3262
3263
3264
3265
3266
3267
3268
3269
3270
3271
3272
3273
3274
3275
3276
3277
3278
3279
3280
3281
3282
3283
3284
3285
3286
3287
3288
3289
3290
3291
3292
3293
3294
3295
3296
3297
3298
3299
3300
3301
3302
3303
3304
3305
3306
3307
3308
3309
3310
3311
3312
3313
3314
3315
3316
3317
3318
3319
3320
3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3328
3329
3330
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
3338
3339
3340
3341
3342
3343
3344
3345
3346
3347
3348
3349
3350
3351
3352
3353
3354
3355
3356
3357
3358
3359
3360
3361
3362
3363
3364
3365
3366
3367
3368
3369
3370
3371
3372
3373
3374
3375
3376
3377
3378
3379
3380
3381
3382
3383
3384
3385
3386
3387
3388
3389
3390
3391
3392
3393
3394
3395
3396
3397
3398
3399
3400
3401
3402
3403
3404
3405
3406
3407
3408
3409
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
3417
3418
3419
3420
3421
3422
3423
3424
3425
3426
3427
3428
3429
3430
3431
3432
3433
3434
3435
3436
3437
3438
3439
3440
3441
3442
3443
3444
3445
3446
3447
3448
3449
3450
3451
3452
3453
3454
3455
3456
3457
3458
3459
3460
3461
3462
3463
3464
3465
3466
3467
3468
3469
3470
3471
3472
3473
3474
3475
3476
3477
3478
3479
3480
3481
3482
3483
3484
3485
3486
3487
3488
3489
3490
3491
3492
3493
3494
3495
3496
3497
3498
3499
3500
3501
3502
3503
3504
3505
3506
3507
3508
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
3514
3515
3516
3517
3518
3519
3520
3521
3522
3523
3524
3525
3526
3527
3528
3529
3530
3531
3532
3533
3534
3535
3536
3537
3538
3539
3540
3541
3542
3543
3544
3545
3546
3547
3548
3549
3550
3551
3552
3553
3554
3555
3556
3557
3558
3559
3560
3561
3562
3563
3564
3565
3566
3567
3568
3569
3570
3571
3572
3573
3574
3575
3576
3577
3578
3579
3580
3581
3582
3583
3584
3585
3586
3587
3588
3589
3590
3591
3592
3593
3594
3595
3596
3597
3598
3599
3600
3601
3602
3603
3604
3605
3606
3607
3608
3609
3610
3611
3612
3613
3614
3615
3616
3617
3618
3619
3620
3621
3622
3623
3624
3625
3626
3627
3628
3629
3630
3631
3632
3633
3634
3635
3636
3637
3638
3639
3640
3641
3642
3643
3644
3645
3646
3647
3648
3649
3650
3651
3652
3653
3654
3655
3656
3657
3658
3659
3660
3661
3662
3663
3664
3665
3666
3667
3668
3669
3670
3671
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
3680
3681
3682
3683
3684
3685
3686
3687
3688
3689
3690
3691
3692
3693
3694
3695
3696
3697
3698
3699
3700
3701
3702
3703
3704
3705
3706
3707
3708
3709
3710
3711
3712
3713
3714
3715
3716
3717
3718
3719
3720
3721
3722
3723
3724
3725
3726
3727
3728
3729
3730
3731
3732
3733
3734
3735
3736
3737
3738
3739
3740
3741
3742
3743
3744
3745
3746
3747
3748
3749
3750
3751
3752
3753
3754
3755
3756
3757
3758
3759
3760
3761
3762
3763
3764
3765
3766
3767
3768
3769
3770
3771
3772
3773
3774
3775
3776
3777
3778
3779
3780
3781
3782
3783
3784
3785
3786
3787
3788
3789
3790
3791
3792
3793
3794
3795
3796
3797
3798
3799
3800
3801
3802
3803
3804
3805
3806
3807
3808
3809
3810
3811
3812
3813
3814
3815
3816
3817
3818
3819
3820
3821
3822
3823
3824
3825
3826
3827
3828
3829
3830
3831
3832
3833
3834
3835
3836
3837
3838
3839
3840
3841
3842
3843
3844
3845
3846
3847
3848
3849
3850
3851
3852
3853
3854
3855
3856
3857
3858
3859
3860
3861
3862
3863
3864
3865
3866
3867
3868
3869
3870
3871
3872
3873
3874
3875
3876
3877
3878
3879
3880
3881
3882
3883
3884
3885
3886
3887
3888
3889
3890
3891
3892
3893
3894
3895
3896
3897
3898
3899
3900
3901
3902
3903
3904
3905
3906
3907
3908
3909
3910
3911
3912
3913
3914
3915
3916
3917
3918
3919
3920
3921
3922
3923
3924
3925
3926
3927
3928
3929
3930
3931
3932
3933
3934
3935
3936
3937
3938
3939
3940
3941
3942
3943
3944
3945
3946
3947
3948
3949
3950
3951
3952
3953
3954
3955
3956
3957
3958
3959
3960
3961
3962
3963
3964
3965
3966
3967
3968
3969
3970
3971
3972
3973
3974
3975
3976
3977
3978
3979
3980
3981
3982
3983
3984
3985
3986
3987
3988
3989
3990
3991
3992
3993
3994
3995
3996
3997
3998
3999
4000
4001
4002
4003
4004
4005
4006
4007
4008
4009
4010
4011
4012
4013
4014
4015
4016
4017
4018
4019
4020
4021
4022
4023
4024
4025
4026
4027
4028
4029
4030
4031
4032
4033
4034
4035
4036
4037
4038
4039
4040
4041
4042
4043
4044
4045
4046
4047
4048
4049
4050
4051
4052
4053
4054
4055
4056
4057
4058
4059
4060
4061
4062
4063
4064
4065
4066
4067
4068
4069
4070
4071
4072
4073
4074
4075
4076
4077
4078
4079
4080
4081
4082
4083
4084
4085
4086
4087
4088
4089
4090
4091
4092
4093
4094
4095
4096
4097
4098
4099
4100
4101
4102
4103
4104
4105
4106
4107
4108
4109
4110
4111
4112
4113
4114
4115
4116
4117
4118
4119
4120
4121
4122
4123
4124
4125
4126
4127
4128
4129
4130
4131
4132
4133
4134
4135
4136
4137
4138
4139
4140
4141
4142
4143
4144
4145
4146
4147
4148
4149
4150
4151
4152
4153
4154
4155
4156
4157
4158
4159
4160
4161
4162
4163
4164
4165
4166
4167
4168
4169
4170
4171
4172
4173
4174
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
4180
4181
4182
4183
4184
4185
4186
4187
4188
4189
4190
4191
4192
4193
4194
4195
4196
4197
4198
4199
4200
4201
4202
4203
4204
4205
4206
4207
4208
4209
4210
4211
4212
4213
4214
4215
4216
4217
4218
4219
4220
4221
4222
4223
4224
4225
4226
4227
4228
4229
4230
4231
4232
4233
4234
4235
4236
4237
4238
4239
4240
4241
4242
4243
4244
4245
4246
4247
4248
4249
4250
4251
4252
4253
4254
4255
4256
4257
4258
4259
4260
4261
4262
4263
4264
4265
4266
4267
4268
4269
4270
4271
4272
4273
4274
4275
4276
4277
4278
4279
4280
4281
4282
4283
4284
4285
4286
4287
4288
4289
4290
4291
4292
4293
4294
4295
4296
4297
4298
4299
4300
4301
4302
4303
4304
4305
4306
4307
4308
4309
4310
4311
4312
4313
4314
4315
4316
4317
4318
4319
4320
4321
4322
4323
4324
4325
4326
4327
4328
4329
4330
4331
4332
4333
4334
4335
4336
4337
4338
4339
4340
4341
4342
4343
4344
4345
4346
4347
4348
4349
4350
4351
4352
4353
4354
4355
4356
4357
4358
4359
4360
4361
4362
4363
4364
4365
4366
4367
4368
4369
4370
4371
4372
4373
4374
4375
4376
4377
4378
4379
4380
4381
4382
4383
4384
4385
4386
4387
4388
4389
4390
4391
4392
4393
4394
4395
4396
4397
4398
4399
4400
4401
4402
4403
4404
4405
4406
4407
4408
4409
4410
4411
4412
4413
4414
4415
4416
4417
4418
4419
4420
4421
4422
4423
4424
4425
4426
4427
4428
4429
4430
4431
4432
4433
4434
4435
4436
4437
4438
4439
4440
4441
4442
4443
4444
4445
4446
4447
4448
4449
4450
4451
4452
4453
4454
4455
4456
4457
4458
4459
4460
4461
4462
4463
4464
4465
4466
4467
4468
4469
4470
4471
4472
4473
4474
4475
4476
4477
4478
4479
4480
4481
4482
4483
4484
4485
4486
4487
4488
4489
4490
4491
4492
4493
4494
4495
4496
4497
4498
4499
4500
4501
4502
4503
4504
4505
4506
4507
4508
4509
4510
4511
4512
4513
4514
4515
4516
4517
4518
4519
4520
4521
4522
4523
4524
4525
4526
4527
4528
4529
4530
4531
4532
4533
4534
4535
4536
4537
4538
4539
4540
4541
4542
4543
4544
4545
4546
4547
4548
4549
4550
4551
4552
4553
4554
4555
4556
4557
4558
4559
4560
4561
4562
4563
4564
4565
4566
4567
4568
4569
4570
4571
4572
4573
4574
4575
4576
4577
4578
4579
4580
4581
4582
4583
4584
4585
4586
4587
4588
4589
4590
4591
4592
4593
4594
4595
4596
4597
4598
4599
4600
4601
4602
4603
4604
4605
4606
4607
4608
4609
4610
4611
4612
4613
4614
4615
4616
4617
4618
4619
4620
4621
4622
4623
4624
4625
4626
4627
4628
4629
4630
4631
4632
4633
4634
4635
4636
4637
4638
4639
4640
4641
4642
4643
4644
4645
4646
4647
4648
4649
4650
4651
4652
4653
4654
4655
4656
4657
4658
4659
4660
4661
4662
4663
4664
4665
4666
4667
4668
4669
4670
4671
4672
4673
4674
4675
4676
4677
4678
4679
4680
4681
4682
4683
4684
4685
4686
4687
4688
4689
4690
4691
4692
4693
4694
4695
4696
4697
4698
4699
4700
4701
4702
4703
4704
4705
4706
4707
4708
4709
4710
4711
4712
4713
4714
4715
4716
4717
4718
4719
4720
4721
4722
4723
4724
4725
4726
4727
4728
4729
4730
4731
4732
4733
4734
4735
4736
4737
4738
4739
4740
4741
4742
4743
4744
4745
4746
4747
4748
4749
4750
4751
4752
4753
4754
4755
4756
4757
4758
4759
4760
4761
4762
4763
4764
4765
4766
4767
4768
4769
4770
4771
4772
4773
4774
4775
4776
4777
4778
4779
4780
4781
4782
4783
4784
4785
4786
4787
4788
4789
4790
4791
4792
4793
4794
4795
4796
4797
4798
4799
4800
4801
4802
4803
4804
4805
4806
4807
4808
4809
4810
4811
4812
4813
4814
4815
4816
4817
4818
4819
4820
4821
4822
4823
4824
4825
4826
4827
4828
4829
4830
4831
4832
4833
4834
4835
4836
4837
4838
4839
4840
4841
4842
4843
4844
4845
4846
4847
4848
4849
4850
4851
4852
4853
4854
4855
4856
4857
4858
4859
4860
4861
4862
4863
4864
4865
4866
4867
4868
4869
4870
4871
4872
4873
4874
4875
4876
4877
4878
4879
4880
4881
4882
4883
4884
4885
4886
4887
4888
4889
4890
4891
4892
4893
4894
4895
4896
4897
4898
4899
4900
4901
4902
4903
4904
4905
4906
4907
4908
4909
4910
4911
4912
4913
4914
4915
4916
4917
4918
4919
4920
4921
4922
4923
4924
4925
4926
4927
4928
4929
4930
4931
4932
4933
4934
4935
4936
4937
4938
4939
4940
4941
4942
4943
4944
4945
4946
4947
4948
4949
4950
4951
4952
4953
4954
4955
4956
4957
4958
4959
4960
4961
4962
4963
4964
4965
4966
4967
4968
4969
4970
4971
4972
4973
4974
4975
4976
4977
4978
4979
4980
4981
4982
4983
4984
4985
4986
4987
4988
4989
4990
4991
4992
4993
4994
4995
4996
4997
4998
4999
5000
5001
5002
5003
5004
5005
5006
5007
5008
5009
5010
5011
5012
5013
5014
5015
5016
5017
5018
5019
5020
5021
5022
5023
5024
5025
5026
5027
5028
5029
5030
5031
5032
5033
5034
5035
5036
5037
5038
5039
5040
5041
5042
5043
5044
5045
5046
5047
5048
5049
5050
5051
5052
5053
5054
5055
5056
5057
5058
5059
5060
5061
5062
5063
5064
5065
5066
5067
5068
5069
5070
5071
5072
5073
5074
5075
5076
5077
5078
5079
5080
5081
5082
5083
5084
5085
5086
5087
5088
5089
5090
5091
5092
5093
5094
5095
5096
5097
5098
5099
5100
5101
5102
5103
5104
5105
5106
5107
5108
5109
5110
5111
5112
5113
5114
5115
5116
5117
5118
5119
5120
5121
5122
5123
5124
5125
5126
5127
5128
5129
5130
5131
5132
5133
5134
5135
5136
5137
5138
5139
5140
5141
5142
5143
5144
5145
5146
5147
5148
5149
5150
5151
5152
5153
5154
5155
5156
5157
5158
5159
5160
5161
5162
5163
5164
5165
5166
5167
5168
5169
5170
5171
5172
5173
5174
5175
5176
5177
5178
5179
5180
5181
5182
5183
5184
5185
5186
5187
5188
5189
5190
5191
5192
5193
5194
5195
5196
5197
5198
5199
5200
5201
5202
5203
5204
5205
5206
5207
5208
5209
5210
5211
5212
5213
5214
5215
5216
5217
5218
5219
5220
5221
5222
5223
5224
5225
5226
5227
5228
5229
5230
5231
5232
5233
5234
5235
5236
5237
5238
5239
5240
5241
5242
5243
5244
5245
5246
5247
5248
5249
5250
5251
5252
5253
5254
5255
5256
5257
5258
5259
5260
5261
5262
5263
5264
5265
5266
5267
5268
5269
5270
5271
5272
5273
5274
5275
5276
5277
5278
5279
5280
5281
5282
5283
5284
5285
5286
5287
5288
5289
5290
5291
5292
5293
5294
5295
5296
5297
5298
5299
5300
5301
5302
5303
5304
5305
5306
5307
5308
5309
5310
5311
5312
5313
5314
5315
5316
5317
5318
5319
5320
5321
5322
5323
5324
5325
5326
5327
5328
5329
5330
5331
5332
5333
5334
5335
5336
5337
5338
5339
5340
5341
5342
5343
5344
5345
5346
5347
5348
5349
5350
5351
5352
5353
5354
5355
5356
5357
5358
5359
5360
5361
5362
5363
5364
5365
5366
5367
5368
5369
5370
5371
5372
5373
5374
5375
5376
5377
5378
5379
5380
5381
5382
5383
5384
5385
5386
5387
5388
5389
5390
5391
5392
5393
5394
5395
5396
5397
5398
5399
5400
5401
5402
5403
5404
5405
5406
5407
5408
5409
5410
5411
5412
5413
5414
5415
5416
5417
5418
5419
5420
5421
5422
5423
5424
5425
5426
5427
5428
5429
5430
5431
5432
5433
5434
5435
5436
5437
5438
5439
5440
5441
5442
5443
5444
5445
5446
5447
5448
5449
5450
5451
5452
5453
5454
5455
5456
5457
5458
5459
5460
5461
5462
5463
5464
5465
5466
5467
5468
5469
5470
5471
5472
5473
5474
5475
5476
5477
5478
5479
5480
5481
5482
5483
5484
5485
5486
5487
5488
5489
5490
5491
5492
5493
5494
5495
5496
5497
5498
5499
5500
5501
5502
5503
5504
5505
5506
5507
5508
5509
5510
5511
5512
5513
5514
5515
5516
5517
5518
5519
5520
5521
5522
5523
5524
5525
5526
5527
5528
5529
5530
5531
5532
5533
5534
5535
5536
5537
5538
5539
5540
5541
5542
5543
5544
5545
5546
5547
5548
5549
5550
5551
5552
5553
5554
5555
5556
5557
5558
5559
5560
5561
5562
5563
5564
5565
5566
5567
5568
5569
5570
5571
5572
5573
5574
5575
5576
5577
5578
5579
5580
5581
5582
5583
5584
5585
5586
5587
5588
5589
5590
5591
5592
5593
5594
5595
5596
5597
5598
5599
5600
5601
5602
5603
5604
5605
5606
5607
5608
5609
5610
5611
5612
5613
5614
5615
5616
5617
5618
5619
5620
5621
5622
5623
5624
5625
5626
5627
5628
5629
5630
5631
5632
5633
5634
5635
5636
5637
5638
5639
5640
5641
5642
5643
5644
5645
5646
5647
5648
5649
5650
5651
5652
5653
5654
5655
5656
5657
5658
5659
5660
5661
5662
5663
5664
5665
5666
5667
5668
5669
5670
5671
5672
5673
5674
5675
5676
5677
5678
5679
5680
5681
5682
5683
5684
5685
5686
5687
5688
5689
5690
5691
5692
5693
5694
5695
5696
5697
5698
5699
5700
5701
5702
5703
5704
5705
5706
5707
5708
5709
5710
5711
5712
5713
5714
5715
5716
5717
5718
5719
5720
5721
5722
5723
5724
5725
5726
5727
5728
5729
5730
5731
5732
5733
5734
5735
5736
5737
5738
5739
5740
5741
5742
5743
5744
5745
5746
5747
5748
5749
5750
5751
5752
5753
5754
5755
5756
5757
5758
5759
5760
5761
5762
5763
5764
5765
5766
5767
5768
5769
5770
5771
5772
5773
5774
5775
5776
5777
5778
5779
5780
5781
5782
5783
5784
5785
5786
5787
5788
5789
5790
5791
5792
5793
5794
5795
5796
5797
5798
5799
5800
5801
5802
5803
5804
5805
5806
5807
5808
5809
5810
5811
5812
5813
5814
5815
5816
5817
5818
5819
5820
5821
5822
5823
5824
5825
5826
5827
5828
5829
5830
5831
5832
5833
5834
5835
5836
5837
5838
5839
5840
5841
5842
5843
5844
5845
5846
5847
5848
5849
5850
5851
5852
5853
5854
5855
5856
5857
5858
5859
5860
5861
5862
5863
5864
5865
5866
5867
5868
5869
5870
5871
5872
5873
5874
5875
5876
5877
5878
5879
5880
5881
5882
5883
5884
5885
5886
5887
5888
5889
5890
5891
5892
5893
5894
5895
5896
5897
5898
5899
5900
5901
5902
5903
5904
5905
5906
5907
5908
5909
5910
5911
5912
5913
5914
5915
5916
5917
5918
5919
5920
5921
5922
5923
5924
5925
5926
5927
5928
5929
5930
5931
5932
5933
5934
5935
5936
5937
5938
5939
5940
5941
5942
5943
5944
5945
5946
5947
5948
5949
5950
5951
5952
5953
5954
5955
5956
5957
5958
5959
5960
5961
5962
5963
5964
5965
5966
5967
5968
5969
5970
5971
5972
5973
5974
5975
5976
5977
5978
5979
5980
5981
5982
5983
5984
5985
5986
5987
5988
5989
5990
5991
5992
5993
5994
5995
5996
5997
5998
5999
6000
6001
6002
6003
6004
6005
6006
6007
6008
6009
6010
6011
6012
6013
6014
6015
6016
6017
6018
6019
6020
6021
6022
6023
6024
6025
6026
6027
6028
6029
6030
6031
6032
6033
6034
6035
6036
6037
6038
6039
6040
6041
6042
6043
6044
6045
6046
6047
6048
6049
6050
6051
6052
6053
6054
6055
6056
6057
6058
6059
6060
6061
6062
6063
6064
6065
6066
6067
6068
6069
6070
6071
6072
6073
6074
6075
6076
6077
6078
6079
6080
6081
6082
6083
6084
6085
6086
6087
6088
6089
6090
6091
6092
6093
6094
6095
6096
6097
6098
6099
6100
6101
6102
6103
6104
6105
6106
6107
6108
6109
6110
6111
6112
6113
6114
6115
6116
6117
6118
6119
6120
6121
6122
6123
6124
6125
6126
6127
6128
6129
6130
6131
6132
6133
6134
6135
6136
6137
6138
6139
6140
6141
6142
6143
6144
6145
6146
6147
6148
6149
6150
6151
6152
6153
6154
6155
6156
6157
6158
6159
6160
6161
6162
6163
6164
6165
6166
6167
6168
6169
6170
6171
6172
6173
6174
6175
6176
6177
6178
6179
6180
6181
6182
6183
6184
6185
6186
6187
6188
6189
6190
6191
6192
6193
6194
6195
6196
6197
6198
6199
6200
6201
6202
6203
6204
6205
6206
6207
6208
6209
6210
6211
6212
6213
6214
6215
6216
6217
6218
6219
6220
6221
6222
6223
6224
6225
6226
6227
6228
6229
6230
6231
6232
6233
6234
6235
6236
6237
6238
6239
6240
6241
6242
6243
6244
6245
6246
6247
6248
6249
6250
6251
6252
6253
6254
6255
6256
6257
6258
6259
6260
6261
6262
6263
6264
6265
6266
6267
6268
6269
6270
6271
6272
6273
6274
6275
6276
6277
6278
6279
6280
6281
6282
6283
6284
6285
6286
6287
6288
6289
6290
6291
6292
6293
6294
6295
6296
6297
6298
6299
6300
6301
6302
6303
6304
6305
6306
6307
6308
6309
6310
6311
6312
6313
6314
6315
6316
6317
6318
6319
6320
6321
6322
6323
6324
6325
6326
6327
6328
6329
6330
6331
6332
6333
6334
6335
6336
6337
6338
6339
6340
6341
6342
6343
6344
6345
6346
6347
6348
6349
6350
6351
6352
6353
6354
6355
6356
6357
6358
6359
6360
6361
6362
6363
6364
6365
6366
6367
6368
6369
6370
6371
6372
6373
6374
6375
6376
6377
6378
6379
6380
6381
6382
6383
6384
6385
6386
6387
6388
6389
6390
6391
6392
6393
6394
6395
6396
6397
6398
6399
6400
6401
6402
6403
6404
6405
6406
6407
6408
6409
6410
6411
6412
6413
6414
6415
6416
6417
6418
6419
6420
6421
6422
6423
6424
6425
6426
6427
6428
6429
6430
6431
6432
6433
6434
6435
6436
6437
6438
6439
6440
6441
6442
6443
6444
6445
6446
6447
6448
6449
6450
6451
6452
6453
6454
6455
6456
6457
6458
6459
6460
6461
6462
6463
6464
6465
6466
6467
6468
6469
6470
6471
6472
6473
6474
6475
6476
6477
6478
6479
6480
6481
6482
6483
6484
6485
6486
6487
6488
6489
6490
6491
6492
6493
6494
6495
6496
6497
6498
6499
6500
6501
6502
6503
6504
6505
6506
6507
6508
6509
6510
6511
6512
6513
6514
6515
6516
6517
6518
6519
6520
6521
6522
6523
6524
6525
6526
6527
6528
6529
6530
6531
6532
6533
6534
6535
6536
6537
6538
6539
6540
6541
6542
6543
6544
6545
6546
6547
6548
6549
6550
6551
6552
6553
6554
6555
6556
6557
6558
6559
6560
6561
6562
6563
6564
6565
6566
6567
6568
6569
6570
6571
6572
6573
6574
6575
6576
6577
6578
6579
6580
6581
6582
6583
6584
6585
6586
6587
6588
6589
6590
6591
6592
6593
6594
6595
6596
6597
6598
6599
6600
6601
6602
6603
6604
6605
6606
6607
6608
6609
6610
6611
6612
6613
6614
6615
6616
6617
6618
6619
6620
6621
6622
6623
6624
6625
6626
6627
6628
6629
6630
6631
6632
6633
6634
6635
6636
6637
6638
6639
6640
6641
6642
6643
6644
6645
6646
6647
6648
6649
6650
6651
6652
6653
6654
6655
6656
6657
6658
6659
6660
6661
6662
6663
6664
6665
6666
6667
6668
6669
6670
6671
6672
6673
6674
6675
6676
6677
6678
6679
6680
6681
6682
6683
6684
6685
6686
6687
6688
6689
6690
6691
6692
6693
6694
6695
6696
6697
6698
6699
6700
6701
6702
6703
6704
6705
6706
6707
6708
6709
6710
6711
6712
6713
6714
6715
6716
6717
6718
6719
6720
6721
6722
6723
6724
6725
6726
6727
6728
6729
6730
6731
6732
6733
6734
6735
6736
6737
6738
6739
6740
6741
6742
6743
6744
6745
6746
6747
6748
6749
6750
6751
6752
6753
6754
6755
6756
6757
6758
6759
6760
6761
6762
6763
6764
6765
6766
6767
6768
6769
6770
6771
6772
6773
6774
6775
6776
6777
6778
6779
6780
6781
6782
6783
6784
6785
6786
6787
6788
6789
6790
6791
6792
6793
6794
6795
6796
6797
6798
6799
6800
6801
6802
6803
6804
6805
6806
6807
6808
6809
6810
6811
6812
6813
6814
6815
6816
6817
6818
6819
6820
6821
6822
6823
6824
6825
6826
6827
6828
6829
6830
6831
6832
6833
6834
6835
6836
6837
6838
6839
6840
6841
6842
6843
6844
6845
6846
6847
6848
6849
6850
6851
6852
6853
6854
6855
6856
6857
6858
6859
6860
6861
6862
6863
6864
6865
6866
6867
6868
6869
6870
6871
6872
6873
6874
6875
6876
6877
6878
6879
6880
6881
6882
6883
6884
6885
6886
6887
6888
6889
6890
6891
6892
6893
6894
6895
6896
6897
6898
6899
6900
6901
6902
6903
6904
6905
6906
6907
6908
6909
6910
6911
6912
6913
6914
6915
6916
6917
6918
6919
6920
6921
6922
6923
6924
6925
6926
6927
6928
6929
6930
6931
6932
6933
6934
6935
6936
6937
6938
6939
6940
6941
6942
6943
6944
6945
6946
6947
6948
6949
6950
6951
6952
6953
6954
6955
6956
6957
6958
6959
6960
6961
6962
6963
6964
6965
6966
6967
6968
6969
6970
6971
6972
6973
6974
6975
6976
6977
6978
6979
6980
6981
6982
6983
6984
6985
6986
6987
6988
6989
6990
6991
6992
6993
6994
6995
6996
6997
6998
6999
7000
7001
7002
7003
7004
7005
7006
7007
7008
7009
7010
7011
7012
7013
7014
7015
7016
7017
7018
7019
7020
7021
7022
7023
7024
7025
7026
7027
7028
7029
7030
7031
7032
7033
7034
7035
7036
7037
7038
7039
7040
7041
7042
7043
7044
7045
7046
7047
7048
7049
7050
7051
7052
7053
7054
7055
7056
7057
7058
7059
7060
7061
7062
7063
7064
7065
7066
7067
7068
7069
7070
7071
7072
7073
7074
7075
7076
7077
7078
7079
7080
7081
7082
7083
7084
7085
7086
7087
7088
7089
7090
7091
7092
7093
7094
7095
7096
7097
7098
7099
7100
7101
7102
7103
7104
7105
7106
7107
7108
7109
7110
7111
7112
7113
7114
7115
7116
7117
7118
7119
7120
7121
7122
7123
7124
7125
7126
7127
7128
7129
7130
7131
7132
7133
7134
7135
7136
7137
7138
7139
7140
7141
7142
7143
7144
7145
7146
7147
7148
7149
7150
7151
7152
7153
7154
7155
7156
7157
7158
7159
7160
7161
7162
7163
7164
7165
7166
7167
7168
7169
7170
7171
7172
7173
7174
7175
7176
7177
7178
7179
7180
7181
7182
7183
7184
7185
7186
7187
7188
7189
7190
7191
7192
7193
7194
7195
7196
7197
7198
7199
7200
7201
7202
7203
7204
7205
7206
7207
7208
7209
7210
7211
7212
7213
7214
7215
7216
7217
7218
7219
7220
7221
7222
7223
7224
7225
7226
7227
7228
7229
7230
7231
7232
7233
7234
7235
7236
7237
7238
7239
7240
7241
7242
7243
7244
7245
7246
7247
7248
7249
7250
7251
7252
7253
7254
7255
7256
7257
7258
7259
7260
7261
7262
7263
7264
7265
7266
7267
7268
7269
7270
7271
7272
7273
7274
7275
7276
7277
7278
7279
7280
7281
7282
7283
7284
7285
7286
7287
7288
7289
7290
7291
7292
7293
7294
7295
7296
7297
7298
7299
7300
7301
7302
7303
7304
7305
7306
7307
7308
7309
7310
7311
7312
7313
7314
7315
7316
7317
7318
7319
7320
7321
7322
7323
7324
7325
7326
7327
7328
7329
7330
7331
7332
7333
7334
7335
7336
7337
7338
7339
7340
7341
7342
7343
7344
7345
7346
7347
7348
7349
7350
7351
7352
7353
7354
7355
7356
7357
7358
7359
7360
7361
7362
7363
7364
7365
7366
7367
7368
7369
7370
7371
7372
7373
7374
7375
7376
7377
7378
7379
7380
7381
7382
7383
7384
7385
7386
7387
7388
7389
7390
7391
7392
7393
7394
7395
7396
7397
7398
7399
7400
7401
7402
7403
7404
7405
7406
7407
7408
7409
7410
7411
7412
7413
7414
7415
7416
7417
7418
7419
7420
7421
7422
7423
7424
7425
7426
7427
7428
7429
7430
7431
7432
7433
7434
7435
7436
7437
7438
7439
7440
7441
7442
7443
7444
7445
7446
7447
7448
7449
7450
7451
7452
7453
7454
7455
7456
7457
7458
7459
7460
7461
7462
7463
7464
7465
7466
7467
7468
7469
7470
7471
7472
7473
7474
7475
7476
7477
7478
7479
7480
7481
7482
7483
7484
7485
7486
7487
7488
7489
7490
7491
7492
7493
7494
7495
7496
7497
7498
7499
7500
7501
7502
7503
7504
7505
7506
7507
7508
7509
7510
7511
7512
7513
7514
7515
7516
7517
7518
7519
7520
7521
7522
7523
7524
7525
7526
7527
7528
7529
7530
7531
7532
7533
7534
7535
7536
7537
7538
7539
7540
7541
7542
7543
7544
7545
7546
7547
7548
7549
7550
7551
7552
7553
7554
7555
7556
7557
7558
7559
7560
7561
7562
7563
7564
7565
7566
7567
7568
7569
7570
7571
7572
7573
7574
7575
7576
7577
7578
7579
7580
7581
7582
7583
7584
7585
7586
7587
7588
7589
7590
7591
7592
7593
7594
7595
7596
7597
7598
7599
7600
7601
7602
7603
7604
7605
7606
7607
7608
7609
7610
7611
7612
7613
7614
7615
7616
7617
7618
7619
7620
7621
7622
7623
7624
7625
7626
7627
7628
7629
7630
7631
7632
7633
7634
7635
7636
7637
7638
7639
7640
7641
7642
7643
7644
7645
7646
7647
7648
7649
7650
7651
7652
7653
7654
7655
7656
7657
7658
7659
7660
7661
7662
7663
7664
7665
7666
7667
7668
7669
7670
7671
7672
7673
7674
7675
7676
7677
7678
7679
7680
7681
7682
7683
7684
7685
7686
7687
7688
7689
7690
7691
7692
7693
7694
7695
7696
7697
7698
7699
7700
7701
7702
7703
7704
7705
7706
7707
7708
7709
7710
7711
7712
7713
7714
7715
7716
7717
7718
7719
7720
7721
7722
7723
7724
7725
7726
7727
7728
7729
7730
7731
7732
7733
7734
7735
7736
7737
7738
7739
7740
7741
7742
7743
7744
7745
7746
7747
7748
7749
7750
7751
7752
7753
7754
7755
7756
7757
7758
7759
7760
7761
7762
7763
7764
7765
7766
7767
7768
7769
7770
7771
7772
7773
7774
7775
7776
7777
7778
7779
7780
7781
7782
7783
7784
7785
7786
7787
7788
7789
7790
7791
7792
7793
7794
7795
7796
7797
7798
7799
7800
7801
7802
7803
7804
7805
7806
7807
7808
7809
7810
7811
7812
7813
7814
7815
7816
7817
7818
7819
7820
7821
7822
7823
7824
7825
7826
7827
7828
7829
7830
7831
7832
7833
7834
7835
7836
7837
7838
7839
7840
7841
7842
7843
7844
7845
7846
7847
7848
7849
7850
7851
7852
7853
7854
7855
7856
7857
7858
7859
7860
7861
7862
7863
7864
7865
7866
7867
7868
7869
7870
7871
7872
7873
7874
7875
7876
7877
7878
7879
7880
7881
7882
7883
7884
7885
7886
7887
7888
7889
7890
7891
7892
7893
7894
7895
7896
7897
7898
7899
7900
7901
7902
7903
7904
7905
7906
7907
7908
7909
7910
7911
7912
7913
7914
7915
7916
7917
7918
7919
7920
7921
7922
7923
7924
7925
7926
7927
7928
7929
7930
7931
7932
7933
7934
7935
7936
7937
7938
7939
7940
7941
7942
7943
7944
7945
7946
7947
7948
7949
7950
7951
7952
7953
7954
7955
7956
7957
7958
7959
7960
7961
7962
7963
7964
7965
7966
7967
7968
7969
7970
7971
7972
7973
7974
7975
7976
7977
7978
7979
7980
7981
7982
7983
7984
7985
7986
7987
7988
7989
7990
7991
7992
7993
7994
7995
7996
7997
7998
7999
8000
8001
8002
8003
8004
8005
8006
8007
8008
8009
8010
8011
8012
8013
8014
8015
8016
8017
8018
8019
8020
8021
8022
8023
8024
8025
8026
8027
8028
8029
8030
8031
8032
8033
8034
8035
8036
8037
8038
8039
8040
8041
8042
8043
8044
8045
8046
8047
8048
8049
8050
8051
8052
8053
8054
8055
8056
8057
8058
8059
8060
8061
8062
8063
8064
8065
8066
8067
8068
8069
8070
8071
8072
8073
8074
8075
8076
8077
8078
8079
8080
8081
8082
8083
8084
8085
8086
8087
8088
8089
8090
8091
8092
8093
8094
8095
8096
8097
8098
8099
8100
8101
8102
8103
8104
8105
8106
8107
8108
8109
8110
8111
8112
8113
8114
8115
8116
8117
8118
8119
8120
8121
8122
8123
8124
8125
8126
8127
8128
8129
8130
8131
8132
8133
8134
8135
8136
8137
8138
8139
8140
8141
8142
8143
8144
8145
8146
8147
8148
8149
8150
8151
8152
8153
8154
8155
8156
8157
8158
8159
8160
8161
8162
8163
8164
8165
8166
8167
8168
8169
|
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" />
<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />
<title>Freedom’s battle | Project Gutenberg</title>
<style type="text/css">
body { margin-left: 20%;
margin-right: 20%;
text-align: justify; }
h1, h2, h3, h4, h5 {text-align: center; font-style: normal; font-weight:
normal; line-height: 1.5; margin-top: .5em; margin-bottom: .5em;}
h1 {font-size: 300%;
margin-top: 0.6em;
margin-bottom: 0.6em;
letter-spacing: 0.12em;
word-spacing: 0.2em;
text-indent: 0em;}
h2 {font-size: 150%; margin-top: 2em; margin-bottom: 1em;}
h3 {font-size: 130%; margin-top: 1em;}
h4 {font-size: 120%;}
h5 {font-size: 110%;}
.no-break {page-break-before: avoid;} /* for epubs */
div.chapter {page-break-before: always; margin-top: 4em;}
hr {width: 80%; margin-top: 2em; margin-bottom: 2em;}
p {text-indent: 1em;
margin-top: 0.25em;
margin-bottom: 0.25em; }
p.letter {text-indent: 0%;
margin-left: 10%;
margin-right: 10%;
margin-top: 1em;
margin-bottom: 1em; }
p.noindent {text-indent: 0% }
p.center {text-align: center;
text-indent: 0em;
margin-top: 1em;
margin-bottom: 1em; }
a:link {color:blue; text-decoration:none}
a:visited {color:blue; text-decoration:none}
a:hover {color:red}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 10366 ***</div>
<p>
[Transcriber’s Note: The inconsistent spelling of the original has been
preserved in this etext.]
</p>
<h1>FREEDOM’S BATTLE</h1>
<h3>BEING A COMPREHENSIVE COLLECTION OF WRITINGS AND SPEECHES ON THE PRESENT
SITUATION</h3>
<h2 class="no-break">BY MAHATMA GANDHI</h2>
<hr />
<h3>Second Edition</h3>
<h3>1922</h3>
<p class="center">
The Publishers express their indebtedness to the Editor and Publisher of the
“Young India” for allowing the free use of the articles appeared in that
journal under the name of Mahatma Gandhi, and also to Mr. C. Rajagopalachar for
the valuable introduction and help rendered in bringing out the book.
</p>
<hr />
<div class="chapter">
<h2>CONTENTS</h2>
<h3><a href="#chap01">I. INTRODUCTION</a></h3>
<h3><a href="#chap02">II. THE KHILAFAT</a></h3>
<p class="noindent">
Why I have joined the Khilafat Movement<br/>
The Turkish Treaty<br/>
Turkish Peace Terms<br/>
The Suzerainty over Arabia<br/>
Further Questions Answered<br/>
Mr. Candler’s Open Letter<br/>
In process of keeping<br/>
Appeal to the Viceroy<br/>
The Premier’s reply<br/>
The Muslim Representation<br/>
Criticism of the Manifesto<br/>
The Mahomedan Decision<br/>
Mr. Andrew’s Difficulty<br/>
The Khilafat Agitation<br/>
Hijarat and its Meaning
</p>
<h3><a href="#chap03">III. THE PUNJAB WRONGS</a></h3>
<p class="noindent">
Political Freemasonry<br/>
The Duty of the Punjabec<br/>
General Dyer<br/>
The Punjab Sentences
</p>
<h3><a href="#chap04">IV. SWARAJ</a></h3>
<p class="noindent">
Swaraj in one year<br/>
British Rule an evil<br/>
A movement of purification<br/>
Why was India lost<br/>
Swaraj my ideal<br/>
On the wrong track<br/>
The Congress Constitution<br/>
Swaraj in nine months<br/>
The Attainment of Swaraj
</p>
<h3><a href="#chap05">V. HINDU MOSLEM UNITY</a></h3>
<p class="noindent">
The Hindus and the Mahomedans<br/>
Hindu Mahomedan unity<br/>
Hindu Muslim unity
</p>
<h3><a href="#chap06">VI. TREATMENT OF THE DEPRESSED CLASSES</a></h3>
<p class="noindent">
Depressed Classes<br/>
Amelioration of the depressed classes<br/>
The Sin of Untouchability
</p>
<h3><a href="#chap07">VII. TREATMENT OF INDIANS ABROAD</a></h3>
<p class="noindent">
Indians abroad<br/>
Indians overseas<br/>
Pariahs of the Empire
</p>
<h3><a href="#chap08">VIII. NON-CO-OPERATION</a></h3>
<p class="noindent">
Non-co-operation<br/>
Mr. Montagu on the Khilafat Agitation<br/>
At the call of the country<br/>
Non-co-operation explained<br/>
Religious Authority for non-co-operation<br/>
The inwardness of non-co-operation<br/>
A missionary on non-co-operation<br/>
How to work non-co-operation<br/>
Speech at Madras<br/>
” Trichinopoly<br/>
” Calicut<br/>
” Mangalore<br/>
” Bexwada<br/>
The Congress<br/>
Who is disloyal<br/>
Crusade against non-co-operation<br/>
Speech at Muxafarbail<br/>
Ridicule replacing Repression<br/>
The Viceregal pronouncement<br/>
From Ridicule to—?<br/>
To every Englishman In India<br/>
One step enough for me<br/>
The need for humility<br/>
Some Questions Answered<br/>
Pledges broken<br/>
More Objections answered<br/>
Mr. Pennington’s Objections Answered<br/>
Some doubts<br/>
Rejoinder<br/>
Two Englishmen Reply<br/>
Letter to the Viceroy—Renunciation of Medals<br/>
Letter to H.R.H. The Duke of Connaught<br/>
The Greatest thing
</p>
<h3><a href="#chap09">IX. MAHATMA GANDHI’S STATEMENT</a></h3>
<hr />
</div><!--end chapter-->
<div class="chapter">
<h2><a name="chap01"></a>I. INTRODUCTION</h2>
<p>
After the great war it is difficult, to point out a single nation that is
happy; but this has come out of the war, that there is not a single nation
outside India, that is not either free or striving to be free.
</p>
<p>
It is said that we, too, are on the road to freedom, that it is better to be on
the certain though slow course of gradual unfoldment of freedom than to take
the troubled and dangerous path of revolution whether peaceful or violent, and
that the new Reforms are a half-way house to freedom.
</p>
<p>
The new constitution granted to India keeps all the military forces, both in
the direction and in the financial control, entirely outside the scope of
responsibility to the people of India. What does this mean? It means that the
revenues of India are spent away on what the nation does not want. But after
the mid-Eastern complications and the fresh Asiatic additions to British
Imperial spheres of action. This Indian military servitude is a clear danger to
national interests.
</p>
<p>
The new constitution gives no scope for retrenchment and therefore no scope for
measures of social reform except by fresh taxation, the heavy burden of which
on the poor will outweigh all the advantages of any reforms. It maintains all
the existing foreign services, and the cost of the administrative machinery
high as it already is, is further increased.
</p>
<p>
The reformed constitution keeps all the fundamental liberties of person,
property, press, and association completely under bureaucratic control. All
those laws which give to the irresponsible officers of the Executive Government
of India absolute powers to override the popular will, are still unrepealed. In
spite of the tragic price paid in the Punjab for demonstrating the danger of
unrestrained power in the hands of a foreign bureaucracy and the inhumanity of
spirit by which tyranny in a panic will seek to save itself, we stand just
where we were before, at the mercy of the Executive in respect of all our
fundamental liberties.
</p>
<p>
Not only is Despotism intact in the Law, but unparalleled crimes and cruelties
against the people have been encouraged and even after boastful admissions and
clearest proofs, left unpunished. The spirit of unrepentant cruelty has thus
been allowed to permeate the whole administration.
</p>
<h3>THE MUSSALMAN AGONY</h3>
<p>
To understand our present condition it is not enough to realise the general
political servitude. We should add to it the reality and the extent of the
injury inflicted by Britain on Islam, and thereby on the Mussalmans of India.
The articles of Islamic faith which it is necessary to understand in order to
realise why Mussalman India, which was once so loyal is now so strongly moved
to the contrary are easily set out and understood. Every religion should be
interpreted by the professors of that religion. The sentiments and religious
ideas of Muslims founded on the traditions of long generations cannot be
altered now by logic or cosmopolitanism, as others understand it. Such an
attempt is the more unreasonable when it is made not even as a bonafide and
independent effort of proselytising logic or reason, but only to justify a
treaty entered into for political and worldly purposes.
</p>
<p>
The Khalifa is the authority that is entrusted with the duty of defending
Islam. He is the successor to Muhammad and the agent of God on earth. According
to Islamic tradition he must possess sufficient temporal power effectively to
protect Islam against non-Islamic powers and he should be one elected or
accepted by the Mussalman world.
</p>
<p>
The Jazirat-ul-Arab is the area bounded by the Red Sea, the Arabian Sea, the
Persian Gulf, and the waters of the Tigris and the Euphrates. It is the sacred
Home of Islam and the centre towards which Islam throughout the world turns in
prayer. According to the religious injunctions of the Mussalmans, this entire
area should always be under Muslim control, its scientific border being
believed to be a protection for the integrity of Islamic life and faith. Every
Mussalman throughout the world is enjoined to sacrifice his all, if necessary,
for preserving the Jazirat-ul-Arab under complete Muslim control.
</p>
<p>
The sacred places of Islam should be in the possession of the Khalifa. They
should not merely be free for the entry of the Mussalmans of the world by the
grace or the license of non-Muslim powers, but should be the possession and
property of Islam in the fullest degree.
</p>
<p>
It is a religions obligation, on every Mussalman to go forth and help the
Khalifa in every possible way where his unaided efforts in the defence of the
Khilifat have failed.
</p>
<p>
The grievance of the Indian Mussalmans is that a government that pretends to
protect and spread peace and happiness among them has no right to ignore or set
aside these articles of their cherished faith.
</p>
<p>
According to the Peace Treaty imposed on the nominal Government at
Constantinople, the Khalifa far from having the temporal authority or power
needed to protect Islam, is a prisoner in his own city. He is to have no real
fighting force, army or navy, and the financial control over his own
territories is vested in other Governments. His capital is cut off from the
rest of his possessions by an intervening permanent military occupation. It is
needless to say that under these conditions he is absolutely incapable of
protecting Islam as the Mussulmans of the world understand it.
</p>
<p>
The Jazirat-ul-Arab is split up; a great part of it given to powerful
non-Muslim Powers, the remnant left with petty chiefs dominated all round by
non-Muslim Governments.
</p>
<p>
The Holy places of Islam are all taken out of the Khalifa’s kingdom, some left
in the possession of minor Muslim chiefs of Arabia entirely dependent on
European control, and some relegated to newly-formed non-Muslim states.
</p>
<p>
In a word, the Mussalman’s free choice of a Khalifa such as Islamic tradition
defines is made an unreality.
</p>
<h3>THE HINDU DHARMA</h3>
<p>
The age of misunderstanding and mutual warfare among religions is gone. If
India has a mission of its own to the world, it is to establish the unity and
the truth of all religions. This unity is established by mutual help and
understanding between the various religions. It has come as a rare privilege to
the Hindus in the fulfilment of this mission of India to stand up in defence of
Islam against the onslaught of the earth-greed of the military powers of the
west.
</p>
<p>
The Dharma of Hinduism in this respect is placed beyond all doubt by the
Bhagavat Gita.
</p>
<p>
Those who are the votaries of other Gods and worship them with faith—even they,
O Kaunteya, worship me alone, though not as the Shastra requires—IX, 23.
</p>
<p>
Whoever being devoted wishes in perfect faith to worship a particular form, of
such a one I maintain the same faith unshaken,—VII 21.
</p>
<p>
Hinduism will realise its fullest beauty when in the fulfilment of this
cardinal tenet, its followers offer themselves as sacrifice for the protection
of the faith of their brothers, the Mussalmans.
</p>
<p>
If Hindus and Mussalmans attain the height of courage and sacrifice that is
needed for this battle on behalf of Islam against the greed of the West, a
victory will be won not alone for Islam, but for Christianity itself.
Militarism has robbed the crucified God of his name and his very cross and the
World has been mistaking it to be Christianity. After the battle of Islam is
won, Islam and Hinduism together can emancipate Christianity itself from the
lust for power and wealth which have strangled it now and the true Christianity
of the Gospels will be established. This battle of non-cooperation with its
suffering and peaceful withdrawal of service will once for all establish its
superiority over the power of brute force and unlimited slaughter.
</p>
<p>
What a glorious privilege it is to play our part in this history of the world,
when Hinduism and Christianity will unite on behalf of Islam, and in that
strife of mutual love and support each religion will attain its own truest
shape and beauty.
</p>
<h3>AN ENDURING TREATY</h3>
<p>
Swaraj for India has two great problems, one internal and the other external.
How can Hindus and Mussalmans so different from each other form a strong and
united nation governing themselves peacefully? This was the question for years,
and no one could believe that the two communities could suffer for each other
till the miracle was actually worked. The Khilafat has solved the problem. By
the magic of suffering, each has truly touched and captured the other’s heart,
and the Nation now is strong and united.
</p>
<p>
Not internal strength and unity alone has the Khilafat brought to India. The
great block in the way of Indian aspiration for full freedom was the problem of
external defence. How is India, left to herself defend her frontiers against
her Mussalman neighbours? None but emasculated nations would accept such
difficulties and responsibilities as an answer to the demand for freedom. It is
only a people whose mentality has been perverted that can soothe itself with
the domination by one race from a distant country, as a preventative against
the aggression of another, a permanent and natural neighbour. Instead of
developing strength to protect ourselves against those near whom we are
permanently placed, a feeling of incurable impotence has been generated. Two
strong and brave nations can live side by side, strengthening each other
through enforcing constant vigilance, and maintain in full vigour each its own
national strength, unity, patriotism and resources. If a nation wishes to be
respected by its neighbours it has to develop and enter into honourable
treaties. These are the only natural conditions of national liberty; but not a
surrender to distant military powers to save oneself from one’s neighbours.
</p>
<p>
The Khilafat has solved the problem of distrust of Asiatic neighbours out of
our future. The Indian struggle for the freedom of Islam has brought about a
more lasting <i>entente</i> and a more binding treaty between the people of
India and the people of the Mussalman states around it than all the ententes
and treaties among the Governments of Europe. No wars of aggression are
possible where the common people on the two sides have become grateful friends.
The faith of the Mussulman is a better sanction than the seal of the European
Diplomats and plenipotentiaries. Not only has this great friendship between
India and the Mussulman States around it removed for all time the fear of
Mussulman aggression from outside, but it has erected round India, a solid wall
of defence against all aggression from beyond against all greed from Europe,
Russia or elsewhere. No secret diplomacy could establish a better
<i>entente</i> or a stronger federation than what this open and
non-governmental treaty between Islam and India has established. The Indian
support of the Khilafat has, as if by a magic wand, converted what Was once the
Pan-Islamic terror for Europe into a solid wall of friendship and defence for
India.
</p>
<h3>THE BRITISH CONNECTION</h3>
<p>
Every nation like every individual is born free. Absolute freedom is the
birthright of every people. The only limitations are those which a people may
place over themselves. The British connection is invaluable as long as it is a
defence against any worse connection sought to be imposed by violence. But it
is only a means to an end, not a mandate of Providence of Nature. The alliance
of neighbours, born of suffering for each other’s sake, for ends that purify
those that suffer, is necessarily a more natural and more enduring bond than
one that has resulted from pure greed on the one side and weakness on the
other. Where such a natural and enduring alliance has been accomplished among
Asiatic peoples and not only between the respective governments, it may truly
be felt to be more valuable than the British connection itself, after that
connection has denied freedom or equality, and even justice.
</p>
<h3>THE ALTERNATIVE</h3>
<p>
Is violence or total surrender the only choice open to any people to whom
Freedom or Justice is denied? Violence at a time when the whole world has
learnt from bitter experience the futility of violence is unworthy of a country
whose ancient people’s privilege, it was, to see this truth long ago.
</p>
<p>
Violence may rid a nation of its foreign masters but will only enslave it from
inside. No nation can really be free which is at the mercy of its army and its
military heroes. If a people rely for freedom on its soldiers, the soldiers
will rule the country, not the people. Till the recent awakening of the workers
of Europe, this was the only freedom which the powers of Europe really enjoyed.
True freedom can exist only when those who produce, not those who destroy or
know only to live on other’s labour, are the masters.
</p>
<p>
Even were violence the true road to freedom, is violence possible to a nation
which has been emasculated and deprived of all weapons, and the whole world is
hopelessly in advance of all our possibilities in the manufacture and the
wielding of weapons of destruction.
</p>
<p>
Submission or withdrawal of co-operation is the real and only alternative
before India. Submission to injustice puts on the tempting garb of peace and,
gradual progress, but there is no surer way to death than submission to wrong.
</p>
<h3>THE FIFTH UPAYA</h3>
<p>
Our ancients classified the arts of conquest into four well-known
<i>Upayas</i>. Sama, Dana, Uheda, and Danda. A fifth Upuya was recognised
sometimes by our ancients, which they called <i>Upeshka</i>. It is this
<i>Punchamopaya</i> that is placed by Mahatma Gandhi before the people of India
in the form of Non-cooperation as an alternative, besides violence, to
surrender.
</p>
<p>
Where in any case negotiations have failed and the enemy is neither corruptible
nor incapable of being divided, and a resort to violence has failed or would
certainly be futile the method of <i>Upeshka</i> remains to be applied to the
case. Indeed, when the very existence of the power we seek to defeat really
depends on our continuous co-operation with it, and where our <i>Upeskha</i>
its very life, our <i>Upeskha</i> or non-co-operation is the most natural and
most effective expedient that we can employ to bend it to our will.
</p>
<p>
No Englishman believes that his nation can rule or keep India for a day unless
the people of India actively co-operate to maintain that rule. Whether the
co-operation be given willingly or through ignorance, cupidity, habit or fear,
the withdrawal of that co-operation means impossibility of foreign rule in
India. Some of us may not realise this, but those who govern us have long ago
known and are now keenly alive to this truth. The active assistance of the
people of this country in the supply of the money, men, and knowledge of the
languages, customs and laws of the land, is the main-spring of the continuous
life of the foreign administration. Indeed the circumstances of British rule in
this country are such that but for a double supply of co-operation on the part
of the governed, it must have broken down long ago. Any system of race
domination is unnatural, and can be kept up only by active coercion through a
foreign-recruited public, service invested with large powers, however much it
may be helped by the perversion of mentality shaping the education of the youth
of the country. The foreign recruited service must necessarily be very highly
paid. This creates a wrong standard for the Indian recruited officials also.
Military expenditure has to cover not only the needs of defence against foreign
aggression, but also the possibilities of internal unrest and rebellion. Police
charges have to go beyond the prevention and deletion of ordinary crime, for
though this would be the only expenditure over the police of a self-governing
people where any nation governs anther, a large chapter of artificial crime has
to be added to the penal code, and the work of the police extended accordingly.
The military and public organisations must also be such as not only to result
in outside efficiency, but also at the same time guarantee internal impotency.
This is to be achieved by the adjustment and careful admixture of officers and
units from different races. All this can be and is maintained only by extra
cost and extra-active co-operation on the part of the people. The slightest
withdrawal of assistance must put such machinery out of gear. This is the basis
of the programme of progressive non violent non-co-operation that has been
adopted by the National Congress.
</p>
<h3>SOME OBJECTIONS</h3>
<p>
The powerful character of the measure, however, leads some to object to
non-co-operation because of that very reason. Striking as it does at the very
root of Government in India, they fear that non-co-operation must lead to
anarchy, and that the remedy is worse than the disease. This is an objection
arising out of insufficient allowance for human nature. It is assumed that the
British people will allow their connection with India to cease rather than
remedy the wrongs for which we seek justice. If this assumption be correct, no
doubt it must lead to separation and possibly also anarchy for a time. If the
operatives in a factory have grievances, negotiations having failed, a strike
would on a similar argument be never admissible. Unyielding obstinacy being
presumed, it must end in the closing down of the factory and break up of the
men. But if in ninety-nine out of a hundred cases it is not the case that
strikes end in this manner, it is more unlikely that, instead of righting the
manifest wrongs that India complains about, the British people will value their
Indian Dominion so low as to prefer to allow us to non-co-operate up to the
point of separation. It would be a totally false reading of British character
and British history. But if such wicked obstinacy be ultimately shown by a
government, far be it from us to prefer peace at the price of abject surrender
to wrong. There is no anarchy greater than the moral anarchy of surrender to
unrepentant wrong. We may, however, be certain that if we show the strength and
unity necessary for non-co-operation, long before we progress with it far, we
shall have developed true order and true self-government wherein there is no
place for anarchy.
</p>
<p>
Another fear sometimes expressed that, if non-co-operation were to succeed, the
British would have to go, leaving us unable to defend ourselves against foreign
aggression. If we have the self-respect, the patriotism, the tenacious purpose,
and the power of organisation that are necessary to drive the British out from
their entrenched position, no lesser foreign power will dare after that,
undertake the futile task of conquering or enslaving us.
</p>
<p>
It is sometimes said that non-co-operation is negative and destructive of the
advantages which a stable government has conferred on us. That non-co-operation
is negative is merely a half-truth. Non-co-operation with the government means
greater co-operation among ourselves, greater mutual dependence among the many
different castes and classes of our country. Non-co-operation is not mere
negation. It will lead to the recovery of the lost art of co-operation among
ourselves. Long dependence on an outside government which by its interference
suppressed or prevented the consequences of our differences has made us forget
the duty of mutual trust and the art of friendly adjustment. Having allowed
Government to do everything for us, we have gradually become incapable of doing
anything for ourselves. Even if we had no grievance against this Government,
non-co-operation with it for a time would be desirable so far as it would
perforce lead us to trusting and working with one another and thereby
strengthen the bonds of national unity.
</p>
<p>
The most tragic consequence of dependence on the complex machinery of a foreign
government is the atrophy of the communal sense. The direct touch with
administrative cause and effect is lost. An outside protector performs all the
necessary functions of the community in a mysterious manner, and communal
duties are not realised by the people. The one reason addressed by those who
deny to us the capacity for self-rule is the insufficient appreciation by the
people of communal duties and discipline. It is only by actually refraining for
a time from dependence on Government that we can regain self-reliance, learn
first-hand the value of communal duties and build up true national
co-operation. Non-co-operation is a practical and positive training in
Swadharma, and Swadharma alone can lead up to Swaraj.
</p>
<p>
The negative is the best and most impressive method of enforcing the value of
the positive. Few outside government circles realise in the present police
anything but tyranny and corruption. But if the units of the present police
were withdrawn we would soon perforce set about organising a substitute, and
most people would realise the true social value of a police force. Few realise
in the present taxes anything but coercion and waste, but most people would
soon see that a share of every man’s income is due for common purposes and that
there are many limitations to the economical management of public institutions;
we would begin once again to contribute directly, build up and maintain
national institutions in the place of those that now mysteriously spring up and
live under Government orders.
</p>
<h3>EMANCIPATION</h3>
<p>
Freedom is a priceless thing. But it is a stable possession only when it is
acquired by a nation’s strenuous effort. What is not by chance or outward
circumstance, or given by the generous impulse of a tyrant prince or people is
not a reality. A nation will truly enjoy freedom only when in the process of
winning or defending its freedom, it has been purified and consolidated through
and through, until liberty has become a part of its very soul. Otherwise it
would be but a change of the form of government, which might please the fancy
of politicians, or satisfy the classes in power, but could never emancipate a
people. An Act of Parliament can never create citizens in Hindustan. The
strength, spirit, and happiness of a people who have fought and won their
liberty cannot be got by Reform Acts. Effort and sacrifice are the necessary
conditions of real stable emancipation. Liberty unacquired, merely found, will
on the test fail like the Dead-Sea-apple or the magician’s plenty.
</p>
<p>
The war that the people of India have declared and which will purify and
consolidate India, and forge for her a true and stable liberty is a war with
the latest and most effective weapon. In this war, what has hitherto been in
the world an undesirable but necessary incident in freedom’s battles, the
killing of innocent men, has been eliminated; and that which is the true
essential for forging liberty, the self-purification and self-strengthening of
men and women has been kept pure and unalloyed. It is for men, women and youth,
every one of them that lives in and loves India, to do his bit in this battle,
not waiting for others, not calculating the chances of his surviving the battle
to enjoy the fruits of his sacrifice. Soldiers in the old-world wars did not
insure their lives before going to the front. The privilege of youth in special
is for country’s sake to exercise their comparative freedom and give up the
yearning for lives and careers built on the slavery of the people.
</p>
<p>
That on which a foreign government truly rests whatever may be the illusions on
their or our part is not the strength of its armed forces, but our own
co-operation. Actual service on the part of one generation, and educational
preparation for future service on the part of the next generation are the two
main branches of this co-operation of slaves in the perpetuation of slavery.
The boycott of government service and the law-courts is aimed at the first, the
boycott of government controlled schools is to stop the second. If either the
one or the other of these two branches of co-operation is withdrawn in
sufficient measure, there will be an automatic and perfectly peaceful change
from slavery to liberty.
</p>
<p>
The beat preparation for any one who desires to take part in the great battle
now going on is a silent study of the writings and speeches collected herein,
and proposed to be completed in a supplementary volume to be soon issued.
</p>
<p>
C. RAJAGOPALACHAR
</p>
<hr />
</div><!--end chapter-->
<div class="chapter">
<h2><a name="chap02"></a>II. THE KHILAFAT</h2>
<h3>WHY I HAVE JOINED THE KHILAFAT MOVEMENT</h3>
<p>
An esteemed South African friend who is at present living in England has
written to me a letter from which I make the following excerpts:—
</p>
<p class="letter">
“You will doubtless remember having met me in South Africa at the time when the
Rev. J.J. Doke was assisting you in your campaign there and I subsequently
returned to England deeply impressed with the rightness of your attitude in
that country. During the months before war I wrote and lectured and spoke on
your behalf in several places which I do not regret. Since returning from
military service, however, I have noticed from the papers that you appear to be
adopting a more militant attitude... I notice a report in “The Times” that you
are assisting and countenancing a union between the Hindus and Moslems with a
view of embarrassing England and the Allied Powers in the matter of the
dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire or the ejection of the Turkish Government
from Constantinople. Knowing as I do your sense of justice and your humane
instincts I feel that I am entitled, in view of the humble part that I have
taken to promote your interests on this side, to ask you whether this latter
report is correct. I cannot believe that you have wrongly countenanced a
movement to place the cruel and unjust despotism of the Stamboul Government
above the interests of humanity, for if any country has crippled these
interests in the East it has surely been Turkey. I am personally familiar with
the conditions in Syria and Armenia and I can only suppose that if the report,
which “The Times” has published is correct, you have thrown to one side, your
moral responsibilities and allied yourself with one of the prevailing
anarchies. However, until I hear that this is not your attitude I cannot
prejudice my mind. Perhaps you will do me the favour of sending me a reply.”
</p>
<p>
I have sent a reply to the writer. But as the views expressed in the quotation
are likely to be shared by many of my English friends and as I do not wish, if
I can possibly help it, to forfeit their friendship or their esteem I shall
endeavour to state my position as clearly as I can on the Khilafat question.
The letter shows what risk public men run through irresponsible journalism. I
have not seen <i>The Times</i> report, referred to by my friend. But it is
evident that the report has made the writer to suspect my alliance with “the
prevailing anarchies” and to think that I have “thrown to one side” my “moral
responsibilities.”
</p>
<p>
It is just my sense of moral responsibilities which has made me take up the
Khilafat question and to identify myself entirely with the Mahomedans. It is
perfectly true that I am assisting and countenancing the union between Hindus
and Muslims, but certainly not with “a view of embarrassing England and the
Allied Powers in the matter of the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire,” it is
contrary to my creed to embarrass governments or anybody else. This does not
how ever mean that certain acts of mine may not result in embarrassment. But I
should not hold myself responsible for having caused embarrassment when I
resist the wrong of a wrong-doer by refusing assistance in his wrong-doing. On
the Khilafat question I refuse to be party to a broken pledge. Mr. Lloyd
George’s solemn declaration is practically the whole of the case for Indian
Mahomedans and when that case is fortified by scriptural authority it becomes
unanswerable. Moreover, it is incorrect to say that I have “allied myself to
one of the prevailing anarchies” or that I have wrongly countenanced the
movement to place the cruel and unjust despotism of the Stamboul Government
above the interests of humanity. In the whole of the Mahomedan demand there is
no insistance on the retention of the so-called unjust despotism of the
Stamboul Government; on the contrary the Mahomedans have accepted the principle
of taking full guarantees from that Government for the protection of non-Muslim
minorities. I do not know how far the condition of Armenia and Syria may be
considered an ‘anarchy’ and how far the Turkish Government may be held
responsible for it. I much suspect that the reports from these quarters are
much exaggerated and that the European powers are themselves in a measure
responsible for what misrule there may be in Armenia and Syria. But I am in no
way interested in supporting Turkish or any other anarchy. The Allied Powers
can easily prevent it by means other than that of ending Turkish rule or
dismembering and weakening the Ottoman Empire. The Allied Powers are not
dealing with a new situation. If Turkey was to be partitioned, the position
should have been made clear at the commencement of the war. There would then
have been no question of a broken pledge. As it is, no Indian Mahomedan has any
regard for the promises of British Ministers. In his opinion, the cry against
Turkey is that of Christianity <i>vs.</i> Islam with England as the louder in
the cry. The latest cablegram from Mr. Mahomed Ali strengthens the impression,
for he says that unlike as in England his deputation is receiving much support
from the French Government and the people.
</p>
<p>
Thus, if it is true, as I hold it is true that the Indian Mussalmans have a
cause that is just and is supported by scriptural authority, then for the
Hindus not to support them to the utmost would be a cowardly breach of
brotherhood and they would forfeit all claim to consideration from their
Mahomedan countrymen. As a public-server therefore, I would be unworthy of the
position I claim, if I did not support Indian Mussalmans in their struggle to
maintain the Khilafat in accordance with their religious belief. I believe that
in supporting them I am rendering a service to the Empire, because by assisting
my Mahomedan countrymen to give a disciplined expression to their sentiment it
becomes possible to make the agitation thoroughly, orderly and even successful.
</p>
<h3>THE TURKISH TREATY</h3>
<p>
The Turkish treaty will be out on the 10th of May. It is stated to provide for
the internationalisation of the Straits, the occupation of Gallipoli by the
Allies, the maintenance of Allied contingents in Constantinople and the
appointment of a Commission of Control over Turkish finances. The San Remo
Conference has entrusted Britain with Mandates for Mesopotamia and Palestine
and France with the Mandate for Syria. As regards Smyrna the accounts so far
received inform that Turkish suzerainty over Smyrna will be indicated by the
fact that the population will not be entitled to send delegates to the Greek
Parliament but at the end of five years local Smyrna Parliament will have the
right of voting in favour of union with Greece and in such an event Turkish
suzerainty will cease. Turkish suzerainty will be confined to the area within
the Chatalja lines. With regard to Emir Foisul’s position there is no news
except that the Mandates of Britain and France transform his military title
into a civil title.
</p>
<hr />
<p>
We have given above the terms of the Turkish treaty as indicated in Router’s
messages. These reports are incomplete and all of them are not equally
authenticated. But if these terms are true, they are a challenge to the Muslim
demands. Turkish Sovereignty is confined to the Chatalja lines. This means that
the Big Three of the Supreme Council have cut off Thrace from Turkish
dominions. This is a distinct breach of the pledge given by one of these Three,
<i>viz.</i>, the Premier of the British Empire. To remain within the Chatalja
lines and, we are afraid, as a dependent of the Allies, is for the Sultan a
humiliating position inconsistent with the Koranic injunctions. Such a
restricted position of the Turks is virtually a success of the bag and baggage
school.
</p>
<p>
It is not yet known how the Supreme Council disposed of the rich and renowned
lands of Asia Minor. If Mr. Lloyd George’s views recently expressed in this
respect have received the Allies’ sanction—it is probable—nothing less than a
common control is expected. The decision in the case of Smyrna will be
satisfying to none, though the Allies seem to have made by their arrangement a
skillful attempt to please all the parties concerned. Mr. Lloyd George, in his
reply to the Khilafat Deputation, had talked about the careful investigations
by an impartial committee and had added; “The great majority of the population
undoubtedly prefer Greek rule to Turkish rule, so I understand” But the
decision postpones to carry out his understanding till a period of five years.
</p>
<hr />
<p>
When we come to the question of mandates, the Allied Powers’ motives come out
more distinctly. The Arabs’ claim of independence was used as a difficulty
against keeping Turkish Sovereignty. This was defended in the of
self-determination and by pointing out parallels of Transylvania and other
provinces. When the final moment came, the Allies have ventured to divide the
spoils amongst themselves. Britain is given the mandate over Mesopotamia and
Palestine and France has the mandate over Syria. The Arab delegation complains
in their note lately issued expressing their disappointment at the Supreme
Council’s decision with regard to the Arab liberated countries, which, it
declares, is contrary to the principle of self-determination.
</p>
<hr />
<p>
So what little news has arrived about the Turkish treaty, is uniformly
disquieting. The Moslems have found sufficient ground to honour Russia, more
than the Allies. Russia has recognised the freedom of Khiva and Bokhara. The
Moslem world, as H. M. the Amir of Afghanistan said in his speech, will feel
grateful towards Russia in spite of all the rumours abroad about its anarchy
and disorder, whereas the whole Moslem world will resent the action of the
other European nations who have allied with each other to carry out a joint
coercion and extinction of Turkey in the name of self-determination and partly
in the guise of the interest of civilization.
</p>
<hr />
<p>
The terms of the Turkish treaty are not only a breach of the Premier’s pledge,
not only a sin against the principle of self-determination, but they also show
a reckless indifference of the Allied Powers towards the Koranic injunctions.
The terms point out that Mr. Lloyd George’s misinformed ideas of Khilafat have
prevailed in the Council. Like Mr. Lloyd George other statesmen also at San
Remo have compared Caliphate with Popedom and ignored the Koronic idea of
associating spiritual power with temporal power. These misguided statesmen were
too much possessed by haughtiness and so they refused to receive any
enlightenment on the question of Khilafat from the Deputation. They could have
corrected themselves had they heard Mr. Mahomed Ali on this point. Speaking at
the Essex Hall meeting Mr. Mahomed Ali distinguished between Popedom and
Caliphate and clearly explained what Caliphate means. He said:
</p>
<p class="letter">
“Islam is supernational and not national, the basis of Islamic sympathy is a
common outlook on life and common culture.... And it has two centres. The
personal centre is the island of Arabia. The Khalifa is the Commander of the
Faithful and his orders must be obeyed by all Muslims so long and so long only,
as they are not at variance with the Commandments of God and the Traditions of
the Prophet. But since there is no lacerating distinction between things
temporal and things spiritual, the Khalifa is something more than a Pope and
cannot be “Vaticanised.” But he is also less than a Pope for he is not
infallible. If he persists in un-Islamic conduct we can depose him. And we have
deposed him more than once. But so long as he orders only that which Islam
demands we must support him. He and no other ruler is the Defender of
<i>our</i> faith.”
</p>
<p>
These few words could have removed the mis-undertakings rooted in the minds of
those that at San Remo, if they were in earnest for a just solution. But Mr.
Mahomed Ali’s deputation was not given any hearing by the Peace Conference.
They were told that the Peace Conference had already heard the official
delegation of India on this question. But the wrong notions the Allies still
entertain about Caliphate are a sufficient indication of the effects of the
work of this official delegation. The result of these wrong notions is the
present settlement and this unjust settlement will unsettle the world. They
know not what they do.
</p>
<h3>TURKISH PEACE TERMS</h3>
<p>
The question of question to-day is the Khilafat question, otherwise known as
that of the Turkish peace terms. His Excellency the Viceroy deserves our thanks
for receiving the joint deputation even at this late hour, especially when he
was busy preparing to receive the head of the different provinces. His
Excellency must be thanked for the unfailing courtesy with which he received
the deputation and the courteous language in which his reply was couched. But
mere courtesy, valuable as it is at all times, never so valuable as at this, is
not enough at this critical moment. ‘Sweet words butter no parsnips’ is a
proverb more applicable to-day than ever before. Behind the courtesy there was
the determination to punish Turkey. Punishment of Turkey is a thing which
Muslim sentiment cannot tolerate for a moment. Muslim soldiers are as
responsible for the result of the war as any others. It was to appease them
that Mr. Asquith said when Turkey decided to join the Central Powers that the
British Government had no designs on Turkey and that His Majesty’s Government
would never think of punishing the Sultan for the misdeeds of the Turkish
Committee. Examined by that standard the Viceregal reply is not only
disappointing but it is a fall from truth and justice.
</p>
<p>
What is this British Empire? It is as much Mahomedan and Hindu as it is
Christian. Its religious neutrality is not a virtue, or if it is, it is a
virtue of necessity. Such a mighty Empire could not be held together on any
other terms. British ministers are therefore bound to protect Mahomedan
interests as any other. Indeed as the Muslim rejoinder says, they are bound to
make the cause their own. What is the use of His Excellency having presented
the Muslim claim before the Conference? If the cause is lost the Mahomedans
will be entitled to think that Britain did not do her duty by them. And the
Viceregal reply confirms the view. When His Excellency says that Turkey must
suffer for her having joined the Central Powers he but expresses the opinion of
British ministers. We hope, therefore, with the framers of the Muslim rejoinder
that His Majesty’s ministers will mend the mistakes if any have been committed
and secure a settlement that would satisfy Mahomedan sentiment.
</p>
<p>
What does the sentiment demand? The preservation of the Khilafat with such
guarantee as may be necessary for the protection of the interests of the
non-Muslim races living under Turkish rule and the Khalif’s control over Arabia
and the Holy Places with such arrangement as may be required for guaranteeing
Arab self-rule, should the Arabs desire it. It is hardly possible to state the
claim more fairly than has been done. It is a claim backed by justice, by the
declarations of British ministers and by the unanimous Hindu and Muslim
opinion. It would be midsummer madness to reject or whittle down a claim so
backed.
</p>
<h3>THE SUZERAINTY OVER ARABIA</h3>
<p class="letter">
“As I told you in my last letter I think Mr. Gandhi has made a serious mistake
in the Kailafat business. The Indian Mahomedans base their demand on the
assertion that their religion requires the Turkish rule over Arabia: but when
they have against them in this matter, the Arabs themselves, it is impossible
to regard the theory of the Indian Mahomedans as essential to Islam. After all
if the Arabs do not represent Islam, who does? It is as if the German Roman
Catholics made a demand in the name of Roman Catholicism with Rome and the
Italians making a contrary demand. But even if the religion of the Indian
Mahomedans did require that Turkish rule should be imposed upon the Arabs
against their will, one could not, now-a-days, recognise as a really religious
demand, one which required the continued oppression of one people by another.
When an assurance was given at the beginning of the war to the Indian
Mahomedans that the Mahomedan religion would be respected, that could never
have meant that a temporal sovereignty which violated the principles of
self-determination would be upheld. We could not now stand by and see the Turks
re-conquer the Arabs (for the Arabs would certainly fight against them) without
grossly betraying the Arabs to whom we have given pledges. It is not true that
the Arab hostility to the Turks was due simply to European suggestion. No
doubt, during the war we availed ourselves of the Arab hostility to the Turks
to get another ally, but the hostility had existed long before the war. The
Non-Turkish Mahomedan subjects of the Sultan in general wanted to get rid of
his rule. It is the Indian Mahomedans who have no experience of that rule who
want to impose it on others. As a matter of fact the idea of any restoration of
Turkish rule in Syria or Arabia, seems so remote from all possibilities that to
discuss it seems like discussing a restoration of the Holy Roman Empire. I
cannot conceive what series of events could bring it about. The Indian
Mahomedans certainly could not march into Arabia themselves and conquer the
Arabs for the Sultan. And no amount of agitation and trouble in India would
ever induce England to put back Turkish rule in Arabia. In this matter it is
not English Imperialism which the Indian Mahomedans are up against, but the
mass of English Liberal and Humanitarian opinion, the mass of the better
opinion of England, which wants self-determination to go forward in India.
Supposing the Indian Mahomedans could stir up an agitation so violent in India
as to sever the connection between India and the British Crown, still they
would not be any nearer to their purpose. For to-day they do have considerable
influence on British world-policy. Even if in this matter of the Turkish
question their influence has not been sufficient to turn the scale against the
very heavy weights on the other side, it has weighed in the scale. But apart
from the British connection, Indian Mahomedans would have no influence at all
outside India. They would not count for more in world politics than the
Mahomedans of China. I think it is likely (apart from the pressure of America
on the other side. I should say certain) that the influence of the Indian
Mahomedans may at any rate avail to keep the Sultan in Constantinople. But I
doubt whether they will gain any advantage by doing so. For a Turkey cut down
to the Turkish parts of Asia-Minor, Constantinople would be a very inconvenient
capital. I think its inconvenience would more than outweigh the sentimental
gratification of keeping up a phantom of the old Ottoman Empire. But if the
Indian Mahomedans want the Sultan to retain his place in Constantinople I think
the assurances given officially by the Viceroy in India now binds us to insist
on his remaining there and I think he will remain there in spite of America.”
</p>
<p>
This is an extract, from the letter of an Englishman enjoying a position in
Great Britain, to a friend in India. It is a typical letter, sober, honest, to
the point and put in such graceful language that whilst it challenges you, it
commands your respect by its very gracefulness. But it is just this attitude
based upon insufficient or false information which has ruined many a cause in
the British Isles. The superficiality, the one-sidedness the inaccuracy and
often even dishonesty that have crept into modern journalism, continuously
mislead honest men who want to see nothing but justice done. Then there are
always interested groups whose business it is to serve their ends by means of
faul or food. And the honest Englishman wishing to vote for justice but swayed
by conflicting opinions and dominated by distorted versions, often ends by
becoming an instrument of injustice.
</p>
<p>
The writer of the letter quoted above has built up convincing argument on
imaginary data. He has successfully shown that the Mahomedan case, as it has
been presented to him, is a rotten case. In India, where it is not quite easy
to distort facts about the Khilafat, English friends admit the utter justice of
the Indian-Mahomedan claim. But they plead helplessness and tell us that the
Government of India and Mr. Montagu have done all it was humanly possible for
them to do. And if now the judgment goes against Islam, Indian Mahomedans
should resign themselves to it. This extraordinary state of things would not be
possible except under this modern rush and preoccupations of all responsible
people.
</p>
<p>
Let us for a moment examine the case as it has been imagined by the writer. He
suggests that Indian Mahomedans want Turkish rule in Arabia in spite of the
opposition of the Arabs themselves, and that, if the Arabs do not want Turkish
rule, the writer argues, no false religions sentiment can be permitted to
interfere with self-determination of the Arabs when India herself has been
pleading for that very status. Now the fact is that the Mahomedans, as is known
to everybody who has at all studied the case, have never asked for Turkish rule
in Arabia in opposition to the Arabs. On the contrary, they have said that they
have no intention of resisting Arabian self-government. All they ask for is
Turkish suzerainty over Arabia which would guarantee complete self-rule for the
Arabs. They want Khalif’s control of the Holy Places of Islam. In other words
they ask for nothing more than what was guaranteed by Mr. Lloyd George and on
the strength of which guarantee Mahomedan soldiers split their blood on behalf
of the Allied Powers. All the elaborate argument therefore and the cogent
reasoning of the above extract fall to pieces based as they are upon a case
that has never existed. I have thrown myself heart and soul into this question
because British pledges abstract justice, and religious sentiment coincide. I
can conceive the possibility of a blind and fanatical religious sentiment
existing in opposition to pure justice. I should then resist the former and
fight for the latter. Nor would I insist upon pledges given dishonestly to
support an unjust cause as has happened with England in the case of the secret
treaties. Resistance there becomes not only lawful but obligatory on the part
of a nation that prides itself on its righteousness.
</p>
<p>
It is unnecessary for me to examine the position imagined by the English
friend, viz., how India would have fared had she been an independent power. It
is unnecessary because Indian Mahomedans, and for that matter India, are
fighting for a cause that is admittedly just; a cause in aid of which they are
invoking the whole-hearted support of the British people. I would however
venture to suggest that this is a cause in which mere sympathy will not
suffice. It is a cause which demands support that is strong enough to bring
about substantial justice.
</p>
<h3>FURTHER QUESTIONS ANSWERED</h3>
<p>
I have been overwhelmed with public criticism and private advice and even
anonymous letters telling me exactly what I should do. Some are impatient that
I do not advise immediate and extensive non-co-operation; others tell me what
harm I am doing the country by throwing it knowingly in a tempest of violence
on either side. It is difficult for me to deal with the whole of the criticism,
but I would summarize some of the objections and endeavour to answer them to
the best of my ability. These are in addition to those I have already
answered:—
</p>
<p>
(1) Turkish claim is immoral or unjust and how can I, a lover of truth and
justice, support it? (2) Even if the claim be just in theory, the Turk is
hopelessly incapable, weak and cruel. He does not deserve any assistance.
</p>
<p>
(3) Even if Turkey deserves all that is claimed for her, why should I land
India in an international struggle?
</p>
<p>
(4) It is no part of the Indian Mahomedans’ business to meddle in this affair.
If they cherish any political ambition, they have tried, they have failed and
they should now sit still. If it is a religious matter with them, it cannot
appeal to the Hindu reason in the manner it is put and in any case Hindus ought
not to identify themselves with Mahomedans in their religious quarrel with
Christendom.
</p>
<p>
(5) In no case should I advocate non-co-operation which in its extreme sense is
nothing but a rebellion, no matter how peaceful it may be.
</p>
<p>
(6) Moreover, my experience of last year must show me that it is beyond the
capacity of any single human being to control the forces of violence that are
lying dormant in the land.
</p>
<p>
(7) Non-co-operation is futile because people will never respond in right
earnest, and reaction that might afterwards set in will be worse than the state
of hopefulness we are now in.
</p>
<p>
(8) Non-co-operation will bring about cessation of all other activities, even
working of the Reforms, thus set back the clock of progress. (9) However pure
my motives may be, those of the Mussalmans are obviously revengeful.
</p>
<p>
I shall now answer the objections in the order in which they are stated—
</p>
<p>
(1) In my opinion the Turkish claim is not only not immoral and unjust, but it
is highly equitable, if only because Turkey wants to retain what is her own.
And the Mahomedan manifesto has definitely declared that whatever guarantees
may be necessary to be taken for the protection of non-Muslim and non-Turkish
races, should be taken so as to give the Christians theirs and the Arabs their
self-government under the Turkish suzerainty.
</p>
<p>
(2) I do not believe the Turk to be weak, incapable or cruel. He is certainly
disorganised and probably without good generalship. He has been obliged to
fight against heavy odds. The argument of weakness, incapacity and cruelty one
often hears quoted in connection with those from whom power is sought to be
taken away. About the alleged massacres a proper commission has been asked for,
but never granted. And in any case security can be taken against oppression.
</p>
<p>
(3) I have already stated that if I were not interested in the Indian
Mahomedans, I would not interest myself in the welfare of the Turks any more
than I am in that of the Austrians or the Poles. But I am bound as an Indian to
share the sufferings and trial of fellow-Indians. If I deem the Mahomedan to be
my brother. It is my duty to help him in his hour of peril to the best of my
ability, if his cause commends itself to me as just.
</p>
<p>
(4) The fourth refers to the extent Hindus should join hands with the
Mahomedans. It is therefore a matter of feeling and opinion. It is expedient to
suffer for my Mahomedan brother to the utmost in a just cause and I should
therefore travel with him along the whole road so long as the means employed by
him are as honourable as his end. I cannot regulate the Mahomedan feeling. I
must accept his statement that the Khilafat is with him a religious question in
the sense that it binds him to reach the goal even at the cost of his own life.
</p>
<p>
(5) I do not consider non-co-operation to be a rebellion, because it is free
from violence. In a larger sense all opposition to a Government measure is a
rebellion. In that sense, rebellion in a just cause is a duty, the extent of
opposition being determined by the measure of the injustice done and felt.
</p>
<p>
(6) My experience of last year shows me that in spite of aberrations in some
parts of India, the country was entirely under control that the influence of
Satyagraha was profoundly for its good and that where violence did break out
there were local causes that directly contributed to it. At the same time I
admit that even the violence that did take place on the part of the people and
the spirit of lawlessness that was undoubtedly shown in some parts should have
remained under check. I have made ample acknowledgment of the miscalculation I
then made. But all the painful experience that I then gained did not any way
shake my belief in Satyagraha or in the possibility of that matchless force
being utilised in India. Ample provision is being made this time to avoid the
mistakes of the past. But I must refuse to be deterred from a clear course;
because it may be attended by violence totally unintended and in spite of
extraordinary efforts that are being made to prevent it. At the same time I
must make my position clear. Nothing can possibly prevent a Satyagrahi from
doing his duty because of the frown of the authorities. I would risk, if
necessary, a million lives so long as they are voluntary sufferers and are
innocent, spotless victims. It is the mistakes of the people that matter in a
Satyagraha campaign. Mistakes, even insanity must be expected from the strong
and the powerful, and the moment of victory has come when there is no retort to
the mad fury of the powerful, but a voluntary, dignified and quiet submission
but not submission to the will of the authority that has put itself in the
wrong. The secret of success lies therefore in holding every English life and
the life of every officer serving the Government as sacred as those of our own
dear ones. All the wonderful experience I have gained now during nearly 40
years of conscious existence, has convinced me that there is no gift so
precious as that of life. I make bold to say that the moment the Englishmen
feel that although they are in India in a hopeless minority, their lives are
protected against harm not because of the matchless weapons of destruction
which are at their disposal, but because Indians refuse to take the lives even
of those whom they may consider to be utterly in the wrong that moment will see
a transformation in the English nature in its relation to India and that moment
will also be the moment when all the destructive cutlery that is to be had in
India will begin to rust. I know that this is a far-off vision. That cannot
matter to me. It is enough for me to see the light and to act up to it, and it
is more than enough when I gain companions in the onward march. I have claimed
in private conversations with English friends that it is because of my
incessant preaching of the gospel of non-violence and my having successfully
demonstrated its practical utility that so far the forces of violence, which
are undoubtedly in existence in connection with the Khilafat movement, have
remained under complete control.
</p>
<p>
(7) From a religious standpoint the seventh objection is hardly worth
considering. If people do not respond to the movement of non-co-operation, it
would be a pity, but that can be no reason for a reformer not to try. It would
be to me a demonstration that the present position of hopefulness is not
dependent on any inward strength or knowledge, but it is hope born of ignorance
and superstition.
</p>
<p>
(8) If non-co-operation is taken up in earnest, it must bring about a cessation
of all other activities including the Reforms, but I decline to draw therefore
the corollary that it will set back the clock of progress. On the contrary, I
consider non-co-operation to be such a powerful and pure instrument, that if it
is enforced in an earnest spirit, it will be like seeking first the Kingdom of
God and everything else following as a matter of course. People will have then
realised their true power. They would have learnt the value of discipline,
self-control, joint action, non-violence, organisation and everything else that
goes to make a nation great and good, and not merely great.
</p>
<p>
(9) I do not know that I have a right to arrogate greater purity for myself
than for our Mussalman brethren. But I do admit that they do not believe in my
doctrine of non-violence to the full extent. For them it is a weapon of the
weak, an expedient. They consider non-co-operation without violence to be the
only thing open to them in the war of direct action. I know that if some of
them could offer successful violence, they would do to-day. But they are
convinced that humanly speaking it is an impossibility. For them, therefore,
non-co-operation is a matter not merely of duty but also of revenge. Whereas I
take up non-co-operation against the Government as I have actually taken it up
in practice against members of my own family. I entertain very high regard for
the British constitution, I have not only no enmity against Englishmen but I
regard much in English character as worthy of my emulation. I count many as my
friends. It is against my religion to regard any one as an enemy. I entertain
similar sentiments with respect to Mahomedans. I find their cause to be just
and pure. Although therefore their viewpoint is different from mine I do not
hesitate to associate with them and invite them to give my method a trial, for,
I believe that the use of a pure weapon even from a mistaken motive does not
fail to produce some good, even as the telling of truth if only because for the
time being it is the best policy, is at least so much to the good.
</p>
<h3>MR. CANDLER’S OPEN LETTER</h3>
<p>
Mr. Candler has favoured me with an open letter on this question of questions.
The letter has already appeared in the Press. I can appreciate Mr. Candler’s
position as I would like him and other Englishmen to appreciate mine and that
of hundreds of Hindus who feel as I do. Mr. Candler’s letter is an attempt to
show that Mr. Lloyd George’s pledge is not in any way broken by the peace
terms. I quite agree with him that Mr. Lloyd George’s words ought not to be
torn from their context to support the Mahomedan claim. These are Mr. Lloyd
George’s words as quoted in the recent Viceregal message: “Nor are we fighting
to destroy Austria-Hungary or to deprive Turkey of its capital or of the rich
and renowned lands of Asia Minor and Thrace which are predominantly Turkish in
race.” Mr. Candler seems to read ‘which’, as if it meant ‘if they,’ whereas I
give the pronoun its natural meaning, namely, that the Prime Minister knew in
1918, that the lands referred to by him were “predominantly Turkish in race.”
And if this is the meaning I venture to suggest that the pledge has been broken
in a most barefaced manner, for there is practically nothing left to the Turk
of ‘the rich and renowned lands of Asia Minor and Thrace.’
</p>
<p>
I have already my view of the retention of the Sultan in Constantinople. It is
an insult to the intelligence of man to suggest that ‘the maintenance of the
Turkish Empire in the homeland of the Turkish race with its capital at
Constantinople has been left unimpaired by the terms of peace. This is the
other passage from the speech which I presume Mr. Candler wants me to read
together with the one already quoted:—
</p>
<p class="letter">
“While we do not challenge the maintenance of the Turkish Empire in the
home-land of the Turkish race with its capital at Constantinople, the passage
between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea being inter-nationalised, Armenia,
Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine are in our judgment entitled to a recognition
of their separate national condition.”
</p>
<p>
Did that mean entire removal of Turkish influence, extinction of Turkish
suzerainty and the introduction of European-Christian influence under the guise
of Mandates? Have the Moslems of Arabia, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria and
Palestine been committed, or is the new arrangement being superimposed upon
them by Powers conscious of their own brute-strength rather than of justice of
their action? I for one would nurse by every legitimate means the spirit of
independence in the brave Arabs, but I shudder to think what will happen to
them under the schemes of exploitation of their country by the greedy
capitalists protected as they will be by the mandatory Powers. If the pledge is
to be fulfilled, let these places have full self-government with suzerainty to
be retained with Turkey as has been suggested by the <i>Times of India</i>. Let
there be all the necessary guarantees taken from Turkey about the internal
independence of the Arabs. But to remove that suzerainty, to deprive the Khalif
of the wardenship of the Holy Places is to render Khilafat a mockery which no
Mahomedan can possibly look upon with equanimity, I am not alone in my
interpretation of the pledge. The Right Hon’ble Ameer Ali calls the peace terms
a breach of faith. Mr. Charles Roberts reminds the British public that the
Indian Mussalman sentiment regarding the Turkish Treaty is based upon the Prime
Minister’s pledge “regarding Thrace, Constantinople and Turkish lands in Asia
Minor, repeated on February 26 last with deliberation by Mr. Lloyd George. Mr.
Roberts holds that the pledge must be treated as a whole, not as binding only
regarding Constantinople but also binding as regards Thrace and Asia Minor. He
describes the pledge as binding upon the nation as a whole and its breach in
any part as a gross breach of faith on the part of the British Empire. He
demands that if there is an unanswerable reply to the charge of breach of faith
it ought to be given and adds the Prime Minister may regard his own word
lightly if he chooses, but he has no right to break a pledge given on behalf of
the nation. He concludes that it is incredible that such pledge should not have
been kept in the letter and in the spirit.” He adds: “I have reason to believe
that these views are fully shared by prominent members of the Cabinet.”
</p>
<p>
I wonder if Mr. Candler knows what is going on to-day in England. Mr. Pickthall
writing in <i>New Age</i> says: “No impartial international enquiry into the
whole question of the Armenian massacres has been instituted in the ample time
which has elapsed since the conclusion of armistice with Turkey. The Turkish
Government has asked for such enquiry. But the Armenian organisations and the
Armenian partisans refuse to hear of such a thing, declaring that the Bryce and
Lepssens reports are quite sufficient to condemn the Turks. In other words the
judgment should be given on the case for prosecution alone. The inter-allied
commission which investigated the unfortunate events in Smyrna last year, made
a report unfavourable to Greek claims. Therefore, that report has not been
published here in England, though in other countries it has long been public
property.” He then goes on to show how money is being scattered by Armenian and
Greek emissaries in order to popularise their cause and adds: “This conjunction
of dense ignorance and cunning falsehood is fraught with instant danger to the
British realm,” and concludes: “A Government and people which prefer propaganda
to fact as the ground of policy—and foreign policy at that—is self-condemned.”
</p>
<p>
I have reproduced the above extract in order to show that the present British
policy has been affected by propaganda of an unscrupulous nature. Turkey which
was dominant over two million square miles of Asia, Africa and Europe in the
17th century, under the terms of the treaty, says the <i>London Chronicle</i>,
has dwindled down to little more than 1,000 square miles. It says, “All
European Turkey could now be accommodated comfortably between the Landsend and
the Tamar, Cornawal alone exceeding its total area and but for its alliance
with Germany, Turkey could have been assured of retaining at least sixty
thousand square miles of the Eastern Balkans.” I do not know whether the
<i>Chronicle</i> view is generally shared. Is it by way of punishment that
Turkey is to undergo such shrinkage, or is it because justice demands it? If
Turkey had not made the mistake of joining Germany, would the principle of
nationality have been still applied to Armenia, Arabia, Mesopotamia and
Palestine?
</p>
<p>
Let me now remind those who think with Mr. Candler that the promise was not
made by Mr. Lloyd George to the people of India in anticipation of the supply
of recruits continuing. In defending his own statement Mr. Lloyd George is
reported to have said:
</p>
<p class="letter">
“The effect of the statement in India was that recruiting went up appreciably
from that very moment. They were not all Mahomedans but there were many
Mahomedans amongst them. Now we are told that was an offer to Turkey. But they
rejected it, and therefore we were absolutely free. It was not. It is too often
forgotten that we are the greatest Mahomedan power in the world and one-fourth
of the population of the British Empire is Mahomedan. There have been no more
loyal adherents to the throne and no more effective and loyal supporters of the
Empire in its hour of trial. <i>We gave a solemn pledge and they accepted
it</i>. They are disturbed by the prospect of our not abiding by it.”
</p>
<p>
Who shall interpret that pledge and how? How did the Government of India itself
interpret it? Did it or did it not energetically support the claim for the
control of the Holy Places of Islam vesting in the Khalif? Did the Government
of India suggest that the whole of Jazirat-ul-Arab could be taken away
consistently with that pledge from the sphere of influence of the Khalif, and
given over to the Allies as mandatory Powers? Why does the Government of India
sympathise with the Indian Mussalmans if the terms are all they should be? So
much for the pledge. I would like to guard myself against being understood that
I stand or fall absolutely by Mr. Lloyd George’s declaration. I have advisedly
used the adverb ‘practically’ in connection with it. It is an important
qualification.’
</p>
<p>
Mr. Candler seems to suggest that my goal is something more than merely
attaining justice on the Khilafat. If so, he is right. Attainment of justice is
undoubtedly the corner-stone, and if I found that I was wrong in my conception
of justice on this question, I hope I shall have the courage immediately to
retrace my steps. But by helping the Mahomedans of India at a critical moment
in their history, I want to buy their friendship. Moreover, if I can carry the
Mahomedans with me I hope to wean Great Britain from the downward path along
which the Prime Minister seems to me to be taking her. I hope also to show to
India and the Empire at large that given a certain amount of capacity for
self-sacrifice, justice can be secured by peacefullest and cleanest means
without sowing or increasing bitterness between English and Indians. For,
whatever may be the temporary effect of my methods, I know enough of them to
feel certain that they alone are immune from lasting bitterness. They are
untainted with hatred, expedience or untruth.
</p>
<h3>IN PROCESS OF KEEPING</h3>
<p>
The writer of ‘Current Topics’ in the “Times of India” has attempted to
challenge the statement made in my Khilafat article regarding ministerial
pledges, and in doing so cites Mr. Asquith’s Guild-Hall speech of November 10,
1914. When I wrote the articles, I had in mind Mr. Asquith’s speech. I am sorry
that he ever made that speech. For, in my humble opinion, it betrayed to say
the least, a confusion of thought. Could he think of the Turkish people as
apart from the Ottoman Government? And what is the meaning of the death-knell
of Ottoman Dominion in Europe and Asia if it be not the death knell of Turkish
people as a free and governing race? Is it, again, true historically that the
Turkish rule has always been a blight that ‘has withered some of the fairest
regions of the earth?’ And what is the meaning of his statement that followed,
viz., “Nothing is further from our thoughts than to imitate or encourage a
crusade against their belief?” If words have any meaning, the qualifications
that Mr. Asquith introduced in his speech should have meant a scrupulous regard
for Indian Muslim feeling. And if that be the meaning of his speech, without
anything further to support me I would claim that even Mr. Asquith’s assurance
is in danger of being set at nought if the resolutions of the San Remo
Conference are to be crystallised into action. But I base remarks on a
considered speech made by Mr. Asquith’s successor two years later when things
had assumed a more threatening shape than in 1914 and when the need for Indian
help was much greater than in 1914. His pledge would bear repetition till it is
fulfilled. He said: “Nor are we fighting to deprive Turkey of its capital or of
the rich and renowned lands of Asia Minor and Thrace which are predominantly
Turkish in race. We do not challenge the maintenance of the Turkish Empire in
the homelands of the Turkish race with its capital at Constantinople.” If only
every word of this pledge is fulfilled both in letter and in spirit, there
would be little left for quarrelling about. In so far as Mr. Asquith’s
declaration can be considered hostile to the Indian Muslim claim, it its
superseded by the later and more considered declaration of Mr. Lloyd George—a
declaration made irrevocable by fulfilment of the consideration it expected,
viz. the enlistment of the brave Mahomedan soldiery which fought in the very
place which is now being partitioned in spite of the pledge. But the writer of
‘Current Topics’ says Mr. Lloyd George “is now in process of keeping his
pledge” I hope he is right. But what has already happened gives little ground
for any such hope. For, imprisonment or internment of the Khalif in his own
capital will be not only a mockery of fulfilment but it would he adding injury
to insult. Either the Turkish Empire is to be maintained in the homelands of
the Turkish race with its capital at Constantinople or it is not. If it is, let
the Indian Mahomedans feel the full glow of it or if the Empire is to be broken
up, let the mask of hypocrisy be lifted and India see the truth in its
nakedness. To join the Khilafat movement then means to join a movement to keep
inviolate the pledge of a British minister. Surely, such a movement is worth
much greater sacrifice than may be involved in non-co-operation.
</p>
<h3>APPEAL TO THE VICEROY</h3>
<p>
Your Excellency.
</p>
<p>
As one who has enjoyed a certain measure of your Excellency’s confidence, and
as one who claims to be a devoted well-wisher of the British Empire, I owe it
to your Excellency, and through your Excellency to His Majesty’s Ministers, to
explain my connection with and my conduct in the Khilafat question.
</p>
<p>
At the very earliest stages of the war, even whilst I was in London organising
the Indian Volunteer Ambulance Corps, I began to interest myself in the
Khilafat question. I perceived how deeply moved the little Mussalman World in
London was when Turkey decided to throw in her lot with Germany. On my arrival
in India in the January of 1915, I found the same anxiousness and earnestness
among the Mussalmans with whom I came in contact. Their anxiety became intense
when the information about the Secret Treaties leaked out. Distrust of British
intentions filled their minds, and despair took possession of them. Even at
that moment I advised my Mussalman friends not to give way to despair, but to
express their fear and their hopes in a disciplined manner. It will be admitted
that the whole of Mussalman India has behaved in a singularly restrained manner
during the past five years and that the leaders have been able to keep the
turbulent sections of their community under complete control.
</p>
<p>
The peace terms and your Excellency’s defence of them have given the Mussalmans
of India a shock from which it will be difficult for them to recover. The terms
violate ministerial pledges and utterly disregard Mussalman sentiment. I
consider that as a staunch Hindu wishing to live on terms of the closest
friendship with my Mussalman countrymen. I should be an unworthy son of India
if I did not stand by them in their hour of trial. In my humble opinion their
cause is just. They claim that Turkey must be <i>punished</i> if their
sentiment is to be respected. Muslim soldiers did fight to inflict punishment
on their own Khalifa or to deprive him of his territories. The Mussalman
attitude has been consistent, throughout these five years.
</p>
<p>
My duty to the Empire to which I owe my loyalty requires me to resist the cruel
violence that has been done to the Mussalman sentiment. So far as I am aware,
Mussulmans and Hindus have as a whole lost faith in British justice and honour.
The report of the majority of the Hunter Committee, Your Excellency’s despatch
thereon and Mr. Montagu’s reply have only aggravated the distrust.
</p>
<p>
In these circumstances the only course open to one like me is either in despair
to sever all connection with British rule, or, if I still retained faith in the
inherent superiority of the British constitution to all others at present in
vogue to adopt such means as will rectify the wrong done, and thus restore
confidence. I have not lost faith in such superiority and I am not without hope
that somehow or other justice will yet be rendered if we show the requisite
capacity for suffering. Indeed, my conception of that constitution is that it
helps only those who are ready to help themselves. I do not believe that it
protects the weak. It gives free scope to the strong to maintain their strength
and develop it. The weak under it go to the wall.
</p>
<p>
It is, then, because I believe in the British constitution that I have advised
my Mussalman friends to withdraw their support from your Excellency’s
Government and the Hindus to join them, should the peace terms not be revised
in accordance with the solemn pledges of Ministers and the Muslim sentiment.
</p>
<p>
Three courses were open to the Mahomedans in order to mark their emphatic
disapproval of the utter injustice to which His Majesty’s Ministers have become
party, if they have not actually been the prime perpetrators of it. They are:—
</p>
<p>
(1) To resort to violence,
</p>
<p>
(2) To advise emigration on a wholesale scale,
</p>
<p>
(3) Not to be party to the injustice by ceasing to co-operate with the
Government.
</p>
<p>
Your Excellency must be aware that there was a time when the boldest, though
the most thoughtless among the Mussulmans favoured violence, and the “Hijrat”
(emigration) has not yet ceased to be the battle-cry. I venture to claim that I
have succeeded by patient reasoning in weaning the party of violence from its
ways. I confess that I did not—I did not attempt to succeed in weaning them
from violence on moral grounds, but purely on utilitarian grounds. The result,
for the time being at any has, however, been to stop violence. The School of
“Hijrat” has received a check, if it has not stopped its activity entirely. I
hold that no repression could have prevented a violent eruption, if the people
had not had presented to them a form of direct action involving considerable
sacrifice and ensuring success if such direct action was largely taken up by
the public. Non-co-operation was the only dignified and constitutional form of
such direct action. For it is the right recognised from times immemorial of the
subject to refuse to assist a ruler who misrules.
</p>
<p>
At the same time I admit that non-co-operation practised by the mass of people
is attended with grave risks. But, in a crisis such as has overtaken the
Mussalmans of India, no step that is unattended with large risks, can possibly
bring about the desired change. Not to run some risks now will be to court much
greater risks if not virtual destruction of Law and Order.
</p>
<p>
But there is yet an escape from non-co-operation. The Mussalman representation
has requested your Excellency to lead the agitation yourself, as did your
distinguished predecessor at the time of the South African trouble. But if you
cannot see your way to do so, and non-co-operation becomes a dire necessity, I
hope that your Excellency will give those who have accepted my advice and
myself the credit for being actuated by nothing less than a stern sense of
duty.
</p>
<p>
I have the honour to remain,
</p>
<p>
Your Excellency’s faithful servant, (Sd.) M.K. GANDHI. Laburnam Road, Gamdevi,
Bombay 22nd June 1920
</p>
<h3>THE PREMIER’S REPLY</h3>
<p>
The English mail has brought us a full and official report of the Premier’s
speech which he recently made when he received the Khilafat deputation. Mr.
Lloyd George’s speech is more definite and therefore more disappointing than
H.E. the Viceroy’s reply to the deputation here. He draws quite unwarranted
deductions from the same high principles on which he had based his own pledge
only two years ago. He declares that Turkey must pay the penalty of defeat.
This determination to punish Turkey does not become one whose immediate
predecessor had, in order to appease Muslim soldiers, promised that the British
Government had no designs on Turkey and that His Majesty’s Government would
never think of punishing the Sultan for the misdeeds of the Turkish Committee.
Mr. Lloyd George has expressed his belief that the majority of the population
of Turkey did not really want to quarrel with Great Britain and that their
rulers misled the country. In spite of this conviction and in spite of Mr.
Asquith’s promise, he is out to punish Turkey and punish it in the name of
justice.
</p>
<p>
He expounds the principle of self-determination and justifies the scheme of
depriving Turkey of its territories one after another. While justifying this
scheme he does not exclude even Thrace and this strikes the reader most,
because this very Thrace he had mentioned in his pledge as predominantly
Turkish. Now we are told by him that both the Turkish census and the Greek
census agree in pointing out the Mussulman population in Thrace is in a
considerable minority! Mr. Yakub Hussain speaking at the Madras Khilafat
conference has challenged the truth of this statement. The Prime Minister cites
among others also the example of Smyrna where, he says, we had a most careful
investigation by a very impartial committee in the whole of the question of
Smyrna and it was found that considerable majority was non-Turkish.’ Who will
believe the one-sided “impartial committee’s” investigations until it is
disproved that thousands of Musselmans have been murdered and hundreds of
thousands have been driven away from their hearths and homes? Strangely enough
Mr. Lloyd George, believes in the necessity of fresh investigations by a
purposely appointed committee in Smyrna as the most authenticated and
up-to-date report, whereas he would not accept Mr. Mahomed Ali’s proposal for
an impartial commission in regard to Armenian massacre! Doubtful and one-sided
facts and figures suffice for him even to conclude that the Turkish Government
is incapable of protecting its subjects. And he proceeds to suggest foreign
interference in ruling over Asia Minor in the interests of civilization. Here
he cuts at the root of the Sultan’s independence. This proposal of
appropriating supervision is distinctly unlike the treatment meted out to other
enemy powers.
</p>
<p>
This detraction of the Sultan’s suzerainty is only a corollary of the Premier’s
indifference towards the Muslim idea of the Caliphate. The premier’s injustice
in treating the Turkish question becomes graver when he thus lightly handles
the Khilafat question. There had been occasions when the British have used to
their advantage the Muslim idea of associating the Caliph’s spiritual power
with temporal power. Now this very association is treated as a controversial
question by the great statesman.
</p>
<p>
Will this raise the reputation of Great Britain or stain it? Can this be
tolerated by those who fought against Turkey with full faith in British
honesty? Mere receipts of gratitude cannot console the wounded Mussalmans.
There lies the alternative for England to choose between two mandates—a mandate
over some Turkish territories which is sure to lead to chaos all over the world
and a mandate over the hearts of the Muhomedans which will redeem the pledged
honour of Britain. The prime minister has an unwise choice. This narrow view
registers the latest temperature of British diplomacy.
</p>
<h3>THE MUSSULMAN REPRESENTATION</h3>
<p>
Slowly but surely the Mussulmans are preparing for the battle before them. They
have to fight against odds that are undoubtedly heavy but not half as heavy as
the prophet had against him. How often did he not put his life in danger? But
his faith in God was unquenchable. He went forward with a light heart, for God
was on his side, for he represented truth. If his followers have half the
prophet’s faith and half his spirit of sacrifice, the odds will be presently
even and will in little while turn against the despoilers of Turkey. Already
the rapacity of the Allies is telling against themselves. France finds her task
difficult. Greece cannot stomach her ill-gotten gains. And England finds
Mesopotamia a tough job. The oil of Mosul may feed the fire she has so wantonly
lighted and burn her fingers badly. The newspapers say the Arabs do not like
the presence of the Indian soldiery in their midst. I do not wonder. They are a
fierce and a brave people and do not understand why Indian soldiers should find
themselves in Mesopotamia. Whatever the fate of non-co-operation, I wish that
not a single Indian will offer his services for Mesopotamia whether for the
civil or the military department. We must learn to think for ourselves and
before entering upon any employment find out whether thereby we may not make
ourselves instruments of injustice. Apart from the question of Khilafat and
from the point of abstract justice the English have no right to hold
Mesopotamia. It is no part of our loyalty to help the Imperial Government in
what is in plain language daylight robbery. If therefore we seek civil or
military employment in Mesopotamia we do so for the sake of earning a
livelihood. It is our duty to see that the source is not tainted.
</p>
<p>
It surprises me to find so many people shirking over the mention of
non-co-operation. There is no instrument so clean, so harmless and yet so
effective as non-co-operation. Judiciously hauled it need not produce any evil
consequences. And its intensity will depend purely on the capacity of the
people for sacrifice.
</p>
<p>
The chief thing is to prepare the atmosphere of non-co-operation. “We are not
going to co-operate with you in your injustice,” is surely the right and the
duty of every intelligent subject to say. Were it not for our utter servility,
helplessness and want of confidence in ourselves, we would certainly grasp this
clean weapon and make the most effective use of it. Even the most despotic
government cannot stand except for the consent of the governed which consent is
often forcibly procured by the despot. Immediately the subject ceases to fear
the despotic force his power is gone. But the British government is never and
nowhere entirely or laid upon force. It does make an honest attempt to secure
the goodwill of the governed. But it does not hesitate to adopt unscrupulous
means to compel the consent of the governed. It has not gone beyond the
‘Honesty is the best policy’ idea. It therefore bribes you into consenting its
will by awarding titles, medals and ribbons, by giving you employment, by its
superior financial ability to open for its employees avenues for enriching
themselves and finally when these fail, it resorts to force. That is what Sir
Michael O’Dwyer did and that is almost every British administrator will
certainly do if he thought it necessary. If then we would not be greedy, if we
would not run after titles and medals and honorary posts which do the country
no good, half the battle is won.
</p>
<p>
My advisers are never tired of telling me that even if the Turkish peace terms
are revised it will not be due to non-co-operation. I venture to suggest to
them that non-co-operation has a higher purpose than mere revision of the
terms. If I cannot compel revision I must at least cease to support a
government that becomes party to the usurpation. And if I succeed in pushing
non-co-operation to the extreme limit, I do compel the Government to choose
between India and the usurpation. I have faith enough in England to know that
at that moment England will expel her present jaded ministers and put in others
who will make a clean sweep of the terms in consultation with an awakened
India, draft terms that will be honourable to her, to Turkey and acceptable to
India. But I hear my critics say “India has not the strength of purpose and the
capacity for the sacrifice to achieve such a noble end. They are partly right.
India has not these qualities now, because we have not—shall we not evolve them
and infect the nation with them? Is not the attempt worth making? Is my
sacrifice too great to gain such a great purpose?”
</p>
<h3>CRITICISM OF THE MUSLIM MANIFESTO</h3>
<p>
The Khilafat representation addressed to the Viceroy and my letter on the same
subject have been severely criticised by the Anglo-Indian press. <i>The Times
of India</i> which generally adopts an impartial attitude has taken strong
exception to certain statements made in the Muslim manifesto and has devoted a
paragraph of its article to an advance criticism of my suggestion that His
Excellency should resign if the peace terms are not revised.
</p>
<p>
<i>The Times of India</i> excepts to the submission that the British Empire may
not treat Turkey like a departed enemy. The signatories have, I think, supplied
the best of reasons. They say “We respectfully submit that in the treatment of
Turkey the British Government are bound to respect Indian Muslim sentiment in
so far as it is neither unjust nor unreasonable.” If the seven crore Mussulmans
are partners in the Empire, I submit that their wish must be held to be all
sufficient for refraining from punishing Turkey. It is beside the point to
quote what Turkey did during the war. It has suffered for it. <i>The Times</i>
inquires wherein Turkey has been treated worse than the other Powers. I thought
that the fact was self-evident. Neither Germany nor Austria and Hungary has
been treated in the same way that Turkey has been. The whole of the Empire has
been reduced to the retention of a portion of its capital, as it were, to mock
the Sultan and that too has been done under terms so humiliating that no
self-respecting person much less a reigning sovereign can possibly accept.
</p>
<p>
<i>The Times</i> has endeavoured to make capital out of the fact that the
representation does not examine the reason for Turkey not joining the Allies.
Well there was no mystery about it. The fact of Russia being one of the Allies
was enough to warn Turkey against joining them. With Russia knocking at the
gate at the time of the war it was not an easy matter for Turkey to join the
Allies. But Turkey had cause to suspect Great Britain herself. She knew that
England had done no friendly turn to her during the Bulgarian War. She was
hardly well served at the time of the war with Italy. It was still no doubt a
bad choice. With the Musssalmans of India awakened and ready to support her,
her statesmen might have relied upon Britain not being allowed to damage Turkey
if she had remained with the Allies. But this is all wisdom after event. Turkey
made a bad choice and she was punished for it. To humiliate her now is to
ignore the Indian Mussulman sentiment. Britain may not do it and retain the
loyalty of the awakened Mussulmans of India.
</p>
<p>
For “The Times” to say that the peace terms strictly follow the principle of
self-determination is to throw dust in the eyes of its readers. Is it the
principle of self-determination that has caused the cessation of Adrianople and
Thrace to Greece? By what principle of self-determination has Smyrna been
handed to Greece? Have the inhabitants of Thrace and Smyrna asked for Grecian
tutelege?
</p>
<p>
I decline to believe that the Arabs like the disposition that has been made of
them. Who is the King of Hedjaj and who is Emir Feisul? Have the Arabs elected
these kings and chiefs? Do the Arabs like the Mandate being taken by England?
By the time the whole thing is finished, the very name self-determination will
stink in one’s nostrils. Already signs are not wanting to show that the Arabs,
the Thracians and the Smyrnans are resenting their disposal. They may not like
Turkish rule but they like the present arrangement less. They could have made
their own honourable terms with Turkey but these self-determining people will
now be held down by the ‘matchless might’ of the allied <i>i.e.</i>, British
forces. Britain had the straight course open to her of keeping the Turkish
Empire intact and taking sufficient guarantees for good government. But her
Prime Minister chose the crooked course of secret treaties, duplicity and
hypocritical subterfuges.
</p>
<p>
There is still a way out. Let her treat India as a real partner. Let her call
the true representatives of the Mussalmans. Let them go to Arabia and the other
parts of the Turkish Empire and let her devise a scheme that would not
humiliate Turkey, that would satisfy the just Muslim sentiment and that will
secure honest self-determination for the races composing that Empire. If it was
Canada, Australia or South Africa that had to be placated, Mr. Lloyd George
would not have dared to ignore them. They have the power to secede. India has
not. Let him no more insult India by calling her a partner, if her feelings
count for naught. I invite <i>The Times of India</i> to reconsider its position
and join an honourable agitation in which a high-souled people are seeking
nothing but justice.
</p>
<p>
I do with all deference still suggest that the least that Lord Chelmsford can
do is to resign if the sacred feelings of India’s sons are not to be consulted
and respected by the Ministers. <i>The Times</i> is over-taxing the
constitution when it suggests that as a constitutional Viceroy it is not open
to Lord Chelmsford to go against the decision of his Majesty’s Ministers. It is
certainly not open to a Viceroy to retain office and oppose ministerial
decisions. But the constitution does allow a Viceroy to resign his high office
when he is called upon to carry out decisions that are immoral as the peace
terms are or like these terms are calculated to stir to their very depth the
feelings of those whose affair he is administering for the time being.
</p>
<h3>THE MAHOMEDAN DECISION</h3>
<p>
The Khilafat meeting at Allahabad has unanimously reaffirmed the principle of
non-co-operation and appointed an executive committee to lay down and enforce a
detailed programme. This meeting was preceded by a joint Hindu-Mahomedan
meeting at which Hindu leaders were invited to give their views. Mrs. Beasant,
the Hon’ble Pandit Malaviyuji, the Hon’ble Dr. Sapru Motilal Nehru Chintamani
and others were present at the meeting. It was a wise step on the part of the
Khilafat Committee to invite Hindus representing all shades of thought to give
them the benefit of their advice. Mrs. Besant and Dr. Sapru strongly dissuaded
the Mahomedans present from the policy of non-co-operation. The other Hindu
speakers made non-committal speeches. Whilst the other Hindu speakers approved
of the principle of non-co-operation in theory, they saw many practical
difficulties and they feared also complications arising from Mahomedans
welcoming an Afghan invasion of India. The Mahomedan speakers gave the fullest
and frankest assurances that they would fight to a man any invader who wanted
to conquer India, but were equally frank in asserting that any invasion from
without undertaken with a view to uphold the prestige of Islam and to vindicate
justice would have their full sympathy if not their actual support. It is easy
enough to understand and justify the Hindu caution. It is difficult to resist
Mahomedan position. In my opinion, the best way to prevent India from becoming
the battle ground between the forces of Islam and those of the English is for
Hindus to make non-co-operation a complete and immediate success, and I have
little doubt that if the Mahomedans remain true to their declared intention and
are able to exercise self-restraint, and make sacrifices the Hindus will “play
the game” and join them in the campaign of non-co-operation. I feel equally
certain that the Hindus will not assist Mahomedans in promoting or bringing
about an armed conflict between the British Government and their allies, and
Afghanistan. British forces are too well organised to admit of any successful
invasion of the Indian frontier. The only way, therefore, the Mahomedans can
carry on an effective struggle on behalf of the honour of Islam is to take up
non-co-operation in real earnest. It will not only be completely effective if
it is adopted by the people on an extensive scale, but it will also provide
full scope for individual conscience. If I cannot bear an injustice done by an
individual or a corporation, and if I am directly or indirectly instrumental in
upholding that individual or corporation, I must answer for it before my Maker,
but I have done all it is humanly possible for me to do consistently with the
moral code that refuses to injure even the wrong-doer, if I cease to support
the injustice in the manner described above. In applying therefore such a great
force there should be no haste, there should be no temper shown.
Non-co-operation must be and remain absolutely a voluntary effort. The whole
thing then depends upon Mahomedans themselves. If they will but help themselves
Hindu help will come and the Government, great and mighty though it is, will
have to bend before this irresistible force. No Government can possibly
withstand the bloodless opposition of a whole nation.
</p>
<h3>MR. ANDREWS’ DIFFICULTY</h3>
<p>
Mr. Andrews whose love for India is equalled only by his love for England and
whose mission in life is to serve God, i.e., humanity through India, has
contributed remarkable articles to the ‘Bombay Chronicle’ on the Khilafat
movement. He has not spared England, France or Italy. He has shown how Turkey
has been most unjustly dealt with and how the Prime Minister’s pledge has been
broken. He has devoted the last article to an examination of Mr. Mahomed Ali’s
letter to the Sultan and has come to the conclusion that Mr. Mahomed Ali’s
statement of claim is at variance with the claim set forth in the latest
Khilafat representation to the Viceroy which he wholly approves.
</p>
<p>
Mr. Andrews and I have discussed the question as fully as it was possible. He
asked me publicly to define my own position more fully than I have done. His
sole object in inviting discussion is to give strength to a cause which he
holds as intrinsically just, and to gather round it the best opinion of Europe
so that the allied powers and especially England may for very shame be obliged
to revise the terms.
</p>
<p>
I gladly respond to Mr. Andrew’s invitation. I should clear the ground by
stating that I reject any religious doctrine that does not appeal to reason and
is in conflict with morality. I tolerate unreasonable religious sentiment when
it is not immoral. I hold the Khilafat claim to be both just and reasonable and
therefore it derives greater force because it has behind it the religious
sentiment of the Mussalman world.
</p>
<p>
In my opinion Mr. Mahomed Ali’s statement is unexceptionable. It is no doubt
clothed in diplomatic language. But I am not prepared to quarrel with the
language so long as it is sound in substance.
</p>
<p>
Mr. Andrews considers that Mr. Mahomed Ali’s language goes to show that he
would resist Armenian independence against the Armenians and the Arabian
against the Arabs. I attach no such meaning to it. What he, the whole of
Mussalmans and therefore I think also the Hindus resist is the shameless
attempt of England and the other Powers under cover of self-determination to
emasculate and dismember Turkey. If I understand the spirit of Islam properly,
it is essentially republican in the truest sense of the term. Therefore if
Armenia or Arabia desired independence of Turkey they should have it. In the
case of Arabia, complete Arabian independence would mean transference of the
Khilafat to an Arab chieftain. Arabia in that sense is a Mussulman trust, not
purely Arabian. And the Arabs without ceasing to be Mussulman, could not hold
Arabia against Muslim opinion. The Khalifa must be the custodian of the Holy
places and therefore also the routes to them. He must be able to defend them
against the whole world. And if an Arab chief arose who could better satisfy
that test than the Sultan of Turkey, I have no doubt that he would be
recognised as the Khalifa.
</p>
<p>
I have thus discussed the question academically. The fact is that neither the
Mussulmans nor the Hindus believe in the English Ministerial word. They do not
believe that the Arabs or the Armenians want complete independence of Turkey.
That they want self-government is beyond doubt. Nobody disputes that claim. But
nobody has ever ascertained that either the Arabs or the Armenians desire to do
away with all connection, even nominal, with Turkey.
</p>
<p>
The solution of the question lies not in our academic discussion of the ideal
position, it lies in an honest appointment of a mixed commission of absolutely
independent Indian Mussulmans and Hindus and independent Europeans to
investigate the real wish of the Armenians and the Arabs and then to come to a
<i>modus vivendi</i> where by the claims of the nationality and those of Islam
may be adjusted and satisfied.
</p>
<p>
It is common knowledge that Smyrna and Thrace including Adrianople have been
dishonestly taken away from Turkey and that mandates have been unscrupulously
established in Syria and Mesopotamia and a British nominee has been set up in
Hedjaj under the protection of British guns. This is a position that is
intolerable and unjust. Apart therefore from the questions of Armenia and
Arabia, the dishonesty and hypocrisy that pollute the peace terms require to be
instantaneously removed. It paves the way to an equitable solution of the
question of Armenian and Arabian independence which in theory no one denies and
which in practice may be easily guaranteed if only the wishes of the people
concerned could with any degree of certainty be ascertained.
</p>
<h3>THE KHILAFAT AGITATION</h3>
<p>
A friend who has been listening to my speeches once asked me whether I did not
come under the sedition section of the Indian Penal Code. Though I had not
fully considered it, I told him that very probably I did and that I could not
plead ‘not guilty’ if I was charged under it. For I must admit that I can
pretend to no ‘affection’ for the present Government.
</p>
<p>
And my speeches are intended to create ‘dis-affection’ such that the people
might consider it a shame to assist or co-operate with a Government that had
forfeited all title to confidence, respect or support.
</p>
<p>
I draw no distinction between the Imperial and the Indian Government. The
latter has accepted, on the Khilafat, the policy imposed upon it by the former.
And in the Punjab case the former has endorsed the policy of terrorism and
emasculation of a brave people initiated by the latter. British ministers have
broken their pledged word and wantonly wounded the feelings of the seventy
million Mussulmans of India. Innocent men and women were insulted by the
insolent officers of the Punjab Government. Their wrongs not only remain
unrighted but the very officers who so cruelly subjected them to barbarous
humiliation retain office under the Government.
</p>
<p>
When at Amritsar last year I pleaded with all the earnestness I could command
for co-operation with the Government and for response to the wishes expressed
in the Royal Proclamation. I did so because I honestly believed that, a new era
was about to begin, and that the old spirit of fear, distrust and consequent
terrorism was about to give place to the new spirit of respect, trust and
goodwill. I sincerely believed that the Mussulman sentiment would be placated
and that the officers that had misbehaved during the Martial Law regime in the
Punjab would be at least dismissed and the people would be otherwise made to
feel that a Government that had always been found quick (and mighty) to punish
popular excesses would not fail to punish its agents’ misdeeds. But to my
amazement and dismay I have discovered that the present representatives of the
Empire have become dishonest and unscrupulous. They have no real regard for the
wishes of the people of India and they count Indian honour as of little
consequence.
</p>
<p>
I can no longer retain affection for a Government so evilly manned as it is
now-a-days. And for me, it is humiliating to retain my freedom and be witness
to the continuing wrong. Mr. Montagu however is certainly right in threatening
me with deprivation of my liberty if I persist in endangering the existence of
the Government. For that must be the result if my activity bears fruit. My only
regret is that inasmuch as Mr. Montagu admits my past services, he might have
perceived that there must be something exceptionally bad in the Government if a
well-wisher like me could no longer give his affection to it. It was simpler to
insist on justice being done to the Mussalmans and to the Punjab than to
threaten me with punishment so that the injustice might be perpetuated. Indeed
I fully expect it will be found that even in promoting disaffection towards an
unjust Government I had rendered greater services to the Empire than I am
already credited with.
</p>
<p>
At the present moment, however, the duty of those who approve my activity is
clear. They ought on no account to resent the deprivation of my liberty, should
the Government of India deem it to be their duty to take it away. A citizen has
no right to resist such restriction imposed in accordance with the laws of the
State to which he belongs. Much less have those who sympathise with him. In my
case there can be no question of sympathy. For I deliberately oppose the
Government to the extent of trying to put its very existence in jeopardy. For
my supporters, therefore, it must be a moment of joy when I am imprisoned. It
means the beginning of success if only the supporters continue the policy for
which I stand. If the Government arrest me, they would do so in order to stop
the progress of Non-co-operation which I preach. It follows that if
Non-co-operation continues with unabated vigour, even after my arrest, the
Government must imprison others or grant the people’s wish in order to gain
their co-operation. Any eruption of violence on the part of the people even
under provocation would end in disaster. Whether therefore it is I or any one
else who is arrested during the campaign, the first condition of success is
that there must be no resentment shown against it. We cannot imperil the very
existence of a Government and quarrel with its attempt to save itself by
punishing those who place it in danger.
</p>
<h3>HIJARAT AND ITS MEANING</h3>
<p>
India is a continent. Its articulate thousands know what its inarticulate
millions are doing or thinking. The Government and the educated Indians may
think that the Khilafat movement is merely a passing phase. The millions of
Mussalmans think otherwise. The flight of the Mussalmans is growing apace. The
newspapers contain paragraphs in out of the way corners informing the readers
that a special train containing a barrister with sixty women, forty children
including twenty sucklings, all told 765, have left for Afghanistan. They were
cheered <i>en route</i>. They were presented with cash, edibles and other
things, and were joined by more Muhajarins on the way. No fanatical preaching
by Shaukatali can make people break up and leave their homes for an unknown
land. There must be an abiding faith in them. That it is better for them to
leave a State which has no regard for their religious sentiment and face a
beggar’s life than to remain in it even though it may be in a princely manner.
Nothing but pride of power can blind the Government of India to the scene that
is being enacted before it.
</p>
<p>
But there is yet another side to the movement. Here are the facts as stated in
the following Government <i>Communique</i> dated 10th July 1920:—
</p>
<p class="letter">
An unfortunate affair in connection with the Mahajarin occurred on the 8th
instant at Kacha Garhi between Peshawar and Jamrud. The following are the facts
as at present reported. Two members of a party of the Mahajarins proceeding by
train to Jamrud were detected by the British military police travelling without
tickets. Altercation ensued at Islamia College Station, but the train proceeded
to Kacha Garhi. An attempt was made to evict these Mahajarins, whereupon the
military police were attacked by a crowd of some forty Mahajarins and the
British officer who intervened was seriously wounded with a spade. A detachment
of Indian troops at Kacha Garhi thereupon fired two or three shots at the
Mahajarin for making murderous assault on the British officer. One Mahajarin
was killed and one wounded and three arrested. Both the military and the police
were injured. The body of the Mahajarin was despatched to Peshawar and buried
on the morning of the 9th. This incident has caused considerable excitement in
Peshawar City, and the Khilafat Hijrat Committee are exercising restraining
influence. Shops were closed on the morning of the 9th. A full enquiry has been
instituted.
</p>
<p>
Now Peshawar to Jamrud is a matter of a few miles. It was clearly the duty of
the military not to attempt to pull out the ticketless Mahajarins for the sake
of a few annas. But they actually attempted force. Intervention by the rest of
the party was a foregone conclusion. An altercation ensued. A British officer
was attacked with a spade. Firing and a death of a Mahajarin was the result.
Has British prestige been enhanced by the episode? Why have not the Government
put tactful officers in charge at the frontier, whilst a great religious
emigration is in progress? The action of the military will pass from tongue to
tongue throughout India and the Mussalman world around, will not doubt be
unconsciously and even consciously exaggerated in the passage and the feeling
bitter as it already is will grow in bitterness. The <i>Communique</i> says
that the Government are making further inquiry. Let us hope that it will be
full and that better arrangements will be made to prevent a repetition of what
appears to have been a thoughtless act on the part of the military.
</p>
<p>
And may I draw the attention of those who are opposing non-co-operation that
unless they find out a substitute they should either join the non-co-operation
movement or prepare to face a disorganised subterranean upheaval whose effect
no one can foresee and whose spread it would be impossible to check or
regulate?
</p>
<hr />
</div><!--end chapter-->
<div class="chapter">
<h2><a name="chap03"></a>III. THE PUNJAB WRONGS</h2>
<h3>POLITICAL FREEMASONRY</h3>
<p>
Freemasonry is a secret brotherhood which has more by its secret and iron rules
than by its service to humanity obtained a hold upon some of the best minds.
Similarly there seems to be some secret code of conduct governing the official
class in India before which the flower of the great British nation fall
prostrate and unconsciously become instruments of injustice which as private
individuals they would be ashamed of perpetrating. In no other way is it
possible for one to understand the majority report of the Hunter Committee, the
despatch of the Government of India, and the reply thereto of the Secretary of
State for India. In spite of the energetic protests of a section of the Press
to the personnel of the committee, it might be said that on the whole the
public were prepared to trust it especially as it contained three Indian
members who could fairly be claimed to be independent. The first rude shock to
this confidence was delivered by the refusal of Lord Hunter’s Committee to
accept the very moderate and reasonable demand of the Congress Committee that
the imprisoned Punjab leaders might be allowed to appear before it to instruct
Counsel. Any doubt that might have been left in the mind of any person has been
dispelled by the report of the majority of that committee. The result has
justified the attitude of the Congress Committee. The evidence collected by it
shows what lord Hunter’s Committee purposely denied itself.
</p>
<p>
The minority report stands out like an oasis in a desert. The Indian members
deserve the congratulation of their countrymen for having dared to do their
duty in the face of heavy odds. I wish that they had refused to associate
themselves even in a modified manner with the condemnation of the civil
disobedience form of Satyagraha. The defiant spirit of the Delhi mob on the
30th March 1919 can hardly be used for condemning a great spiritual movement
which is admittedly and manifestly intended to restrain the violent tendencies
of mobs and to replace criminal lawlessness by civil disobedience of authority,
when it has forfeited all title to respect. On the 30th March civil
disobedience had not even been started. Almost every great popular
demonstration has been hitherto attended all the world over by a certain amount
of lawlessness. The demonstration of 30th March and 6th April could have been
held under any other aegis us under that of Satyagrah. I hold that without the
advent of the spirit of civility and orderliness the disobedience would have
taken a much more violent form than it did even at Delhi. It was only the
wonderfully quick acceptance by the people of the principle of Satyagrah that
effectively checked the spread of violence throughout the length and breadth of
India. And even to-day it is not the memory of the black barbarity of General
Dyer that is keeping the undoubted restlessness among the people from breaking
forth into violence. The hold that Satyagrah has gained on the people—it may be
even against their will—is curbing the forces of disorder and violence. But I
must not detain the reader on a defence of Satyagrah against unjust attacks. If
it has gained a foothold in India, it will survive much fiercer attacks than
the one made by the majority of the Hunter Committee and somewhat supported by
the minority. Had the majority report been defective only in this direction and
correct in every other there would have been nothing but praise for it. After
all Satyagrah is a new experiment in political field. And a hasty attributing
to it of any popular disorder would have been pardonable.
</p>
<p>
The universally pronounced adverse judgment upon the report and the despatches
rests upon far more painful revelations. Look at the manifestly laboured
defence of every official act of inhumanity except where condemnation could not
be avoided through the impudent admissions made by the actors themselves; look
at the special pleading introduced to defend General Dyer even against himself;
look at the vain glorification of Sir Michael O’Dwyer although it was his
spirit that actuated every act of criminality on the part of the subordinates;
look at the deliberate refusal to examine his wild career before the events of
April. His acts were an open book of which the committee ought to have taken
judicial notices. Instead of accepting everything that the officials had to
say, the Committee’s obvious duty was to tax itself to find out the real cause
of the disorders. It ought to have gone out of its way to search out the
inwardness of the events. Instead of patiently going behind the hard crust of
official documents, the Committee allowed itself to be guided with criminal
laziness by mere official evidence. The report and the despatches, in my humble
opinion, constitute an attempt to condone official lawlessness. The cautious
and half-hearted condemnation pronounced upon General Dyer’s massacre and the
notorious crawling order only deepens the disappointment of the reader as he
goes through page after page of thinly disguised official whitewash. I need,
however, scarcely attempt any elaborate examination of the report or the
despatches which have been so justly censured by the whole national press
whether of the moderate or the extremist hue. The point to consider is how to
break down this secret—be the secrecy over so unconscious—conspiracy to uphold
official iniquity. A scandal of this magnitude cannot be tolerated by the
nation, if it is to preserve its self-respect and become a free partner in the
Empire. The All-India Congress Committee has resolved upon convening a special
session of the Congress for the purpose of considering, among other things, the
situation arising from the report. In my opinion the time has arrived when we
must cease to rely upon mere petition to Parliament for effective action.
Petitions will have value, when the nation has behind it the power to enforce
its will. What power then have we? When we are firmly of opinion that grave
wrong has been done us and when after an appeal to the highest authority we
fail to secure redress, there must be some power available to us for undoing
the wrong. It is true that in the vast majority of cases it is the duty of a
subject to submit to wrongs on failure of the usual procedure, so long as they
do not affect his vital being. But every nation and every individual has the
right and it is their duty, to rise against an intolerable wrong. I do not
believe in armed risings. They are a remedy worse than the disease sought to be
cured. They are a token of the spirit of revenge and impatience and anger. The
method of violence cannot do good in the long run. Witness the effect of the
armed rising of the allied powers against Germany. Have they not become even
like the Germans, as the latter have been depicted to us by them?
</p>
<p>
We have a better method. Unlike that of violence it certainly involves the
exercise of restraint and patience: but it requires also resoluteness of will.
This method is to refuse to be party to the wrong. No tyrant has ever yet
succeeded in his purpose without carrying the victim with him, it may be, as it
often is, by force. Most people choose rather to yield to the will of the
tyrant than to suffer for the consequences of resistance. Hence does terrorism
form part of the stock-in-trade of the tyrant. But we have instances in history
where terrorism has failed to impose the terrorist’s will upon his victim.
India has the choice before her now. If then the acts of the Punjab Government
be an insufferable wrong, if the report of Lord Hunter’s Committee and the two
despatches be a greater wrong by reason of their grievous condonation of those
acts, it is clear that we must refuse to submit to this official violence.
Appeal the Parliament by all means, if necessary, but if the Parliament fails
us and if we are worthy to call ourselves a nation, we must refuse to uphold
the Government by withdrawing co-operation from it.
</p>
<h3>THE DUTY OF THE PUNJABEE</h3>
<p>
The Allahabad <i>Leader</i> deserves to be congratulated for publishing the
correspondence on Mr. Bosworth Smith who was one of the Martial Law officers
against whom the complaints about persistent and continuous ill-treatment were
among the bitterest. It appears from the correspondence that Mr. Bosworth Smith
has received promotion instead of dismissal. Sometime before Martial Law Mr.
Smith appears to have been degraded. “He has since been restored,” says the
<i>Leader</i> correspondent, “to his position of a Deputy Commissioner of the
second grade from which he was degraded and also been invested with power under
section 30 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Since his arrival, the poor Indian
population of the town of Amhala Cantonment has been living under a regime of
horror and tyranny.” The correspondent adds: “I use both these words
deliberately for conveying precisely what they mean.” I cull a few passage from
this illuminating letter to illustrate the meaning of horror and tyranny. “In
private complaints he never takes the statement of the complainant. It is taken
down by the reader when the court rises and got signed by the magistrate the
following day. Whether the report received (upon such complaints) is favourable
to the complainant or unfavourable to him, it is never ready by the magistrate,
and complaints are dismissed without proper trial. This is the fate of private
complaints. Now as regards police chellans. Pleaders for the accused are not
allowed to interview under trial prisoners in police custody. They are not
allowed to cross-examine prosecution witnesses.... Prosecution witnesses are
examined with leading questions.... Thus a whole prosecution story is put into
the mouth of police, witnesses for the defence though called in are not allowed
to be examined by the defence counsel.... The accused is silenced if he picks
up courage to say anything in defence.... Any Cantonment servant can write down
the name of any citizen of the Cantonment on a chit of paper and ask him to
appear the next day in court. This is a summons.... If any one does not appear
in court who is thus ordered, criminal warrants of arrest are issued against
him.” There is much more of this style in the letter which is worth producing,
but I have given enough to illustrate the writer’s meaning. Let me turn for a
while to this official’s record during Martial Law. He is the official who
tried people in batches and convicted them after a farcical trial. Witnesses
have deposed to his having assembled people, having asked them to give false
evidence, having removed women’s veils, called them ‘flies, bitches, she-asses’
and having spat upon them. He it was who subjected the innocent pleaders of
Shokhupura indescribable persecution. Mr. Andrews personally investigated
complaints against this official and came to the conclusion that no official
had behaved worse than Mr. Smith. He gathered the people of Shokhupura,
humiliated them in a variety of ways, called them ‘suvarlog,’ ‘gandi mukkhi.’
His evidence before the Hunter Commission betrays his total disregard for truth
and this is the officer who, if the correspondent in question has given correct
facts, has been promoted. The question however is why, he is at all in
Government service and why he has not been tried for assaulting and abusing
innocent men and women.
</p>
<p>
I notice a desire for the impeachment of General Dyer and Sir Michael O’Dwyer.
I will not stop to examine whether the course is feasible. I was sorry to find
Mr. Shastriar joining this cry for the prosecution of General Dyer. If the
English people will willingly do so, I would welcome such prosecution as a sign
of their strong disapproval of the Jallianwalla Bagh atrocity, but I would
certainly not spend a single farthing in a vain pursuit after the conviction of
this man. Surely the public has received sufficient experience of the English
mind. Practically the whole English Press has joined the conspiracy to screen
these offenders against humanity. I would not be party to make heroes of them
by joining the cry for prosecution private or public. If I can only persuade
India to insist upon their complete dismissal, I should be satisfied. But more
than the dismissal, of Sir Michael O’Dwyer and General Dyer, is necessary the
peremptory dismissal, if not a trial, of Colonel O’Brien, Mr. Bosworth Smith,
Rai Shri Ram and others mentioned in the Congress Sub-Committee’s Report. Bad
as General Dyer is I consider Mr. Smith to be infinitely worse and his crimes
to be far more serious than the massacre of Jallianwalla Bugh. General Dyer
sincerely believed that it was a soldierly act to terrorise people by shooting
them. But Mr. Smith was wantonly cruel, vulgar and debased. If all the facts
that have been deposed to against him are true, there is not a spark of
humanity about him. Unlike General Dyer he lacks the courage to confirm what he
has done and he wriggles when challenged. This officer remains free to inflict
himself upon people who have done no wrong to him, and who is permitted to
disgrace the rule he represents for the time being.
</p>
<p>
What is the Punjab doing? Is it not the duty of the Punjabis not to rest until
they have secured the dismissal of Mr. Smith and the like? The Punjab leaders
have been discharged in vain if they will not utilise the liberty they have
received, in order to purge the administration of Messrs. Bosworth Smith and
Company. I am sure that if they will only begin a determined agitation they
will have the whole India by their side. I venture to suggest to them that the
best way to qualify for sending General Dyer to the gallows is to perform the
easier and the more urgent duty of arresting the mischief still continued by
the officials against whom they have assisted in collecting overwhelming
evidence.
</p>
<h3>GENERAL DYER</h3>
<p>
The Army Council has found General Dyer guilty of error of judgment and advised
that he should not receive any office under the Crown. Mr. Montagu has been
unsparing in his criticism of General Dyer’s conduct. And yet somehow or other
I cannot help feeling that General Dyer is by no means the worst offender. His
brutality is unmistakable. His abject and unsoldier-like cowardice is apparent
in every line of his amazing defence before the Army Council. He has called an
unarmed crowd of men and children—mostly holiday-makers—‘a rebel army.’ He
believes himself to be the saviour of the Punjab in that he was able to shoot
down like rabbits men who were penned in an inclosure. Such a man is unworthy
of being considered a soldier. There was no bravery in his action. He ran no
risk. He shot without the slightest opposition and without warning. This is not
an ‘error of judgement.’ It is paralysis of it in the face of fancied danger.
It is proof of criminal incapacity and heartlessness. But the fury that has
been spent upon General Dyer is, I am sure, largely misdirected. No doubt the
shooting was ‘frightful,’ the loss of innocent life deplorable. But the slow
torture, degradation and emasculation that followed was much worse, more
calculated, malicious and soul-killing, and the actors who performed the deeds
deserve greater condemnation that General Dyer for the Jallianwalla Bagh
massacre. The latter merely destroyed a few bodies but the others tried to kill
the soul of a nation. Who ever talks of Col. Frank Johnson who was by far the
worst offender? He terrorised guiltless Lahore, and by his merciless orders set
the tone to the whole of the Martial Law officers. But what I am concerned with
is not even Col. Johnson. The first business of the people of the Punjab and of
India is to rid the service of Col O’Brien, Mr. Bosworth Smith, Rai Shri Ram
and Mr. Malik Khan. They are still retained in the service. Their guilt is as
much proved as that of General Dyer. We shall have failed in our duty if the
condemnation pronounced upon General Dyer produces a sense of satisfaction and
the obvious duty of purging the administration in the Punjab is neglected. That
task will not be performed by platform rhetoric or resolutions merely. Stern
action is required on out part if we are to make any headway with ourselves and
make any impression upon the officials that they are not to consider themselves
as masters of the people but as their trusties and servants who cannot hold
office if they misbehave themselves and prove unworthy of the trust reposed in
them.
</p>
<h3>THE PUNJAB SENTENCES</h3>
<p>
The commissioners appointed by the Congress Punjab Sub Committee have in their
report accused His Excellency the Viceroy of criminal want of imagination. His
Excellency’s refusal to commute two death sentences out of five is a fine
illustration of the accusation. The rejection of the appeal by the Privy
Council no more proves the guilt of the condemned than their innocence would
have been proved by quashing the proceedings before the Martial Law Tribunal.
Moreover, these cases clearly come under the Royal Proclamation in accordance
with its interpretation by the Punjab Government. The murders in Amritsar were
not due to any private quarrel between the murderers and their victims. The
offence grave, though it was, was purely political and committed under
excitement. More than full reparation has been taken for the murders and arson.
In the circumstances commonsense dictates reduction of the death sentences. The
popular belief favours the view that the condemned men are innocent and have
not had a fair trial. The execution has been so long delayed that hanging at
this stage would give a rude shock to Indian society. Any Viceroy with
imagination would have at once announced commutation of the death sentences—not
so Lord Chelmsford. In his estimation, evidently, the demands of justice will
not be satisfied if at least some of the condemned men are not hanged. Public
feeling with him counts for nothing. We shall still hope that, either the
Viceroy or Mr. Montagu will commute the death sentences.
</p>
<p>
But if the Government will grievously err, if they carry out the sentences, the
people will equally err if they give way to anger or grief over the hanging if
it has unfortunately to take plane. Before we become a nation possessing an
effective voice in the councils of nations, we must be prepared to contemplate
with equanimity, not a thousand murders of innocent men and women but many
thousands before we attain a status in the world that, shall not be surpassed
by any nation. We hope therefore that all concerned will take rather than lose
heart and treat hanging as an ordinary affair of life.
</p>
<p>
[Since the above was in type, we have received cruel news. At last H.E. the
Viceroy has mercilessly given the rude shock to Indian society. It is now for
the latter to take heart in spite of the unkindest cut.—Ed. Y.I.]
</p>
<hr />
</div><!--end chapter-->
<div class="chapter">
<h2><a name="chap04"></a>IV. SWARAJ</h2>
<h3>SWARAJ IN ONE YEAR</h3>
<p>
Much laughter has been indulged in at my expense for having told the Congress
audience at Calcutta that if there was sufficient response to my programme of
non-co-operation Swaraj would be attained in one year. Some have ignored my
condition and laughed because of the impossibility of getting Swaraj anyhow
within one year. Others have spelt the ‘if’ in capitals and suggested that if
‘ifs’ were permissible in argument, any absurdity could be proved to be a
possibility. My proposition however is based on a mathematical calculation. And
I venture to say that true Swaraj is a practical impossibility without due
fulfilment of my conditions. Swaraj means a state such that we can maintain our
separate existence without the presence of the English. If it is to be a
partnership, it must be partnership at will. There can be no Swaraj without our
feeling and being the equals of Englishmen. To-day we feel that we are
dependent upon them for our internal and external security, for an armed peace
between the Hindus and the Mussulmans, for our education and for the supply of
daily wants, nay, even for the settlement of our religious squabbles. The
Rajahs are dependent upon the British for their powers and the millionaires for
their millions. The British know our helplessness and Sir Thomas Holland cracks
jokes quite legitimately at the expense of non-co-operationists. To get Swaraj
then is to get rid of our helplessness. The problem is no doubt stupendous even
as it is for the fabled lion who having been brought up in the company of goats
found it impossible to feel that he was a lion. As Tolstoy used to put it,
mankind often laboured under hypnotism. Under its spell continuously we feel
the feeling of helplessness. The British themselves cannot be expected to help
us out of it. On the contrary, they din into our ears that we shall be fit to
govern ourselves only by slow educative processes. The “Times” suggested that
if we boycott the councils we shall lose the opportunity of a training in
Swaraj. I have no doubt that there are many who believe what the “Times” says.
It even resorts to a falsehood. It audaciously says that Lord Milner’s Mission
listened to the Egyptians only when they were ready to lift the boycott of the
Egyptian Council. For me the only training in Swaraj we need is the ability to
defend ourselves against the whole world and to live our natural life in
perfect freedom even though it may be full of defects. Good Government is no
substitute for self-Government. The Afghans have a bad Government but it is
self-Government. I envy them. The Japanese learnt the art through a sea of
blood. And if we to-day had the power to drive out the English by superior
brute force, we would be counted their superiors, and in spite of our
inexperience in debating at the Council table or in holding executive offices,
we would be held fit to govern ourselves. For brute force is the only test the
west has hitherto recognised. The Germans were defeated not because they were
necessarily in the wrong, but because the allied Powers were found to possess
greater brute strength. In the end therefore India must either learn the art of
war which the British will not teach her or, she must follow her own way of
discipline and self-sacrifice through non-co-operation. It is as amazing as it
is humiliating that less than one hundred-thousand white men should be able to
rule three hundred and fifteen million Indians. They do so somewhat undoubtedly
by force, but more by securing our co-operation in a thousand ways and making
us more and more helpless and dependent on them as time goes forward. Let us
not mistake reformed councils, more lawcourts and even governorships for real
freedom or power. They are but subtler methods of emasculation. The British
cannot rule us by mere force. And so they resort to all means, honourable and
dishonourable, in order to retain their hold on India. They want India’s
billions and they want India’s man power for their imperialistic greed. If we
refuse to supply them with men and money, we achieve our goal, namely, Swaraj,
equality, manliness.
</p>
<p>
The cup of our humiliation was filled during the closing scenes in the
Viceregal Council. Mr. Shustri could not move his resolution on the Punjab. The
Indian victims of Jullianwala received Rs. 1,250, the English victims of
mob-frenzy received lakhs. The officials who were guilty of crimes against
those whose servants they were, were reprimanded. And the councillors were
satisfied. If India were powerful, India would not have stood this addition of
insult, to her injury.
</p>
<p>
I do not blame the British. If we were weak in numbers as they are, we too
would perhaps have resorted to the same methods as they are now employing.
Terrorism and deception are weapons not of the strong but of the weak. The
British are weak in numbers we are weak in spite of our numbers. The result is
that each is dragging the other down. It is common experience that Englishmen
lose in character after residence in India and that Indians lose in courage and
manliness by contact with Englishmen. This process of weakening is good neither
for us, two nations, nor for the world.
</p>
<p>
But if we Indians take care of ourselves the English and the rest of the world
would take care of themselves. Our contributions to the world’s progress must
therefore consist in setting our own house in order.
</p>
<p>
Training in arms for the present is out of the question. I go a step further
and believe that India has a better mission for the world. It is within her to
show that she can achieve her destiny by pure self-sacrifice, i.e.,
self-purification. This can be done only by non-co-operation. And
non-co-operation is possible only when those who commenced to co-operate being
the process of withdrawal. If we can but free ourselves from the threefold
<i>maya</i> of Government-controlled schools, Government law-courts and
legislative councils, and truly control our own education regulate our disputes
and be indifferent to their legislation, we are ready to govern ourselves and
we are only then ready to ask the government servants, whether civil or
military, to resign, and the tax-payers to suspend payment of taxes.
</p>
<p>
And is it such an impracticable proposition to expect parents to withdraw their
children from schools and colleges and establish their own institutions or to
ask lawyers to suspend their practice and devote their whole time attention to
national service against payment where necessary, of their maintenance, or to
ask candidates for councils not to enter councils and lend their passive or
active assistance to the legislative machinery through which all control is
exercised. The movement of non-co-operation is nothing but an attempt to
isolate the brute force of the British from all the trappings under which it is
hidden and to show that brute force by itself cannot for one single moment hold
India.
</p>
<p>
But I frankly confess that, until the three conditions mentioned by me are
fulfilled, there is no Swaraj. We may not go on taking our college degrees,
taking thousands of rupees monthly from clients for cases which can be finished
in five minutes and taking the keenest delight in wasting national time on the
council floor and still expect to gain national self-respect.
</p>
<p>
The last though not the least important part of the Maya still remains to be
considered. That is Swadeshi. Had we not abandoned Swadeshi, we need not have
been in the present fallen state. If we would get rid of the economic slavery,
we must manufacture our own cloth and at the present moment only by
hand-spinning and hand weaving.
</p>
<p>
All this means discipline, self-denial, self-sacrifice, organising ability,
confidence and courage. If we show this in one year among the classes that
to-day count, and make public opinion, we certainly gain Swaraj within one
year. If I am told that even we who lead have not these qualities in us, there
certainly will never be Swaraj for India, but then we shall have no right to
blame the English for what they are doing. Our salvation and its time are
solely dependent upon us.
</p>
<h3>BRITISH RULE—AN EVIL</h3>
<p>
The <i>Interpreter</i> is however more to the point in asking, “Does Mr. Gandhi
hold without hesitation or reserve that British rule in India is altogether an
evil and that the people of India are to be taught so to regard it? He must
hold it to be so evil that the wrongs it does outweigh the benefit it confers,
for only so is non-co-operation to be justified at the bar of conscience or of
Christ.” My answer is emphatically in the affirmative. So long as I believed
that the sum total of the energy of the British Empire was good, I clung to it
despite what I used to regard as temporary aberrations. I am not sorry for
having done so. But having my eyes opened, it would be sin for me to associate
myself with the Empire unless it purges itself of its evil character. I write
this with sorrow and I should be pleased if I discovered that I was in error
and that my present attitude was a reaction. The continuous financial drain,
the emasculation of the Punjab and the betrayal of the Muslim sentiment
constitute, in my humble opinion, a threefold robbery of India. ‘The blessings
of <i>pax Britanica</i>’ I reckon, therefore, to be a curse. We would have at
least remained like the other nations brave men and women, instead of feeling
as we do so utterly helpless, if we had no British Rule imposing on us an armed
peace. ‘The blessing’ of roads and railways is a return no self-respecting
nation would accept for its degradation. ‘The blessing’ of education is proving
one of the greatest obstacles in our progress towards freedom.
</p>
<h3>A MOVEMENT OF PURIFICATION</h3>
<p>
The fact is that non-co-operation by reason of its non-violence has become a
religious and purifying movement. It is daily bringing strength to the nation,
showing it its weak spots and the remedy for removing them. It is a movement of
self-reliance. It is the mightiest force for revolutionising opinion and
stimulating thought. It is a movement of self-imposed suffering and therefore
possesses automatic checks against extravagance or impatience. The capacity of
the nation for suffering regulates its advance towards freedom. It isolates the
force of evil by refraining from participation in it, in any shape or form.
</p>
<h3>WHY WAS INDIA LOST?</h3>
<p>
[A dialog between the Reader and Editor,—<i>Indian Home Rule</i>].
</p>
<p>
Reader: You have said much about civilisation—enough to make me ponder over it.
I do not know what I should adopt and what I should avoid from the nations of
Europe. but one question comes to my lips immediately. If civilisation is a
disease, and if it has attacked England why has she been able to take India,
and why is she able to retain it?
</p>
<p>
Editor: Your question is not very difficult to answer, and we shall presently
be able to examine the true nature of Swaraj; for I am aware that I have still
to answer that question. I will, however, take up your previous question. The
English have not taken India; we have given it to them. They are not in India
because of their strength, but because we keep them. Let us now see whether
these positions can be sustained. They came to our country originally for the
purpose of trade. Recall the Company Bahadur. Who made it Bahadur? They had not
the slightest intention at the time of establishing a kingdom. Who assisted the
Company’s officers? Who was tempted at the sight of their silver? Who bought
their goods? History testifies that we did all this. In order to become rich
all at once, we welcomed the Company’s officers with open arms. We assisted
them. If I am in the habit of drinking Bhang, and a seller thereof sells it to
me, am I to blame him or myself? By blaming the seller shall I be able to avoid
the habit? And, if a particular retailer is driven away will not another take
his place? A true servant of India will have to go to the root of the matter.
If an excess of food has caused me indigestion I will certainly not avoid it by
blaming water. He is a true physician who probes the cause of disease and, if
you pose as a physician for the disease of India, you will have to find out its
true cause.
</p>
<p>
Reader: You are right. Now, I think you will not have to argue much with me to
drive your conclusions home. I am impatient to know your further views. We are
now on a most interesting topic. I shall, therefore, endeavour to follow your
thought, and stop you when I am in doubt.
</p>
<p>
Editor: I am afraid that, in spite of your enthusiasm, as we proceed further we
shall have differences of opinion. Nevertheless, I shall argue only when you
will stop me. We have already seen that the English merchants were able to get
a footing in India because we encouraged them. When our princes fought among
themselves, they sought the assistance of Company Bahadar. That corporation was
versed alike in commerce and war. It was unhampered by questions of morality.
Its object was to increase its commerce and to make money. It accepted our
assistance, and increased the number of its warehouses. To protect the latter
it employed an army which was utilised by us also. Is it not then useless to
blame the English for what we did at that time? The Hindus and the Mahomedans
were at daggers drawn. This, too, gave the Company its opportunity, and thus we
created the circumstances that gave the Company its control over India. Hence
it is truer to say that we gave India to the English than that India was lost.
</p>
<p>
Reader: Will you now tell me how they are able to retain India?
</p>
<p>
Editor: The causes that gave them India enable them to retain it. Some
Englishmen state that they took, and they hold, India by the sword. Both these
statements are wrong. The sword is entirely useless for holding India. We alone
keep them. Napoleon is said to have described the English as a nation of shop
keepers. It is a fitting description. They hold whatever dominions they have
for the sake of their commerce. Their army and their navy are intended to
protect it. When the Transvaal offered no such attractions, the late Mr.
Gladstone discovered that it was no right for the English to hold it. When it
became a paying proposition, resistance led to war. Mr. Chamberlain soon
discovered that England enjoyed a suzerainty over the Transvaal. It is related
that some one asked the late President Kruger whether there was gold in the
moon? He replied that it was highly unlikely, because, if there were, the
English would have annexed it. Many problems can be solved by remembering that
money is their God. Then it follows that we keep the English in India for our
base self-interest. We like their commerce, they please us by their subtle
methods, and get what they want from us. To blame them for this is to
perpetuate their power. We further strengthen their hold by quarrelling amongst
ourselves. If you accept the above statements, it is proved that the English
entered India for the purposes of trade. They remain in it for the same
purpose, and we help them to do so. Their arms and ammunition are perfectly
useless. In this connection, I remind you that it is the British flag which is
waving in Japan, and not the Japanese. The English have a treaty with Japan for
the sake of their commerce and you will see that, if they can manage it, their
commerce will greatly expand in that country. They wish to convert the whole
word into a vast market for their goods. That they cannot do so is true, but
the blame will not be theirs. They will leave no stone unturned to reach the
goal.
</p>
<h3>SWARAJ MY IDEAL</h3>
<p>
The following is a fairly full report of Mr. Gandhi’s important speech at
Calcutta on the 13th December 1920:—
</p>
<p>
The very fact, that so many of you cannot understand Hindi which is bound to be
the National medium of expression throughout Hindustan in gatherings of Indians
belonging to different parts of the land, shows the depth of the degradation to
which we have sunk, and points to the supreme necessity of the non-co-operation
movement which is intended to lift us out of that condition. This Government
has been instrumental in degrading this great nation in various ways, and it is
impossible to be free from it without co-operation amongst ourselves which is
in turn impossible without a national medium of expression.
</p>
<p>
But I am not here to day to plead for the medium. I am to plead for the
acceptance by the country of the programme of non-violent, progressive
non-co-operation. Now all the words that I have used here are absolutely
necessary and the two adjectives ‘progressive’ and ‘non-violent’ are integral
part of a whole. With me non-violence is part of my religion, a matter of
creed. But with the great number of Mussalmans non-violence is a policy, with
thousand, if not millions of Hindus, it is equally a matter of policy. But
whether it is a creed or a policy, it is utterly impossible for you to finish
the programme for the enfranchisement of the millions of India, without
recognising the necessity and the value of non-violence. Violence may for a
moment avail to secure a certain measure of success but it could not in the
long run achieve any appreciable result. On the other hand all violence would
prove destructive to the honour and self-respect of the nation. The blue books
issued by the Government of India show that inasmuch as we have used violence,
military expenditure has gone up, not proportionately but in geometrical
progression. The bonds of our slavery have been forged all the stronger for our
having offered violence. And the whole history of British rule in India is a
demonstration of the fact that we have never been able to offer successful
violence. Whilst therefore I say that rather than have the yoke of a Government
that has so emasculated us, I would welcome violence. I would urge with all the
emphasis that I can command that India will never be able to regain her own by
methods of violence.
</p>
<p>
Lord Ronaldshay who has done me the honour of reading my booklet on Home Rule
has warned my countrymen against engaging themselves in a struggle for a Swaraj
such as is described in that booklet. Now though I do not want to withdraw a
single word of it, I would say to you on this occasion that I do not ask India
to follow out to-day the methods prescribed in my booklet. If they could do
that they would have Home Rule not in a year but in a day, and India by
realising that ideal wants to acquire an ascendancy over the rest of the world.
But it must remain a day dream more or less for the time being. What I am doing
to-day is that I am giving the country a pardonable programme not the abolition
of law courts, posts, telegraphs and of railways but for the attainment of
Parliamentary Swarja. I am telling you to do that so long as we do not isolate
ourselves from this Government, we are co-operating with it through schools,
law courts and councils, through service civil and military and payment of
taxes and foreign trade.
</p>
<p>
The moment this fact is realised and non-co-operation is effected, this
Government must totter to pieces. If I know that the masses were prepared for
the whole programme at once, I would not delay in putting it at once to work.
It is not possible at the present moment, to prevent the masses from bursting
out into wrath against those who come to execute the law, it is not possible,
that the military would lay down their arms without the slightest violence. If
that were possible to-day, I would propose all the stages of non-co-operation
to be worked simultaneously. But we have not secured that control over the
masses, we have uselessly frittered away precious years of the nation’s life in
mastering a language which we need least for winning our liberty; we have
frittered away all those years in learning liberty from Milton and Shakespeare,
in deriving inspiration from the pages of Mill, whilst liberty could be learnt
at our doors. We have thus succeeded in isolating ourselves from the masses: we
have been westernised. We have failed these 35 years to utilise our education
in order to permeate the masses. We have sat upon the pedestal and from there
delivered harangues to them in a language they do not understand and we see
to-day that we are unable to conduct large gatherings in a disciplined manner.
And discipline is the essence of success. Here is therefore one reason why I
have introduced the word ‘progressive’ in the non-co-operation Resolution.
Without any impertinence I may say that I understand the mass mind better than
any one amongst the educated Indians. I contend that the masses are not ready
for suspension of payment of taxes. They have not yet learnt sufficient
self-control. If I was sure of non-violence on their part I would ask them to
suspend payment to-day and not waste a single moment of the nations time. With
me the liberty of India has become a passion. Liberty of Islam is as dear to
me. I would not therefore delay a moment if I found that the whole of the
programme could be enforced at once.
</p>
<p>
It grieves me to miss the faces of dear and revered leaders in this assembly.
We miss here the trumpet voice of Surendranath Banorji, who has rendered
inestimable service to the country. And though we stand as poles asunder
to-day, though we may have sharp differences with him, we must express them
with becoming restraint. I do not ask you to give up a single iota of
principle. I urge non-violence in language and in deed. If non-violence is
essential in our dealings with Government, it is more essential in our dealings
with our leaders. And it grieves me deeply to hear of recent instances of
violence reported to have been used in East Bongal against our own people. I
was pained to hear that the ears of a man who had voted at the recent elections
had been cut, and night soil had been thrown into the bed of a man who had
stood as a candidate. Non-co-operation is never going to succeed in this way.
It will not succeed unless we create an atmosphere of perfect freedom, unless
we prize our opponents liberty as much as our own. The liberty of faith,
conscience, thought and action which we claim for ourselves must be conceded
equally to others. Non co-operation is a process of purification and we must
continually try to touch the hearts of those who differ from us, their minds,
and their emotions, but never their bodies. Discipline and restraint are the
cardinal principles of our conduct and I warn you against any sort of
tyrannical social ostracism. I was deeply grieved therefore to hear of the
insult offered to a dead body in Delhi and feel that if it was the action of
non-co-operators they have disgraced themselves and their creed. I repeat we
cannot deliver our land through violence.
</p>
<p>
It was not a joke when I said on the congress platform that Swaraj could be
established in one year if there was sufficient response from the nation. Three
months of this year are gone. If we are true to our salt, true to our nation,
true to the songs we sing, if we are true to the Bhagwad Gita and the Koran, we
would finish the programme in the remaining nine months and deliver Islam the
Punjab and India.
</p>
<p>
I have proposed a limited programme workable within one year, having a special
regard to the educated classes. We seem to be labouring under the illusion that
we cannot possibly live without Councils, law courts and schools provided by
the Government. The moment we are disillusioned we have Swaraj. It is
demoralising both for Government and the governed that a hundred thousand
pilgrims should dictate terms to a nation composed of three hundred millions.
And how is it they can thus dictate terms. It is because we have been divided
and they have ruled. I have never forgotten Humes’ frank confession that the
British Government was sustained by the policy of “Divide and Rule.” Therefore
it is that I have laid stress upon Hindu Muslim Unity as one of the important
essentials for the success of Non-co-operation. But, it should be no lip unity,
nor bunia unity it should be a unity broad based on a recognition of the heart.
If we want to save Hinduism, I say for Gods sake, do not seek to bargain with
the Mussalmans. I have been going about with Maulana Shaukat Ali all these
months, but I have not so much as whispered anything about the protection of
the cow. My alliance with the Ali Brothers is one of honour. I feel that I am
on my honour, the whole of Hinduism is on its honour, and if it will not be
found wanting, it will do its duty towards the Mussalmans of India. Any
bargaining would be degrading to us. Light brings light not darkness, and
nobility done with a noble purpose will be twice rewarded. It will be God alone
who can protect the cow. Ask me not to-day—‘what about the cow,’ ask me after
Islam is vindicated through India. Ask the Rajas what they do to entertain
their English guests. Do they not provide beef and champagne for their guests.
Persuade them first to stop cow killing and then think of bargaining with
Mussalmans. And how are we Hindus behaving ourselves towards the cow and her
progeny! Do we treat her as our religion requires us? Not till we have set our
own house in order and saved the cow from the Englishmen have we the right to
plead on her behalf with the Mussalmans. And the best way of saving the cow
from them is to give them unconditional help in their hour of trouble.
</p>
<p>
Similarly what do we owe the Punjab? The whole of India was made to crawl on
her belly in as much as a single Punjabi was made to crawl in that dirty lane
in Amritsar, the whole womanhood of India was unveiled in as much as the
innocent woman of Manianwalla were unveiled by an insolent office; and Indian
childhood was dishonoured in that, that school children of tender age were made
to walk four times a day to stated places within the martial area in the Punjab
and to salute the Union Jack, through the effect of which order two children,
seven years old died of sunstroke having been made to wait in the noonday sun.
In my opinion it is a sin to attend the schools and colleges conducted under
the aegis of this Government so long as it has not purged itself of these
crimes by proper repentance. We may not with any sense of self-respect plead
before the courts of the Government when we remember that it was through the
Punjab Courts that innocent men were sentenced to be imprisoned and hanged. We
become participators in the crime of the Government by voluntarily helping it
or being helped by it.
</p>
<p>
The women of India have intuitively understood the spiritual nature of the
struggle. Thousands have attended to listen to the message of non-violent
non-co-operation and have given me their precious ornaments for the purpose of
advancing the cause of Swaraj. Is it any wonder if I believe the possibility of
gaining Swaraj within a year after all these wonderful demonstrations? I would
be guilty of want of faith in God if I under-rated the significance of the
response from the women of India. I hope that the students will do their duty.
The country certainly expects the lawyers who have hitherto led public
agitation to recognise the new awakening.
</p>
<p>
I have used strong language but I have done so with the greatest deliberation,
I am not actuated by any feeling of revenge. I do not consider Englishmen as my
enemy. I recognise the worth of many. I enjoy the privilege of having many
English friends, but I am a determined enemy of the English rule as is
conducted at present and if the power—tapasya—of one man could destroy it, I
would certainly destroy it, if it could not be mended. An Empire that stands
for injustice and breach of faith does not deserve to stand if its custodians
will not repent and non-co-operation has been devised in order to enable the
nation to compel justice.
</p>
<p>
I hope that Bengal will take her proper place in this movement of
self-purification. Bengal began Swadeshi and national education when the rest
of India was sleeping. I hope that Bengal will come to the front in this
movement for gaining Swaraj and gaining justice for the Khilafat and the Punjab
through purification and self-sacrifice.
</p>
<h3>ON THE WRONG TRACK</h3>
<p>
Lord Ronaldshay has been doing me the favour of reading my booklet on Indian
Home Rule which is a translation of Hind Swaraj. His Lordship told his audience
that if Swaraj meant what I had described it to be in the booklet, the Bengalis
would have none of it. I am sorry that Swaraj of the Congress resolution does
not mean the Swaraj depicted in the booklet; Swaraj according to the Congress
means Swaraj that the people of India want, not what the British Government may
condescend to give. In so far as I can see, Swaraj will be a Parliament chosen
by the people with the fullest power over the finance, the police, the
military, the navy, the courts, and the educational institutions.
</p>
<p>
I am free to confess that the Swaraj I expect to gain within one year, if India
responds will be such Swaraj as will make practically impossible the repetition
of the Khilafat and the Punjab wrongs, and will enable the nation to do good or
evil as it chooses, and not he ‘good’ at the dictation of an irresponsible,
insolent, and godless bureaucracy. Under that Swaraj the nation will have the
power to impose a heavy protective tariff on such foreign goods as are capable
of being manufactured in India, as also the power to refuse to send a single
soldier outside India for the purpose of enslaving the surrounding or remote
nationalities. The Swaraj that I dream of will be a possibility only, when the
nation is free to make its choice both of good and evil.
</p>
<hr />
<p>
I adhere to all I have said in that booklet and I would certainly recommend it
to the reader. Government over self is the truest Swaraj, it is synonymous with
<i>moksha</i> or salvation, and I have seen nothing to alter the view that
doctors, lawyers, and railways are no help, and are often a hindrance, to the
one thing worth striving after. But I know that association, a satanic
activity, such as the Government is engaged in, makes even an effort for such
freedom a practical impossibility. I cannot tender allegiance to God and Satan
at the same time.
</p>
<hr />
<p>
The surest sign of the satanic nature of the present system is that even a
nobleman of the type of Lord Ronaldshay is obliged to put us off the track. He
will not deal with the one thing needful. Why is he silent about the Punjab?
Why does he evade the Khilafat? Can ointments soothe a patient who is suffering
from corroding consumption? Does his lordship not see that it is not the
inadequacy of the reforms that has set India aflame but that it is the
infliction of the two wrongs and the wicked attempt to make us forget them?
Does he not see that a complete change of heart is required before
reconciliation?
</p>
<hr />
<p>
But it has become the fashion nowadays to ascribe hatred to
non-co-operationism. And I regret to find that even Col. Wedgewood has fallen
into the trap. I make bold to say that the only way to remove hatred is to give
it disciplined vent. No man can—I cannot—perform the impossible task of
removing hatred so long as contempt and despise for the feelings of India are
sedulously nursed. It is a mockery to ask India not to hate when in the same
breath India’s most sacred feelings are contemptuously brushed aside. India
feels weak and helpless and so expresses her helplessness by hating the tyrant
who despises her and makes her crawl on the belly, lifts the veils of her
innocent women and compels her tender children to acknowledge his power by
saluting his flag four times a day. The gospel of Non-co-operation addresses
itself to the task of making the people strong and self-reliant. It is an
attempt to transform hatred into pity. A strong and self-reliant India will
cease to hate Bosworth Smiths and Frank Johnsons, for she will have the power
to punish them and therefore the power also to pity and forgive them. To-day
she can neither punish nor forgive, and therefore helplessly nurses hatred. If
the Mussalmans were strong, they would not hate the English but would fight and
wrest from them the dearest possessions of Islam. I know that the Ali Brothers
who live only for the honour and the prestige of Islam, and are prepared any
moment to die for it, will to-day make friends with the latter Englishmen, if
they were to do justice to the Khilafat which it is in their power to do.
</p>
<hr />
<p>
I am positively certain that there is no personal element in this fight. Both
the Hindus and the Mahomedans would to-day invoke blessings on the English if
they would but give proof positive of their goodness, faithfulness, and loyalty
to India. Non-co-operation then is a godsend; it will purify and strengthen
India; and a strong India will be a strength to the world as an Indian weak and
helpless is a curse to mankind. Indian soldiers have involuntarily helped to
destroy Turkey and are now destroying the flower of the Arabian nation. I
cannot recall a single campaign in which the Indian soldier has been employed
by the British Government for the good of mankind. And yet, (Oh! the shame of
it!) Indian Maharajas are never tired of priding themselves on the loyal help
they have rendered the English! Could degradation sink any lower?
</p>
<h3>THE CONGRESS CONSTITUTION</h3>
<p>
The belated report of the Congress Constitution Committee has now been
published for general information and opinion has been invited from all public
bodies in order to assist the deliberations of the All India Congress
Committee. It is a pity that, small though the Constitution Committee was, all
the members never met at any one time in spite of efforts, to have a meeting of
them all. It is perhaps no body’s fault that all the members could not meet. At
the same time the draft report has passed through the searching examination of
all but one member and the report represents the mature deliberations of four
out of the five members. It must be stated at the same time that it does not
pretend to be the unanimous opinion of the members. Rather than present a
dissenting minute, a workable scheme has been brought out leaving each member
free to press his own views on the several matters in which they are not quite
unanimous. The most important part of the constitution, however, is the
alteration of the creed. So far as I am aware there is no fundamental
difference of opinion between the members. In my opinion the altered creed
represents the exact feeling of the country at the present moment.
</p>
<p>
I know that the proposed alteration has been subjected to hostile criticism in
several newspapers of note. But the extraordinary situation that faces the
country is that popular opinion is far in advance of several newspapers which
have hitherto commanded influence and have undoubtedly moulded public opinion.
The fact is that the formation of opinion to-day is by no means confined to the
educated classes, but the masses have taken it upon themselves not only to
formulate opinion but to enforce it. It would be a mistake to belittle or
ignore this opinion, or to ascribe it to a temporary upheaval. It would be
equally a mistake to suppose that this awakening amongst the masses is due
either to the activity of the Ali Brothers or myself. For the time being we
have the ear of the masses because we voice their sentiments. The masses are by
no means so foolish or unintelligent as we sometimes imagine. They often
perceive things with their intuition, which we ourselves fail to see with our
intellect. But whilst the masses know what they want, they often do not know
how to express their wants and, less often, how to get what they want. Herein
comes the use of leadership, and disastrous results can easily follow a bad,
hasty, or what is worse, selfish lead.
</p>
<p>
The first part of the proposed creed expresses the present desire of the
nation, and the second shows the way that desire can be fulfilled. In my humble
opinion the Congress creed with the proposed alteration is but an extension of
the original. And so long as no break with the British connection is attempted,
it is strictly within even the existing article that defines the Congress
creed. The extension lies in the contemplated possibility of a break with the
British connection. In my humble opinion, if India is to make unhampered
progress, we must make it clear to the British people that whilst we desire to
retain the British connection, if we can rise to our full height with it we are
determined to dispense with, and even to get rid of that connection, if that is
necessary for full national development. I hold that it is not only derogatory
to national dignity but it actually impedes national progress superstitiously
to believe that our progress towards our goal is impossible without British
connection. It is this superstition which makes some of the best of us tolerate
the Punjab wrong and the Khilafat insult. This blind adherence to that
connection makes us feel helpless. The proposed alteration in the creed enables
us to rid ourselves of our helpless condition. I personally hold that it is
perfectly constitutional openly to strive after independence, but lest there
may be dispute as to the constitutional character of any movement for complete
independence, the doubtful and highly technical adjective “constitutional” has
been removed from the altered creed in the draft. Surely it should be enough to
ensure that the methods for achieving our end are legitimate, honourable, and
peaceful, I believe that this was the reasoning that guided my colleagues in
accepting the proposed creed. In any case, such was certainly my view of the
whole alteration. There is no desire on my part to adopt any means that are
subversive of law and order. I know, however, that I am treading on delicate
ground when I write about law and order for, to some of our distinguished
leaders even my present methods appear to be lawless and conducive to disorder.
But even they will perhaps grant that the retention of the word
‘constitutional’ cannot protect the country against methods such as I am
employing. It gives rise, no doubt, to a luminous legal discussion, but any
such discussion is fruitless when the nation means business. The other
important alteration refers to the limitation of the number of delegates. I
believe that the advantages of such a limitation are obvious. We are fast
reaching a time when without any such limitation the Congress will become an
unwieldy body. It is difficult even to have an unlimited number of visitors; it
is impossible to transact national business if we have an unlimited number of
delegates.
</p>
<p>
The next important alteration is about the election of the members of the
All-India Congress Committee, making that committee practically the Subjects
Committee, and the redistribution of India for the purposes of the Congress on
a linguistic basis. It is not necessary to comment on these alterations, but I
wish to add that if the Congress accepts the principle of limiting the number
of delegates it would be advisable to introduce the principle of proportional
representation. That would enable all parties who wish to be represented at the
Congress.
</p>
<p>
I observe that <i>the Servant of India</i> sees an inconsistency between my
implied acceptance of the British Committee, so far as the published draft
constitution is concerned, and my recent article in <i>Young India</i> on that
Committee and the newspaper <i>India</i>. But it is well known that for several
years I have held my present views about the existence of that body. It would
have been irrelevant for me, perhaps, to suggest to my colleagues the
extinction of that committee. It was not our function to report on the
usefulness or otherwise of the Committee. We were commissioned only for
preparing a new constitution. Moreover I knew that my colleagues were not
averse to the existence of the British Committee. And the drawing up of a new
constitution enabled me to show that where there was no question of principle I
was desirous of agreeing quickly with my opponents in opinions. But I propose
certainly to press for abolition of the committee as it is at present
continued, and the stopping of its organ <i>India</i>.
</p>
<h3>SWARAJ IN NINE MONTHS</h3>
<p>
Asked by the <i>Times</i> representative as to his impressions formed as a
result of his activities during the last three months, Mr. Gandhi said:—“My own
impression of these three months’ extensive experience is that this movement of
non-co-operation has come to stay, and it is most decidedly a purifying
movement, in spite of isolated instances of rowdyism, as for instance at Mrs.
Besant’s meeting in Bombay, at some places in Delhi, Bengal, and even in
Gujarat. The people are assimilating day after day the spirit of non-violence,
not necessarily as a creed, but as an inevitable policy. I expect most
startling results, more startling than, say, the discoveries of Sir J.C. Bose,
or the acceptance by the people of non-violence. If the Government could be
assured beyond any possibility of doubt that no violence would ever be offered
by us the Government would from that moment alter its character, unconsciously
and involuntarily, but nonetheless surely on that account.”
</p>
<p>
“Alter its character,—in what, direction?” asked the <i>Times</i>
representative.
</p>
<p>
“Certainly in the direction which we ask it should move—that being in the
direction of Government becoming responsive to every call of the nation.”
</p>
<p>
“Will you kindly explain further?” asked the representative.
</p>
<p>
“By that I mean,” said Mr. Gandhi, “people will be able by asserting themselves
through fixed determination and self-sacrifice to gain the redress of the
Khilafat wrong, the Punjab wrong, and attain the Swaraj of their choice.”
</p>
<p>
“But what is your Swaraj, and where does the Government come in there—the
Government which, you say will alter its character unconsciously?”
</p>
<p>
“My Swaraj,” said Mr. Gandhi, “is the Parliamentary Government of India in the
modern sense of the term for the time being, and that Government would be
secured to us either through the friendly offices of the British people or
without them.”
</p>
<p>
“What do you mean by the phrase, ‘without them!’” questioned the interviewer.
</p>
<p>
“This movement,” continued Mr. Gandhi, “is an endeavour to purge the present
Government of selfishness and greed which determine almost every one of their
activities. Suppose that we have made it impossible by disassociation from them
to feed their greed. They might not wish to remain in India, as happened in the
case of Somaliland, where the moment its administration ceased to be a paying
proposition they evacuated it.”
</p>
<p>
“How do you think,” queried the representative, “in practice this will work
out?”
</p>
<p>
“What I have sketched before you,” said Mr. Gandhi, “is the final possibility.
What I expect is that nothing of that kind will happen. In so far as I
understand the British people I will recognise the force of public opinion when
it has become real and patent. Then, and only then, will they realise the
hideous injustice which in their name the Imperial ministers and their
representatives in India have perpetrated. They will therefore remedy the two
wrongs in accordance with the wishes of the people, and they will also offer a
constitution exactly in accordance with the wishes of the people of India, as
represented by their chosen leaders.
</p>
<p>
“Supposing that the British Government wish to retire because India is not a
paying concern, what do you think will then be the position of India?”
</p>
<p>
Mr. Gandhi answered: “At that stage surely it is easy to understand that India
will then have evolved either outstanding spiritual height or the ability to
offer violence, against violence. She will have evolved an organising ability
of a high order, and will therefore be in every way able to cope with any
emergency that might arise.” “In other words,” observed the <i>Times</i>
representative, “you expect the moment of the British evacuation, if such a
contingency arises, will coincide with the moment of India’s preparedness and
ability and conditions favourable for India to take over the Indian
administration as a going concern and work it for the benefit and advancement
of the Nation?”
</p>
<p>
Mr. Gandhi answered the question with an emphatic affirmative. “My experience
during the last months fills me with the hope,” continued Mr. Gandhi, “that
within the nine months that remain of the year in which I have expected Swaraj
for India we shall redress the two wrongs and we shall see Swaraj established
in accordance with the wishes of the people of India.”
</p>
<p>
“Where will the present Government be at the end of the nine months?” Asked the
<i>Times</i> representative.
</p>
<p>
Mr. Gandhi, with a significant smile, said: “The lion will then lie with the
lamb.”
</p>
<p>
<i>Young India, December, 1920.</i>
</p>
<h3>THE ATTAINMENT OF SWARAJ</h3>
<p>
Mr. Gandhi in moving his resolution on the creed before the Congress, said,
“The resolution which I have the honour to move is as follows: The object of
the Indian National Congress is the attainment of Swarajya by the people of
India by all legitimate and peaceful means.”
</p>
<p>
There are only two kinds of objections, so far as I understand, that will be
advanced from this platform. One is that we may not to-day think of dissolving
the British connection. What I say is that it is derogatory to national dignity
to think of permanence of British connection at any cost. We are labouring
under a grievous wrong, which it is the personal duty of every Indian to get
redressed. This British Government not only refused to redress the wrong, but
it refuses to acknowledge <i>its</i> mistake and so long as it retains its
attitude, it is not possible for us to say all that we want to be or all that
we want to get, retaining British connection. No matter what difficulties be in
our path, we must make the clearest possible declaration to the world and to
the whole of India, that we may not possibly have British connection, if the
British people will not do this elementary justice. I do not, for one moment,
suggest that we want to end at the British connection at all costs,
unconditionally. If the British connection is for the advancement of India, we
do not want to destroy it. But if it is inconsistent with our national self
respect, then it is our bounden duty to destroy it. There is room in this
resolution for both—those who believe that, by retaining British connection, we
can purify ourselves and purify British people, and those who have no belief.
As for instance, take the extreme case of Mr. Andrews. He says all hope for
India is gone for keeping the British connection. He says there must be
complete severance—complete independence. There is room enough in this creed
for a man like Mr. Andrews also. Take another illustration, a man like myself
or my brother Shaukat Ali. There is certainly no room for us, if we have
eternally to subscribe to the doctrine, whether these wrongs are redressed or
not, we shall have to evolve ourselves within the British Empire; there is no
room for me in that creed. Therefore this creed is elastic enough to take in
both shades of opinions and the British people will have to beware that, if
they do not want to do justice, it will be the bounden duty of every Indian to
destroy the Empire.
</p>
<p>
I want just now to wind up my remarks with a personal appeal, drawing your
attention to an object lesson that was presented in the Bengal camp yesterday.
If you want Swaraj, you have got a demonstration of how to get Swaraj. There
was a little bit of skirmish, a little bit of squabble, and a little bit of
difference in the Bengal camp, as there will always be differences so long as
the world lasts. I have known differences between husband and wife, because I
am still a husband; I have noticed differences between parents and children,
because I am still a father of four boys, and they are all strong enough to
destroy their father so far as bodily struggle is concerned; I possess that
varied experience of husband and parent; I know that we shall always have
squabbles, we shall always have differences but the lesson that I want to draw
your attention to is that I had the honour and privilege of addressing both the
parties. They gave me their undivided attention and what is more they showed
their attachment, their affection and their fellowship for me by accepting the
humble advice that I had the honour of tendering to them, and I told them I am
not here to distribute justice that can be awarded only through our worthy
president. But I ask you not to go to the president, you need not worry him. If
you are strong, if you are brave, if you are intent upon getting Swaraj, and if
you really want to revise the creed, then you will bottle up your rage, you
will bottle up all the feelings of injustice that may rankle in your hearts and
forget these things here under this very roof and I told them to forget their
differences, to forgot the wrongs. I don’t want to tell you or go into the
history of that incident. Probably most of you know. I simply want to invite
your attention to the fact. I don’t say they have settled up their differences.
I hope they have but I do know that they undertook to forget the differences.
They undertook not to worry the President, they undertook not to make any
demonstration here or in the Subjects Committee. All honour to those who
listened to that advice.
</p>
<p>
I only wanted my Bengali friends and all the other friends who have come to
this great assembly with a fixed determination to seek nothing but the
settlement of their country, to seek nothing but the advancement of their
respective rights, to seek nothing but the conservation of the national honour.
I appeal to every one of you to copy the example set by those who felt
aggrieved and who felt that their heads were broken. I know, before we have
done with this great battle on which we have embarked at the special sessions
of the Congress, we have to go probably, possibly through a sea of blood, but
let it not be said of us or any one of us that we are guilty of shedding blood,
but let it be said by generations yet to be born that we suffered, that we shed
not somebody’s blood but our own, and so I have no hesitation in saying that I
do not want to show much sympathy for those who had their heads broken or who
were said to be even in danger of losing their lives. What does it matter? It
is much better to die at the hands, at least, of our own countrymen. What is
there to revenge ourselves about or upon. So I ask everyone of you that if at
any time there is blood-boiling within you against some fellow countrymen of
yours, even though he may be in the employ of Government, though he may be in
the Secret Service, you will take care not to be offended and not to return
blow for blow. Understand that the very moment you return the blow from the
detective, your cause is lost. This is your non-violent campaign. And so I ask
everyone of you not to retaliate but to bottle up all your rage, to dismiss
your rage from you and you will rise graver men. I am here to congratulate
those who have restrained themselves from going to the President and bringing
the dispute before him.
</p>
<p>
Therefore I appeal to those who feel aggrieved to feel that they have done the
right thing in forgetting it and if they have not forgotten I ask them to try
to forget the thing; and that is the object lesson to which I wanted to draw
your attention if you want to carry this resolution. Do not carry this
resolution only by an acclamation for this resolution, but I want you to
accompany the carrying out of this resolution with a faith and resolve which
nothing on earth can move. That you are intent upon getting Swaraj at the
earliest possible moment and that you are intent upon getting Swaraj by means
that are legitimate, that are honourable and by means that are non-violent,
that are peaceful, you have resolved upon, so far you can say to-day. We cannot
give battle to this Government by means of steel, but we can give battle by
exercising, what I have so often called, “soul force” and soul force is not the
prerogative of one man of a Sanyasi or even a so-called saint. Soul force is
the prerogative of every human being, female or male and therefore I ask my
countrymen, if they want to accept this resolution, to accept it with that firm
determination and to understand that it is inaugurated under such good and
favourable auspices as I have described to you.
</p>
<p>
In my humble opinion, the Congress will have done the rightest thing, if it
unanimously adopts this resolution. May God grant that you will pass this
resolution unanimously, may God grant that you will also have the courage and
the ability to carry out the resolution and that within one year.
</p>
<hr />
</div><!--end chapter-->
<div class="chapter">
<h2><a name="chap05"></a>V. HINDU MOSLEM UNITY</h2>
<p>
[A dialogue between Editor and reader on the Hindu-Moslem Unity—<i>Indian Home
Rule</i>.]
</p>
<h3>THE HINDUS AND THE MAHOMEDANS.</h3>
<p>
EDITOR: Your last question is a serious one, and yet, on careful consideration,
it will be found to be easy of solution. The question arises because of the
presence of the railways of the lawyers, and of the doctors. We shall presently
examine the last two. We have already considered the railways. I should,
however, like to add that man is so made by nature as to require him to
restrict his movements as far as his hands and feet will take him. If we did
not rush about from place to place by means of railways such other maddening
conveniences, much of the confusion that arises would be obviated. Our
difficulties are of our own creation. God set a limit to a man’s locomotive
ambition in the construction of his body. Man immediately proceeded to discover
means of overriding the limit. God gifted man with intellect that he might know
his Maker. Man abused it, so that he might forget his Maker. I am so
constructed that I can only serve my immediate neighbours, but, in my conceit,
I pretend to have discovered that I must with my body serve every individual in
the Universe. In thus attempting the impossible, man comes in contact with
different natures, different religions, and is utterly confounded. According to
this reasoning, it must be apparent to you that railways are a most dangerous
institution. Man has therefore gone further away from his Maker.
</p>
<p>
READER: But I am impatient to hear your answer to my question. Has the
introduction of Mahomedanism not unmade the nation?
</p>
<p>
EDITOR: India cannot cease to be one nation because people belonging to
different religions live in it. The introduction of foreigners does not
necessarily destroy the nation, they merge in it. A country is one nation only
when such a condition obtains in it. That country must have a faculty for
assimilation. India has ever been such a country. In reality, there are as many
religions as there are individuals, but those who are conscious of the spirit
of nationality do not interfere with one another’s religion. If they do, they
are not fit to be considered a nation. If the Hindus believe that India should
be peopled only by Hindus, they are living in dreamland. The Hindus, the
Mahomedans, the Parsees and the Christians who have made India their country
are fellow countrymen, and they will have to live in unity if only for their
own interest. In no part of the world are one nationality and one religion
synonymous terms: nor has it ever been so in India.
</p>
<p>
READER: But what about the inborn enmity between Hindus and Mahomedans?
</p>
<p>
EDITOR: That phrase has been invented by our mutual enemy. When the Hindus and
Mahomedans fought against one another, they certainly spoke in that strain.
They have long since ceased to fight. How, then, can there be any inborn
enmity? Pray remember this, too, that we did not cease to fight only after
British occupation. The Hindus flourished under Moslem sovereigns, and Moslems
under the Hindu. Each party recognised that mutual fighting was suicidal, and
that neither party would abandon its religion by force of arms. Both parties,
therefore, decided to live in peace. With the English advent the quarrels
recommenced.
</p>
<p>
The proverbs you have quoted were coined when both were fighting; to quote them
now is obviously harmful. Should we not remember that many Hindus and
Mahomedans own the same ancestors, and the same blood runs through their veins?
Do people become enemies because they change their religion? Is the God of the
Mahomedan different from the God of the Hindu? Religions are different roads
converging to the same point. What does it matter that we take different roads,
so long as we reach the same goal? Wherein is the cause for quarrelling?
</p>
<p>
Moreover, there are deadly proverbs as between the followers of Shiva and those
of Vishnu, yet nobody suggests that these two do not belong to the same nation.
It is said that the Vedic religion is different from Jainism, but the followers
of the respective faiths are not different nations. The fact is that we have
become enslaved, and, therefore, quarrel and like to have our quarrels decided
by a third party. There are Hindu iconoclasts as there are Mahomedan. The more
we advance in true knowledge, the better we shall understand that we need not
be at war with those whose religion we may not follow.
</p>
<p>
READER: Now I would like to know your views about cow protection.
</p>
<p>
EDITOR: I myself respect the cow, that is, I look upon her with affectionate
reverence. The cow is the protector of India, because, it being an agricultural
country, is dependent on the cow’s progeny. She is a most useful animal in
hundreds of ways. Our Mahomedan brethren will admit this.
</p>
<p>
But, just as I respect the cow so do I respect my fellow-men. A man is just as
useful as a cow, no matter whether he be a Mahomedan or a Hindu. Am I, then to
fight with or kill a Mahomedan in order to save a cow? In doing so, I would
become an enemy as well of the cow as of the Mahomedan. Therefore, the only
method I know of protecting the cow is that I should approach my Mahomedan
brother and urge him for the sake of the country to join me in protecting her.
If he would not listen to me, I should let the cow go for the simple reason
that the matter is beyond my ability. If I were over full of pity for the cow,
I should sacrifice my life to save her, but not take my brother’s. This, I
hold, is the law of our religion.
</p>
<p>
When men become obstinate, it is a difficult thing. If I pull one way, my
Moslem brother will pull another. If I put on a superior air, he will return
the compliment. If I bow to him gently, he will do it much, more so, and if he
does not, I shall not be considered to have done wrong in having bowed. When
the Hindus became insistent, the killing of cows increased. In my opinion, cow
protection societies may be considered cow killing societies. It is a disgrace
to us that we should need such societies. When we forgot how to protect cows, I
suppose we needed such societies.
</p>
<p>
What am I to do when a blood-brother is on the point of killing a cow? Am I to
kill him, or to fall down at his feet and implore him? If you admit that I
should adopt the latter course I must do the same to my Moslem brother. Who
protects the cow from destruction by Hindus when they cruelly ill-treat her?
Whoever reasons with the Hindus when they mercilessly belabour the progeny of
the cow with their sticks? But this has not prevented us from remaining one
nation.
</p>
<p>
Lastly, if it be true that the Hindus believe in the doctrine of non-killing,
and the Mahomedans do not, what, I pray, is the duty of the former? It is not
written that a follower of the religion of Ahimsa (non-killing) may kill a
fellow-man. For him the way is straight. In order to save one being, he may not
kill another. He can only plead—therein lies his sole duty.
</p>
<p>
But does every Hindu believe in Ahimsa? Going to the root of the matter, not
one man really practises such a religion, because we do destroy life. We are
said to follow that religion because we want to obtain freedom from liability
to kill any kind of life. Generally speaking, we may observe that many Hindus
partake of meat and are not, therefore, followers of Ahimsa. It is, therefore,
preposterous to suggest that the two cannot live together amicably because the
Hindus believe in Ahimsa and the Mahomedans do not.
</p>
<p>
These thoughts are put into our minds by selfish and false religious teachers.
The English put the finishing touch. They have a habit of writing history; they
pretend to study the manners and customs of all peoples, God has given us a
limited mental capacity, but they usurp the function of the Godhead and indulge
in novel experiments. They write about their own researches in most laudatory
terms and hypnotise us into believing them. We in our ignorance, then fall at
their feet.
</p>
<p>
Those who do not wish to misunderstand things may read up the Koran, and will
find therein hundreds of passages acceptable to the Hindus; and the Bhagavad
Gita contains passages to which not a Mahomedan can take exception. Am I to
dislike a Mahomedan because there are passages in the Koran I do not understand
or like? It takes two to make a quarrel. If I do not want to quarrel with a
Mahomedan, the latter will be powerless to foist a quarrel on me, and,
similarly, I should be powerless if a Mahomedan refuses his assistance to
quarrel with me. An arm striking the air will become disjointed. If everyone
will try to understand the core of his own religion and adhere to it, and will
not allow false teachers to dictate to him, there will be no room left for
quarrelling.
</p>
<p>
READER: But, will the English ever allow the two bodies to join hands?
</p>
<p>
EDITOR: This question arises out of your timidity. It betrays our shallowness.
If two brothers want to live in peace, is it possible for a third party to
separate them? If they were to listen to evil counsels, we would consider them
to be foolish. Similarly, we Hindus and Mahomedans would have to blame our
folly rather than the English, if we allowed them to put asunder. A clay pot
would break through impact; if not with one stone, thou with another. The way
to save the pot is not to keep it away from the danger point, but to bake it so
that no stone would break it. We have then to make our hearts of perfectly
baked clay. Then we shall be steeled against all danger. This can be easily
done by the Hindus. They are superior in numbers, they pretend that they are
more educated, they are, therefore, better able to shield themselves from
attack on their amicable relations with the Mahomedans.
</p>
<p>
There is a mutual distrust between the two communities. The Mahomedans,
therefore, ask for certain concessions from Lord Morley. Why should the Hindus
oppose this? If the Hindus desisted, the English would notice it, the
Mahomedans would gradually begin to trust the Hindus, and brotherliness would
be the outcome. We should be ashamed to take our quarrels to the English.
Everyone can find out for himself that the Hindus can lose nothing be
desisting. The man who has inspired confidence in another has never lost
anything in this world.
</p>
<p>
I do not suggest that the Hindus and the Mahomedans will never fight. Two
brothers living together often do so. We shall sometimes have our heads broken.
Such a thing ought not to be necessary, but all men are not equi-minded. When
people are in a rage, they do many foolish things. These we have to put up
with. But, when we do quarrel, we certainly do not want to engage counsel and
to resort to English or any law-courts. Two men fight; both have their heads
broken, or one only. How shall a third party distribute justice amongst them?
Those who fight may expect to be injured.
</p>
<h3>HINDU-MAHOMEDAN UNITY</h3>
<p>
Mr. Candler some time ago asked me in an imaginary interview whether if I was
sincere in my professions of Hindu-Mahomedan Unity. I would eat and drink with
a Mahomedean and give my daughter in marriage to a Mahomedan. This question has
been asked again by some friends in another form. Is it necessary for Hindu
Mahomedan Unity that there should he interdining and intermarrying? The
questioners say that if the two are necessary, real unity can never take place
because crores of <i>Sanatanis</i> would never reconcile themselves to
interdining, much less to intermarriage.
</p>
<p>
I am one of those who do not consider caste to be a harmful institution. In its
origin caste was a wholesome custom and promoted national well-being. In my
opinion the idea that interdining or intermarrying is necessary for national
growth, is a superstition borrowed from the West. Eating is a process just as
vital as the other sanitary necessities of life. And if mankind had not, much
to its harm, made of eating a fetish and indulgence we would have performed the
operation of eating in private even as one performs the other necessary
functions of life in private. Indeed the highest culture in Hinduism regards
eating in that light and there are thousands of Hindus still living who will
not eat their food in the presence of anybody. I can recall the names of
several cultured men and women who ate their food in entire privacy but who
never had any illwill against anybody and who lived on the friendliest terms
with all.
</p>
<p>
Intermarriage is a still more difficult question. If brothers and sisters can
live on the friendliest footing without ever thinking of marrying each other, I
can see no difficulty in my daughter regarding every Mahomedan brother and
<i>vice versa</i>. I hold strong views on religion and on marriage. The greater
the restraint we exercise with regard to our appetites whether about eating or
marrying, the better we become from a religious standpoint. I should despair of
ever cultivating amicable relations with the world, if I had to recognise the
right or the propriety of any young man offering his hand in marriage to my
daughter or to regard it as necessary for me to dine with anybody and
everybody. I claim that I am living on terms of friendliness with the whole
world. I have never quarrelled with a single Mahomedan or Christian but for
years I have taken nothing but fruit in Mahomedan or Christian households. I
would most certainly decline to eat food cooked from the same plate with my son
or to drink water out of a cup which his lips have touched and which has not
been washed. But the restraint or the exclusiveness exercised in these matters
by me has never affected the closest companionship with the Mahomedan or the
Christian friends or my sons.
</p>
<p>
But interdining and intermarriage have never been a bar to disunion, quarrels
and worse. The Pandavas and the Kauravas flew at one another’s throats without
compunction although they interdined and intermarried. The bitterness between
the English and the Germans has not yet died out.
</p>
<p>
The fact is that intermarriage and interdining are not necessary factors in
friendship and unity though they are often emblems thereof. But insistence on
either the one or the other can easily become and is to-day a bar to
Hindu-Mahomedan Unity. If we make ourselves believe that Hindus and Mahomedans
cannot be one unless they interdine or intermarry, we would be creating an
artificial barrier between us which it might be almost impossible to remove.
And it would seriously interfere with the flowing unity between Hindus and
Mahomedans if, for example, Mahomedan youths consider it lawful to court Hindu
girls. The Hindu parents will not, even if they suspected any such thing,
freely admit Mahomedans to their homes as they have begun to do now. In my
opinion it is necessary for Hindu and Mahomedan young men to recognise this
limitation.
</p>
<p>
I hold it to be utterly impossible for Hindus and Mahomedans to intermarry and
yet retain intact each other’s religion. And the true beauty of Hindu-Mahomedan
Unity lies in each remaining true to his own religion and yet being true to
each other. For, we are thinking of Hindus and Mahomedans even of the most
orthodox type being able to regard one another as natural friends instead of
regarding one another as natural enemies as they have done hitherto.
</p>
<p>
What then does the Hindu-Mahomedan Unity consist in and how can it be best
promoted? The answer is simple. It consists in our having a common purpose, a
common goal and common sorrows. It is best promoted by co-operating to reach
the common goal, by sharing one another’s sorrow and by mutual toleration. A
common goal we have. We wish this great country of ours to be greater and
self-governing.[4] We have enough sorrows to share and to-day seeing that the
Mahomedans are deeply touched on the question of Khilafat and their case is
just, nothing can be so powerful for winning Mahomedans friendship for the
Hindu as to give his whole-hearted support to the Mahomedan claim. No amount of
drinking out of the same cup or dining out of the same bowl can bind the two as
this help in the Khilafat question.
</p>
<p>
And mutual toleration is a necessity for all time and for all races. We cannot
live in peace if the Hindu will not tolerate the Mahomedan form of worship of
God and his manners and customs or if the mahomedans will be impatient of Hindu
idolatory, cow-worship. It is not necessary for toleration that I must approve
of what I tolerate. I heartily dislike drinking, meat eating and smoking, but I
tolerate all these in Hindus, Mahomedans and Christians even as I expect them
to tolerate my abstinence from all these, although they may dislike it. All the
quarrels between the Hindus and the Mahomedans have arisen from each wanting to
<i>force</i> the other his view.
</p>
<h3>HINDU-MUSLIM UNITY</h3>
<p>
There can be no doubt that successful non-co-operation depends as much on
Hindu-Muslim Unity as on non-violence. Greatest strain will be put upon both in
the course of the struggle and if it survives that strain, victory is a
certainty.
</p>
<p>
A severe strain was put upon it in Agra and it has been stated that when either
party went to the authorities they were referred to Maulana Shaukat Ali and me.
Fortunately there was a far better man at hand. Hakimji Ajmal khan is a devout
Muslim who commands the confidence and the respect of both the parties. He with
his band of workers hastened to Agra, settled the dispute and the parties
became friends as they were never before. An incident occurred nearer Delhi and
the same influence worked successfully to avoid what might have become an
explosion.
</p>
<p>
But Hakimji Ajmal khan cannot be everywhere appearing at the exact hour as an
angel of peace. Nor can Maulana Shankat Ali or I go everywhere. And yet perfect
peace must be observed between the two communities in spite of attempts to
divide them.
</p>
<p>
Why was there any appeal made to the authorities at all at Agra? If we are to
work out non-co-operation with any degree of success we must be able to
dispense with the protection of the Government when we quarrel among ourselves.
The whole scheme of non-co-operation must break to pieces, if our final
reliance is to be upon British intervention for the adjustment of our quarrels
or the punishment of the guilty ones. In every village and hamlet there must be
at least one Hindu and one Muslim, whose primary business must be to prevent
quarrels between the two. Some times however, even blood-brothers come to
blows. In the initial stages we are bound to do so here and there.
Unfortunately we who are public workers have made little attempt to understand
and influence the masses and least of all the most turbulent among them. During
the process of insinuating ourselves in the estimation of the masses and until
we have gained control over the unruly, there are bound to be exhibitions of
hasty temper now and then. We must learn at such times to do without an appeal
to the Government. Hakimji Ajmal Khan has shown us how to do it.
</p>
<p>
The union that we want is not a patched up thing but a union of hearts based
upon a definite recognition of the indubitable proposition that Swaraj for
India must be an impossible dream without an indissoluble union between the
Hindus and the Muslims of India. It must not be a mere truce. It cannot be
based upon mutual fear. It must be a partnership between equals each respecting
the religion of the other.
</p>
<p>
I would frankly despair of reaching such union if there was anything in the
holy Quran enjoining upon the followers of Islam to treat Hindus as their
natural enemies or if there was anything in Hinduism to warrant a belief in the
eternal enmity between the two.
</p>
<p>
We would ill learn our history if we conclude that because we have quarrelled
in the past, we are destined so to continue unless some such strong power like
the British keep us by force of arms from flying at each other’s throats. But I
am convinced that there is no warrant in Islam or Hinduism for any such belief.
True it is that interested fanatical priests in both religions have set the one
against the other. It is equally true that Muslim rulers like Christian rulers
have used the sword for the propagation of their respective faiths. But in
spite of many dark things of the modern times, the world’s opinion to-day will
as little tolerate forcible conversions as it will tolerate forcible slavery.
That probably is the most effective contribution of the scientific spirit of
the age. That spirit has revolutionised many a false notion about Christianity
as it has about Islam. I do not know a single writer on Islam who defends the
use of force in the proselytising process. The influences exerted in our times
are far more subtle than that of the sword.
</p>
<p>
I believe that in the midst of all the bloodshed, chicane and fraud being
resorted to on a colossal scale in the west, the whole humanity is silently but
surely making progress towards a better age. And India by finding true
independence and self-expression through an imperishable Hindu-Muslim unity and
through non-violent means, i.e., unadulterated self sacrifice can point a way
out of the prevailing darkness.
</p>
<hr />
</div><!--end chapter-->
<div class="chapter">
<h2><a name="chap06"></a>VI. TREATMENT OF THE DEPRESSED CLASSES</h2>
<h3>DEPRESSED CLASSES</h3>
<p>
Vivekanand used to call the Panchamas ‘suppressed classes.’ There is no doubt
that Vivekanand’s is a more accurate adjective. We have suppressed them and
have consequently become ourselves depressed. That we have become the ‘Pariahs
of the Empire’ is, in Gokhale’s language, the retributive justice meted out to
us by a just God. A correspondent indignantly asks me in a pathetic letter
reproduced elsewhere, what I am doing for them. I have given the letter with
the correspondent’s own heading. Should not we the Hindus wash our bloodstained
hands before we ask the English to wash theirs? This is a proper question
reasonably put. And if a member of a slave nation could deliver the suppressed
classes from their slavery without freeing myself from my own, I would do so to
day. But it is an impossible task. A slave has not the freedom even to do the
right thing. It is a right for me to prohibit the importation of foreign goods,
but I have no power to bring it about. It was right for Maulana Mahomed Ali to
go to Turkey and to tell the Turks personally that India was with them in their
righteous struggle. He was not free to do so. If I had a truly national
legislative I would answer Hindu insolence by creating special and better wells
for the exclusive use of suppressed classes and by erecting better and more
numerous schools for them, so that there would be not a single member of the
suppressed classes left without a school to teach their children. But I must
wait for that better day.
</p>
<p>
Meanwhile are the depressed classes to be loft to their own resources? Nothing
of the sort. In my own humble manner I have done and am doing all I can for my
Panchama brother.
</p>
<p>
There are three courses open to those downtrodden members of the nation. For
their impatience they may call in the assistance of the slave owning
Government. They will get it but they will fall from the frying pan into the
fire. To-day they are slaves of slaves. By seeking Government aid, they will be
used for suppressing their kith and kin. Instead of being sinned against, they
will themselves be the sinners. The Mussalmans tried it and failed. They found
that they were worse off than before. The Sikhs did it unwittingly and failed.
To-day there is no more discontented community in India than the Sikhs.
Government aid is therefore no solution.
</p>
<p>
The second is rejection of Hinduism and wholesale conversion to Islam or
Christianity. And if a change of religion could be justified for worldly
betterment, I would advise it without hesitation. But religion is a matter of
the heart. No physical inconvenience can warrant abandonment of one’s own
religion. If the inhuman treatment of the Panchamas were a part of Hinduism,
its rejection would be a paramount duty both for them and for those like me who
would not make a fetish even of religion and condone every evil in its sacred
name. But, I believe that untouchability is no part of Hinduism. It is rather
its excrescence to be removed by every effort. And there is quite an army of
Hindu reformers who have set their heart upon ridding Hinduism of this blot.
Conversion, therefore, I hold, is no remedy whatsoever.
</p>
<p>
Then there remains, finally, self-help and self-dependence, with such aid as
the non-Panchama Hindus will render of their own motion, not as a matter of
patronage but as a matter of duty. And herein comes the use of
non-co-operation. My correspondent was correctly informed by Mr.
Rajagopaluchari and Mr. Hanumantarao that I would favour well-regulated
non-co-operation for this acknowledged evil. But non-co-operation means
independence of outside help, it means effort from within. It would not be
non-co-operation to insist on visiting prohibited areas. That may be civil
disobedience if it is peacefully carried out. But I have found to my cost that
civil disobedience requires far greater preliminary training and self-control.
All can non-co-operate, but few only can offer civil disobedience. Therefore,
by way of protest against Hinduism, the Panchamas can certainly stop all
contact and connection with the other Hindus so long as special grievances are
maintained. But this means organised intelligent effort. And so far as I can
see, there is no leader among the Panchamas who can lead them to victory
through non-co-operation.
</p>
<p>
The better way, therefore, perhaps, is for the Panchamas heartily to join the
great national movement that is now going on for throwing off the slavery of
the present Government. It is easy enough for the Panchama friends to see that
non-co-operation against this evil government presupposes co-operation between
the different sections forming the Indian nation. The Hindus must realise that
if they wish to offer successful non-co-operation against the Government, they
must make common cause with the Panchamas, even as they have made common cause
with the Mussalmans. Non-co-operation with it is free from violence, is
essentially a movement of intensive self-purification. That process has
commenced and whether the Panchamas deliberately take part in it or not, the
rest of the Hindus dare not neglect them without hampering their own progress.
Hence though the Panchama problem is as dear to me as life itself, I rest
satisfied with the exclusive attention to national non-co-operation. I feel
sure that the greater includes the less.
</p>
<p>
Closely allied to this question is the non-Brahmin question. I wish I had
studied it more closely than I have been able to. A quotation from my speech
delivered at a private meeting in Madras has been torn from its context and
misused to further the antagonism between the so-called Brahmins and the
so-called non-Brahmins. I do not wish to retract a word of what I said at that
meeting, I was appealing to those who are accepted as Brahmins. I told them
that in my opinion the treatment of non-Brahmins by the Brahmins was as satanic
as the treatment of us by the British. I added that the non-Brahmins should be
placated without any ado or bargaining. But my remarks were never intended to
encourage the powerful non-Brahmins of Maharashira or Madras, or the
mischievous element among them, to overawe the so-called Brahmins. I use the
word ‘so-called’ advisedly. For the Brahmins who have freed themselves from the
thraldom of superstitious orthodoxy have not only no quarrel with non-Brahmins
as such, but are in every way eager to advance non-Brahmins wherever they are
weak. No lover of his country can possibly achieve its general advance if he
dared to neglect the least of his countrymen. Those non-Brahmins therefore who
are coqueting with the Government are selling themselves and the nation to
which they belong. By all means let those who have faith in the Government help
to sustain it, but let no Indian worthy of his birth cut off his nose to spite
the face.
</p>
<h3>AMELIORATION OF THE DEPRESSED CLASSES</h3>
<p>
The resolution of the Senate of the Gujarat National University in regard to
Mr. Andrews’ question about the admission of children of the ‘depressed’
classes to the schools affiliated to that University is reported to have raised
a flutter in Ahmedabad. Not only has the flutter given satisfaction to a ‘Times
of India’ correspondent, but the occasion has led to the discovery by him of
another defect in the constitution of the Senate in that it does not contain a
single Muslim member. The discovery, however, I may inform the reader, is no
proof of the want of national character of the University. The Hindu-Muslim
unity is no mere lip expression. It requires no artificial proofs. The simple
reason why there is no Mussalman representative on the Senate is that no higher
educated Mussalman, able to give his time, has been found to take sufficient
interest in the national education movement. I merely refer to this matter to
show that we must reckon with attempts to discredit the movement even
misinterpretation of motives. That is a difficulty from without and easier to
deal with.
</p>
<p>
The ‘depressed’ classes difficulty is internal and therefore far more serious
because it may give rise to a split and weaken the cause—no cause can survive
internal difficulties if they are indefinitely multiplied. Yet there can be no
surrender in the matter of principles for the avoidance of splits. You cannot
promote a cause when you are undermining it by surrendering its vital parts.
The depressed classes problem is a vital part of the cause. <i>Swaraj</i> is as
inconceivable without full reparation to the ‘depressed’ classes as it is
impossible without real Hindu-Muslim unity. In my opinion we have become
‘pariahs of the Empire’ because we have created ‘pariahs’ in our midst. The
slave owner is always more hurt than the slave. We shall be unfit to gain
Swaraj so long as we would keep in bondage a fifth of the population of
Hindustan. Have we not made the ‘pariah’ crawl on his belly? Have we not
segregated him? And if it is religion so to treat the ‘pariah.’ It is the
religion of the white race to segregate us. And if it is no argument for the
white races to say that we are satisfied with the badge of our inferiority, it
is less for us to say that the ‘pariah’ is satisfied with his. Our slavery is
complete when we begin to hug it.
</p>
<p>
The Gujarat Senate therefore counted the cost when it refused to bend before
the storm. This non-co-operation is a process of self-purification. We may not
cling to putrid customs and claim the pure boon of <i>Swaraj</i>.
Untouchability I hold is a custom, not an integral part of Hinduism. The world
advanced in thought, though it is still barbarous in action. And no religion
can stand that which is not based on fundamental truths. Any glorification of
error will destroy a religion as surely as disregard of a disease is bound to
destroy a body.
</p>
<p>
This government of ours is an unscrupulous corporation. It has ruled by
dividing Mussalmans from Hindus. It is quite capable of taking advantage of the
internal weaknesses of Hinduism. It will set the ‘depressed’ classes against
the rest of the Hindus, non-Brahmins against Brahmins. The Gujarat Senate
resolution does not end the trouble. It merely points out the difficulty. The
trouble will end only when the masses and classes of Hindus have rid themselves
of the sin of untouchability. A Hindu lover of Swaraj will as assiduously work
for the amelioration of the lot of the ‘depressed’ classes as he works for
Hindu-Muslim unity. We must treat them as our brothers and give them the same
rights that we claim for ourselves.
</p>
<h3>THE SIN OF UNTOUCHABILITY</h3>
<p>
It is worthy of note that the subjects Committee accepted without any
opposition the clause regarding the sin of untouchability. It is well that the
National assembly passed the resolution stating that the removal of this blot
on Hinduism was necessary for the attainment of Swaraj. The Devil succeeds only
by receiving help from his fellows. He always takes advantage of the weakest
spots in our natures in order to gain mastery over us. Even so does the
Government retain its control over us through our weaknesses or vices. And if
we would render ourselves proof against its machination, we must remove our
weaknesses. It is for that reason that I have called non-co-operation a process
of purification. As soon as that process is completed, this government must
fall to pieces for want of the necessary environment, just as mosquitos cease
to haunt a place whose cess-pools are filled up and dried.
</p>
<p>
Has not a just Nemesis overtaken us for the crime of untouchability? Have we
not reaped as we have sown? Have we not practised Dwyerism and O’Dwyerism on
our own kith and kin? We have segregated the ‘pariah’ and we are in turn
segregated in the British Colonies. We deny him the use of public wells; we
throw the leavings of our plates at him. His very shadow pollutes us. Indeed
there is no charge that the ‘pariah’ cannot fling in our faces and which we do
not fling in the faces of Englishmen.
</p>
<p>
How is this blot on Hinduism to be removed? ‘Do unto others as you would that
others should do unto you.’ I have often told English officials that, if they
are friends and servants of India, they should come down from their pedestal,
cease to be patrons, demonstrate by their loving deeds that they are in every
respect our friends, and believe us to be equals in the same sense they believe
fellow Englishmen to be their equals. After the experiences of the Punjab and
the Khilafat, I have gone a step further and asked them to repent and to change
their hearts. Even so is it necessary for us Hindus to repent of the wrong we
have done, to alter our behaviour towards those whom we have ‘suppressed’ by a
system as devilish as we believe the English system of the Government of India
to be. We must not throw a few miserable schools at them; we must not adopt the
air of superiority towards them. We must treat them as our blood brothers as
they are in fact. We must return to them the inheritance of which we have
robbed them. And this must not be the act of a few English-knowing reformers
merely, but it must be a conscious voluntary effort on the part of the masses.
We may not wait till eternity for this much belated reformation. We must aim at
bringing it about within this year of grace, probation, preparation and
<i>tapasya</i>. It is a reform not to follow <i>Swaraj</i> but to precede it.
</p>
<p>
Untouchability is not a sanction of religion, it is a devise of Satan. The
devil has always quoted scriptures. But scriptures cannot transcend reason and
truth. They are intended to purify reason and illuminate truth. I am not going
to burn a spotless horse because the Vedas are reported to have advised,
tolerated, or sanctioned the sacrifice. For me the Vedas are divine and
unwritten. ‘The letter killeth.’ It is the spirit that giveth the light. And
the spirit of the Vedas is purity, truth, innocence, chastity, humility,
simplicity, forgiveness, godliness, and all that makes a man or woman noble and
brave. There is neither nobility nor bravery in treating the great and
uncomplaining scavengers of the nation as worse than dogs to be despised and
spat upon. Would that God gave us the strength and the wisdom to become
voluntary scavengers of the nation as the ‘suppressed’ classes are forced to
be. There are Augean stables enough and to spare for us to clean.
</p>
<hr />
</div><!--end chapter-->
<div class="chapter">
<h2><a name="chap07"></a>VII. TREATMENT OF INDIANS ABROAD</h2>
<h3>INDIANS ABROAD</h3>
<p>
The prejudice against Indian settlers outside India is showing itself in a
variety of ways: Under the impudent suggestion of sedition the Fiji Government
has deported Mr. Manilal Doctor who with his brave and cultured wife has been
rendering assistance to the poor indentured Indians of Fiji in a variety of
ways. The whole trouble has arisen over the strike of the labourers in Fiji.
Indentures have been canceled, but the spirit of slavery is by no means dead.
We do not know the genesis of the strike; we do not know that the strikers have
done no wrong. But we do know what is behind when a charge of sedition is
brought against the strikers and their friends. The readers must remember that
the Government that has scented sedition in the recent upheaval in Fiji is the
Government that had the hardihood to libel Mr. Andrew’s character. What can be
the meaning of sedition in connection with the Fiji strikers and Mr. Manilal
Doctor? Did they and he want to seize the reins of Government? Did they want
any power in that country? They struck for elementary freedom. And it is a
prostitution of terms to use the word sedition in such connection. The strikers
may have been overhasty. Mr. Manilal Doctor may have misled them. If his advice
bordered on the criminal he should have been tried. The information in our
possession goes to show that he has been strictly constitutional. Our point,
however, is that it is an abuse of power for the Fiji Government to have
deported Mr. Manilal Doctor without a trial. It is wrong in principle to
deprive a person of his liberty on mere suspicion and without giving him an
opportunity of clearing his character. Mr. Manilal Doctor, be it remembered,
has for years past made Fiji his home. He has, we believe, bought property
there. He has children born in Fiji. Have the children no rights? Has the wife
none? May a promising career be ruined at the bidding of a lawless Government?
Has Mr. Manilal Doctor been compensated for the losses he must sustain? We
trust that the Government of India which has endeavoured to protect the rights
of Indian settlers abroad will take up the question of Mr. Doctor’s
deportation.
</p>
<p>
Nor is Fiji the only place where the spirit of lawlessness among the powerful
has come to the surface. Indians of (the late) German East Africa find
themselves in a worse position than heretofore. They state that even their
property is not safe. They have to pay all kinds of dues on passports. They are
hampered in their trade. They are not able even to send money orders.
</p>
<p>
In British East Africa the cloud is perhaps the thickest. The European settlers
there are doing their utmost to deprive the Indian settlers of practically
every right they have hitherto possessed. An attempt is being made to compass
their ruin both by legislative enactment and administrative action.
</p>
<p>
In South Africa every Indian who has anything to do with that part of the
British Dominions is watching with bated breath the progress of commission that
is now sitting.
</p>
<p>
The Government of India have no easy job in protecting the interests of Indian
settlers in these various parts of His Majesty’s dominions. They will be able
to do so only by following the firmest and the most consistent policy. Justice
is admittedly on the side of the Indian settlers. But they are the weak party.
A strong agitation in India followed by strong action by the Government of
India can alone save the situation.
</p>
<h3>INDIANS OVERSEAS</h3>
<p>
The meeting held at the Excelsior Theatre in Bombay to pass resolutions
regarding East Africa and Fiji, and presided over by Sir Narayan Chandavarkar,
was an impressive gathering. The Theatre was filled to overflowing. Mr.
Andrews’ speech made clear what is needed. Both the political and the civil
rights of Indians of East Africa are at stake. Mr. Anantani, himself an East
African settler, showed in a forceful speech that the Indians were the pioneer
settlers. An Indian sailor named Kano directed the celebrated Vasco De Gama to
India. He added amid applause that Stanley’s expedition for the search and
relief of Dr. Livingstone was also fitted out by Indians. Indian workmen had
built the Uganda Railway at much peril to their lives. An Indian contractor had
taken the contract. Indian artisans had supplied the skill. And now their
countrymen were in danger of being debarred from its use.
</p>
<p>
The uplands of East Africa have been declared a Colony and the lowlands a
Protectorate. There is a sinister significance attached to the declaration. The
Colonial system gives the Europeans larger powers. It will tax all the
resources of the Government of India to prevent the healthy uplands from
becoming a whiteman’s preserve and the Indians from being relegated to the
swampy lowlands.
</p>
<p>
The question of franchise will soon become a burning one. It will be suicidal
to divide the electorate or to appoint Indians by nomination. There must be one
general electoral roll applying the same qualifications to all the voters. This
principle, as Mr. Andrews reminded the meeting, had worked well at the Cape.
</p>
<p>
The second part of the East African resolution shows the condition of our
countrymen in the late German East Africa. Indian soldiers fought there and now
the position of Indians is worse than under German rule. H.H. the Agakhan
suggested that German East Africa should be administered from India. Sir
Theodore Morison would have couped up all Indians in German East Africa. The
result was that both the proposals went by the board and the expected has
happened. The greed of the English speculator has prevailed and he is trying to
squeeze out the Indian. What will the Government of India protect? Has it the
will to do so? Is not India itself being exploited? Mr. Jehangir Petit recalled
the late Mr. Gokhale’s views that we were not to expect a full satisfaction
regarding the status of our countrymen across the seas until we had put our own
house in order. Helots in our own country, how could we do better outside? Mr.
Petit wants systematic and severe retaliation. In my opinion, retaliation is a
double-edged weapon. It does not fail to hurt the user if it also hurts the
party against whom it is used. And who is to give effect to retaliation? It is
too much to expect an English Government to adopt effective retaliation against
their own people. They will expostulate, they will remonstrate, but they will
not go to war with their own Colonies. For the logical outcome of retaliation
must mean war, if retaliation will not answer.
</p>
<p>
Let us face the facts frankly. The problem is difficult alike for Englishmen
and for us. The Englishmen and Indians do not agree in the Colonies. The
Englishmen do not want us where they can live. Their civilisation is different
from ours. The two cannot coalesce until there is mutual respect. The
Englishman considers himself to belong to the ruling race. The Indian struggles
to think that he does not belong to the subject race and in the very act of
thinking admits his subjection. We must then attain equality at home before we
can make any real impression abroad.
</p>
<p>
This is not to say that we must not strive to do better abroad whilst we are
ill at ease in our own home. We must preserve, we must help our countrymen who
have settled outside India. Only if we recognise the true situation, we and our
countrymen abroad will learn to be patient and know that our chief energy must
be concentrated on a betterment of our position at home. If we can raise our
status here to that of equal partners not in name but in reality so that every
Indian might feel it, all else must follow as a matter of course.
</p>
<h3>PARIAHS OF THE EMPIRE</h3>
<p>
The memorable Conference at Gujrat in its resolution on the status of Indians
abroad has given it as its opinion that even this question may become one more
reason for non-co-operation. And so it may. Nowhere has there been such open
defiance of every canon of justice and propriety as in the shameless decision
of confiscation of Indian rights in the Kenia Colony announced by its Governor.
This decision has been supported by Lord Milnor and Mr. Montagu. And his Indian
colleagues are satisfied with the decision. Indians, who have made East Africa,
who out-number the English, are deprived practically of the right of
representation on the Council. They are to be segregated in parts not habitable
by the English. They are to have neither the political nor the material
comfort. They are to become ‘Pariahs’ in a country made by their own labour,
wealth and intelligence. The Viceroy is pleased to say that he does not like
the outlook and is considering the steps to be taken to vindicate the justice.
He is not met with a new situation. The Indians of East Africa had warned him
of the impending doom. And if His Excellency has not yet found the means of
ensuring redress, he is not likely to do it in future. I would respectfully ask
his Indian colleagues whether they can stand this robbery of their countrymen
rights.
</p>
<p>
In South Africa the situation is not less disquieting. My misgivings seem to be
proving true, and repatriation is more likely to prove compulsory than
voluntary. It is a response to the anti-Asiatic agitation, not a measure of
relief for indigent Indians. It looks very like a trap laid for the unwary
Indian. The Union Government appears to be taking an unlawful advantage of a
section of a relieving law designed for a purpose totally different from the
one now intended.
</p>
<p>
As for Fiji, the crime against humanity is evidently to be hushed up. I do hope
that unless an inquiry is to be made into the Fiji Martial Law doings, no
Indian member will undertake to go to Fiji. The Government of India appear to
have given an undertaking to send Indian labour to Fiji provided the commission
that was to proceed there in order to investigate the condition on the spot
returns with a favourable report.
</p>
<p>
For British Guiana I observe from the papers received from that quarter, that
the mission that came here is already declaring that Indian labour will be
forthcoming from India. There seems to me to be no real prospect for Indian
enterprise in that part of the world. We are not wanted in any part of the
British Dominion except as Pariahs to do the scavenging for the European
settlers.
</p>
<p>
The situation is clear. We are Pariahs in our own home. We get only what
Government intend to give, not what we demand and have a right to. We may get
the crumbs, never the loaf. I have seen large and tempting crumbs from a lavish
table. And I have seen the eyes of our Pariahs—the shame of
Hinduism—brightening to see those heavy crumbs filling their baskets. But the
superior Hindu, who is filling the basket from a safe distance, knows that they
are unfit for his own consumption. And so we in our turn may receive even
Governorships which the real rulers no longer require or which they cannot
retain with safety for their material interest—the political and material hold
on India. It is time we realised our true status.
</p>
<hr />
</div><!--end chapter-->
<div class="chapter">
<h2><a name="chap08"></a>VIII. NON-CO-OPERATION</h2>
<p>
A writer in the “Times of India,” the Editor of that wonderful daily and Mrs.
Besant have all in their own manner condemned non-co-operation conceived in
connection with the Khilafat movement. All the three writings naturally discuss
many side issues which I shall omit for the time being. I propose to answer two
serious objections raised by the writers. The sobriety with which they are
stated entitles them to a greater consideration than if they had been given in
violent language. In non-co-operation, the writers think, it would be difficult
if not impossible to avoid violence. Indeed violence, the “Times of India”
editorial says, has already commenced in that ostracism has been resorted to in
Calcutta and Delhi. Now I fear that ostracism to a certain extent is impossible
to avoid. I remember in South Africa in the initial stages of the passive
resistance campaign those who had fallen away were ostracised. Ostracism is
violent or peaceful in according to the manner in which it is practised. A
congregation may well refuse to recite prayers after a priest who prizes his
title above his honour. But the ostracism will become violent if the individual
life of a person is made unbearable by insults innuendoes or abuse. The real
danger of violence lies in the people resorting to non-co-operation becoming
impatient and revengeful. This may happen, if, for instance, payment of taxes
is suddenly withdrawn or if pressure is put upon soldiers to lay down their
arms. I however do not fear any evil consequences, for the simple reason that
every responsible Mahomedan understands that non-co-operation to be successful
must be totally unattended with violence. The other objection raised is that
those who may give up their service may have to starve. That is just a
possibility but a remote one, for the committee will certainly make due
provision for those who may suddenly find themselves out of employment. I
propose however to examine the whole of the difficult question much more fully
in a future issue and hope to show that if Indian-Mahomedan feeling is to be
respected, there is nothing left but non-co-operation if the decision arrived
at is adverse.
</p>
<h3>MR. MONTAGU ON THE KHILAFAT AGITATION</h3>
<p>
Mr. Montagu does not like the Khilafat agitation that is daily gathering force.
In answer to questions put in the House of Commons, he is reported to have said
that whilst he acknowledged that I had rendered distinguished services to the
country in the past, he could not look upon my present attitude with equanimity
and that it was not to be expected that I could now be treated as leniently as
I was during the Rowlatt Act agitation. He added that he had every confidence
in the central and the local Governments, that they were carefully watching the
movement and that they had full power to deal with the situation.
</p>
<p>
This statement of Mr. Montagu has been regarded in some quarters as a threat.
It has even been considered to be a blank cheque for the Government of India to
re-establish the reign of terror if they chose. It is certainly inconsistent
with his desire to base the Government on the goodwill of the people. At the
same time if the Hunter Committee’s finding be true and if I was the cause of
the disturbances last year, I was undoubtedly treated with exceptional
leniency, I admit too that my activity this year is fraught with greater peril
to the Empire as it is being conducted to-day than was last year’s activity.
Non-co-operation in itself is more harmless than civil disobedience, but in its
effect it is far more dangerous for the Government than civil disobedience.
Non-co-operation is intended so far to paralyse the Government, as to compel
justice from it. If it is carried to the extreme point, it can bring the
Government to a standstill.
</p>
<p>
A friend who has been listening to my speeches once asked me whether I did not
come under the sedition section of the Indian Penal Code. Though I had not
fully considered it, I told him that very probably I did and that I could not
plead ‘not guilty’ if I was charged under it. For I must admit that I can
pretend to no ‘affection’ for the present Government. And my speeches are
intended to create ‘disaffection’ such that the people might consider it a
shame to assist or co-operate with a Government that had forfeited all title to
confidence, respect or support.
</p>
<p>
I draw no distinction between the Imperial and the Indian Government. The
latter has accepted, on the Khilafat, the policy imposed upon it by the former.
And in the Punjab case the former has endorsed the policy of terrorism and
emasculation of a brave people initiated by the latter. British ministers have
broken their pledged word and wantonly wounded the feelings of the seventy
million Mussulmans of India. Innocent men and women were insulted by the
insolent officers of the Punjab Government. Their wrongs not only unrighted but
the very officers who so cruelly subjected them to barbarous humiliation retain
office under the Government.
</p>
<p>
When at Amritsar last year I pleaded with all the earnestness I could command
for co-operation with the Government and for response to the wishes expressed
in the Royal Proclamation; I did so because I honestly believed that a new era
was about to begin, and that the old spirit of fear, distrust and consequent
terrorism was about to give place to the new spirit of respect, trust and
good-will. I sincerely believed that the Mussalman sentiment would be placated
and that the officers that had misbehaved during the Martial Law regime in the
Punjab would be at least dismissed and the people would be otherwise made to
feel that a Government that had always been found quick (and rightly) to punish
popular excesses would not fail to punish its agents’ misdeeds. But to my
amazement and dismay I have discovered that the present representatives of the
Empire have become dishonest and unscrupulous. They have no real regard for the
wishes of the people of India and they count Indian honour as of little
consequence.
</p>
<p>
I can no longer retain affection for a Government so evilly manned as it is
now-a-days. And for me, it is humiliating to retain my freedom and be a witness
to the continuing wrong. Mr. Montagu however is certainly right in threatening
me with deprivation of my liberty if I persist in endangering the existence of
the Government. For that must be the result if my activity bears fruit. My only
regret is that inasmuch as Mr. Montagu admits my past services, he might have
perceived that there must be something exceptionally bad in the Government if a
well-wisher like me could no longer give his affection to it. It was simpler to
insist on justice being done to the Mussulmans and to the Punjab than to
threaten me with punishment so that the injustice might be perpetuated. Indeed
I fully expect it will be found that even in promoting disaffection towards an
unjust Government I have rendered greater services to the Empire than I am
already credited with.
</p>
<p>
At the present moment, however, the duty of those who approve of my activity is
clear. They ought on no account to resent the deprivation of my liberty, should
the Government of India deem it to be their duty to take it away. A citizen has
no right to resist such restriction imposed in accordance with the laws of the
State to which he belongs. Much less have those who sympathize with him. In my
case there can be no question of sympathy. For I deliberately oppose the
Government to the extent of trying to put its very existence in jeopardy. For
my supporters, therefore, it must be a moment of joy when I am imprisoned. It
means the beginning of success if only the supporters continue the policy for
which I stand. If the Government arrest me, they would do so in order to stop
the progress of non-co-operation which I preach. It follows that if
non-co-operation continues with unabated vigour, even after my arrest, the
Government must imprison others or grant the people’s wish in order to gain
their co-operation. Any eruption of violence on the part of the people even
under provocation would end in disaster. Whether therefore it is I or any one
else who is arrested during the campaign, the first condition of success is
that there must be no resentment shown against it. We cannot imperil the very
existence of a Government and quarrel with its attempt to save itself by
punishing those who place it in danger.
</p>
<h3>AT THE CALL OF THE COUNTRY</h3>
<p>
Dr. Sapru delivered before the Khilafat Conference at Allahabad an impassioned
address sympathising with the Mussulmans in their trouble but dissuaded them
from embarking on non-co-operation. He was frankly unable to suggest a
substitute but was emphatically of opinion that whether there was a substitute
or not non-co-operation was a remedy worse than the disease. He said further
that Mussulmans will be taking upon their shoulders, a serious responsibility,
if whilst they appealed to the ignorant masses to join them, they could not
appeal to the Indian judges to resign and if they did they would not succeed.
</p>
<p>
I acknowledge the force of Dr. Sapru’s last argument. At the back of Dr.
Sapru’s mind is the fear that non-co-operation by the ignorant people would
lead to distress and chaos and would do no good. In my opinion any
non-co-operation is bound to do some good. Even the Viceragal door-keeper
saying, ‘Please Sir, I can serve the Government no longer because it has hurt
my national honour’ and resigning is a step mightier and more effective than
the mightiest speech declaiming against the Government for its injustice.
</p>
<p>
Nevertheless it would be wrong to appeal to the door-keeper until one has
appealed to the highest in the land. And as I propose, if the necessity arose,
to ask the door-keepers of the Government to dissociate themselves from an
unjust Government I propose now to address, an appeal to the Judges and the
Executive Councillors to join the protest that is rising from all over India
against the double wrong done to India, on the Khilafat and the Punjab
question. In both, national honour is involved.
</p>
<p>
I take it that these gentlemen have entered upon their high offices not for the
sake of emolument, nor I hope for the sake of fame, but for the sake of serving
their country. It was not for money, for they were earning more than they do
now. It must not be for fame, for they cannot buy fame at the cost of national
honour. The only consideration, that can at the present moment keep them in
office must be service of the country.
</p>
<p>
When the people have faith in the government, when it represents the popular
will, the judges and the executive officials possibly serve the country. But
when that government does not represent the will of the people, when it
supports dishonesty and terrorism, the judges and the executive officials by
retaining office become instrument of dishonesty and terrorism. And the least
therefore that these holders of high offices can do is to cease to become
agents of a dishonest and terrorising government.
</p>
<p>
For the judges, the objection will be raised that they are above politics, and
so they are and should be. But the doctrine is true only in so far as the
government is on the whole for the benefit of the people and at least
represents the will of the majority. Not to take part in politics means not to
take sides. But when a whole country has one mind, one will, when a whole
country has been denied justice, it is no longer a question of party politics,
it is a matter of life and death. It then becomes the duty of every citizen to
refuse to serve a government which misbehaves and flouts national wish. The
judges are at that moment bound to follow the nation if they are ultimately its
servants.
</p>
<p>
There remains another argument to be examined. It applies to both the judges
and the members of the executive. It will be urged that my appeal could only be
meant for the Indians and what good can it do by Indians renouncing offices
which have been won for the nation by hard struggle. I wish that I could make
an effective appeal to the English as well as the Indians. But I confess that I
have written with the mental reservation that the appeal is addressed only to
the Indians. I must therefore examine the argument just stated. Whilst it is
true that these offices have been secured after a prolonged struggle, they are
of use not because of the struggle, but because they are intended to serve the
nation. The moment they cease to possess that quality, they become useless and
as in the present case harmful, no matter how hard-earned and therefore
valuable they may have been at the outset.
</p>
<p>
I would submit too to our distinguished countrymen who occupy high offices that
their giving up will bring the struggle to a speedy end and would probably
obviate the danger attendant upon the masses being called upon to signify their
disapproval by withdrawing co-operation. If the titleholders gave up their
titles, if the holders of honorary offices gave up their appointment and if the
high officials gave up their posts, and the would-be councillors boycotted the
councils, the Government would quickly come to its senses and give effect to
the people’s will. For the alternative before the Government then would be
nothing but despotic rule pure and simple. That would probably mean military
dictatorship. The world’s opinion has advanced so far that Britain dare not
contemplate such dictatorship with equanimity. The taking of the steps
suggested by me will constitute the peacefullest revolution the world has ever
seen. Once the infallibility of non-co-operation is realised, there is an end
to all bloodshed and violence in any shape or form.
</p>
<p>
Undoubtedly a cause must be grave to warrant the drastic method of national
non-co-operation. I do say that the affront such as has been put upon Islam
cannot be repeated for a century. Islam must rise now or ‘be fallen’ if not for
ever, certainly for a century. And I cannot imagine a graver wrong than the
massacre of Jallianwalla and the barbarity that followed it, the whitewash by
the Hunter Committee, the dispatch of the Government of India, Mr. Montagu’s
letter upholding the Viceroy and the then Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab,
the refusal to remove officials who made of the lives of the Punjabis ‘a hell’
during the Martial Law period. These act constitute a complete series of
continuing wrongs against India which if India has any sense of honour, she
must right at the sacrifice of all the material wealth she possesses. If she
does not, she will have bartered her soul for a ‘mess of pottage.’
</p>
<h3>NON-CO-OPERATION EXPLAINED</h3>
<p class="letter">
A representative of Madras Mail called on Mr. M.K. Gandhi at his temporary
residence in the Pursewalkam High road for an interview on the subject of
non-co-operation. Mr. Gandhi, who has come to Madras on a tour to some of the
principal Muslim centres in Southern India, was busy with a number of workers
discussing his programme; but he expressed his readiness to answer questions on
the chief topic which is agitating Muslims and Hindus.
</p>
<p>
“After your experience of the Satyagraha agitation last year, Mr. Gandhi, are
you still hopeful and convinced of the wisdom of advising
non-co-operation?”—“Certainly.”
</p>
<p>
“How do you consider conditions have altered since the Satyagraha movement of
last year?”—“I consider that people are better disciplined now than they were
before. In this I include even the masses who I have had opportunities of
seeing in large numbers in various parts of the country.”
</p>
<p>
“And you are satisfied that the masses understand the spirit of
Satyagraha?”—“Yes.”
</p>
<p>
“And that is why you are pressing on with the programme of
non-co-operation?”—“Yes. Moreover, the danger that attended the civil
disobedience part of Satyagraha does not apply to non-co-operation, because in
non-co-operation we are not taking up civil disobedience of laws as a mass
movement. The result hitherto has been most encouraging. For instance, people
in Sindh and Delhi in spite of the irritating restrictions upon their liberty
by the authorities have carried out the Committee’s instructions in regard to
the Seditious Meetings Proclamation and to the prohibition of posting placards
on the walls which we hold to be inoffensive but which the authorities consider
to be offensive.”
</p>
<p>
“What is the pressure which you expect to bring to bear on the authorities if
co-operation is withdrawn?”—“I believe, and everybody must grant, that no
Government can exist for a single moment without the co-operation of the
people, willing or forced, and if people suddenly withdraw their co-operation
in every detail, the Government will come to a stand-still.”
</p>
<p>
“But is there not a big ‘If’ in it?”—“Certainly there is.”
</p>
<p>
“And how do you propose to succeed against the big ‘If’?”—“In my plan of
campaign expediency has no room. If the Khilafat movement has really permeated
the masses and the classes, there must be adequate response from the people.”
</p>
<p>
“But are you not begging the question?”—“I am not begging the question, because
so far as the data before me go, I believe that the Muslims keenly feel the
Khilafat grievance. It remains to be seen whether their feeling is intense
enough to evoke in them the measure of sacrifice adequate for successful
non-co-operation.”
</p>
<p>
“That is, your survey of the conditions, you think, justifies your advising
non-co-operation in the full conviction that you have behind you the support of
the vast masses of the Mussalman population?”—“Yes.”
</p>
<p>
“This non-co-operation, you are satisfied, will extend to complete severance of
co-operation with the Government?”—No; nor is it at the present moment my
desire that it should. I am simply practising non-co-operation to the extent
that is necessary to make the Government realise the depth of popular feeling
in the matter and the dissatisfaction with the Government that all that could
be done has not been done either by the Government of India or by the Imperial
Government, whether on the Khilafat question or on the “Punjab question.”
</p>
<p>
“Do you Mr. Gandhi, realise that even amongst Mahomedans there are sections of
people who are not enthusiastic over non-co-operation however much they may
feel the wrong that has been done to their community?”—“Yes. But their number
is smaller than those who are prepared to adopt non-co-operation.”
</p>
<p>
“And yet does not the fact that there has not been an adequate response to your
appeal for resignation of titles and offices and for boycott of elections of
the Councils indicate that you may be placing more faith in their strength of
conviction than is warranted?”—“I think not; for the reason that the stage has
only just come into operation and our people are always most cautious and slow
to move. Moreover, the first stage largely affects the uppermost strata of
society, who represent a microscopic minority though they are undoubtedly an
influential body of people.”
</p>
<p>
“This upper class, you think, has sufficiently responded to your appeal?”—“I am
unable to say either one way or the other at present. I shall be able to give a
definite answer at the end of this month.”...
</p>
<p>
“Do you think that without one’s loyalty to the King and the Royal Family being
questioned, one can advocate non-co-operation in connection with the Royal
visit?” “Most decidedly; for the simple reason that if there is any disloyalty
about the proposed boycott of the Prince’s visit, it is disloyalty to the
Government of the day and not to the person of His Royal highness.”
</p>
<p>
“What do you think is to be gained by promoting this boycott in connection with
the Royal visit?”—“Because I want to show that the people of India are not in
sympathy with the Government of the day and that they strongly disapprove of
the policy of the Government in regard to the Punjab and Khilafat, and even in
respect of other important administrative measures. I consider that the visit
of the Prince of Wales is a singularly good opportunity to the people to show
their disapproval of the present Government. After all, the visit is calculated
to have tremendous political results. It is not to be a non-political event,
and seeing that the Government of India and the Imperial Government want to
make the visit a political event of first class importance, namely, for the
purpose of strengthening their hold upon India, I for one, consider that it is
the bounden duty of the people to boycott the visit which is being engineered
by the two Governments in their own interest which at the present moment is
totally antagonistic to the people.”
</p>
<p>
“Do you mean that you want this boycott promoted because you feel that the
strengthening of the hold upon India is not desirable in the best interests of
the country?”—“Yes. The strengthening of the hold of a Government so wicked as
the present one is not desirable for the best interests of the people. Not that
I want the bond between England and India to become loosened for the sake of
loosening it but I want that bond to become strengthened only in so far as it
adds to the welfare of India.”
</p>
<p>
“Do you think that non-co-operation and the non-boycott of the Legislative
Councils consistent?”—“No; because a person who takes up the programme of
non-co-operation cannot consistently stand for Councils.”
</p>
<p>
“Is non-co-operation, in your opinion, an end in itself or a means to an end,
and if so, what is the end?” “It is a means to an end, the end being to make
the present Government just, whereas it has become mostly unjust. Co-operation
with a just Government is a duty; non-co-operation with an unjust Government is
equally a duty.”
</p>
<p>
“Will you look with favour upon the proposal to enter the Councils and to carry
on either obstructive tactics or to decline to take the oath of allegiance
consistent with your non-co-operation?”—“No; as an accurate student of
non-co-operation, I consider that such a proposal is inconsistent with the true
spirit of non-co-operation. I have often said that a Government really thrives
on obstruction and so far as the proposal not to take the oath of allegiance is
concerned, I can really see no meaning in it; it amounts to a useless waste of
valuable time and money.”
</p>
<p>
“In other words, obstruction is no stage in non-co-operation?” —“No,”....
</p>
<p>
“Are you satisfied that all efforts at constitutional agitation have been
exhausted and that non-co-operation is the only course left us?” “I do not
consider non-co-operation to be unconstitutional remedies now left open to us,
non-co-operation is the only one left for us.” “Do you consider it
constitutional to adopt it with a view merely to paralyse
Government?”—“Certainly, it is not unconstitutional, but a prudent man will not
take all the steps that are constitutional if they are otherwise undesirable,
nor do I advise that course. I am resorting to non-co-operation in progressive
stages because I want to evolve true order out of untrue order. I am not going
to take a single step in non-co-operation unless I am satisfied that the
country is ready for that step, namely, non-co-operation will not be followed
by anarchy or disorder.”
</p>
<p>
“How will you satisfy yourself anarchy will not follow?”
</p>
<p>
“For instance, if I advise the police to lay down their arms, I shall have
satisfied myself that we are able by voluntary assistance to protect ourselves
against thieves and robbers. That was precisely what was done in Lahore and
Amritsar last year by the citizens by means of volunteers when the Military and
the police had withdrawn. Even where Government had not taken such measures in
a place, for want of adequate force, I know people have successfully protected
themselves.”
</p>
<p>
“You have advised lawyers to non-co-operate by suspending their practice. What
is your experience? Has the lawyers’ response to your appeal encouraged you to
hope that you will be able to carry through all stages of non-co-operation with
the help of such people?”
</p>
<p>
“I cannot say that a large number has yet responded to my appeal. It is too
early to say how many will respond. But I may say that I do not rely merely
upon the lawyer class or highly educated men to enable the Committee to carry
out all the stages of non-co-operation. My hope lies more with the masses so
far as the later stages of non-co-operation are concerned.”
</p>
<p>
<i>August 1920</i>.
</p>
<h3>RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY FOR NON-CO-OPERATION</h3>
<p>
It is not without the greatest reluctance that I engage in a controversy with
so learned a leader like Sir Narayan Chandavarkar. But in view of the fact that
I am the author of the movement of non-co-operation, it becomes my painful duty
to state my views even though they are opposed to those of the leaders whom I
look upon with respect. I have just read during my travels in Malabar Sir
Narayan’s rejoinder to my answer to the Bombay manifesto against
non-co-operation. I regret to have to say that the rejoinder leaves me
unconvinced. He and I seem to read the teachings of the Bible, the Gita and the
Koran from different standpoints or we put different interpretations on them.
We seem to understand the words Ahimsa, politics and religion differently. I
shall try my best to make clear my meaning of the common terms and my reading
of the different religious.
</p>
<p>
At the outset let me assure Sir Narayan that I have not changed my views on
Ahimsa. I still believe that man not having been given the power of creation
does not possess the right of destroying the meanest creature that lives. The
prerogative of destruction belongs solely to the creator of all that lives. I
accept the interpretation of Ahimsa, namely, that it is not merely a negative
State of harmlessness, but it is a positive state of love, of doing good even
to the evil-doer. But it does not mean helping the evil-doer to continue the
wrong or tolerating it by passive acquiescence. On the contrary love, the
active state of Ahimsa, requires you to resist the wrong-doer by dissociating
yourself from him even though it may offend him or injure him physically. Thus
if my son lives a life of shame, I may not help him to do so by continuing to
support him; on the contrary, my love for him requires me to withdraw all
support from him although it may mean even his death. And the same love imposes
on me the obligation of welcoming him to my bosom when he repents. But I may
not by physical force compel my son to become good. That in my opinion is the
moral of the story of the Prodigal Son.
</p>
<p>
Non-co-operation is not a passive state, it is an intensely active state—more
active than physical resistance or violence. Passive resistance is a misnomer.
Non-co-operation in the sense used by me must be non-violent and therefore
neither punitive nor vindictive nor based on malice ill-will or hatred. It
follows therefore that it would be sin for me to serve General Dyer and
co-operate with him to shoot innocent men. But it will be an exercise of
forgiveness or love for me to nurse him back to life, if he was suffering from
a physical malady. I cannot use in this context the word co-operation as Sir
Narayan would perhaps use it. I would co-operate a thousand times with this
Government to wean it from its career of crime but I will not for a single
moment co-operate with it to continue that career. And I would be guilty of
wrong doing if I retained a title from it or “a service under it or supported
its law-courts or schools.” Better for me a beggar’s bowl than the richest
possession from hands stained with the blood of the innocents of Jallianwala.
Better by far a warrant of imprisonment than honeyed words from those who have
wantonly wounded the religious sentiment of my seventy million brothers.
</p>
<p>
My reading of the Gita is diametrically opposed to Sir Narayan’s. I do not
believe that the Gita teaches violence for doing good. It is pre-eminently a
description of the duel that goes on in our own hearts. The divine author has
used a historical incident for inculcating the lesson of doing one’s duty even
at the peril of one’s life. It inculcates performance of duty irrespective of
the consequences, for, we mortals, limited by our physical frames, are
incapable of controlling actions save our own. The Gita distinguishes between
the powers of light and darkness and demonstrates their incompatibility.
</p>
<p>
Jesus, in my humble opinion, was a prince among politicians. He did render unto
Caesar that which was Caesar’s. He gave the devil his due. He ever shunned him
and is reported never once to have yielded to his incantations. The politics of
his time consisted in securing the welfare of the people by teaching them not
to be seduced by the trinkets of the priests and the pharisees. The latter then
controlled and moulded the life of the people. To-day the system of government
is so devised as to affect every department of our life. It threatens our very
existence. If therefore we want to conserve the welfare of the nation, we must
religiously interest ourselves in the doing of the governors and exert a moral
influence on them by insisting on their obeying the laws of morality. General
Dyer did produce a ‘moral effect’ by an act of butchery. Those who are engaged
in forwarding the movement of non-co-operation, hope to produce a moral effect
by a process of self-denial, self-sacrifice and self-purification. It surprises
me that Sir Narayan should speak of General Dyer’s massacre in the same breath
as acts of non-co-operation. I have done my best to understand his meaning, but
I am sorry to confess that I have failed.
</p>
<h3>THE INWARDNESS OF NON-CO-OPERATION</h3>
<p>
I commend to the attention of the readers the thoughtful letter received from
Miss Anne Marie Peterson. Miss Peterson is a lady who has been in India for
some years and has closely followed Indian affairs. She is about to sever her
connection with her mission for the purpose of giving herself to education that
is truly national.
</p>
<p>
I have not given the letter in full. I have omitted all personal references.
But her argument has been left entirely untouched. The letter was not meant to
be printed. It was written just after my Vellore speech. But it being
intrinsically important, I asked the writer for her permission, which she
gladly gave, for printing it.
</p>
<p>
I publish it all the more gladly in that it enables me to show that the
movement of non-co-operation is neither anti-Christian nor anti-English nor
anti-European. It is a struggle between religion and irreligion, powers of
light and powers of darkness.
</p>
<p>
It is my firm opinion that Europe to-day represents not the spirit of God or
Christianity but the spirit of Satan. And Satan’s successes are the greatest
when he appears with the name of God on his lips. Europe is to-day only
nominally Christian. In reality it is worshipping Mammon. ‘It is easier for a
camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the
kingdom.’ Thus really spoke Jesus Christ. His so-called followers measure their
moral progress by their material possessions. The very national anthem of
England is anti-Christian. Jesus who asked his followers to love their enemies
even as themselves, could not have sung of his enemies, ‘confound his enemies
frustrate their knavish tricks.’ The last book that Dr. Wallace wrote set forth
his deliberate conviction that the much vaunted advance of science had added
not an inch to the moral stature of Europe. The last war however has shown, as
nothing else has, the Satanic nature of the civilization that dominates Europe
to day. Every canon of public morality has been broken by the victors in the
name of virtue. No lie has been considered too foul to be uttered. The motive
behind every crime is not religious or spiritual but grossly material. But the
Mussalmans and the Hindus who are struggling against the Government have
religion and honour as their motive. Even the cruel assassination which has
just shocked the country is reported to have a religious motive behind it. It
is certainly necessary to purge religion of its excrescences, but it is equally
necessary to expose the hollowness of moral pretensions on the part of those
who prefer material wealth to moral gain. It is easier to wean an ignorant
fanatic from his error than a confirmed scoundrel from his scoundrelism.
</p>
<p>
This however is no indictment against individuals or even nations. Thousands of
individual Europeans are rising above their environment. I write of the
tendency in Europe as reflected in her present leaders. England through her
leaders is insolently crushing Indian religious and national sentiment under
her heels. England under the false plea of self-determination is trying to
exploit the oil fields of Mesopotamia which she is almost to leave because she
has probably no choice. France through her leaders is lending her name to
training Cannibals as soldiers and is shamelessly betraying her trust as a
mandatory power by trying to kill the spirit of the Syrians. President Wilson
has thrown on the scrap heap his precious fourteen points.
</p>
<p>
It is this combination of evil forces which India is really fighting through
non-violent non-cooperation. And those like Miss Peterson whether Christian or
European, who feel that this error must be dethroned can exercise the privilege
of doing so by joining the non-co-operation movement. With the honour of Islam
is bound up the safety of religion itself and with the honour of India is bound
up the honour of every nation known to be weak.
</p>
<h3>A MISSIONARY ON NON-CO-OPERATION</h3>
<p class="letter">
The following letter has been received by Mr. Gandhi from Miss Anne Marie
Peterson of the Danish Mission in Madras:—
</p>
<p>
Dear Mr. Gandhi,
</p>
<p>
I cannot thank you enough for your kindness and the way in which you received
me and I feel that meeting more or less decided my future. I have thrown myself
at the feet of India. At the same time I know that in Christ alone is my abode
and I have no longing and no desire but to live Him, my crucified Saviour, and
reveal Him for those with whom I come in contact. I just cling to his feet and
pray with tears that I may not disgrace him as we Christians have been doing by
our behaviour in India. We go on crucifying Christ while we long to proclaim
the Power of His resurrection by which He has conquered untruth and
unrighteousness. If we who bear His name were true to Him, we would never bow
ourselves before the Powers of this world, but we would always be on the side
of the poor, the suffering and the oppressed. But we are not and therefore I
feel myself under obligation and only to Christ but to India for His sake at
this time of momentous importance for her future.
</p>
<p>
Truly it matters little what I, a lonely and insignificant person, may say or
do. What is my protest against the common current, the race to which I belong
is taking and (what grieves me more), which the missionary societies seem to
follow? Even if a respectable number protested it would not be of any use. Yet
were I alone against the whole world, I must follow my conscience and my God.
</p>
<p>
I therefore cannot but smile when I see people saying, you should have awaited
the decision of the National Congress before starting the non-co-operation
movement. You have a message for the country, and the Congress is the voice of
the nation—its servant and not its master. A majority has no right simply
because it is a majority.
</p>
<p>
But we must try to win the majority. And it is easy to see that now that
Congress is going to be with you. Would it have done so if you had kept quiet
and not lent your voice to the feelings of the people? Would the Congress have
known its mind? I think not.
</p>
<p>
I myself was in much doubt before I heard you. But you convinced me. Not that I
can feel much on the question of the Khilafat. I cannot. I can see what service
you are doing to India, if you can prevent the Mahomedans from using the sword
in order to take revenge and get their rights. I can see that if you unite the
Hindus and the Mahomedans, it will be a master stroke. How I wish the Christian
would also come forward and unite with you for the sake of their country and
the honour not only of their Motherland but of Christ. I may not feel much for
Turkey, but I feel for India, and I can see she (India) has no other way to
protest against being trampled down and crushed than non-co-operation.
</p>
<p>
I also want you to know that many in Denmark and all over the world, yes, I am
sure every true Christian, will feel with and be in sympathy with India in the
struggle which is now going on. God forbid that in the struggle between might
and right, truth and untruth, the spirit and the flesh, there should be a
division of races. There is not. The same struggle is going on all over the
world. What does it matter then that we are a few? God is on our side.
</p>
<p>
Brute force often seems to get the upper hand but righteousness always has and
always shall conquer, be it even through much suffering, and what may even
appear to be a defeat. Christ conquered, when the world crucified Him. Blessed
are the meek; they shall inherit the earth.
</p>
<p>
When I read your speech given at Madras it struck me that it should be printed
as a pamphlet in English, Tamil, Hindustani and all the most used languages and
then spread to every nook and corner of India.
</p>
<p>
The non-co-operation movement once started must be worked so as to become
successful. If it is not, I dread to think of the consequences. But you cannot
expect it to win in a day or two. It must take time and you will not despair if
you do not reach your goal in a hurry. For those who have faith there is no
haste.
</p>
<p>
Now for the withdrawal of the children and students from Government schools, I
think, it a most important step. Taking the Government help (even if it be your
money they pay you back), we must submit to its scheme, its rules and
regulation. India and we who love her have come to the conclusion that the
education the foreign Government has given you is not healthy for India and can
certainly never make for her real growth. This movement would lead to a
spontaneous rise of national schools. Let them be a few but let them spring up
through self-sacrifice. Only by indigenous education can India be truly
uplifted. Why this appeals so much to me is perhaps because I belong to the
part of the Danish people who started their own independent, indigenous
national schools. The Danish Free Schools and Folk-High-Schools, of which you
may have heard, were started against the opposition and persecution of the
State. The organisers won and thus have regenerated the nation. With my truly
heartfelt thanks and prayers for you.
</p>
<p>
I am, Your sincerely, Anne Marie.
</p>
<h3>HOW TO WORK NON-CO-OPERATION</h3>
<p>
Perhaps the best way of answering the fears and criticism as to
non-co-operation is to elaborate more fully the scheme of non-co-operation. The
critics seem to imagine that the organisers propose to give effect to the whole
scheme at once. The fact however is that the organisers have fixed definite,
progressive four stages. The first is the giving up of titles and resignation
of honorary posts. If there is no response or if the response received is not
effective, recourse will be had to the second stage. The second stage involves
much previous arrangement. Certainly not a single servant will be called out
unless he is either capable of supporting himself and his dependents or the
Khilafat Committee is able to bear the burden. All the classes of servants will
not be called out at once and never will any pressure be put upon a single
servant to withdraw himself from the Government service. Nor will a single
private employee be touched for the simple reason that the movement is not
anti-English. It is not even anti-Government. Co-operation is to be withdrawn
because the people must not be party to a wrong—a broken pledge—a violation of
deep religious sentiment. Naturally, the movement will receive a check, if
there is any undue influence brought to bear upon any Government servant or if
any violence is used or countenanced by any member of the Khilafat Committee.
The second stage must be entirely successful, if the response is at all on an
adequate scale. For no Government—much less the Indian Government—can subsist
if the people cease to serve it. The withdrawal therefore of the police and the
military—the third stage—is a distant goal. The organisers however wanted to be
fair, open and above suspicion. They did not want to keep back from the
Government or the public a single step they had in contemplation even as a
remote contingency. The fourth, <i>i.e.,</i> suspension of taxes is still more
remote. The organisers recognise that suspension of general taxation is fraught
with the greatest danger. It is likely to bring a sensitive class in conflict
with the police. They are therefore not likely to embark upon it, unless they
can do so with the assurance that there will be no violence offered by the
people.
</p>
<p>
I admit as I have already done that non-co-operation is not unattended with
risk, but the risk of supineness in the face of a grave issue is infinitely
greater than the danger of violence ensuing form organizing non-co-operation.
To do nothing is to invite violence for a certainty.
</p>
<p>
It is easy enough to pass resolutions or write articles condemning
non-co-operation. But it is no easy task to restrain the fury of a people
incensed by a deep sense of wrong. I urge those who talk or work against
non-co-operation to descend from their chairs and go down to the people, learn
their feelings and write, if they have the heart against non-co-operation. They
will find, as I have found that the only way to avoid violence is to enable
them to give such expression to their feelings as to compel redress. I have
found nothing save non-co-operation. It is logical and harmless. It is the
inherent right of a subject to refuse to assist a Government that will not
listen to him.
</p>
<p>
Non-co-operation as a voluntary movement can only succeed, if the feeling is
genuine and strong enough to make people suffer to the utmost. If the religious
sentiment of the Mahomedans is deeply hurt and if the Hindus entertain
neighbourly regard towards their Muslim brethren, they will both count no cost
too great for achieving the end. Non-co-operation will not only be an effective
remedy but will also be an effective test of the sincerity of the Muslim claim
and the Hindu profession of friendship.
</p>
<p>
There is however one formidable argument urged by friends against my joining
the Khilafat movement. They say that it ill-becomes me, a friend of the English
and an admirer of the British constitution, to join hands with those who are
to-day filled with nothing but ill-will against the English. I am sorry to have
to confess that the ordinary Mahomedan entertains to-day no affection for
Englishmen. He considers, not without some cause, that they have not played the
game. But if I am friendly towards Englishmen, I am no less so towards my
countrymen, the Mahomedans. And as such they have a greater claim upon my
attention than Englishmen. My personal religion however enables me to serve my
countrymen without hurting Englishmen or for that matter anybody else. What I
am not prepared to do to my blood-brother I would not do to an Englishman, I
would not injure him to gain a kingdom. But I would withdraw co-operation from
him if it becomes necessary as I had withdrawn from my own brother (now
deceased) when it became necessary. I serve the Empire by refusing to partake
in its wrong. William Stead offered public prayers for British reverses at the
time of the Boer war because he considered that the nation to which he belonged
was engaged in an unrighteous war. The present Prime Minister risked his life
in opposing that war and did everything he could to obstruct his own Government
in its prosecution. And to-day if I have thrown in my lot with the Mahomedans,
a large number of whom, bear no friendly feelings towards the British, I have
done so frankly as a friend of the British and with the object of gaining
justice and of thereby showing the capacity of the British constitution to
respond to every honest determination when it is coupled with suffering, I hope
by my ‘alliance’ with the Mahomedans to achieve a threefold end—to obtain
justice in the face of odds with the method of Satyagrah and to show its
efficacy over all other methods, to secure Mahomedan friendship for the Hindus
and thereby internal peace also, and last but not least to transform ill-will
into affection for the British and their constitution which in spite of the
imperfections weathered many a storm. I may fail in achieving any of the ends.
I can but attempt. God alone can grant success. It will not be denied that the
ends are all worthy. I invite Hindus and Englishman to join me in a
full-hearted manner in shouldering the burden the Mahomedans of India are
carrying. Theirs is admittedly a just fight. The Viceroy, the Secretary of
State, the Maharaja of Bikuner and Lord Sinha have testified to it. Time has
arrived to make good the testimony. People with a just cause are never
satisfied with a mere protest. They have been known to die for it. Are a
high-spirited people like the Mahomedans expected to do less?
</p>
<h3>SPEECH AT MADRAS</h3>
<p class="letter">
Addressing a huge concourse of people of the city of Madras Hindus and
Mahomedans numbering over 50,000, assembled on the South Beach opposite to the
Presidency College, Madras, on the 12th August 1920, Mahatma Gandhi spoke as
follows:—
</p>
<p>
Mr. Chairman and Friends,—Like last year, I have to ask your forgiveness that I
should have to speak being seated. Whilst my voice has become stronger than it
was last year, my body is still weak; and if I were to attempt to speak to you
standing, I could not hold on for very many minutes before the whole frame
would shake. I hope, therefore, that you will grant me permission to speak
seated. I have sat here to address you on a most important question, probably a
question whose importance we have not measured up to now.
</p>
<h4>LOKAMANYA TILAK</h4>
<p>
But before I approach that question on this dear old beach of Madras, you will
expect me—you will want me—to offer my tribute to the great departed, Lokamanya
Tilak Maharaj (loud and prolonged cheers). I would ask this great assembly to
listen to me in silence. I have come to make an appeal to your hearts and to
your reason and I could not do so unless you were prepared to listen to
whatever I have to say in absolute silence. I wish to offer my tribute to the
departed patriot and I think that I cannot do better than say that his death,
as his life, has poured new vigour into the country. If you were present as I
was present at that great funeral procession, you would realise with me the
meaning of my words. Mr. Tilak lived for his country. The inspiration of his
life was freedom for his country which he called Swaraj the inspiration of his
death-bed was also freedom for his country. And it was that which gave him such
marvellous hold upon his countrymen; it was that which commanded the adoration
not of a few chosen Indians belonging to the upper strata of society but of
millions of his countrymen. His life was one long sustained piece of
self-sacrifice. He began that life of discipline and self-sacrifice in 1879 and
he continued that life up to the end of his day, and that was the secret of his
hold upon his country. He not only knew what he wanted for his country but also
how to live for his country and how to die for his country. I hope then that
whatever I say this evening to this vast mass of people, will bear fruit in
that same sacrifice for which the life of Lokamanya Tilak Maharaj stands. His
life, if it teaches us anything whatsoever, teaches one supreme lesson: that if
we want to do anything whatsoever for our country we can do so not by speeches,
however grand, eloquent and convincing they may be, but only by sacrifice at
the back of every act of our life. I have come to ask everyone of you whether
you are ready and willing to give sufficiently for your country’s sake for
country’s honour and for religion. I have boundless faith in you, the citizens
of Madras, and the people of this great presidency, a faith which I began to
cultivate in the year 1903 when I first made acquaintance with the Tamil
labourers in South Africa; and I hope that in these hours of our trial, this
province will not be second to any other in India, and that it will lead in
this spirit of self-sacrifice and will translate every word into action.
</p>
<h4>NEED FOR NON-CO-OPERATION</h4>
<p>
What is this non-co-operation, about which you have heard so much, and why do
we want to offer this non-co-operation? I wish to go for the time being into
the why. Here are two things before this country: the first and the foremost is
the Khilafat question. On this the heart of the Mussalmans of India has become
lascerated. British pledges given after the greatest deliberation by the Prime
Minister of England in the name of the English nation, have been dragged into
the mire. The promises given to Moslem India on the strength of which, the
consideration that was expected by the British nation was exacted, have been
broken, and the great religion of Islam has been placed in danger. The
Mussalmans hold—and I venture to think they rightly hold—that so long as
British promises remain unfulfilled, so long is it impossible for them to
tender whole-hearted fealty and loyalty to the British connection; and if it is
to be a choice for a devout Mussalman between loyalty to the British connection
and loyalty to his Code and Prophet, he will not require a second to make his
choice,—and he has declared his choice. The Mussalmans say frankly openly and
honourably to the whole world that if the British Ministers and the British
nation do not fulfil the pledges given to them and do not wish to regard with
respect the sentiments of 70 millions of the inhabitants of India who profess
the faith of Islam, it will be impossible for them to retain Islamic loyalty.
It is a question, then for the rest of the Indian population to consider
whether they want to perform a neighbourly duty by their Mussalman countrymen,
and if they do, they have an opportunity of a lifetime which will not occur for
another hundred years, to show their good-will, fellowship and friendship and
to prove what they have been saying for all these long years that the Mussalman
is the brother of the Hindu. If the Hindu regards that before the connection
with the British nation comes his natural connection with his Moslem brother,
then I say to you that if you find that the Moslem claim is just, that it is
based upon real sentiment, and that at its back ground is this great religious
feeling, you cannot do otherwise than help the Mussalman through and through,
so long as their cause remains just, and the means for attaining the end
remains equally just, honourable and free from harm to India. These are the
plain conditions which the Indian Mussalmans have accepted; and it was when
they saw that they could accept the proferred aid of the Hindus, that they
could always justify the cause and the means before the whole world, that they
decided to accept the proferred hand of fellowship. It is then for the Hindus
and Mahomedans to offer a united front to the whole of the Christian powers of
Europe and tell them that weak as India is, India has still got the capacity of
preserving her self-respect, she still knows how to die for her religion and
for her self-respect.
</p>
<p>
That is the Khilafat in a nut-shell; but you have also got the Punjab. The
Punjab has wounded the heart of India as no other question has for the past
century. I do not exclude from my calculation the Mutiny of 1857. Whatever
hardships India had to suffer during the Mutiny, the insult that was attempted
to be offered to her during the passage of the Rowlatt legislation and that
which was offered after its passage were unparalleled in Indian history. It is
because you want justice from the British nation in connection with the Punjab
atrocities: you have to devise, ways and means as to how you can get this
justice. The House of Commons, the House of Lords, Mr. Montagu, the Viceroy of
India, everyone of them know what the feeling of India is on this Khilafat
question and on that of the Punjab; the debates in both the Houses of
Parliament, the action of Mr. Montagu and that of the Viceroy have demonstrated
to you completely that they are not willing to give the justice which is
India’s due and which she demands. I suggest that our leaders have got to find
a way out of this great difficulty and unless we have made ourselves even with
the British rulers in India and unless we have gained a measure of self-respect
at the hands of the British rulers in India, no connection, and no friendly
intercourse is possible between them and ourselves. I, therefore, venture to
suggest this beautiful and unanswerable method of non-co-operation.
</p>
<h4>IS IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL?</h4>
<p>
I have been told that non-co-operation is unconstitutional. I venture to deny
that it is unconstitutional. On the contrary, I hold that non-co-operation is a
just and religious doctrine; it is the inherent right of every human being and
it is perfectly constitutional. A great lover of the British Empire has said
that under the British constitution even a successful rebellion is perfectly
constitutional and he quotes historical instances, which I cannot deny, in
support of his claim. I do not claim any constitutionality for a rebellion
successful or otherwise, so long as that rebellion means in the ordinary sense
of the term, what it does mean namely wresting justice by violent means. On the
contrary, I have said it repeatedly to my countrymen that violence whatever end
it may serve in Europe, will never serve us in India. My brother and friend
Shaukat Ali believes in methods of violence; and if it was in his power to draw
the sword against the British Empire, I know that he has got the courage of a
man and he has got also the wisdom to see that he should offer that battle to
the British Empire. But because he recognises as a true soldier that means of
violence are not open to India, he sides with me accepting my humble assistance
and pledges his word that so long as I am with him and so long as he believes
in the doctrine, so long will he not harbour even the idea of violence against
any single Englishman or any single man on earth. I am here to tell you that he
has been as true as his word and has kept it religiously. I am here to bear
witness that he has been following out this plan of non-violent
Non-co-operation to the very letter and I am asking India to follow this
non-violent non-co-operation. I tell you that there is not a better soldier
living in our ranks in British India than Shaukat Ali. When the time for the
drawing of the sword comes, if it ever comes, you will find him drawing that
sword and you will find me retiring to the jungles of Hindustan. As soon as
India accepts the doctrine of the sword, my life as an Indian is finished. It
is because I believe in a mission special to India and it is because I believe
that the ancients of India after centuries of experience have found out that
the true thing for any human being on earth is not justice based on violence
but justice based on sacrifice of self, justice based on Yagna and Kurbani,—I
cling to that doctrine and I shall cling to it for ever,—it is for that reason
I tell you that whilst my friend believes also in the doctrine of violence and
has adopted the doctrine of non-violence as a weapon of the weak, I believe in
the doctrine of non-violence as a weapon of the strongest. I believe that a man
is the strongest soldier for daring to die unarmed with his breast bare before
the enemy. So much for the non-violent part of non-co-operation. I therefore,
venture to suggest to my learned countrymen that so long as the doctrine of
non-co-operation remains non-violent, so long there is nothing unconstitutional
in that doctrine.
</p>
<p>
I ask further, is it unconstitutional for me to say to the British Government
‘I refuse to serve you?’ Is it unconstitutional for our worthy Chairman to
return with every respect all the titles that he has ever held from the
Government? Is it unconstitutional for any parent to withdraw his children from
a Government or aided school? Is it unconstitutional for a lawyer to say ‘I
shall no longer support the arm of the law so long as that arm of law is used
not to raise me but to debase me’? Is it unconstitutional for a civil servant
or for a judge to say, ‘I refuse to serve a Government which does not wish to
respect the wishes of the whole people?’ I ask, is it unconstitutional for a
policeman or for a soldier to tender his resignation when he knows that he is
called to serve a Government which traduces his own countrymen? Is it
unconstitutional for me to go to the ‘krishan,’ to the agriculturist, and say
to him ‘it is not wise for you to pay any taxes if these taxes are used by the
Government not to raise you but to weaken you?’ I hold and I venture to submit,
that there is nothing unconstitutional in it. What is more, I have done every
one of these things in my life and nobody has questioned the constitutional
character of it. I was in Kaira working in the midst of 7 lakhs of
agriculturists. They had all suspended the payment of taxes and the whole of
India was at one with me. Nobody considered that it was unconstitutional. I
submit that in the whole plan of non-co-operation, there is nothing
unconstitutional. But I do venture to suggest that it will be highly
unconstitutional in the midst of this unconstitutional Government,—in the midst
of a nation which has built up its magnificent constitution,—for the people of
India to become weak and to crawl on their belly—it will be highly
unconstitutional for the people of India to pocket every insult that is offered
to them; it is highly unconstitutional for the 70 millions of Mohamedans of
India to submit to a violent wrong done to their religion; it is highly
unconstitutional for the whole of India to sit still and co-operate with an
unjust Government which has trodden under its feet the honour of the Punjab. I
say to my countrymen so long as you have a sense of honour and so long as you
wish to remain the descendants and defenders of the noble traditions that have
been handed to you for generations after generations, it is unconstitutional
for you not to non-co-operate and unconstitutional for you to co-operate with a
Government which has become so unjust as our Government has become. I am not
anti-English; I am not anti-British; I am not anti any Government; but I am
anti-untruth—anti-humbug and anti-injustice. So long as the Government spells
injustice, it may regard me as its enemy, implacable enemy. I had hoped at the
Congress at Amritsar—I am speaking God’s truth before you—when I pleaded on
bended knees before some of you for co-operation with the Government. I had
full hope that the British ministers who are wise, as a rule, would placate the
Mussalman sentiment that they would do full justice in the matter of the Punjab
atrocities; and therefore, I said:—let us return good-will to the hand of
fellowship that has been extended to us, which I then believed was extended to
us through the Royal Proclamation. It was on that account that I pleaded for
co-operation. But to-day that faith having gone and obliterated by the acts of
the British ministers, I am here to plead not for futile obstruction in the
Legislative council but for real substantial non-co-operation which would
paralyse the mightiest Government on earth. That is what I stand for to-day.
Until we have wrung justice, and until we have wrung our self-respect from
unwilling hands and from unwilling pens there can be no co-operation. Our
Shastras say and I say so with the greatest deference to all the greatest
religious preceptors of India but without fear of contradiction, that our
Shastras teach us that there shall be no co-operation between injustice and
justice, between an unjust man and a justice-loving man, between truth and
untruth. Co-operation is a duty only so long as Government protects your
honour, and non-co-operation is an equal duty when the Government instead of
protecting robs you of your honour. That is the doctrine of non-co-operation.
</p>
<h4>NON-CO-OPERATION AND THE SPECIAL CONGRESS</h4>
<p>
I have been told that I should have waited for the declaration of the special
Congress which is the mouth piece of the whole nation. I know that it is the
mouthpiece of the whole nation. If it was for me, individual Gandhi, to wait, I
would have waited for eternity. But I had in my hands a sacred trust. I was
advising my Mussalman countrymen and for the time being I hold their honour in
my hands. I dare not ask them to wait for any verdict but the verdict of their
own Conscience. Do you suppose that Mussalmans can eat their own words, can
withdraw from the honourable position they have taken up? If perchance—and God
forbid that it should happen—the Special Congress decides against them, I would
still advise my countrymen the Mussalmans to stand single handed and fight
rather than yield to the attempted dishonour to their religion. It is therefore
given to the Mussalmans to go to the Congress on bended knees and plead for
support. But support or no support, it was not possible for them to wait for
the Congress to give them the lead. They had to choose between futile violence,
drawing of the naked sword and peaceful non-violent but effective
non-co-operation, and they have made their choice. I venture further to say to
you that if there is any body of men who feel as I do, the sacred character of
non-co-operation, it is for you and me not to wait for the Congress but to act
and to make it impossible for the Congress to give any other verdict. After all
what is the Congress? The Congress is the collected voice of individuals who
form it, and if the individuals go to the Congress with a united voice, that
will be the verdict you will gain from the Congress. But if we go to the
Congress with no opinion because we have none or because we are afraid to
express it, then naturally we wait the verdict of the Congress. To those who
are unable to make up their mind I say by all means wait. But for those who
have seen the clear light as they see the lights in front of them, for them to
wait is a sin. The Congress does not expect you to wait but it expects you to
act so that the Congress can gauge properly the national feeling. So much for
the Congress.
</p>
<h4>BOYCOTT OF THE COUNCILS</h4>
<p>
Among the details of non-co-operation I have placed in the foremost rank the
boycott of the councils. Friends have quarrelled with me for the use of the
word boycott, because I have disapproved—as I disapprove even now—boycott of
British goods or any goods for that matter. But there, boycott has its own
meaning and here boycott has its own meaning. I not only do not disapprove but
approve of the boycott of the councils that are going to be formed next year.
And why do I do it? The people—the masses,—require from us, the leaders, a
clear lead. They do not want any equivocation from us. The suggestion that we
should seek election and then refuse to take the oath of allegiance, would only
make the nation distrust the leaders. It is not a clear lead to the nation. So
I say to you, my countrymen, not to fall into this trap. We shall sell our
country by adopting the method of seeking election and then not taking the oath
of allegiance. We may find it difficult, and I frankly confess to you that I
have not that trust in so many Indians making that declaration and standing by
it. To-day I suggest to those who honestly hold the view—<i>viz</i>. that we
should seek election and then refuse to take the oath of allegiance—I suggest
to them that they will fall into a trap which they are preparing for themselves
and for the nation. That is my view. I hold that if we want to give the nation
the clearest possible lead, and if we want not to play with this great nation
we must make it clear to this nation that we cannot take any favours, no matter
how great they may be so long as those favours are accompanied by an injustice
a double wrong, done to India not yet redressed. The first indispensable thing
before we can receive any favours from them is that they should redress this
double wrong. There is a Greek proverb which used to say “Beware of the Greek
but especially beware of them when they bring gifts to you.” To-day from those
ministers who are bent upon perpetuating the wrong to Islam and to the Punjab,
I say we cannot accept gifts but we should be doubly careful lest we may not
fall into the trap that they may have devised. I therefore suggest that we must
not coquet with the council and must not have anything whatsoever to do with
them. I am told that if we, who represent the national sentiment do not seek
election, the Moderates who do not represent that sentiment will. I do not
agree. I do not know what the Moderates represent and I do not know what the
Nationalists represent. I know that there are good sheep and black sheep
amongst the Moderates. I know that there are good sheep and black sheep amongst
the Nationalists. I know that many Moderates hold honestly the view that it is
a sin to resort to non-co-operation. I respectfully agree to differ from them.
I do say to them also that they will fall into a trap which they will have
devised if they seek election. But that does not affect my situation. If I feel
in my heart of hearts that I ought not to go to the councils I ought at least
to abide by this decision and it does not matter if ninety-nine other
countrymen seek election. That is the only way in which public work can be
done, and public opinion can be built. That is the only way in which reforms
can be achieved and religion can be conserved. If it is a question of religious
honour, whether I am one or among many I must stand upon my doctrine. Even if I
should die in the attempt, it is worth dying for, than that I should live and
deny my own doctrine. I suggest that it will be wrong on the part of any one to
seek election to these Councils. If once we feel that we cannot co-operate with
this Government, we have to commence from the top. We are the natural leaders
of the people and we have acquired the right and the power to go to the nation
and speak to it with the voice of non-co-operation. I therefore do suggest that
it is inconsistent with non-co-operation to seek election to the Councils on
any terms whatsoever.
</p>
<h4>LAWYERS AND NON-CO-OPERATION</h4>
<p>
I have suggested another difficult matter, <i>viz.</i>, that the lawyers should
suspend their practice. How should I do otherwise knowing so well how the
Government had always been able to retain this power through the
instrumentality of lawyers. It is perfectly true that it is the lawyers of
to-day who are leading us, who are fighting the country’s battles, but when it
comes to a matter of action against the Government, when it comes to a matter
of paralysing the activity of the Government I know that the Government always
look to the lawyers, however fine fighters they may have been to preserve their
dignity and their self-respect. I therefore suggest to my lawyer friends that
it is their duty to suspend their practice and to show to the Government that
they will no longer retain their offices, because lawyers are considered to be
honorary officers of the courts and therefore subject to their disciplinary
jurisdiction. They must no longer retain these honorary offices if they want to
withdraw on operation from Government. But what will happen to law and order?
We shall evolve law and order through the instrumentality of these very
lawyers. We shall promote arbitration courts and dispense justice, pure, simple
home-made justice, swadeshi justice to our countrymen. That is what suspension
of practice means.
</p>
<h4>PARENTS AND NON-CO-OPERATION</h4>
<p>
I have suggested yet another difficulty—to withdraw our children from the
Government schools and to ask collegiate students to withdraw from the College
and to empty Government aided schools. How could I do otherwise? I want to
gauge the national sentiment. I want to know whether the Mahomodans feel
deeply. If they feel deeply they will understand in the twinkling of an eye,
that it is not right for them to receive schooling from a Government in which
they have lost all faith; and which they do not trust at all. How can I, if I
do not want to help this Government, receive any help from that Government. I
think that the schools and colleges are factories for making clerks and
Government servants. I would not help this great factory for manufacturing
clerks and servants if I want to withdraw co-operation from that Government.
Look at it from any point of view you like. It is not possible for you to send
your children to the schools and still believe in the doctrine of
non-co-operation.
</p>
<h4>THE DUTY OF TITLE HOLDERS</h4>
<p>
I have gone further. I have suggested that our title holders should give up
their titles. How can they hold on to the titles and honour bestowed by the
Government? They were at one time badges of honours when we believed that
national honour was safe in their hands. But now they are no longer badges of
honour but badges of dishonour and disgrace when we really believe that we
cannot get justice from this Government. Every title holder holds his titles
and honours as trustee for the nation and in this first step in the withdrawal
of co-operation from the Government they should surrender their titles without
a moment’s consideration. I suggest to my Mahomedan countrymen that if they
fail in this primary duty they will certainly fail in non-co-operation unless
the masses themselves reject the classes and take up non-co-operation in their
own hands and are able to fight that battle even as the men of the French
Revolution were able to take the reins of Government in their own hands leaving
aside the leaders and marched to the banner of victory. I want no revolution. I
want ordered progress. I want no disordered order. I want no chaos. I want real
order to be evolved out of this chaos which is misrepresented to me as order.
If it is order established by a tyrant in order to get hold of the tyrannical
reins of Government I say that it is no order for me but it is disorder. I want
to evolve justice out of this injustice. Therefore, I suggest to you the
passive non-co-operation. If we would only realise the secret of this peaceful
and infallible doctrine you will know and you will find that you will not want
to use even an angry word when they lift the sword at you and you will not want
even to lift your little finger, let alone a stick or a sword.
</p>
<h4>NON-CO-OPERATION—SERVICE TO THE EMPIRE</h4>
<p>
You may consider that I have spoken these words in anger because I have
considered the ways of this Government immoral, unjust, debasing and
untruthful. I use these adjectives with the greatest deliberation. I have used
them for my own true brother with whom I was engaged in battle of
non-co-operation for full 13 years and although the ashes cover the remains of
my brother I tell you that I used to tell him that he was unjust when his plans
were based upon immoral foundation. I used to tell him that he did not stand
for truth. There was no anger in me, I told him this home truth because I loved
him. In the same manner, I tell the British people that I love them, and that I
want their association but I want that association on conditions well defined.
I want my self-respect and I want my absolute equality with them. If I cannot
gain that equality from the British people, I do not want that British
connection. If I have to let the British people go and import temporary
disorder and dislocation of national business, I will favour that disorder and
dislocation than that I should have injustice from the hands of a great nation
such as the British nation. You will find that by the time the whole chapter is
closed that the successors of Mr. Montagu will give me the credit for having
rendered the most distinguished service that I have yet rendered to the Empire,
in having offered this non-co-operation and in having suggest the boycott, not
of His Royal Highness the principle of Wales, but of boycott of a visit
engineered by Government in order to tighten its hold on the national neck. I
will not allow it even if I stand alone, if I cannot persuade this nation not
to welcome that visit but will boycott that visit with all the power at my
command. It is for that reason I stand before you and implore you to offer this
religious battle, but it is not a battle offered to you by a visionary or a
saint. I deny being a visionary. I do not accept the claim of saintliness. I am
of the earth, earthy, a common gardener man as much as any one of you, probably
much more than you are. I am prone to as many weaknesses as you are. But I have
seen the world. I have lived in the world with my eyes open. I have gone
through the most fiery ordeals that have fallen to the lot of man. I have gone
through this discipline. I have understood the secret of my own sacred
Hinduism. I have learnt the lesson that non-co-operation is the duty not merely
of the saint but it is the duty of every ordinary citizen, who not know much,
not caring to know much but wants to perform his ordinary household functions.
The people of Europe touch even their masses, the poor people the doctrine of
the sword. But the Rishis of India, those who have held the tradition of India
have preached to the masses of India this doctrine, not of the sword, not of
violence but of suffering, of self-suffering. And unless you and I am prepared
to go through this primary lesson we are not ready even to offer the sword and
that is the lesson my brother Shaukal Ali has imbibed to teach and that is why
he to-day accepts my advice tendered to him in all prayerfulness and in all
humility and says ‘long live non-co-operation.’ Please remember that even in
England the little children were withdrawn from the schools; and colleges in
Cambridge and Oxford were closed. Lawyers had left their desks and were
fighting in the trenches. I do not present to you the trenches but I do ask you
to go through the sacrifice that the men, women and the brave lads of England
went through. Remember that you are offering battle to a nation which is
saturated with their spirit of sacrifice whenever the occasion arises. Remember
that the little band of Boers offered stubborn resistance to a mighty nation.
But their lawyers had left their desks. Their mothers had withdrawn their
children from the schools and colleges and the children had become the
volunteers of the nation, I have seen them with these naked eyes of mine. I am
asking my countrymen in India to follow no other gospel than the gospel of
self-sacrifice which precedes every battle. Whether you belong to the school of
violence or non-violence you will still have to go through the fire of
sacrifice, and of discipline. May God grant you, may God grant our leaders the
wisdom, the courage and the true knowledge to lead the nation to its cherished
goal. May God grant the people of India the right path, the true vision and the
ability and the courage to follow this path, difficult and yet easy, of
sacrifice.
</p>
<h3>SPEECH AT TRICHINOPOLY</h3>
<p class="letter">
Mahatma Gandhi made the following speech at Trichinopoly on the 18th August
1920:—
</p>
<p>
I thank you on behalf of my brother Shaukat Ali and myself for the magnificent
reception that the citizens of Trichinopoly have given to us. I thank you also
for the many addresses that you have been good enough to present to us, but I
must come to business.
</p>
<p>
It is a great pleasure to me to renew your acquaintance for reasons that I need
not give you. I expect great things from Trichinopoly, Madura and a few places
I could name. I take it that you have read my address on the Madras Beach on
non-co-operation. Without taking up your time in this great assembly, I wish to
deal with one or two matters that arise out of Mr. S. Kasturiranga Iyongar’s
speech. He says in effect that I should have waited for the Congress mandate on
Non-co-operation. That was impossible, because the Mussulmans had and still
have a duty, irrespective of the Hindus, to perform in reference to their own
religion. It was impossible for them to wait for any mandate save the mandate
of their own religion in a matter that vitally concerned the honour of Islam.
It is therefore possible for them only to go to the Congress on bended knees
with a clear cut programme of their own and ask the Congress to pronounce its
blessings upon that programme and if they are not so fortunate as to secure the
blessings of the National Assembly without meaning any disrespect to that
assembly, it is their bounden duty to go on with their programme, and so it is
the duty of every Hindu who considers his Mussalman brother as a brother who
has a just cause which he wishes to vindicate, to throw in his lot with his
Mussalman brother. Our leader does not quarrel with the principle of
non-co-operation by itself, but he objects to the three principal details of
non-co-operation.
</p>
<h4>COUNCIL ELECTIONS</h4>
<p>
He considers that it is our duty to seek election to the Councils and fight our
battle on the floor of the Council hall. I do not deny the possibility of a
fight and a royal fight on the Council floor. We have done it for the last 35
years, but I venture to suggest to you and to him, with all due respect, that
it is not non-co-operation and it is not half as successful as non-co-operation
can be. You cannot go to a class of people with a view to convince them by any
fight—call it even obstruction—who have got a settled conviction and a settled
policy to follow. It is in medical language an incompatible mixture out of
which you can gain nothing, but if you totally boycott the Council, you create
a public opinion in the country with reference to the Khilafat wrong and the
Punjab wrong which will become totally irresistible. The first advantage of
going to the Councils must be good-will on the part of the rulers. It is
absolutely lacking. In the place of good-will you have got nothing but
injustice but I must move on.
</p>
<h4>LAWYERS’ PRACTICE</h4>
<p>
I come now to the second objection of Mr. Kasturiranga Iyengar with reference
to the suspension by lawyers of their practice. Milk is good in itself but it
comes absolutely poisonous immediately a little bit of arsenic is added to it.
Law courts are similarly good when justice is distilled through them on behalf
of a Sovereign power which wants to do justice to its people. Law courts are
one of the greatest symbols of power and in the battle of non-co-operation, you
may not leave law courts untouched and claim to offer non-co-operation, but if
you will read that objection carefully, you will find in that objection the
great fear that the lawyers will not respond to the call that the country makes
upon them, and it is just there that the beauty of non-co-operation comes in.
If one lawyer alone suspends practice, it is so much to the good of the country
and so if we are sure to deprive the Government of the power that it possess
through its law courts, whether one lawyer takes it up or many, we must adopt
that step.
</p>
<h4>GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS</h4>
<p>
He objects also to the plan of boycotting Government schools. I can only say
what I have said with reference to lawyers that if we mean non-co-operation, we
may not receive any favours from the Government, no matter how advantageous by
themselves they may be. In a great struggle like this, it is not open to us to
count how many schools will respond and how many parents will respond and just
as a geometrical problem is difficult, because it does not admit of easy proof,
so also because a certain stage in national evolution is difficult, you may not
avoid that step without making the whole of the evolution a farce.
</p>
<hr />
<p>
We have had a great lesson in non-co-operation and co-operation. We had a
lesson in non-co-operation when some young men began to fight there and it is a
dangerous weapon. I have not the slightest doubt about it. One man with a
determined will to non-co-operate can disturb a whole meeting and we had a
physical demonstration of it to night but ours is non-violent, non-co-operation
in which there can be no mistake whatsoever in the fundamental conditions are
observed. If non-co-operation fails, it will not be for want of any inherent
strength in it, but it will fall because there is no response to it, or because
people have not sufficiently grasped its simple principles. You had also a
practical demonstration of co-operation just now; that heavy chair went over
the heads of so many people, because all wanted to lift their little hand to
move that chair away from them and so was that heavier dome also removed from
our sight by co-operation of man, woman and child. Everybody believes and knows
that this Government of our exists only by the co-operation of the people and
not by the force of arms it can wield and everyman with a sense of logic will
tell you that the converse of that also is equally true that Government cannot
stand if this co-operation on which it exists is withdrawn. Difficulties
undoubtedly there are, we have hitherto learned how to sacrifice our voice and
make speeches. We must also learn to sacrifice ease, money, comfort and that,
we may learn form the Englishmen themselves. Every one who has studied English
history knows that we are now engaged in a battle with a nation which is
capable of great sacrifice and the three hundred millions of India cannot make
their mark upon the world, or gain their self-respect without an adequate
measure of sacrifice.
</p>
<h4>BOYCOTT OF BRITISH GOODS</h4>
<p>
Our friend has suggested the boycott of British or foreign goods. Boycott of
all foreign goods is another name for Swadeshi. He thinks that there will be a
greater response in the boycott of all foreign goods. With the experience of
years behind me and with an intimate knowledge of the mercantile classes, I
venture to tell you that boycott of foreign goods, or boycott of merely British
goods is more impracticable than any of the stops I have suggested. Whereas in
all the steps that I have ventured to suggest there is practically no sacrifice
of money involved, in the boycott of British or foreign goods you are inviting
your merchant princes to sacrifice their millions. It has got to be done, but
it is an exceedingly low process. The same may be said of the steps that I have
ventured to suggest, I know, but boycott of goods in conceived as a punishment
and the punishment is only effective when it is inflicted. What I have ventured
to suggest is not a punishment, but the performance of a sacred duty, a measure
of self-denial from ourselves, and therefore it is effective from its very
inception when it is undertaken even by one man and a substantial duty
performed even by one single man lays the foundation of nations liberty.
</p>
<h4>CONCLUSION</h4>
<p>
I am most anxious for my nation, for my Mussalman brethren also, to understand
that if they want to vindicate national honour or the honour of Islam, it will
be vindicated without a shadow of doubt, not be conceiving a punishment or a
series of punishments, but by an adequate measure of self-sacrifice. I wish to
speak of all our leaders in terms of the greatest respect, but whatever respect
we wish to pay them may not stop or arrest the progress of the country, and I
am most anxious that the country at this very critical period of its history
should make its choice. The choice clearly does not lie before you and me in
wresting by force of arms the sceptre form the British nation, but the choice
lies in suffering this double wrong of the Khilafat and the Punjab, in
pocketing humiliation and in accepting national emasculation or vindication of
India’s honour by sacrifice to-day by every man, woman and child and those who
feel convinced of the rightness of things, we should make that choice to-night.
So, citizens of Trichinopoly, you may not wait for the whole of India but you
can enforce the first step of non-co-operation and begin your operations even
from to-morrow, if you have not done so already. You can surrender all your
titles to-morrow all the lawyers may surrender their practice to-morrow; those
who cannot sustain body and soul by any other means can be easily supported by
the Khilafat Committee, if they will give their whole time and attention to the
work of that Committee and if the layers will kindly do that, you will find
that there is no difficulty in settling your disputes by private arbitration.
You can nationalise your schools from to-morrow if you have got the will and
the determination. It is difficult, I know, when only a few of you think these
things. It is as easy as we are sitting here when the whole of this vast
audience is of one mind and as it was easy for you to carry that chair so is it
easy for you to enforce this programme from to-morrow if you have one will, one
determination and love for your country, love for the honour of your country
and religion. (Loud and prolonged cheers.)
</p>
<h3>SPEECH AT CALICUT</h3>
<p>
Mr. Chairman and friends.—On behalf of my brother Shaukut Ali and myself I wish
to thank you most sincerely for the warm welcome you have extended to us.
Before I begin to explain the purpose of our mission I have to give you the
information that Pir Mahboob Shah who was being tried in Sindh for sedition has
been sentenced to two years’ simple imprisonment. I do not know exactly what
the offence was with which the Pir was charged. I do not know whether the words
attributed to him were ever spoken by him. But I do know that the Pirsaheb
declined to offer any defence and with perfect resignation he has accepted his
penalty. For me it is a matter of sincere pleasure that the Pirsaheb who
exercises great influence over his followers has understood the spirit of the
struggle upon which we have embarked. It is not by resisting the authority of
Government that we expect to succeed in the great task before us. But I do
expect that we shall succeed if we understand the spirit of non-co-operation.
The Lieutenant-Governor of Burma himself has told us that the British retain
their hold on India not by the force of arms but by the force of co-operation
of the people. Thus he has given us the remedy for any wrong that the
Government may do to the people, whether knowingly or unknowingly. And so long
as we co-operate with the Government, so long as we support that Government, we
become to that extent sharers in the wrong. I admit that in ordinary
circumstances a wise subject will tolerate the wrongs of a Government, but a
wise subject never tolerates a wrong that a Government imposes on the declared
will of a people. And I venture to submit to this great meeting that the
Government of India and the Imperial Government have done a double wrong to
India, and if we are a nation of self-respecting people conscious of its
dignity, conscious of its right, it is not just and proper that we should stand
the double humiliation that the Government has heaped upon us. By shaping and
by becoming a predominant partner in the peace terms imposed on the helpless
Sultan of Turkey, the Imperial Government have intentionally flouted the
cherished sentiment of the Mussalman subjects of the Empire. The present Prime
Minister gave a deliberate pledge after consultation with his colleagues when
it was necessary for him to conciliate the Mussalmans of India. I claim to have
studied this Khilafat question in a special manner. I claim to understand the
Mussalman feeling on the Khilafat question and I am here to declare for the
tenth time that on the Khilafat matter the Government has wounded the Mussalman
sentiment as they had never done before. And I say without fear of
contradiction that if the Mussalmans of India had not exercised great
self-restraint and if there was not the gospel of non-co-operation preached to
them and if they had not accepted it, there would have been bloodshed in India
by this time. I am free to confess that spilling of blood would not have
availed their cause. But a man who is in a state of rage whose heart has become
lacerated does not count the cost of his action. So much for the Khilafat
wrong.
</p>
<p>
I propose to take you for a minute to the Punjab, the northern end of India.
And what have both Governments done for the Punjab? I am free to confess again
that the crowds in Amritsar went mad for a moment. They were goaded to madness
by a wicked administration. But no madness on the part of a people can justify
the shedding of innocent blood, and what have they paid for it? I venture to
submit that no civilised Government could ever have made the people pay the
penalty and retribution that they have paid. Innocent men were tried through
mock-tribunals and imprisoned for life. Amnesty granted to them after; I count
of no consequence. Innocent, unarmed men, who knew nothing of what was to
happen, were butchered in cold blood without the slightest notice. Modesty of
women in Manianwalla, women who had done no wrong to any individual, was
outraged by insolent officers. I want you to understand what I mean by outrage
of their modesty. Their veils were opened with his stick by an officer. Men who
were declared to be utterly innocent by the Hunter Committee were made to crawl
on their bellies. And all these wrongs totally undeserved remain unavenged. If
it was the duty of the Government of India to punish those who were guilty of
incendiarism and murder, as I hold it was their duty, it was doubly their duty
to punish officers who insulted and oppressed innocent people. But in the face
of these official wrongs we have the debate in the house of lords supporting
official terrorism, it is this double wrong, the affront to Islam and the
injury to the manhood of the Punjab, that we feel bound to wipe out by
non-co-operation. We have prayed, petitioned, agitated, we have passed
resolutions. Mr. Mahomed Ali supported by his friends is now waiting on the
British public. He has pleaded the cause of Islam in a most manful manner, but
his pleading has fallen on deaf ears and we have his word for it that whilst
France and Italy have shown great sympathy for the cause of Islam, it is the
British Ministers who have shown no sympathy. This shows which way the British
Ministers and the present holders of office in India mean to deal by the
people. There is no goodwill, there is no desire to placate the people of
India. The people of India must therefore have a remedy to redress the double
wrong. The method of the west is violence. Wherever the people of the west have
felt a wrong either justly or unjustly, they have rebelled and shed blood. As I
have said in my letter to the Viceroy of India, half of India does not believe
in the remedy of violence. The other half is too weak to offer it. But the
whole of India is deeply hurt and stirred by this wrong, and it is for that
reason that I have suggested to the people of India the remedy of
non-co-operation. I consider it perfectly harmless, absolutely constitutional
and yet perfectly efficacious. It is a remedy in which, if it is properly
adopted, victory is certain, and it is the age-old remedy of self-sacrifice.
Are the Mussalmans of India who feel the great wrong done to Islam ready to
make an adequate self-sacrifice? All the scriptures of the world teach us that
there can be no compromise between justice and injustice. Co-operation on the
part of a justice-loving man with an unjust man is a crime. And if we desire to
compel this great Government to the will of the people, as we must, we must
adopt this great remedy of non-co-operation. And if the Mussalmans of India
offer non-co-operation to Government in order to secure justice in the Khilafat
matter, I believe it is duty of the Hindus to help them so long as their moans
are just. I consider the eternal friendship between the Hindus and Mussalmans
is more important than the British connection. I would prefer any day anarchy
and chaos in India to an armed peace brought about by the bayonet between the
Hindus and Mussalmans. I have therefore ventured to suggest to my Hindu
brethren that if they wanted to live at peace with Mussalmans, there is an
opportunity which is not going to recur for the next hundred years. And I
venture to assure you that if the Government of India and the Imperial
Government come to know that there is a determination on the part of the people
to redress this double wrong they would not hesitate to do what is needed. But
in the Mussalmans of India will have to take the lead in the matter. You will
have to commence the first stage of non-co-operation in right earnest. And if
you may not help this Government, you may not receive help from it. Titles
which were the other day titles of honour are to-day in my opinion badges of
our disgrace. We must therefore surrender all titles of honour, all honorary
offices. It will constitute an emphatic demonstration of the disapproval by the
leaders of the people of the acts of the Government. Lawyers must suspend their
practice and must resist the power of the Government which has chosen to flout
public opinion. Nor may we receive instruction from schools controlled by
Government and aided by it. Emptying of the schools will constitute a
demonstration of the will of the middle class of India. It is far better for
the nation even to neglect the literary instruction of the children than to
co-operate with a Government that has striven to maintain an injustice and
untruth on the Khilafat and Punjab matters. Similarly have I ventured to
suggest a complete boycott of reformed councils. That will be an emphatic
declaration of the part of the representatives of the people that they do not
desire to associate with the Government so long as the two wrongs continue. We
must equally decline to offer ourselves as recruits for the police or the
military. It is impossible for us to go to Mesopotamia or to offer to police
that country or to offer military assistance and to help the Government in that
blood guiltiness. The last plank in the first stage is Swadeshi. Swadeshi is
intended not so much to bring pressure upon the Government as to demonstrate
the capacity for sacrifice on the part of the men and women of India. When
one-fourth of India has its religion at stake and when the whole of India has
its honour at stake, we can be in no mood to bedeck ourselves with French
calico or silks from Japan. We must resolve to be satisfied with cloth woven by
the humble weavers of India in their own cottages out of yarn spun by their
sisters in their own homes. When a hundred years ago our tastes were not
debased and we were not lured by all the fineries from the foreign countries,
we were satisfied with the cloth produced by the men and women in India, and if
I could but in a moment revolutionize the tastes of India and make it return to
its original simplicity, I assure you that the Gods would descent to rejoice at
the great act of renunciation. That is the first stage in non-co-operation. I
hope it is as easy for you as it is easy for me to see that if India is capable
of taking the first step in anything like a full measure that step will bring
the redress we want. I therefore do not intend to take you to the other stages
of non-co-operation. I would like you to rivet your attention upon the plans in
the first stage. You will have noticed that but two things are necessary in
going through the first stage: (1) Prefect spirit of non-violence is
indispensable for non-co-operation, (2) only a little self-sacrifice, I pray to
God that He will give the people of India sufficient courage and wisdom and
patience to go through this experiment of non-co-operation. I think you for the
great reception that you have given us. And I also thank you for the great
patience and exemplary silence with which you have listened to my remarks.
</p>
<p>
<i>August</i> 1920.
</p>
<h3>SPEECH AT MANGALORE</h3>
<p>
Mr. Chairman and friends,—To my brother Shaukat Ali and me it was a pleasure to
go through this beautiful garden of India. The great reception that you gave us
this afternoon, and this great assembly are most welcome to us, if they are a
demonstration of your sympathy with the cause which you have the honour to
represent. I assure you that we have not undertaken this incessant travelling
in order to have receptions and addresses, no matter how cordial they may be.
But we have undertaken this travelling throughout the length and breadth of
this dear Motherland to place before you the position that faces us to-day. It
is our privilege, as it is our duty, to place that position before the country
and let her make the choice.
</p>
<p>
Throughout our tour we have received many addresses, but in my humble opinion
no address was more truly worded than the address that was presented to us at
Kasargod. It addressed both of us as ‘dear revered brothers.’ I am unable to
accept the second adjective ‘revered.’ The word ‘dear’ is dear to me I must
confess. But dearer than that is the expression ‘brothers.’ The signatories to
that address recognized the true significance of this travel. No blood brothers
can possibly be more intimately related, can possibly be more united in one
purpose, one aim than my brother Shaukat Ali and I. And I considered it a proud
privilege and honour to be addressed as blood brother to Shaukat Ali. The
contents of that address were as equally significant. It stated that in our
united work was represented the essence of the unity between the Mussalmans and
Hindus in India. If we two cannot represent that very desirable unity, if we
two cannot cement the relation between the two communities, I do not know who
can. Then without any rhetoric and without any flowery language the address
went on to describe the inwardness of the Punjab and the Khilafat struggle; and
then in simple and beautiful language it described the spiritual significance
of Satyagrah and Non-co-operation. This was followed by a frank and simple
promise. Although the signatories to the address realised the momentous nature
of the struggle on which we have embarked, and although they sympathise with
the struggle with their whole heart, they wound up by saying that even if they
could not follow non-co-operation in all its details, they would do as much as
they could to help the struggle. And lastly, in eloquent, and true language,
they said ‘if we cannot rise equal to the occasion it will not be due to want
of effort but to want of ability.’ I can desire no better address, no better
promise, and if you, the citizens of Mangalore, can come up to the level of the
signatories, and give us just the assurance that you consider the struggle to
be right and that it commands your entire approval, I am certain you will make
all sacrifice that lies in your power. For we are face to face with a peril
greater than plagues, greater than influenza, greater than earthquakes and
mighty floods, which sometimes overwhelm this land. These physical calamities
can rob us of so many Indian bodies. But the calamity that has at the present
moment overtaken India touches the religious honour of a fourth of her children
and the self-respect of the whole nation. The Khilafat wrong affects the
Mussalmans of India, and the Punjab calamity very nearly overwhelms the manhood
of India. Shall we in the face of this danger be weak or rise to our full
height. The remedy for both the wrongs is the spiritual solvent of
non-co-operation. I call it a spiritual weapon, because it demands discipline
and sacrifice from us. It demands sacrifice from every individual irrespective
of the rest. And the promise that is behind this performance of duty, the
promise given by every religion that I have studied is sure and certain. It is
that there is no spotless sacrifice that has been yet offered on earth, which
has not carried with it its absolute adequate reward. It is a spiritual weapon,
because it waits for no mandate from anybody except one’s own conscience. It is
a spiritual weapon, because it brings out the best in the nation and it
absolutely satisfies individual honour if a single individual takes it, and it
will satisfy national honour if the whole nation takes it up. And therefore it
is that I have called non-co-operation in opposition to the opinion of many of
my distinguished countrymen and leaders—a weapon that is infallible and
absolutely practicable. It is infallible and practicable, because it satisfies
the demands of individual conscience. God above cannot, will not expect Maulana
Shaukat Ali to do more than he has been doing, for he has surrendered and
placed at the disposal of God whom he believes to be the Almighty ruler of
everyone, he has delivered all in the service of God. And we stand before the
citizens of Mangalore and ask them to make their choice either to accept this
precious gift that we lay at their feet or to reject it. And after having
listened to my message if you come to the come to the conclusion that you have
no other remedy than non-co-operation for the conservation of Islam and the
honour of India, you will accept that remedy. I ask you not to be confused by
so many bewildering issues that are placed before you, nor to be shaken from
your purpose because you see divided counsels amongst your leaders. This is one
of the necessary limitations of any spiritual or any other struggle that has
ever been fought on this earth. It is because it comes so suddenly that it
confuses the mind if the heart is not tuned properly. And we would be perfect
human beings on this earth if in all of us was found absolutely perfect
correspondence between the mind and the heart. But those of you who have been
following the newspaper controversy, will find that no matter what division of
opinion exists amongst our journals and leaders there is unanimity that the
remedy is efficacious if it can be kept free from violence, and if it is
adopted on a large scale. I admit the difficulty the virtue however lies in
surmounting it. We cannot possibly combine violence with a spiritual weapon
like non-co-operation. We do not offer spotless sacrifice if we take the lives
of others in offering our own. Absolute freedom from violence is therefore it
condition precedent to non-co-operation. But I have faith in my country to know
that when it has assimilated the principle of the doctrine In the fullest
extent, it will respond to it. And in no case will India make any headway
whatsoever until she has learnt the lesson of self-sacrifice. Even if this
country were to take up the doctrine of the sword, which God forbid, it will
have to learn the lesson of self-sacrifice. The second difficulty suggested is
the want of solidarity of the nation. I accept it too. But that difficulty I
have already answered by saying that it is a remedy that can be taken up by
individuals for individual and by the nation for national satisfaction; and
therefore even if the whole nation does not take up non-co-operation, the
individual successes, which may be obtained by individuals taking up
non-co-operation will stand to their own credit as of the nation to which they
belong.
</p>
<p>
The first stage in my humble opinion is incredibly easy inasmuch as it does not
involve any very great sacrifice. If your Khan bahadurs and other title-holders
were to renounce their titles I venture to submit that whilst the renunciation
will stand to the credit and honour of the nation it will involve a little or
no sacrifice. On the contrary, they will not only have surrendered no earthly
riches but they will have gained the applause of the nation. Let us see what it
means, this first step. The able editor of <i>Hindu</i>, Mr. Kastariranga
Iyengar, and almost every journalist in the country are agreed that the
renunciation of titles is a necessary and a desirable step. And if these chosen
people of the Government were without exception to surrender their titles to
Government giving notice that the heart of India is doubly wounded in that the
honour of India and of muslim religion is at stake and that therefore they can
no longer retain their titles, I venture to suggest, that this their step which
costs not a single penny either to them or to the nation will be an effective
demonstration of the national will.
</p>
<p>
Take the second step or the second item of non-co-operation. I know there is
strong opposition to the boycott of councils. The opposition when you begin to
analyse it means not that the step is faulty or that it is not likely to
succeed, but it is due to the belief that the whole country will not respond to
it and that the Moderates will steal into the councils. I ask the citizens of
Mangalore to dispel that fear from your hearts. United the voters of Mangalore
can make it impossible for either a moderate or an extremist or any other form
of leader to enter the councils as your representative. This step involves no
sacrifice of money, no sacrifice of honour but the gaining of prestige for the
whole nation. And I venture to suggest to you that this one step alone if it is
taken with any degree of unanimity even by the extremists can bring about the
desired relief, but if all do not respond the individual need not be afraid. He
at least will have laid the foundation for true self progress, let him have the
comfort that he at least has washed his hands clean of the guilt of the
Government.
</p>
<p>
Then I come to the members of the profession which one time I used to carry on.
I have ventured to ask the lawyers of India to suspend their practice and
withdraw their support from a Government which no longer stands for justice,
pure and unadulterated, for the nation. And the step is good for the individual
lawyer who takes it and is good for the nation if all the lawyers take it.
</p>
<p>
And so for the Government and the Government aided schools, I must confess that
I cannot reconcile my conscience to my children going to Government schools and
to the programme of non-co-operation is intended to withdraw all support from
Government, and to decline all help from it.
</p>
<p>
I will not tax your patience by taking you through the other items of
non-co-operation important as they are. But I have ventured to place before you
four very important and forcible steps any one of which if fully taken up
contains in it possibilities of success. Swadeshi is preached as an item of
non-co-operation, as a demonstration of the spirit of sacrifice, and it is an
item which every man, woman and child can take up.
</p>
<p>
<i>August</i> 1920.
</p>
<h3>SPEECH AT BEZWADA</h3>
<p>
As I said this morning one essential condition for the progress of India is
Hindu-Muslim Unity. I understand that there was a little bit of bickering
between Hindus and Mussalmans to-day in Bezwada. My brother Maulana Shaukat Ali
adjusted the dispute between the two communities and he illustrated in his own
person the entire efficacy of one item in the first stage of Non-co-operation.
He sat without any vakils appearing before him for either parties to arbitrate
on the dispute between them. He required no postponement for the consideration
of the question from time to time. His fees consisted in a broken lead pencil.
That is what we should do, if all the lawyers suspended practice and set up
arbitration for the settlement of private disputes. But why was there any
quarrel at all? It is laughable in the extreme when you come to think of it.
Because the Hindus seem to have played music whilst passing the mosque. I think
it was improper for them to do so. Hindu Moslem Unity does not mean that Hindus
should cease to respect the prejudices and sentiments cherished by Mussalmans.
And as this question of music has given rise to many a quarrel between the two
communities it behoves the Hindus, if they want to cultivate true Hindu-Moslem
Unity, to refrain from acts which they know injure the sentiments of their
Mussalman brethren. We may not take undue advantage of the great spirit of
toleration that is developing in Mussalmans and do things likely to irritate
them. It is never a matter of principle for a Hindu procession to continue
playing music before mosques. And now that we desire voluntarily to respect
Mussalman sentiment, we should be doubly careful at a time when Hindus are
offering assistance to Mussalmans in their troubles. That assistance should be
given in all humility and without any arrogation of rights. To my Mussalman
brethren I would say that it would become their dignity to restrain themselves
and not feel irritated when any Hindu had done anything to irritate their
religious sentiment. But in any event, you have today presented to you a remedy
for the settlement of any such issue. We must settle our disputes by
arbitration as was done this after-noon. You cannot always get a Moulana
Shankat Ali, exercising unrivalled influence on the community. But we can
always get people enough in our own villages, towns and districts who exercise
influence over such villages and towns and command the confidence of both the
communities. The offended party should consider it its duty to approach them
and not to take the law in its own hands.
</p>
<p>
It gives me much pleasure to announce to you that, Mr. Kaleswar Rao has
consented to refrain from standing for election to the new Legislative
Councils. You will be also pleased to know that Mr. Gulam Nohiuddin has
resigned his Honorary Magistrateship, I hope that both these patriots will not
consider that they have done their last duty by their acts of renunciation, but
I hope they will regard their acts as a prelude to acts of greater purpose and
greater energy and I hope they will take in hand the work of educating the
electorate in their districts regarding boycott of councils. I have said
elsewhere that never for another century will India be faced with a conjunction
of events that faces it to-day. The cloud that has descended upon Islam has
solidified the Moslem world as nothing else could have. It has awakened the men
and women of Mussulman India from their deep sleep. Inasmuch as a single
Panjabi was made to crawl on his belly in the famous street of Amitsar, I hold
that the whole of was made to crawl on its belly. And if we want to straighten
up ourselves from that crawling position and stand erect before the whole
world, it requires, a tremendous effort. H.E. the Viceroy in his Viceregal
pronouncement at the opening of the Council was pleased to say that he did not
desire to make any remarks on the Punjab events. He treated them as a closed
chapter and referred us to the future verdict of history. I venture to tell you
the citizens of Bezwada that India will have deserved to crawl in that lane if
she accepts this pronouncement as the final answer, and if we want to stand
erect before the whole world, it is impossible for a single child, man or woman
in India to rest until fullest reparation has been done for the Punjab wrong.
Similarly with reference to the Khilafat grievance the Mussalmans of India in
my humble opinion will forfeit all title to consider themselves the followers
of the great Prophet in whose name they recite the Kalama, day in and day out,
they will forfeit their title if they do not put their shoulders to the wheel
and lift this cloud that is hanging on them. But we shall make a serious
blunder. India will commit suicide, if we do not understand and appreciate the
forces that are arrayed against us. We have got to face a mighty Government
with all its power ranged against us. This composed of men who are able,
courageous, capable of making sacrifices. It is a Government which does not
scruple to use means, fair or foul, in order to gain its end. No craft is above
that Government. It resorts to frightfulness, terrorism. It resorts to bribery,
in the shape of titles, honour and high offices. It administers opiates in the
shape of Reforms. In essence then it is an autocracy double distilled in the
guise of democracy. The greatest gift of a crafty cunning man are worthless so
long as cunning resides in his heart. It is a Government representing a
civilisation which is purely material and godless. I have given to you these
qualities of this government in order not to excite your angry passions, but in
order that you may appreciate the forces that are matched against you. Anger
will serve no purpose. We shall have to meet ungodliness by godliness. We shall
have to meet their untruth by truth; we shall have to meet their cunning and
their craft by openness and simplicity; we shall have to meet their terrorism
and frightfulness by bravery. And it is an unbending bravery which is demanded
of every man, woman and child. We must meet their organisation by greater
organising ability. We must meet their discipline by grater discipline, and we
must meet their sacrifices by infinitely greater sacrifices, and if we are in a
position to show these qualities in a full measure I have not the slightest
doubt that we shall win this battle. If really we have fear of God in us, our
prayers will give us the strength to secure victory. God has always come to the
help of the helpless and we need not go before any earthly power for help.
</p>
<p>
You heard this morning of the bravery of the sword, and the bravery of
suffering. For me personally I have forever rejected the bravery of the sword.
But, to-day it is not my purpose to demonstrate to you the final
ineffectiveness of the sword. But he who runs may see that before India
possesses itself a sword which will be more than a match for the forces of
Europe, it will he generations. India may resort to the destruction of life and
property here and there but such destructive cases serve no purpose. I have
therefore presented to you a weapon called the bravery of suffering, otherwise
called Non-co-operation. It is a bravery which is open to the weakest among the
weak. It is open to women and children. The power of suffering is the
prerogative of nobody, and if only 300 millions of Indians could show the power
of suffering in order to redress a grievous wrong done to the nation or to its
religion, I make bold to say that, India will never require to draw the sword.
And unless we are able to show an adequate measure of sacrifice we shall lose
this battle. No one need tell me that India has not got this power of
suffering. Every father and mother is witness to what i am about to say, viz.,
that every father and mother have shown in the domestic affairs matchless power
of suffering. And if we have only developed national consciousness, if we have
developed sufficient regard for our religion, we shall have developed power of
suffering in the national and religious field. Considered in these terms the
first stage in Non-co-operation is the simplest and the easiest state. If the
title-holders of India consider that India is suffering from a grievous wrong
both as regards the Punjab and the Khilafat is it any suffering on their part
to renounce their titles to-day? What is the measure of the suffering awaiting
the lawyers who are called upon to suspend practice when compared to the great
benefit which is in store for the nation? And if thy parents of India will
summon up courage to sacrifice secular education, they will have given their
children the real education of a life-time. For they will have learnt the value
of religion and national honour. And I ask you, the citizens of Bezwada, to
think well before you accept the loaves and fishes in the form of Government
offices set them on one side and set national honour on the other and make your
service. What sacrifice is there involved in the individual renouncing his
candidature for legislative councils. The councils are a tempting bait. All
kinds of arguments are being advanced in favour of joining the councils. India
will sacrifice the opportunity of gaining her liberty if she touches them. It
passes comprehension how we, who have known this Government, who have read the
Viceregal pronouncement, how we who have known their determination not to give
justice in the Punjab and the Khilafat matters, can gain any benefit by
co-operation, constructive or obstructive, with this Government? But the
Nationalists, belonging to a great popular party, tell us that if they do not
contest these scats, the moderates will get in. Surely, it is nothing but an
exhibition of want of courage and faith in our own cause to feel that we must
enter the councils lest moderates should get in. Moderates believe in the
possibility of obtaining justice at the hands of the Government. Nationalists
have on the other hand filled the platforms with denunciations of the
Government and its measures. How can the Nationalists ever hope to gain
anything by entering the councils, holding the belief that they do? They will
better represent the popular will if they wring justice from the Government by
means of Non-co-operation. A calculating spirit at the present moment in the
history of India will prove its ruin. I, therefore, tender my hearty
congratulation to those who have announced their resignations of candidature or
honorary offices, and I hope that their example will prove infectious. I have
been told, and I believe it myself from what I have seen, that the Andhrus are
a brave, courageous and spiritually-inclined people. I venture therefore to ask
my Andhra brethren whether they have understood the spirituality of this
beautiful doctrine of Non-co-operation. If they have, I hope they will not wait
for a single moment for a mandate from the Congress or the Moslem League. They
will understand that a spiritual weapon is god whether it is wielded by one or
many. I, therefore, invite you to go to Calcutta with a united will and a
united purpose, sanctified by a spirit of sacrifice, with a will of your own to
convert those who are still undecided about the spirituality or the
practicability of the weapon.
</p>
<p>
I thank you for the attention and patience with which you have listened to me.
I pray to the Almighty that He may give you wisdom and courage that are so
necessary at the present moment.—
</p>
<p>
<i>August 1920</i>.
</p>
<h3>THE CONGRESS</h3>
<p>
The largest and the most important Congress ever held has come and gone, It was
the biggest demonstration ever held against the present system of Government.
The President uttered the whole truth when he said that it was a Congress in
which, instead of the President and the leaders driving the people, the people
drove him and the latter. It was clear to every one on the platform that the
people had taken the reins in their own hands. The platform would gladly have
moved at a slower pace.
</p>
<p>
The Congress gave one day to a full discussion of the creed and voted solidly
for it with but two dissentients after two nights’ sleep over the discussion.
It gave one day to a discussion of non-co-operation resolution and voted for it
with unparalleled enthusiasm. It gave the last day to listening to the whole of
the remaining thirty-two Articles of the Constitution which were read and
translated word for word by Maulana Mahomed Ali in a loud and clear voice. It
showed that it was intelligently following the reading of it, for there was
dissent when Article Eight was reached. It referred to non-interference by the
Congress in the internal affairs of the Native States. The Congress would not
have passed the proviso if it had meant that it could even voice the feelings
of the people residing in the territories ruled by the princes. Happily it
resolution suggesting the advisability of establishing Responsible Government
in their territories enabled me to illustrate to the audience that the proviso
did not preclude the Congress from ventilating the grievances and aspirations
of the subjects of these states, whilst it clearly prevented the Congress from
taking any executive action in connection with them; as for instance holding a
hostile demonstration in the Native States against any action of theirs. The
Congress claims to dictate to the Government but it cannot do so by the very
nature of its constitution in respect of the Native States.
</p>
<p>
Thus the Congress has taken three important steps after the greatest
deliberation. It has expressed its determination in the clearest possible terms
to attain complete null-government, if possible still in association with the
British people, but even without, if necessary. It proposes to do so only by
means that are honourable and non-violent. It has introduced fundamental
changes in the constitution regulating its activities and has performed an act
of self-denial in voluntarily restricting the number of delegates to one for
every fifty thousand of the population of India and has insisted upon the
delegates being the real representatives of those who want to take any part in
the political life of the country. And with a view to ensuring the
representation of all political parties it has accepted the principle of
“single transferable vote.” It has reaffirmed the non-co-operation resolution
of the Special Session and amplified it in every respect. It has emphasised the
necessity of non-violence and laid down that the attainment of Swaraj is
conditional upon the complete harmony between the component parts of India, and
has therefore inculcated Hindu-Muslim unity. The Hindu delegates have called
upon their leaders to settle disputes between Brahmins and non-Brahmins and
have urged upon the religious heads the necessity of getting rid of the poison
of untouchability. The Congress has told the parents of school-going children,
and the lawyers that they have not responded sufficiently to the call of the
nation and that they must make greater effort in doing so. It therefore follows
that the lawyers who do not respond quickly to the call for suspension and the
parents who persist in keeping their children in Government and aided
institutions must find themselves dropping out from the public life of the
country. The country calls upon every man and woman in India to do their full
share. But of the details of the non-co-operation resolution I must write
later.
</p>
<h3>WHO IS DISLOYAL?</h3>
<p>
Mr. Montagu has discovered a new definition of disloyalty. He considers my
suggestion to boycott the visit of the Prince of Wales to be disloyal and some
newspapers taking the cue from him have called persons who have made the
suggestion ‘unmannerly’. They have even attributed to these ‘unmannerly’
persons the suggestion of boycotting the Prince. I draw a sharp and fundamental
distinction between boycotting the Prince and boycotting any welcome arranged
for him. Personally I would extend the heartiest welcome to His Royal Highness
if he came or could come without official patronage and the protecting wings of
the Government of the day. Being the heir to a constitutional monarch, the
Prince’s movements are regulated and dictated by the ministers, no matter how
much the dictation may be concealed beneath diplomatically polite language. In
suggesting the boycott therefore the promoters have suggested boycott of an
insolent bureaucracy and dishonest ministers of his Majesty.
</p>
<p>
You cannot have it both ways. It is true that under a constitutional monarchy,
the royalty is above politics. But you cannot send the Prince on a political
visit for the purpose of making political capital out of him, and then complain
that those who will not play your game and in order to checkmate you, proclaim
boycott of the Royal visit do not know constitutional usage. For the Prince’s
visit is not for pleasure. His Royal Highness is to come in Mr. Lloyd George’s
words, as the “ambassador of the British nation,” in other words, his own
ambassador in order to issue a certificate of merit to him and possibly to give
the ministers a new lease of life. The wish is designed to consolidate and
strengthen a power that spells mischief for India. Even us it is, Mr. Montagu
has foreseen, that the welcome will probably be excelled by any hitherto
extended to Royalty, meaning that the people are not really and deeply affected
and stirred by the official atrocities in the Punjab and the manifestly
dishonest breach of official declarations on the Khilafat. With the knowledge
that India was bleeding at heart, the Government of India should have told His
Majesty’s ministers that the moment was inopportune for sending the Prince. I
venture to submit that it is adding insult to injury to bring the Prince and
through his visit to steal honours and further prestige for a Government that
deserves to be dismissed with disgrace. I claim that I prove my loyalty by
saying that India is in no mood, is too deeply in mourning, to take part in and
to welcome His Royal Highness, and that the ministers and the Indian Government
show their disloyalty by making the Prince a catspaw of their deep political
game. If they persist, it is the clear duty of India to have nothing to do with
the visit.
</p>
<h3>CRUSADE AGAINST NON-CO-OPERATION</h3>
<p>
I have most carefully read the manifesto addressed by Sir Narayan Chandavarkar
and others dissuading the people from joining the non co-operation movement. I
had expected to find some solid argument against non-co-operation, but to my
great regret I have found in it nothing but distortion (no doubt unconscious)
of the great religions and history. The manifesto says that ‘non-co-operation
is deprecated by the religious tenets and traditions of our motherland, nay, of
all the religions that have saved and elevated the human race.’ I venture to
submit that the Bhagwad Gita is a gospel of non-co-operation between forces of
darkness and those of light. If it is to be literally interpreted Arjun
representing a just cause was enjoined to engage in bloody warfare with the
unjust Kauravas. Tulsidas advises the Sant (the good) to shun the Asant (the
evil-doers). The Zendavesta represents a perpetual dual between Ormuzd and
Ahriman, between whom there is no compromise. To say of the Bible that it
taboos non-co-operation is not to know Jesus, a Prince among passive resisters,
who uncompromisingly challenged the might of the Sadducees and the Pharisees
and for the sake of truth did not hesitate to divide sons from their parents.
And what did the Prophet of Islam do? He non-co-operated in Mecca in a most
active manner so long as his life was not in danger and wiped the dust of Mecca
off his feet when he found that he and his followers might have uselessly to
perish, and fled to Medina and returned when he was strong enough to give
battle to his opponents. The duty of non-co-operation with unjust men and kings
is as strictly enjoined by all the religions as is the duty of co-operation
with just men and kings. Indeed most of the scriptures of the world seem even
to go beyond non-co-operation and prefer a violence to effeminate submission to
a wrong. The Hindu religious tradition of which the manifesto speaks, clearly
proves the duty of non-co-operation. Prahlad dissociated himself from his
father, Meerabai from her husband, Bibhishan from his brutal brother.
</p>
<p>
The manifesto speaking of the secular aspect says, ‘The history of nations
affords no instance to show that it (meaning non-co-operation) has, when
employed, succeeded and done good,’ One most recent instance of brilliant
success of non-co-operation is that of General Botha who boycotted Lord
Milner’s reformed councils and thereby procured a perfect constitution for his
country. The Dukhobours of Russia offered non-co-operation, and a handful
though they were, their grievances so deeply moved the civilized world that
Canada offered them a home where they form a prosperous community. In India
instances can be given by the dozen, in which in little principalities the
raiyats when deeply grieved by their chiefs have cut off all connection with
them and bent them to their will. I know of no instance in history where
well-managed non-co-operation has failed.
</p>
<p>
Hitherto I have given historical instances of bloodless non-co-operation, I
will not insult the intelligence of the reader by citing historical instances
of non-co-operation combined with, violence, but I am free to confess that
there are on record as many successes as failures in violent non-co-operation.
And it is because I know this fact that I have placed before the country a
non-violent scheme in which, if at all worked satisfactorily, success is a
certainty and in which non-response means no harm. For if even one man
non-co-operates, say, by resigning some office, he has gained, not lost. That
is its ethical or religious aspect. For its political result naturally it
requires polymerous support. I fear therefore no disastrous result from
non-co-operation save for an outbreak of violence on the part of the people
whether under provocation or otherwise. I would risk violence a thousand times
than risk the emasculation of a whole race.
</p>
<h3>SPEECH AT MUZAFFARABAD</h3>
<p>
Before a crowded meeting of Mussalmans in the Muzaffarabad, Bombay, held on the
29th July 1920, speaking on the impending non-co-operation which commenced on
the 1st of August, Mr. Gandhi said: The time for speeches on non-co-operation
was past and the time for practice had arrived. But two things were needful for
complete success. An environment free from any violence on the part of the
people and a spirit of self-sacrifice. Non-co-operation, as the speaker had
conceived it, was an impossibility in an atmosphere surcharged with the spirit
of violence. Violence was an exhibition of anger and any such exhibition was
dissipation of valuable energy. Subduing of one’s anger was a storing up of
national energy, which, when set free in an ordered manner, would produce
astounding results. His conception of non-co-operation did not involve rapine,
plunder, incendiarism and all the concomitants of mass madness. His scheme
presupposed ability on their part to control all the forces of evil. If,
therefore, any disorderliness was found on the part of the people which they
could not control, he for one would certainly help the Government to control
them. In the presence of disorder it would be for him a choice of evil, and
evil through he considered the present Government to be, he would not hesitate
for the time being to help the Government to control disorder. But he had faith
in the people. He believed that they knew that the cause could only be won by
non-violent methods. To put it at the lowest, the people had not the power,
even if they had the will, to resist with brute strength the unjust Governments
of Europe who had, in the intoxication of their success disregarding every
canon of justice dealt so cruelly by the only Islamic Power in Europe.
</p>
<p>
In non-co-operation they had a matchless and powerful weapon. It was a sign of
religious atrophy to sustain an unjust Government that supported an injustice
by resorting to untruth and camouflage. So long therefore as the Government did
not purge itself of the canker of injustice and untruth, it was their duty to
withdraw all help from it consistently with their ability to preserve order in
the social structure. The first stage of non-co-operation was therefore
arranged so as to involve minimum of danger to public peace and minimum of
sacrifice on the part of those who participated in the movement. And if they
might not help an evil Government nor receive any favours from it, it followed
that they must give up all titles of honour which were no longer a proud
possession. Lawyers, who were in reality honorary officers of the Court, should
cease to support Courts that uphold the prestige of an unjust Government and
the people must be able to settle their disputes and quarrels by private
arbitration. Similarly parents should withdraw their children from the public
schools and they must evolve a system of national education or private
education totally independent of the Government. An insolent Government
conscious of its brute strength, might laugh at such withdrawals by the people
especially as the Law courts and schools were supposed to help the people, but
he had not a shadow of doubt that the moral effect of such a step could not
possibly be lost even upon a Government whose conscience had become stifled by
the intoxication of power.
</p>
<p>
He had hesitation in accepting Swadeshi as a plank in non-co-operation. To him
Swadeshi was as dear as life itself. But he had no desire to smuggle in
Swadeshi through the Khilafat movement, if it could not legitimately help that
movement, but conceived as non-co-operation was, in a spirit of self-sacrifice,
Swadeshi had a legitimate place in the movement. Pure Swadeshi meant sacrifice
of the liking for fineries. He asked the nation to sacrifice its liking for the
fineries of Europe and Japan and be satisfied with the coarse but beautiful
fabrics woven on their handlooms out of yarns spun by millions of their
sisters. If the nation had become really awakened to a sense of the danger to
its religions and its self-respect, it could not but perceive the absolute and
immediate necessity of the adoption of Swadeshi in its intense form and if the
people of India adopted Swadeshi with the religious zeal he begged to assure
them that its adoption would arm them with a new power and would produce an
unmistakable impression throughout the whole world. He, therefore, expected the
Mussalmans to give the lead by giving up all the fineries they were so fond of
and adopt the simple cloth that could be produced by the manual labour of their
sisters and brethren in their own cottages. And he hoped that the Hindus would
follow suit. It was a sacrifice in which the whole nation, every man, woman and
child could take part.
</p>
<h4>RIDICULE REPLACING REPRESSION</h4>
<p>
Had His Excellency the Viceroy not made it impossible by his defiant attitude
on the Punjab and the Khilafat, I would have tendered him hearty
congratulations for substituting ridicule for repression in order to kill a
movement distasteful to him. For, torn from its context and read by itself His
Excellency’s discourse on non-co-operation is unexceptionable. It is a symptom
of translation from savagery to civilization. Pouring ridicule on one’s
opponent is an approved method in civilised politics. And if the method is
consistently continued, it will mark an important improvement upon the official
barbarity of the Punjab. His interpretation of Mr. Montagu’s statement about
the movement is also not open to any objection whatsoever. Without doubt a
government has the right to use sufficient force to put down an actual outbreak
of violence.
</p>
<p>
But I regret to have to confess that this attempt to pour ridicule on the
movement, read in conjunction with the sentiments on the Punjab and the
Khilafat, preceding the ridicule, seems to show that His Excellency has made it
a virtue of necessity. He has not finally abandoned the method of terrorism and
frightfulness, but he finds the movement being conducted in such an open and
truthful manner that any attempt to kill it by violent repression would not
expose him not only to ridicule but contempt of all right-thinking men.
</p>
<p>
Let us however examine the adjectives used by His Excellency to kill the
movement by laughing at it. It is ‘futile,’ ‘ill-advised,’ ‘intrinsically
insane,’ ‘unpractical,’ ‘visionary.’ He has rounded off the adjectives by
describing the movement as ‘most foolish of all foolish schemes.’ His
Excellency has become so impatient of it that he has used all his vocabulary
for showing the magnitude of the ridiculous nature of non-co-operation.
</p>
<p>
Unfortunately for His Excellency the movement is likely to grow with ridicule
as it is certain to flourish on repression. No vital movement can be killed
except by the impatience, ignorance or laziness of its authors. A movement
cannot be ‘insane’ that is conducted by men of action as I claim the members of
the Non-co-operation Committee are. It is hardly ‘unpractical,’ seeing that if
the people respond, every one admits that it will achieve the end. At the same
time it is perfectly true that if there is no response from the people, the
movement will be popularly described as ‘visionary.’ It is for the nation to
return an effective answer by organised non-co-operation and change ridicule
into respect. Ridicule is like repression. Both give place to respect when they
fail to produce the intended effect.
</p>
<h4>THE VICEREGAL PRONOUNCEMENT</h4>
<p>
It may be that having lost faith in His Excellency’s probity and capacity to
hold the high office of Viceroy of India, I now read his speeches with a biased
mind, but the speech His Excellency delivered at the time of opening of the
council shows to me a mental attitude which makes association with him or his
Government impossible for self-respecting men.
</p>
<p>
The remarks on the Punjab mean a flat refusal to grant redress. He would have
us to ‘concentrate on the problems of the immediate future!’ The immediate
future is to compel repentance on the part of the Government on the Punjab
matter. Of this there is no sign. On the contrary, His Excellency resists the
temptation to reply to his critics, meaning thereby that he has not changed his
opinion on the many vital matters affecting the honour of India. He is ‘content
to leave the issues to the verdict of history.’ Now this kind of language, in
my opinion, is calculated further to inflame the Indian mind. Of what use can a
favourable verdict of history be to men who have been wronged and who are still
under the heels of officers who have shown themselves utterly unfit to hold
offices of trust and responsibility? The plea for co-operation is, to say the
least, hypocritical in the face of the determination to refuse justice to the
Punjab. Can a patient who is suffering from an intolerable ache be soothed by
the most tempting dishes placed before him? Will he not consider it mockery on
the part of the physician who so tempted him without curing him of his pain?
</p>
<p>
His Excellency is, if possible, even less happy on the Khilafat. “So far as any
Government could,” says this trustee for the nation, “we pressed upon the Peace
Conference the views of Indian Moslems. But notwithstanding our efforts on
their behalf we are threatened with a campaign of non-co-operation because,
forsooth, the allied Powers found themselves unable to accept the contentions
advanced by Indian Moslems.” This is most misleading if not untruthful. His
Excellency knows that the peace terms are not the work of the allied Powers. He
knows that Mr. Lloyd George is the prime author of terms and that the latter
has never repudiated his responsibility for them. He has with amazing audacity
justified them in spite of his considered pledge to the Moslems of India
regarding Constantinople, Thrace and the rich and renowned lands of Asia minor.
It is not truthful to saddle responsibility for the terms on the allied Powers
when Great Britain alone has promoted them. The offence of the Viceroy becomes
greater when we remember that he admits the justness of the Muslim claim. He
could not have ‘pressed’ it if he did not admit its justice.
</p>
<p>
I venture to think that His Excellency by his pronouncement on the Punjab has
strengthened the nation in its efforts to seek a remedy to compel redress of
the two wrongs before it can make anything of the so-called Reforms.
</p>
<h4>FROM RIDICULE, TO—?</h4>
<p>
It will be admitted that non-co-operation has passed the stage ridicule.
Whether it will now be met by repression or respect remains to be seen. Opinion
has already been expressed in these columns that ridicule is an approved and
civilized method of opposition. The viceregal ridicule though expressed in
unnecessarily impolite terms was not open to exception.
</p>
<p>
But the testing time has now arrived. In a civilized country when ridicule
fails to kill a movement it begins to command respect. Opponents meet it by
respectful and cogent argument and the mutual behaviour of rival parties never
becomes violent. Each party seeks to convert the other or draw the uncertain
element towards its side by pure argument and reasoning.
</p>
<p>
There is little doubt now that the boycott of the councils will be extensive if
it is not complete. The students have become disturbed. Important institutions
may any day become truly national. Pandit Motilal Nehru’s great renunciation of
a legal practice which was probably second to nobody’s is by itself an event
calculated to change ridicule into respect. It ought to set people thinking
seriously about their own attitude. There must be something very wrong about
our Government—to warrant the step Pundit Motilal Nehru has taken. Post
graduate students have given up their fellowships. Medical students have
refused to appear for their final examination. Non-co-operation in these
circumstances cannot be called an inane movement.
</p>
<p>
Either the Government must bend to the will of the people which is being
expressed in no unmistakable terms through non-co-operation, or it must attempt
to crush the movement by repression.
</p>
<p>
Any force used by a government under any circumstance is not repression. An
open trial of a person accused of having advocated methods of violence is not
repression. Every State has the right to put down or prevent violence by force.
But the trial of Mr. Zafar Ali Khan and two Moulvis of Panipat shows that the
Government is seeking not to put down or prevent violence but to suppress
expression of opinion, to prevent the spread of disaffection. This is
repression. The trials are the beginning of it. It has not still assumed a
virulent form but if these trials do not result in stilling the propaganda, it
is highly likely that severe repression will be resorted to by the Government.
</p>
<p>
The only other way to prevent the spread of disaffection is to remove the
causes thereof. And that would be to respect the growing response of the
country to the programme of non-co-operation. It is too much to expect
repentance and humility from a government intoxicated with success and power.
</p>
<p>
We must therefore assume that the second stage in the Government programme will
be repression growing in violence in the same ratio as the progress of
non-co-operation. And if the movement survives repression, the day of victory
of truth is near. We must then be prepared for prosecutions, punishments even
up to deportations. We must evolve the capacity for going on with our programme
without the leaders. That means capacity for self-government. And as no
government in the world can possibly put a whole nation in prison, it must
yield to its demand or abdication in favour of a government suited to that
nation.
</p>
<p>
It is clear that abstention from violence and persistence in the programme are
our only and surest chance of attaining our end.
</p>
<p>
The government has its choice, either to respect the movement or to try to
repress it by barbarous methods. Our choice is either to succumb to repression
or to continue in spite of repression.
</p>
<h3>TO EVERY ENGLISHMAN IN INDIA</h3>
<p>
Dear Friend,
</p>
<p>
I wish that every Englishman will see this appeal and give thoughtful attention
to it.
</p>
<p>
Let me introduce myself to you. In my humble opinion no Indian has co-operated
with the British Government more than I have for an unbroken period of
twenty-nine years of public life in the face of circumstances that might well
have turned any other man into a rebel. I ask you to believe me when I tell you
that my co-operation was not based on the fear of the punishments provided by
your laws or any other selfish motives. It was free and voluntary co-operation
based on the belief that the sum total of the activity of the British
Government was for the benefit of India. I put my life in peril four times for
the sake of the Empire,—at the time of the Boer war when I was in charge of the
Ambulance corps whose work was mentioned in General Buller’s dispatches, at the
time of the Zulu revolt in Natal when I was in charge of a similar corps at the
time of the commencement of the late war when I raised an Ambulance corps and
as a result of the strenuous training had a severe attack of pleurisy, and
lastly, in fulfilment of my promise to Lord Chelmsford at the War Conference in
Delhi. I threw myself in such an active recruiting campaign in Kuira District
involving long and trying marches that I had an attack of dysentry which proved
almost fatal. I did all this in the full belief that acts such as mine must
gain for my country an equal status in the Empire. So late as last December I
pleaded hard for a trustful co-operation, I fully believed that Mr. Lloyd
George would redeem his promise to the Mussalmans and that the revelations of
the official atrocities in the Punjab would secure full reparation for the
Punjabis. But the treachery of Mr. Lloyd George and its appreciation by you,
and the condonation of the Punjab atrocities have completely shattered my faith
in the good intentions of the Government and the nation which is supporting it.
</p>
<p>
But though, my faith in your good intentions is gone, I recognise your bravery
and I know that what you will not yield to justice and reason, you will gladly
yield to bravery.
</p>
<p>
<i>See what this Empire means to India</i>
</p>
<p>
Exploitation of India’s resources for the benefit of Great Britain.
</p>
<p>
An ever-increasing military expenditure, and a civil service the most expensive
in the world.
</p>
<p>
Extravagant working of every department in utter disregard of India’s poverty.
</p>
<p>
Disarmament and consequent emasculation of a whole nation lest an armed nation
might imperil the lives of a handful of you in our midst. Traffic in
intoxicating liquors and drugs for the purposes of sustaining a top heavy
administration.
</p>
<p>
Progressively representative legislation in order to suppress an evergrowing
agitation seeking to give expression to a nation’s agony.
</p>
<p>
Degrading treatment of Indians residing in your dominions, and
</p>
<p>
You have shown total disregard of our feelings by glorifying the Punjab
administration and flouting the Mosulman sentiment.
</p>
<p>
I know you would not mind if we could fight and wrest the sceptre form your
hands. You know that we are powerless to do that, for you have ensured our
incapacity to fight in open and honourable battle. Bravery on the battlefield
is thus impossible for us. Bravery of the soul still remains open to us. I know
you will respond to that also. I am engaged in evoking that bravery.
Non-co-operation means nothing less than training in self-sacrifice. Why should
we co-operate with you when we know that by your administration of this great
country we are lifting daily enslaved in an increasing degree. This response of
the people to my appeal is not due to my personality. I would like you to
dismiss me, and for that matter the Ali Brothers too, from your consideration.
My personality will fail to evoke any response to anti-Muslim cry if I were
foolish enough to rise it, as the magic name of the Ali Brothers would fail to
inspire the Mussalmans with enthusiasm if they were madly to raise in
anti-Hindu cry. People flock in their thousands to listen to us because we
to-day represent the voice of a nation groaning under iron heels. The Ali
Brothers were your friends as I was, and still am. My religion forbids me to
bear any ill-will towards you. I would not raise my hand against you even if I
had the power. I expect to conquer you only by my suffering. The Ali Brothers
will certainly draw the sword, if they could, in defence of their religion and
their country. But they and I have made common cause with the people of India
in their attempt to voice their feelings and to find a remedy for their
distress.
</p>
<p>
You are in search of a remedy to suppress this rising ebullition of national
feeling. I venture to suggest to you that the only way to suppress it is to
remove the causes. You have yet the power. You can repent of the wrongs done to
Indians. You can compel Mr. Lloyd George to redeem his promises. I assure you
he has kept many escape doors. You can compel the Viceroy to retire in favour
of a better one, you can revise your ideas about Sir Michael O’Dwyer and
General Dyer. You can compel the Government to summon a conference of the
recognised lenders of the people, duly elected by them and representing all
shades of opinion so as to devise means for granting <i>Swaraj</i> in
accordance with the wishes of the people of India. But this you cannot do
unless you consider every Indian to be in reality your equal and brother. I ask
for no patronage, I merely point out to you, as a friend, as honourable
solution of a grave problem. The other solution, namely repression is open to
YOU. I prophesy that it will fail. It has begun already. The Government has
already imprisoned two brave men of Panipat for holding and expressing their
opinions freely. Another is on his trial in Lahore for having expressed similar
opinion. One in the Oudh District is already imprisoned. Another awaits
judgment. You should know what is going on in your midst. Our propaganda is
being carried on in anticipation of repression. I invite you respectfully to
choose the better way and make common cause with the people of India whose salt
you are eating. To seek to thwart their inspirations is disloyalty to the
country.
</p>
<p>
I am, Your faithful friend, M. K. GANDHI
</p>
<h3>ONE STEP ENOUGH FOR ME</h3>
<p>
Mr. Stokes is a Christian, who wants to follow the light that God gives him. He
has adopted India as his home. He is watching the non-co-operation movement
from the Kotgarh hills where he is living in isolation from the India of the
plains and serving the hillmen. He has contributed three articles on
non-co-operation to the columns of the Servant of Calcutta and other papers. I
had the pleasure of reading them during my Bengal tour. Mr. Stokes approves of
non-co-operation but dreads the consequences that may follow complete success
<i>i.e.,</i> evacuation of India by the British. He conjures up before his mind
a picture of India invaded by the Afghans from the North-West, plundered by the
Gurkhas from the Hills. For me I say with Cardinal Newman: ‘I do not ask to see
the distant scene; one step enough for me.’ The movement is essentially
religious. The business of every god-fearing man is to dissociate himself from
evil in total disregard of consequences. He must have faith in a good deed
producing only a good result: that in my opinion is the Gita doctrine of work
without attachment. God does not permit him to peep into the future. He follows
truth although the following of it may endanger his very life. He knows that it
is better to die in the way of God than to live in the way of Satan. Therefore
who ever is satisfied that this Government represents the activity of Satan has
no choice left to him but to dissociate himself from it.
</p>
<p>
However, let us consider the worst that can happen to India on a sudden
evacuation of India by the British. What does it matter that the Gurkhas and
the Pathans attack us? Surely we would be better able to deal with their
violence than we are with the continued violence, moral and physical,
perpetrated by the present Government. Mr. Stokes does not seem to eschew the
use of physical force. Surely the combined labour of the Rajput, the Sikh and
the Mussalman warriors in a united India may be trusted to deal with plunderers
from any or all the sides. Imagine however the worst: Japan overwhelming us
from the Bay of Bengal, the Gurkhas from the Hills, and the Pathans from the
North-West. If we not succeed in driving them out we make terms with them and
drive them at the first opportunity. This will be a more manly course than a
hopeless submission to an admittedly wrongful State.
</p>
<p>
But I refuse to contemplate the dismal out-look. If the movement succeeds
through non-violent non-co-operation, and that is the supposition Mr. Stokes
has started with, the English whether they remain or retire, they will do so as
friends and under a well-ordered agreement as between partners. I still believe
in the goodness of human nature, whether it is English or any other. I
therefore do not believe that the English will leave in a night.
</p>
<p>
And do I consider the Gurkha and the Afghan being incorrigible thieves and
robbers without ability to respond to purifying influences? I do not. If India
returns to her spirituality, it will react upon the neighbouring tribes, she
will interest herself in the welfare of these hardy but poor people, and even
support them if necessary, not out of fear but as a matter of neighbourly duty.
She will have dealt with Japan simultaneously with the British. Japan will not
want to invade India, if India has learnt to consider it a sin to use a single
foreign article that she can manufacture within her own borders. She produces
enough to eat and her men and women can without difficulty manufacture enough
to clothe to cover their nakedness and protect themselves from heat and cold.
We become prey to invasion if we excite the greed of foreign nation, by dealing
with them under a feeling dependence on them. We must learn to be independent
of every one of them.
</p>
<p>
Whether therefore we finally succeed through violence or non-violence in my
opinion, the prospect is by no means so gloomy as Mr. Stokes has imagined. Any
conceivable prospect is, in my opinion, less black than the present unmanly and
helpless condition. And we cannot do better than following out fearlessly and
with confidence the open and honourable programme of non-violence and sacrifice
that we have mapped for ourselves.
</p>
<h3>THE NEED FOR HUMILITY</h3>
<p>
The spirit of non-violence necessarily leads to humility. Non-violence means
reliance on God, the Rocks of ages. If we would seek His aid, we must approach
Him with a humble and a contrite heart. Non-co-operationists may not trade upon
their amazing success at the Congress. We must act, even as the mango tree
which drops as it bears fruit. Its grandeur lies in its majestic lowliness. But
one hears of non-co-operationists being insolent and intolerant in their
behaviour towards those who differ from them. I know that they will lose all
their majesty and glory, if they betray any inflation. Whilst we may not be
dissatisfied with the progress made so far, we have little to our credit to
make us feel proud. We have to sacrifice much more than we have done to justify
pride, much less elation. Thousands, who flocked to the Congress pandal, have
undoubtedly given their intellectual assent to the doctrine but few have
followed it out in practice. Leaving aside the pleaders, how many parents have
withdrawn their children from schools? How many of those who registered their
vote in favour of non-co-operation have taken to hand-spinning or discarded the
use of all foreign cloth?
</p>
<p>
Non-co-operation is not a movement of brag, bluster, or bluff. It is a test of
our sincerity. It requires solid and silent self-sacrifice. It challenges our
honesty and our capacity for national work. It is a movement that aims at
translating ideas into action. And the more we do, the more we find that much
more must be done than we have expected. And this thought of our imperfection
must make us humble.
</p>
<p>
A non-co-operationist strives to compel attention and to set an example not by
his violence but by his unobtrusive humility. He allows his solid action to
speak for his creed. His strength lies in his reliance upon the correctness of
his position. And the conviction of it grows most in his opponent when he least
interposes his speech between his action and his opponent. Speech, especially
when it is haughty, betrays want of confidence and it makes one’s opponent
sceptical about the reality of the act itself. Humility therefore is the key to
quick success. I hope that every non-co-operationist will recognise the
necessity of being humble and self-restrained. It is because so little is
really required to be done because all of that little depends entirely upon
ourselves that I have ventured the belief that Swaraj is attainable in less
than one year.
</p>
<h3>SOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED</h3>
<p>
“I write to thank you for yours of the 7th instant and especially for your
request that I should after reading your writings in “Young India” on
non-co-operation, give a full and frank criticism of them. I know that your
sole desire is to find out the truth and to act accordingly, and hence I
venture to make the following remarks. In the issue of May 5th you say that
non-co-operation is “not even anti-Government.” But surely to refuse to have
anything to do with the Government to the extent of not serving it and of not
paying its taxes is actually, if not theoretically anti-Government; and such a
course must ultimately make all Government impossible. Again, you say, “It is
the inherent right of a subject to refuse to assist a government that will not
listen to him.” Leaving aside the question of the ethical soundness of this
proposition, may I ask which Government, in the present case? Has not the
Indian Government done all it possibly can in the matter? Then if its attempts
to voice the request of India should fail, would it be fair and just to do
anything against it? Would not the proper course be non-co-operation with the
Supreme Council of the Allies, including Great Britain, if it be found that the
latter has failed properly to support the demand of the Indian Government and
people? It seems to me that in all your writings and speeches you forget that
in the present question both Government and people are as one, and if they fail
to get what they justly want, how does the question of non-co-operation arise?
Hindus and Englishmen and the Government are all at present “shouldering in a
full-hearted manner the burden that Muhomedans of India are carrying etc. etc.”
But supposing we fail of our object—what then? Are we all to refuse to
co-operate and with whom?
</p>
<p>
Might I recommend the consideration of the following course of conduct?
</p>
<p>
(1) “Wait and see” what the actual terms of the Treaty with Turkey are?
</p>
<p>
(2) If they are not in accordance with the aspirations and recommendations of
the Government and the people of India, the every legitimate effort should be
made to have the terms revised.
</p>
<p>
(3) To the bitter end, co-operate with a Government that co-operates with us,
and only when it refuses co-operation, go in for non-co-operation.
</p>
<p>
So far I personally see no reason whatsoever for non-co-operation with the
Indian Government, and till it fails to voice the needs and demands of India as
a whole there can be no reason. The Indian Government does some times make
mistakes, but in the Khilafat matter it is sound and therefore deserves or
ought to have the sympathetic and whole-hearted co-operation of every one in
India. I hope that you will kindly consider the above and perhaps you will be
able to find time for a reply in <i>Young India</i>.”
</p>
<p>
I gladly make room for the above letter and respond to the suggestion to give a
public reply as no doubt the difficulty experienced by the English friend is
experienced by many. Causes are generally lost, not owing to the determined
opposition of men who will not see the truth as they want to perpetuate an
injustice but because they are able to enlist in their favour the allegiance of
those who are anxious to understand a particular cause and take sides after
mature judgment. It is only by patient argument with such honest men that one
is able to check oneself, correct one’s own errors of judgment and at times to
wean them from their error and bring them over to one’s side. This Khilafat
question is specially difficult because there are so many side-issues. It is
therefore no wonder that many have more or less difficulty in making up their
minds. It is further complicated because the painful necessity for some direct
action has arisen in connection with it. But whatever the difficulty, I am
convinced that there is no question so important as this one if we want harmony
and peace in India.
</p>
<p>
My friend objects to my statement that non-co-operation is not anti-Government,
because he considers that refusal to serve it and pay its taxes is actually
anti-Government. I respectfully dissent from the view. If a brother has
fundamental differences with his brother, and association with the latter
involves his partaking of what in his opinion is an injustice. I hold that it
is brotherly duty to refrain from serving his brother and sharing his earnings
with him. This happens in everyday life. Prahalad did not act against his
father, when he declined to associate himself with the latter’s blasphemies.
Nor was Jesus anti-Jewish when he declaimed against the Pharisees and the
hypocrites, and would have none of them. In such matters, is it not intention
that determines the character of a particular act? It is hardly correct as the
friend suggests that withdrawal of association under general circumstances
would make all government impossible. But it is true that such withdrawal would
make all injustice impossible.
</p>
<p>
My correspondent considers that the Government of India having done all it
possibly could, non-co-operation could not be applicable to that Government. In
my opinion, whilst it is true that the Government of India has done a great
deal, it has not done half as much as it might have done, and might even now
do. No Government can absolve itself from further action beyond protesting,
when it realises that the people whom it represents feel as keenly as do lakhs
of Indian Mussalmans in the Khilafat question. No amount of sympathy with a
starving man can possibly avail. He must have bread or he dies, and what is
wanted at that critical moment is some exertion to fetch the wherewithal to
feed the dying man. The Government of India can to-day heed the agitation and
ask, to the point of insistence for full vindication of the pledged word of a
British Minister. Has the Government of India resigned by way of protest
against the threatened, shameful betrayal of trust on the part of Mr. Lloyd
George? Why does the Government of India hide itself behind secret despatches?
At a less critical moment Lord Hardiage committed a constitutional
indiscretion, openly sympathised with South African Passive Resistance movement
and stemmed the surging tide of public indignation in India, though at the same
time he incurred the wrath of the then South African Cabinet and some public
men in Great Britain. After all, the utmost that the Government of India has
done is on its own showing to transmit and press the Mahomedan claim. Was that
not the least it could have done? Could it have done anything less without
covering itself with disgrace? What Indian Mahomedans and the Indian public
expect the Government of India to do at this critical juncture is not the
least, but the utmost that it could do. Viceroys have been known to tender
resignations for much smaller causes. Wounded pride brought forth not very long
ago the resignation of a Lieutenant Governor. On the Khilafat question, a
sacred cause dear to the hearts of several million Mahomedans is in danger of
being wounded. I would therefore invite the English friend, and every
Englishman in India, and every Hindu, be he moderate or extremist, to make
common cause with the Mahomedans and thereby compel the Government of India to
do its duty, and thereby compel His Majesty’s Ministers to do theirs.
</p>
<p>
There has been much talk of violence ensuing from active non-co-operation. I
venture to suggest that the Mussalmans of India, if they had nothing in the
shape of non-co-operation in view, would have long ago yielded to counsels of
despair. I admit that non-co-operation is not unattended with danger. But
violence is a certainty without, violence is only a possibility with
non-co-operation. And it will he a greater possibility if all the important
men, English, Hindu and others of the country discountenance it.
</p>
<p>
I think, that the recommendation made by the friend is being literally followed
by the Mahomedans. Although they practically know the fate, they are waiting
for the actual terms of the treaty with Turkey. They are certainly going to try
every means at their disposal to have the terms revised before beginning
non-co-operation. And there will certainly be no non-co-operation commenced so
long as there is even hope of active co-operation on the part of the Government
of India with the Mahomedans, that is, co-operation strong enough to secure a
revision of the terms should they be found to be in conflict with the pledges
of British statesmen. But if all these things fail, can Mahomedans as men of
honour who hold their religion dearer than their lives do anything less than
wash their hands clean of the guilt of British Ministers and the Government of
India by refusing to co-operate with them? And can Hindus and Englishmen, if
they value Mahomedan friendship, and if they admit then full justice of the
Mahomaden friendship and if they admit the full justice of the Mahomedan claim
do otherwise than heartily support the Mahomedans by word and deed.
</p>
<h3>PLEDGES BROKEN</h3>
<p>
After the forgoing was printed the long-expected peace terms regarding Turkey
were received. In my humble opinion they are humiliating to the Supreme
Council, to the British ministers, and if as a Hindu with deep reverence for
Christianity I may say so, a denial of Christ’s teachings. Turkey broken down
and torn with dissentions within may submit to the arrogant disposal of
herself, and Indian Mahomedans may out of fear do likewise. Hindus out of fear,
apathy or want of appreciation of the situation, may refuse to help their
Mahomedan brethren in their hour of peril. The fact remains that a solemn
promise of the Prime Minister of England has been wantonly broken. I will say
nothing about President Wilson’s fourteen points, for they seem now to be
entirely forgotten as a day’s wonder. It is a matter of deep sorrow that the
Government of India <i>communique</i> offers a defence of the terms, calls them
a fulfilment of Mr. Lloyd George’s pledge of 5th January 1918 and yet
apologises for their defective nature and appeals to the Mahomedans of India as
if to mock them that they would accept the terms with quiet resignation. The
mask that veils the hypocrisy is too thin to deceive anybody. It would have
been dignified if the <i>communique</i> had boldly admitted Mr. Lloyd George’s
mistake in having made the promise referred to. As it is, the claim of
fulfilment of the promise only adds to the irritation caused by its glaring
breach. What is the use of the Viceroy saying, “The question of the Khilafat is
one for the Mahomedans and Mahomedans only and that with their free choice in
the matter Government have no desire to interfere,” while the Khalif’s
dominions are ruthlessly dismembered, his control of the Holy places of Islam
shamelessly taken away from him and he himself reduced to utter impotence in
his own palace which can no longer be called a palace but which can he more
fitly described us a prison? No wonder, His Excellency fears that the peace
includes “terms which must be painful to all Moslems.” Why should he insult
Muslim intelligence by sending the Mussalmans of India a of encouragement and
sympathy? Are they expected to find encouragement in the cruel recital of the
arrogant terms or in a remembrance of ‘the splendid response’ made by them to
the call of the King ‘in the day of the Empire’s need.’ It ill becomes His
Excellency to talk of the triumph of those ideals of justice and humanity for
which the Allies fought. Indeed, the terms of the so called peace with Turkey
if they are to last, will be a monument of human arrogance and man-made
injustice. To attempt to crush the spirit of a brave and gallant race, because
it has lost in the fortunes of war, is a triumph not of humanity but a
demonstration of inhumanity. And if Turkey enjoyed the closest ties of
friendship with Great Britain before the war, Great Britain has certainly made
ample reparation for her mistake by having made the largest contribution to the
humiliation of Turkey. It is insufferable therefore when the Viceroy feels
confident that with the conclusion of this new treaty that friendship will
quickly take life again and a Turkey regenerate full of hope and strength, will
stand forth in the future as in the past a pillar of the Islamic faith. The
Viceregal message audaciously concludes, “This thought will I trust strengthen
you to accept the peace terms with resignation, courage and fortitude and to
keep your loyalty towards the Crown bright and untarnished as it has been for
so many generations.” If Muslim loyalty remains untarnished it will certainly
not be for want of effort on the part of the Government of India to put the
heaviest strain upon it, but it will remain so because the Mahomedans realise
their own strength—the strength in the knowledge that their cause is just and
that they have got the power to vindicate justice in spite of the aberration
suffered by Great Britain under a Prime Minister whom continued power has made
as reckless in making promises as in breaking them.
</p>
<p>
Whilst therefore I admit that there is nothing either in the peace terms or in
the Viceregal message covering them to inspire the Mahomedans and Indians in
general with confidence or hope, I venture to suggest that there is no cause
for despair and anger. Now is the time for Mahomedans to retain absolute
self-control, to unite their forces and, weak though they are, with firm faith
in God to carry on the struggle with redoubled vigour till justice is done. If
India—both Hindu and Mahomedan—can act as one man and can withdraw her
partnership in this crime against humanity which the peace terms represent, she
will soon secure a revision of the treaty and give herself and the Empire at
least, if not the world, a lasting peace. There is no doubt that the struggle
would be bitter sharp and possibly prolonged, but it is worth all the sacrifice
that it is likely to call forth. Both the Mussalmans and the Hindus are on
their trial. Is the humiliation of the Khilafat a matter of concern to the
former? And if it is, are they prepared to exercise restraint, religiously
refrain from violence and practise non-co-operation without counting the
material loss it may entail upon the community? Do the Hindus honestly feel for
their Mahomedan brethren to the extent of sharing their sufferings to the
fullest extent? The answer to these questions and not the peace terms, will
finally decide the fate of the Khilafat.
</p>
<h3>MORE OBJECTIONS ANSWERED</h3>
<p>
<i>Swadeshmitran</i> is one of the most influential Tamil dailies of Madras. It
is widely read. Everything appearing in its columns is entitled to respect. The
Editor has suggested some practical difficulty in the way of non-co-operation.
I would therefore like, to the best of my ability, to deal with them.
</p>
<p>
I do not know where the information has been derived from that I have given up
the last two stages of non-co-operation. What I have said is that they are a
distant goal. I abide by it. I admit that all the stages are fraught with some
danger, but the last two are fraught with the greatest—the last most of all.
The stages have been fixed with a view to running the least possible risk. The
last two stages will not be taken up unless the committee has attained
sufficient control over the people to warrant the beliefs that the laying down
of arms or suspension of taxes will, humanly speaking, be free from an outbreak
of violence on the part of the people. I do entertain the belief that it is
possible for the people to attain the discipline necessary for taking the two
steps. When once they realise that violence is totally unnecessary to bend an
unwilling government to their will and that the result can be obtained with
certainty by dignified non-co-operation, they will cease to think of violence
even by way of retaliation. The fact is that hitherto we have not attempted to
take concerted and disciplined action from the masses. Some day, if we are to
become truly a self-governing nation, that attempt has to be made. The present,
in my opinion, is a propitious movement. Every Indian feels the insult to the
Punjab as a personal wrong, every Mussalman resents the wrong done to the
Khilafat. There is therefore a favourable atmosphere for expecting cohesive and
restrained movement on the part of the masses.
</p>
<p>
So far as response is concerned, I agree with the Editor that the quickest and
the largest response is to be expected in the matter of suspension of payment
of taxes, but as I have said so long as the masses are not educated to
appreciate the value of non-violence even whilst their holding are being sold,
so long must it be difficult to take up the last stage into any appreciable
extent.
</p>
<p>
I agree too that a sudden withdrawal of the military and the police will be a
disaster if we have not acquired the ability to protect ourselves against
robbers and thieves. But I suggest that when we are ready to call out the
military and the police on an extensive scale we would find ourselves in a
position to defend ourselves. If the police and the military resign from
patriotic motives, I would certainly expect them to perform the same duty as
national volunteers, not has hirelings but as willing protectors of the life
and liberty of their countrymen. The movement of non-co-operation is one of
automatic adjustment. If the Government schools are emptied, I would certainly
expect national schools to come into being. If the lawyers as a whole suspended
practice, they would devise arbitration courts and the nation will have
expeditions and cheaper method of setting private disputes and awarding
punishment to the wrong-doer. I may add that the Khilafat Committee is fully
alive to the difficulty of the task and is taking all the necessary steps to
meet the contingencies as they arise.
</p>
<p>
Regarding the leaving of civil employment, no danger is feared, because no one
will leave his employment, unless he is in a position to find support for
himself and family either through friends or otherwise.
</p>
<p>
Disapproval of the proposed withdrawal of students betrays, in my humble
opinion, lack of appreciation of the true nature of non-co-operation. It is
true enough that we pay the money wherewith our children are educated. But,
when the agency imparting the education has become corrupt, we may not employ
it without partaking of the agents, corruption. When students leave schools or
colleges I hardly imagine that the teachers will fail to perceive the
advisability of themselves resigning. But even if they do not, money can hardly
be allowed to count where honour or religion are at the stake.
</p>
<p>
As to the boycott of the councils, it is not the entry of the Moderates or any
other persons that matters so much as the entry of those who believe in
non-co-operation. You may not co-operate at the top and non-co-operate at the
bottom. A councillor cannot remain in the council and ask the <i>gumasta</i>
who cleans the council-table to resign.
</p>
<h3>MR. PENNINGTON’S OBJECTIONS ANSWERED</h3>
<p>
I gladly publish Mr. Pennington’s letter with its enclosure just as I have
received them. Evidently Mr. Pennington is not a regular reader of ‘Young
India,’ or he would have noticed that no one has condemned mob outrages more
than I have. He seems to think that the article he has objected to was the only
thing I have ever written on General Dyer. He does not seem to know that I have
endeavoured with the utmost impartiality to examine the Jallianwala massacre.
And he can see any day all the proof adduced by my fellow-commissioners and
myself in support of our findings on the massacre. The ordinary readers of
‘Young India’ knew all the facts and therefore it was unnecessary for me to
support my assertion otherwise. But unfortunately Mr. Pennington represents the
typical Englishman. He does not want to be unjust, nevertheless he is rarely
just in his appreciation of world events because he has no time to study them
except cursorily and that through a press whose business is to air only party
views. The average Englishman therefore except in parochial matters is perhaps
the least informed though he claims to be well-informed about every variety of
interest. Mr. Pennington’s ignorance is thus typical of the others and affords
the best reason for securing control of our own affairs in our own hands.
Ability will come with use and not by waiting to be trained by those whose
natural interest is to prolong the period of tutelage as much as possible.
</p>
<p>
But to return to Mr. Pennington’s letter he complains that there has been no
‘proper trial of any one.’ The fault is not ours. India has consistently and
insistently demanded a trial of all the officers concerned in the crimes
against the Punjab.
</p>
<p>
He next objects to be ‘violence’ of my language. If truth is violent, I plead
guilty to the charge of violence of language. But I could not, without doing
violence to truth, refrain from using the language, I have, regarding General
Dyer’s action. It has been proved out of his own mouth or hostile witnesses:
</p>
<p>
(1) That the crowd was unarmed.
</p>
<p>
(2) That it contained children.
</p>
<p>
(3) That the 13th was the day of Vaisakhi fair.
</p>
<p>
(4) That thousands had come to the fair.
</p>
<p>
(5) That there was no rebellion.
</p>
<p>
(6) That during the intervening two days before the ‘massacre’ there was peace
in Amritsar.
</p>
<p>
(7) That the proclamation of the meeting was made the same day as General
Dyer’s proclamation.
</p>
<p>
(8) That General Dyer’s proclamation prohibited not meetings but processions or
gatherings of four men on the streets and not in private or public places.
</p>
<p>
(9) That General Dyer ran no risk whether outside or inside the city.
</p>
<p>
(10) That he admitted himself that many in the crowd did not know anything of
his proclamation.
</p>
<p>
(11) That he fired without warning the crowd and even after it had begun to
disperse. He fired on the backs of the people who were in flight.
</p>
<p>
(12) That the men were practically penned in an enclosure.
</p>
<p>
In the face of these admitted facts I do call the deed a ‘massacre.’ The action
amounted not to ‘an error of judgment’ but its ‘paralysis in the face of
fancied danger.’
</p>
<p>
I am sorry to have to say that Mr. Pennington’s notes, which too the reader
will find published elsewhere, betray as much ignorance as his letter.
</p>
<p>
Whatever was adopted on paper in the days of Canning was certainly not
translated into action in its full sense. ‘Promises made to the ear were broken
to the hope,’ was said by a reactionary Viceroy. Military expenditure has grown
enormously since the days of Canning.
</p>
<p>
The demonstration in favour of General Dyer is practically a myth.
</p>
<p>
No trace was found of the so-called Danda Fauj dignified by the name of
bludgeon-army by Mr. Pennington. There was no rebel army in Amritsar. The crown
that committed the horrible murders and incendiarism contained no one community
exclusively. The sheet was found posted only in Lahore and not in Amritsar. Mr.
Pennington should moreover have known by this time that the meeting held on the
13th was held, among other things, for the purpose of condemning mob excesses.
This was brought out at the Amritsar trial. Those who surrounded him could not
stop General Dyer. He says he made up his mind to shoot in a moment. He
consulted nobody. When the correspondent says that the troops would have
objected to being concerned in ‘what might in that case be not unfairly called
a ‘massacre,’ he writes as if he had never lived in India. I wish the Indian
troops had the moral courage to refuse to shoot innocent, unarmed men in full
flight. But the Indian troops have been brought in too slavish an atmosphere to
dare do any such correct act.
</p>
<p>
I hope Mr. Pennington will not accuse me again of making unverified assertions
because I have not quoted from the books. The evidence is there for him to use.
I can only assure him that the assertions are based on positive proofs mostly
obtained from official sources.
</p>
<p>
Mr. Pennington wants me to publish an exact account of what happened on the
10th April. He can find it in the reports, and if he will patiently go through
them he will discover that Sir Michael O’Dwyer and his officials goaded the
people into frenzied fury—a fury which nobody, as I have already said, has
condemned more than I have. The account of the following days is summed up in
one word, <i>viz.</i> ‘peace’ on the part of the crowd disturbed by
indiscriminate arrests, the massacre and the series of official crimes that
followed.
</p>
<p>
I am prepared to give Mr. Pennington credit for seeking after the truth. But he
has gone about it in the wrong manner. I suggest his reading the evidence
before the Hunter Committee and the Congress Committee. He need not read the
reports. But the evidence will convince him that I have understated the case
against General Dyer.
</p>
<p>
When however I read his description of himself as “for 12 years Chief
Magistrate of Districts in the South of India before reform, by assassination
and otherwise, became so fashionable.” I despair of his being able to find the
truth. An angry or a biased man renders himself incapable of finding it. And
Mr. Pennington is evidently both angry and biased. What does he mean by saying,
“before reform by assassination and otherwise became so fashionable?” It ill
becomes him to talk of assassination when the school of assassination seems
happily to have become extinct. Englishmen will never see the truth so long as
they permit their vision to be blinded by arrogant assumption of superiority or
ignorant assumptions of infallibility.
</p>
<h3>MR. PENNINGTON’S LETTER TO MR. GANDHI</h3>
<p class="letter">
Dear Sir,
</p>
<p>
I do not like your scheme for “boycotting” the Government of India under what
seems to be the somewhat less offensive (though more cumbrous) name of
non-co-operation; but have always given you credit for a genuine desire to
carry out revolution by peaceful means and am astonished at the violence of the
language you use in describing General Dyer on page 4 of your issue of the 14th
July last. You begin by saying that he is “by no means the worst offender,”
and, so far, I am inclined to agree, though as there has been no proper trial
of anyone it is impossible to apportion their guilt; but then you say “his
brutality is unmistakable,” “his abject and unsoldierlike cowardice is
apparent, he has called an <i>unarmed crowd</i> of men and children—mostly
holiday makers—a rebel army.” “He believes himself to be the saviour of the
Punjab in that he was able to shoot down like rabbits men who were
<i>penned</i> in an enclosure; such a man is unworthy to be considered a
soldier. There was no bravery in his action. He ran no risk. He shot without
the slightest opposition and without warning. This is not an error of
judgement. It is paralysis of it in the face of <i>fancied</i> danger. It is
proof of criminal incapacity and heartlessness,” etc.
</p>
<p>
You must excuse me for saying that all this is mere rhetoric unsupported by any
proof, even where proof was possible. To begin with, neither you nor I were
present at the Jallianwalla Bagh on that dreadful day—dreadful especially for
General Dyer for whom you show no sympathy,—and therefore cannot know for
certain whether the crowd was or was not unarmed.’ That it was an ‘illegal,’
because a ‘prohibited,’ assembly is evident; for it is absurd to suppose that
General Dyer’s 4-1/2 hours march, through the city that very morning, during
the whole of which he was warning the inhabitants against the danger of any
sort of gathering, was not thoroughly well-known. You say they were ‘mostly
holiday makers,’ but you give nor proof; and the idea of holiday gathering in
Amritsar just then in incredible. I cannot understand your making such a
suggestion. General Dyer was not the only officer present on the occasion and
it is impossible to suppose that he would have been allowed to go on shooting
into an innocent body of holiday-makers. Even the troops would have refused to
carry out what might then have been not unfairly called a “massacre.”
</p>
<p>
I notice that you never even allude to the frightful brutality of the mob which
was immediately responsible for the punitive measure reluctantly adopted by
General Dyer. Your sympathies seem to be only with the murderers, and I am not
sanguine enough to suppose that my view of the case will have much influence
with you. Still I am bound to do what I can to get at the truth, and enclose a
copy of some notes I have had occasion to make. If you can publish an
<i>exact</i> account of what happened at Amritsar on the 10th of April, 1919
and the following days, especially on the 13th, including the demonstration in
favour of General Dyer, (if there was one), I for one, as a mere seeker after
the truth, should be very much obliged to you. Mere abuse is not convincing, as
you so often observe in your generally reasonable paper,
</p>
<p>
Yours faithfully, J. R. PENNINGTON, I.O.S. (Retd.) 35, VICTORIA ROAD, WORTHING,
SUSSEX 27th Aug. 1920.
</p>
<p>
For 12 years Chief Magistrate of Districts in the south of India before reform,
by assassination and otherwise, became so fashionable.
</p>
<p>
P.S. Let us get the case in this way. General Dyer, acting as the only
representative of Government on the spot shot some hundreds of people (some of
them <i>perhaps</i> innocently mixed up in an illegal assembly), in the <i>bona
fide</i> belief that he was dealing with the remains of a very dangerous
rebellion and was thereby saving the lives of very many thousands, and in the
opinion of a great many people did actually save the city from falling in the
hands of a dangerous mob.
</p>
<h3>SOME DOUBTS</h3>
<p>
Babu Janakdhari Prasad was a staunch coworker with me in Champaran. He has
written a long letter setting forth his reasons for his belief that India has a
great mission before her, and that she can achieve her purpose only by
non-violent non-co-operation. But he has doubts which he would have me answer
publicly. The letter being long, I am withholding. But the doubts are entitled
to respect and I must endeavour to answer them. Here they are us framed by Bubu
Janakdhari Prasad.
</p>
<p>
(a) Is not the non-co-operation movement creating a sort of race-hatred between
Englishmen and Indians, and is it in accordance with the Divine plan of
universal love and brotherhood?
</p>
<p>
(b) Does not the use of words “devilish,” “satanic,” etc., savour of
unbrotherly sentiment and incite feelings of hatred?
</p>
<p>
(c) Should not the non-co-operation movement be conducted on strictly
non-violent and non-emotional lines both in speech and action?
</p>
<p>
(d) Is there no danger of the movement going out of control and lending to
violence?
</p>
<p>
As to (a), I must say that the movement is not ‘creating’ race-hatred. It
certainly gives, as I have already said, disciplined expression to it. You
cannot eradicate evil by ignoring it. It is because I want to promote universal
brotherhood that I have taken up non-co-operation so that, by
self-purification, India may make the world better than it is.
</p>
<p>
As to (b), I know that the words ‘satanic’ and ‘devilish’ are strong, but they
relate the exact truth. They describe a system not persons: We are bound to
hate evil, if we would shun it. But by means of non-co-operation we are able to
distinguish between the evil and the evil-doer. I have found no difficulty in
describing a particular activity of a brother of mine to be devilish, but I am
not aware of having harboured any hatred about him. Non-co-operation teaches us
to love our fellowmen in spite of their faults, not by ignoring or over-looking
them.
</p>
<p>
As to (c), the movement is certainly being conducted on strictly non-violent
lines. That all non-co-operators have not yet thoroughly imbibed the doctrine
is true. But that just shows what an evil legacy we have inherited. Emotion
there is in the movement. And it will remain. A man without emotion is a man
without feeling.
</p>
<p>
As to (d), there certainly is danger of the movement becoming violent. But we
may no more drop non-violent non-co-operation because of its dangers, than we
may stop freedom because of the danger of its abuse.
</p>
<h3>REJOINDER</h3>
<p>
Messrs. Popley and Philips have been good enough to reply to my letter “To
Every Englishman in India.” I recognise and appreciate the friendly spirit of
their letter. But I see that there are fundamental differences which must for
the time being divide them and me. So long as I felt that, in spite of grievous
lapses the British Empire represented an activity for the worlds and India’s
good, I clung to it like a child to its mother’s breast. But that faith is
gone. The British nation has endorsed the Punjab and Khilsfat crimes. The is no
doubt a dissenting minority. But a dissenting minority that satisfies itself
with a mere expression of its opinion and continues to help the wrong-doer
partakes in wrong-doing.
</p>
<p>
And when the sum total of his energy represents a minus quantity one may not
pick out the plus quantities, hold them up for admiration, and ask an admiring
public to help regarding them. It is a favourite design of Satan to temper evil
with a show of good and thus lure the unwary into the trap. The only way the
world has known of defeating Satan is by shunning him. I invite Englishmen, who
could work out the ideal the believe in, to join the ranks of the
non-co-operationists. W.T. Stead prayed for the reverse of the British arms
during the Boer war. Miss Hobbhouse invited the Boers to keep up the fight. The
betrayal of India is much worse than the injustice done to the Boers. The Boers
fought and bled for their rights. When therefore, we are prepared to bleed, the
right will have become embodied, and idolatrous world will perceive it and do
homage to it.
</p>
<p>
But Messers. Popley and Phillips object that I have allied myself with those
who would draw the sword if they could. I see nothing wrong in it. They
represent the right no less than I do. And is it not worth while trying to
prevent an unsheathing of the sword by helping to win the bloodless battle?
Those who recognise the truth of the Indian position can only do God’s work by
assisting this non-violent campaign.
</p>
<p>
The second objection raised by these English friends is more to the point. I
would be guilty of wrong-doing myself if the Muslim cause was not just. The
fact is that the Muslim claim is not to perpetuate foreign domination of
non-Muslim or Turkish races. The Indian Mussalmans do not resist
self-determination, but they would fight to the last the nefarious plan of
exploiting Mesopotamia under the plea of self-determination. They must resist
the studied attempt to humiliate Turkey and therefore Islam, under the false
pretext of ensuring Armenian independence.
</p>
<p>
The third objection has reference to schools. I do object to missionary or any
schools being carried on with Government money. It is true that it was at one
time our money. Will these good missionaries be justified in educating me with
funds given to them by a robber who has robbed me of my money, religion and
honour because the money was originally mine.
</p>
<p>
I personally tolerated the financial robbery of India, but it would have been a
sin to have tolerated the robbery of honour through the Punjab, and of religion
through Turkey. This is strong language. But nothing less would truly describe
my deep conviction. Needless to add that the emptying of Government aided, or
affiliated, schools does not mean starving the young mind National Schools are
coming into being as fast as the others are emptied.
</p>
<p>
Messrs. Popley and Phillips think that my sense of justice has been blurred by
the knowledge of the Punjab and the Khilafat wrongs. I hope not. I have asked
friends to show me some good fruit (intended and deliberately produced) of the
British occupation of India. And I assure them that I shall make the amplest
amends if I find that I have erred in my eagerness about the Khilafat and the
Punjab wrongs.
</p>
<h3>TWO ENGLISHMEN REPLY</h3>
<p>
Dear Mr. Gandhi,
</p>
<p>
Thank you for your letter to every Englishman in India, with its hard-hitting
and its generous tone. Something within us responds to the note which you have
struck. We are not representatives of any corporate body, but we think that
millions of our countrymen in England, and not a few in India, feel as we do.
The reading of your letter convinces us that you and we cannot be real enemies.
</p>
<p>
May we say at once that in so far as the British Empire stands for the
domination and exploitation of other races for Britain’s benefit, for degrading
treatment of any, for traffic in intoxicating liquors, for repressive
legislation, for administration such as that which to the Amritsar incidents,
we desire the end of it as much as you do? We quite understand that in the
excitement of the present crisis, owing to certain acts of the British
Administration, which we join with you in condemning, the Empire presents
itself to you under this aspect along. But from personal contact with our
countrymen, we know that working like leaven in the midst of such tendencies,
as you and we deplore, is the faith in a better ideal—the ideal of a
commonwealth of free peoples voluntarily linked together by the ties of common
experience in the past and common aspirations for the future, a commonwealth
which may hope to spread liberty and progress through the whole earth. With
vast numbers of our countrymen we value the British Empire mainly as affording
the possibility of the realization of such an idea and on the ground give it
our loyal allegiance.
</p>
<p>
Meanwhile we do repent of that arrogant attitude to Indians which has been all
too common among our countrymen, we do hold Indians to be our brothers and
equals, many of them our superiors, and we would rather be servants than rulers
of India. We desire an administration which cannot he intimated either by the
selfish element in Anglo-Indian political opinion or by any other sectional
interest and which shall govern in accordance with the best democratic
principles. We should welcome the convening of a National assembly of
recognized leaders of the people, representing all shades of political opinion
of every caste, race and creed, to frame a constitution for Swaraj. In all the
things that matter most we are with you. Surely you and we can co-operate in
the service of India, in such matters for example as education. It seems to us
nothing short of a tragedy that you should be rallying Indian Patriotism to
inaugurate a new era of good will under a watchword that divides, instead of
uniting all.
</p>
<p>
We have spoken of the large amount of common ground upon which you and we can
stand. But frankness demands that we express our anxiety about some items in
your programme. Leaving aside smaller questions on which your letter seems to
us to do the British side less than justice, may we mention three main points?
Your insistence on spiritual forces alone we deeply respect and desire to
emulate, but we cannot understand your combining into it with a close alliance
with those who, as you frankly say, would draw the sword as soon as they could.
</p>
<p>
Your desire for an education truly national commands our whole-hearted
approval. But instead of Indianizing the present system, as you could begin to
do from the beginning of next year, or instead of creating a hundred
institutions such as that at Bolpur and turning into them the stream of India’s
young intellectual life, you appear to be turning that stream out of its
present channel into open sands where it may dry up. In other words, you seem
to us to be risking the complete cessation, for a period possibly, of years, of
all education, for a large number of boys and young men. Is it best, for those
young men or for India that the present imperfect education should cease before
a better education is ready to take its place?
</p>
<p>
Your desire to unite Mohammedan and Hindu and to share with your Mohammedan
brethren in seeking the satisfaction of Mohammedan aspirations, we can
understand and sympathize with. But is there no danger, in the course which
some of your party have urged upon the Government, that certain races in the
former Ottoman Empire might be fixed under a foreign yoke, for worse than that
which you hold the English yoke to be? You could not wish to purchase freedom
in India at the price of enslavement in the middle East.
</p>
<p>
To sum up, we thank you for the spirit of your letter, to which we have tried
to respond in the same spirit. We are with you in the desire for an India
genuinely free to develop the best that is in her and in the belief that best
is something wonderful of which the world to-day stands in need.
</p>
<p>
We are ready to co-operate with you and with every other man of any race or
nationality who will help India to realize her best. Are you going to insist
that you can have nothing to do with us if we receive a government grant (i.e.,
Indian money), for an Indian School. Surely some more inspiring battle cry than
non-co-operation can be discovered. We have ventured quite frankly to point out
three items in your present programme, which seem to us likely to hinder the
attainment of your true ideals for Indian greatness. But those ideals
themselves command our warm sympathy, and we desire to work, so far as we have
opportunity, for their attainment. In fact, it is only thus that we can
interpret our British citizenship.
</p>
<p>
Yours sincerely, (Sd.) H.A. POPLEY, (Sd.) G.E. PHILLIPS. Bangalore, November
15, 1920.
</p>
<h3>RENUNCIATION OF MEDALS</h3>
<p>
Mr. Gandhi has addressed the following letter to the Viceroy:—
</p>
<p>
It is not without a pang that I return the Kaisar-i-Hind gold medal granted to
me by your predecessor for my humanitarian work in South Africa, the Zulu war
medal granted in South Africa for my services as officer in charge of the
Indian volunteer ambulance corps in 1906 and the Boer war medal fur my services
as assistant superintendent of the Indian volunteer stretcher bearer corps
during the Boer war of 1899-1900. I venture to return these medals in pursuance
of the scheme of non-co-operation inaugurated to-day in connection with the
Khilafat movement. Valuable as those honours have been to me, I cannot wear
them with an easy conscience so long as my Mussalman countrymen have to labour
under a wrong done to their religious sentiment. Events that have happened
during the past month have confirmed me in the opinion that the Imperial
Government have acted in the Khilafat matter in an unscrupulous, immoral and
unjust manner and have been moving from wrong to wrong in order to defend their
immorality. I can retain neither respect nor affection for such a Government.
</p>
<p>
The attitude of the Imperial and Your Excellency’s Governments on the Punjab
question has given me additional cause for grave dissatisfaction. I had the
honour, as Your Excellency is aware, as one of the congress commissioners to
investigate the causes of the disorders in the Punjab during the April of 1919.
And it is my deliberate conviction that Sir Michael O’Dwyer was totally unfit
to hold the office of Lieutenant Governor of Punjab and that his policy was
primarily responsible for infuriating the mob at Amritsar. No doubt the mob
excesses were unpardonable; incendiarism, murder of five innocent Englishmen
and the cowardly assault on Miss Sherwood were most deplorable and uncalled
for. But the punitive measures taken by General Dyer, Col. Frank Johnson, Col.
O’Brien, Mr. Bosworth Smith, Rai Shri Ram Sud, Mr. Malik Khan and other
officers were out of all proportional to the crime of the people and amounted
to wanton cruelty and inhumanity and almost unparalleled in modern times. Your
excellency’s light-hearted treatment of the official crime, your, exoneration
of Sir Michael O’Dwyer, Mr. Montagu’s dispatch and above all the shameful
ignorance of the Punjab events and callous disregard of the feelings of Indians
betrayed by the House of Lords, have filled me with the gravest misgivings
regarding the future of the Empire, have estranged me completely from the
present Government and have disabled me from tendering, as I have hitherto
whole-heartedly tendered, my loyal co-operation.
</p>
<p>
In my humble opinion the ordinary method of agitating by way of petitions,
deputations and the like is no remedy for moving to repentence a Government so
hopelessly indifferent to the welfare of its charges as the Government of India
has proved to me. In European countries, condonation of such grievous wrongs as
the Khilafat and the Punjab would have resulted in a bloody revolution by the
people. They would have resisted at all costs national emasculation such as the
said wrongs imply. But half of India is to weak to offer violent resistance and
the other half is unwilling to do so.
</p>
<p>
I have therefore ventured to suggest the remedy of non-co-operation which
enables those who wish, to dissociate themselves from the Government and which,
if it is unattended by violence and undertaken in an ordered manner, must
compel it to retrace its steps and undo the wrongs committed. But whilst I
shall pursue the policy of non-co-operation in so far as I can carry the people
with me, I shall not lose hope that you will yet see your way to do justice. I
therefore respectfully ask Your Excellency to summon a conference of the
recognised leaders of the people and in consultation with them find a way that
would placate the Mussalmans and do reparation to the unhappy Punjab. <i>August
4, 1920.</i>
</p>
<h3>MAHATMA GANDHI’S LETTER TO H.R.H. THE DUKE OF CONNAUGHT</h3>
<p>
The following letter has been addressed by Mr. Gandhi to his Royal Highness the
Duke of Connaught;—
</p>
<p>
Sir,
</p>
<p>
Your Royal Highness must have heard a great deal about non-co-operation,
non-co-operationists and their methods and incidentally of me its humble
author. I fear that the information given to Your Royal Highness must have been
in its nature one-sided. I owe it to you and to my friends and myself that I
should place before you what I conceive to be the scope of non-co-operation as
followed not only be me but my closest associates such as Messrs. Shaukat Ali
and Mahomed Ali.
</p>
<p>
For me it is no joy and pleasure to be actively associated in the boycott of
your Royal Highness’ visit—I have tendered loyal and voluntary association to
the Government for an unbroken period of nearly 30 years in the full belief
that through that way lay the path of freedom for my country. It was therefore
no slight thing for me to suggest to my countrymen that we should take no part
in welcoming Your Royal Highness. Not one among us has anything against you as
an English gentleman. We hold your person as sacred as that of a dearest
friend. I do not know any of my friends who would not guard it with his life,
if he found it in danger. We are not at war with individual Englishmen we seek
not to destroy English life. We do desire to destroy a system that has
emasculated our country in body, mind and soul. We are determined to battle
with all our might against that in the English nature which has made O’Dwyerism
and Dyerism possible in the Punjab and has resulted in a wanton affront upon
Islam a faith professed by seven crores of our countrymen. The affront has been
put in breach of the letter and the spirit of the solemn declaration of the
Prime Minister. We consider it to be inconsistent with our self respect any
longer to brook the spirit of superiority and dominance which has
systematically ignored and disregarded the sentiments of thirty crores of the
innocent people of India on many a vital matter. It is humiliating to us, it
cannot be a matter of pride to you, that thirty crores of Indians should live
day in and day out in the fear of their lives from one hundred thousand
Englishmen and therefore be under subjection to them.
</p>
<p>
Your Royal Highness has come not to end the system I have described but to
sustain it by upholding its prestige. Your first pronouncement was a laudation
of Lord Wellingdon. I have the privilege of knowing him. I believe him to be an
honest and amiable gentleman who will not willingly hurt even a fly. But, he
has certainly failed as a ruler. He allowed himself to be guided by those whose
interest it was to support their power. He is reading the mind of the Dravidian
province. Here in Bengal you are issuing a certificate of merit to a Governor
who is again from all I have heard an estimable gentleman. But he knows nothing
of the heart of Bengal and its yearnings. Bengal is not Calcutta. Fort William
and the palaces of Calcutta represent an insolent exploitation of the
unmurmuring and highly cultured peasantry of this fair province.
Non-co-operationists have come to the conclusion that they must not be deceived
by the reforms that tinker with the problem of India’s distress and
humiliation. Nor must they be impatient and angry. We must not in our impatient
anger resort, to stupid violence. We freely admit that we must take our due
share of the blame for the existing state. It is not so much the British guns
that are responsible fur our subjection, as our voluntary co-operation. Our
non-participation in a hearty welcome to your Royal Highness is thus in no
sense a demonstration against your high personage but it is against the system
you have come to uphold. I know that individual Englishmen cannot even if they
will alter the English nature all of a sudden. If we would be equals of
Englishmen we must cast off fear. We must learn to be self-reliant and
independent of the schools, courts, protection, and patronage of a Government,
we seek to end, if it will not mend. Hence this non-violent non-co-operation. I
know that we have not all yet become non-violent in speech and deed. But the
results so far achieved have I assure Your Royal Highness, been amazing. The
people have understood the secret and the value of non-violence as they have
never done before. He who runs may see that this a religious, purifying
movement. We are leaving off drink, we are trying to rid India of the curse of
untouchability. We are trying to throw off foreign tinsel splendour and by
reverting to the spinning wheel reviving the ancient and the poetic simplicity
of life. We hope thereby to sterilize the existing harmful institution. I ask
Your Royal Highness as an Englishman to study this movement and its
possibilities for the Empire and the world. We are at war with nothing that is
good in the world. In protecting Islam in the manner we are, we are protecting
all religions. In protecting the honour of India we are protecting the honour
of humanity. For our means are hurtful to none. We desire to live on terms of
friendship with Englishmen but that friendship must be friendship of equals in
both theory and practice. And we must continue to non-co-operate, i.e. to
purify ourselves till the goal is achieved.
</p>
<p>
I ask Your Royal Highness and through you every Englishman to appreciate the
view-point of the non-co-operationists.
</p>
<p>
I beg to remain, Your Royal Highness’s faithful servant, (Sd.) M.K. GANDHI.
<i>February</i>, 1921
</p>
<h3>THE GREATEST THING</h3>
<p>
It is to be wished that non-co-operationists will clearly recognise that
nothing can stop the onward march of the nation as violence. Ireland may gain
its freedom by violence. Turkey may regain her lost possessions by violence
within measurable distance of time. But India cannot win her freedom by
violence for a century, because her people are not built in the manner of other
nations. They have been nurtured in the traditions of suffering. Rightly or
wrongly, for good or ill, Islam too has evolved along peaceful lines in India.
And I make bold to say that, if the honour of Islam is to be vindicated through
its followers in India, it will only be by methods of peaceful, silent,
dignified, conscious, and courageous suffering. The more I study that wonderful
faith, the more convinced I become that the glory of Islam is due not to the
sword but to the sufferings, the renunciation, and the nobility of its early
Caliphs. Islam decayed when its followers, mistaking the evil for the good,
dangled the sword in the face of man, and lost sight of the godliness, the
humility, and austerity of its founder and his disciples. But, I am not at the
present moment, concerned with showing that the basis of Islam, as of all
religions, is not violence but suffering not the taking of life but the giving
of it.
</p>
<p>
What I am anxious to show is that non-co-operationists must be true as well to
the spirit as to the letter of their vow if they would gain Swaraj within one
year. They may forget non-co-operation but they dare not forget non-violence.
Indeed, non-co-operation is non-violence. We are violent when we sustain a
government whose creed is violence. It bases itself finally not on right but on
might. Its last appeal is not to reason, nor the heart, but to the sword. We
are tired of this creed and we have risen against it. Let us not ourselves
belie our profession by being violent. Though the English are very few, they
are organised for violence. Though we are many we cannot be organised for
violence for a long time to come. Violence for us is a gospel or despair.
</p>
<p>
I have seen a pathetic letter from a god-fearing English woman who defends
Dyerism for she thinks that, if General Dyer had not enacted Jallianwala, women
and children would have been murdered by us. If we are such brutes as to desire
the blood of innocent women and children, we deserve to be blotted out from the
face of the earth. There is the other side. It did not strike this good lady
that, if we were friends, the price that her countrymen paid at Jallianwala for
buying their safety was too great. They gained their safety at the cost of
their humanity. General Dyer has been haltingly blamed, and his evil genius Sir
Michael O’Dwyer entirely exonerated because Englishmen do not want to leave
this country of fields even if everyone of us has to be killed. If we go mad
again as we did at Amritsar, let there be no mistake that a blacker Jallianwala
will be enacted.
</p>
<p>
Shall we copy Dyerism and O’Dwyerism even whilst we are condemning it? Let not
our rock be violence and devilry. Our rock must be non-violence and godliness.
Let us, workers, be clear as to what we are about. <i>Swaraj depends upon our
ability to control all the forces of violence on our side.</i> Therefore there
is no Swaraj within one year, if there is violence on the part of the people.
</p>
<p>
We must then refrain from sitting <i>dhurna</i>, we must refrain from crying
‘shame, shame’ to anybody, we must not use any coercion to persuade our people
to adopt our way. We must guarantee to them the same freedom we claim for
ourselves. We must not tamper with the masses. It is dangerous to make
political use of factory labourers or the peasantry—not that we are not
entitled to do so, but we are not ready for it. We have neglected their
political (as distinguished from literary) education all these long years. We
have not got enough honest, intelligent, reliable, and brave workers to enable
us to act upon these countrymen of ours.
</p>
<hr />
</div><!--end chapter-->
<div class="chapter">
<h2><a name="chap09"></a>IX. MAHATMA GANDHI’S STATEMENT</h2>
<p>
[The following is the Statement of Mahatma Gandhi made before the Court during
his Trial in Ahmedabad on the 18th March 1921.]
</p>
<p>
Before reading his written statement Mahatma Gandhi spoke a few words as
introductory remarks to the whole statement. He said: Before I read this
statement, I would like to state that I entirely endorse the learned
Advocate-General’s remarks in connection with my humble self. I think that he
was entirely fair to me in all the statements that he has made, because it is
very true and I have no desire whatsoever to conceal from this Court the fact
that to preach disaffection towards the existing system of Government has
become almost a passion with me. And the learned Advocate-General is also
entirely in the right when he says that my preaching of disaffection did not
commence with my connection with “Young India” but that it commenced much
earlier and in the statement that I am about to read it will be my painful duty
to admit before this Court that it commenced much earlier than the period
stated by the Advocate-General. It is the most painful duty with me but I have
to discharge that duty knowing the responsibility that rested upon my
shoulders. And I wish to endorse all the blame that the Advocate-General has
thrown on my shoulders in connection with the Bombay occurrence, Madras
occurrences, and the Chouri Choura occurrences thinking over these things
deeply, and sleeping over them night after night and examining my heart I have
come to the conclusion that it is impossible for me to dissociate myself from
the diabolical crimes of Chouri Choura or the mad outrages of Bombay. He is
quite right when he says that as a man of responsibility, a man having received
a fair share of education, having had a fair share of experience of this world,
I should know them. I knew that I was playing with fire. I ran the risk and if
I was set free I would still do the same. I would be failing in my duty if I do
not do so. I have felt it this morning that I would have failed in my duty if I
did not say all what I said here just now. I wanted to avoid violence.
Non-violence is the first article of my faith. It is the last article of my
faith. But I had to make my choice. I had either to submit to a system which I
considered has done an irreparable harm to my country or incur the risk of the
mad fury of my people bursting forth when they understood the truth from my
lips. I know that my people have sometimes gone mad. I am deeply sorry for it;
and I am, therefore, here to submit not to a light penalty but to the highest
penalty. I do not ask for mercy. I do not plead any extenuating act. I am here,
therefore, to invite and submit to the highest penalty that can be inflicted
upon me for what in law is a deliberate crime and what appears to me to be the
highest duty of a citizen. The only course open to you, Mr. Judge, is, as I am
just going to say in my statement, either to resign your post or inflict on me
the severest penalty if you believe that the system and law you are assisting
to administer are good for the people. I do not expect that kind of conversion.
But by the time I have finished with my statement you will, perhaps, have a
glimpse of what is raging within my breast to run this maddest risk which a
sane man can run.
</p>
<p>
WRITTEN STATEMENT
</p>
<p>
I owe it perhaps to the Indian public and to the public in England to placate
which this prosecution is mainly taken up that I should explain why from a
staunch loyalist and co-operator I have become an uncompromising
disaffectionist and non-co-operator. To the Court too I should say why I plead
guilty to the charge of promoting disaffection towards the Government
established by law in India. My public life began in 1893 in South Africa in
troubled weather. My first contact with British authority in that country was
not of a happy character. I discovered that as a man and as an Indian I had no
rights. On the contrary I discovered that I had no rights as a man because I
was an Indian.
</p>
<p>
But I was not baffled. I thought that this treatment of Indians was an
excrescence upon a system that was intrinsically and mainly good. I gave the
Government my voluntary and hearty co-operation, criticising it fully where I
felt it was faulty but never wishing its destruction.
</p>
<p>
Consequently when the existence of the Empire was threatened in 1899 by the
Boer challenge, I offered my services to it, raised a volunteer ambulance corps
and served at several actions that took place for the relief of Ladysmith.
Similarly in 1906 at the time of the Zulu revolt I raised a stretcher-bearer
party and served till the end of the ‘rebellion’. On both these occasions I
received medals and was even mentioned in despatches. For my work in South
Africa I was given by Lord Hardinge a Kaiser-i-Hind Gold Medal. When the war
broke out in 1914 between England and Germany I raised a volunteer ambulance
corps in London consisting of the then resident Indians in London, chiefly
students. Its work was acknowledged by the authorities to be valuable. Lastly
in India when a special appeal was made at the War Conference in Delhi in 1917
by Lord Chelmsford for recruits, I struggled at the cost of my health to raise
a corps in Kheda and the response was being made when the hostilities ceased
and orders were received that no more recruits were wanted. In all those
efforts at service I was actuated by the belief that it was possible by such
services to gain a status of full equality in the Empire for my countrymen.
</p>
<p>
The first shock came in the shape of the Rowlalt Act a law designed to rob the
people of all real freedom. I felt called upon to lead an intensive agitation
against it. Then followed the Punjab horrors beginning with the massacre at
Jallianwala Bagh and culminating in brawling orders, public floggings and other
indescribable humiliations, I discovered too that the plighted word of the
Prime Minister to the Mussalmans of India regarding the integrity of Turkey and
the holy places of Islam was not likely to be fulfilled. But in spite of the
foreboding and the grave warnings of friends, at the Amritsar Congress in 1919
I fought for co-operation and working the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, hoping
that the Prime Minister would redeem his promise to the Indian Mussalmans, that
the Punjab wound would be healed and that the reforms inadequate and
unsatisfactory though they were, marked a new era of hope in the life of India.
But all that hope was shattered. The Khilafat promise was not to be redeemed.
The Punjab crime was white-washed and most culprits went not only unpunished
but remained in service and some continued to draw pensions from the Indian
revenue, and in some cases were even rewarded. I saw too that not only did the
reforms not mark a change of heart, but they were only a method of further
draining India of her wealth and of prolonging her servitude.
</p>
<p>
I came reluctantly to the conclusion that the British connection had made India
more helpless than she ever was before, politically and economically. A
disarmed India has no power of resistance against any aggressor if she wanted
to engage in an armed conflict with him. So much is this the case that some of
our best men consider that India must take generations before she can achieve
the Dominion status. She has become so poor that she has little power of
resisting famines. Before the British advent India spun and wove in her
millions of cottages just the supplement she needed for adding to her meagre
agricultural resources. The cottage industry, so vital for India’s existence,
has been ruined by incredibly heartless and inhuman processes as described by
English witnesses. Little do town-dwellers know how the semi-starved masses of
Indians are slowly sinking to lifelessness. Little do they know that their
miserable comfort represents the brokerage they get for the work they do for
the foreign exploiter, that the profits and the brokerage are sucked from the
masses. Little do they realise that the Government established by law in
British India is carried on for this exploitation of the masses. No sophistry,
no jugglery in figures can explain away the evidence the skeletons in many
villages present to the naked eye. I have no doubt whatsoever that both England
and the town dwellers of India will have to answer, if there is a God above,
for this crime against humanity which is perhaps unequalled in history. The law
itself in this country has been used to serve the foreign exploiter. My
unbiased, examination of the Punjab Martial Law cases had led me to believe
that at least ninety-five per cent. of convictions were wholly bad. My
experience of political cases in India leads me to the conclusion that in nine
out of every ten the condemned men were totally innocent. Their crime consisted
in love of their country. In ninety-nine cases out of hundred justice has been
denied to Indians as against Europeans in the Court of India. This is not an
exaggerated picture. It is the experience of almost every Indian who has had
anything to do such cases. In my opinion the administration of the law is thus
prostituted consciously or unconsciously for the benefit of the exploiter. The
greatest misfortune is that Englishmen and their Indian associates in the
administration of the country do not know that they are engaged in the crime I
have attempted to describe. I am satisfied that many English and Indian
officials honestly believe that they are administering one of the best systems
devised in the world and that India is making steady though slow progress. They
do not know that a subtle but effective system of terrorism and an organised
display of force on the one hand and the deprivation of all powers of
retaliation of self-defence on the other have emasculated the people and
induced in them the habit of simulation. This awful habit has added to the
ignorance and the self-deception of the administrators. Section 124-A under
which I am happily charged is perhaps the prince among the political sections
of the Indian Penal Code designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen.
Affection cannot be manufactured or regulated by law. If one has no affection
for a person or thing one should be free to give the fullest expression to his
disaffection so long as he does not contemplate, promote or incite to violence.
But the section under which mere promotion of disaffection is a crime. I have
studied some of the cases tried under it, and I know that some of the most
loved of India’s patriots have been convicted under it. I consider it a
privilege therefore, to be charged under it. I have endeavoured to give in
their briefest outline the reasons for my disaffection. I have no personal
ill-will against any single administrator, much less can I have any
disaffection towards the King’s person. But I hold it to be a virtue to be
disaffected towards a Government which in its totality has done more harm to
India than any previous system. India is less manly under the British rule than
she ever was before. Holding such a belief, I consider it to be a sin to have
affection for the system. And it has been a precious privilege for me to be
able to write what I have in the various articles tendered in evidence against
me.
</p>
<p>
In fact I believe that I have rendered a service to India and England by
showing in non-co-operation the way out of the unnatural state in which both
are living. In my humble opinion, non-co-operation with evil is as much a duty
as is co-operation with good. But in the past, non-co-operation has been
deliberately expressed in violence to the evil doer. I am endeavouring to show
to my countrymen that violent non-co-operation only multiplies evil and that as
evil can only be sustained by violence, withdrawal of support of evil requires
complete abstention from violence. Non-violent implies voluntary submission to
the penalty for non-co-operation with evil. I am here, therefore, to invite and
submit cheerfully to the highest penalty that can he inflicted upon me for what
in law is a deliberate crime and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a
citizen. The only course open to you, the Judge and the Assessors, is either to
resign your posts and thus dissociate yourselves from evil if you feel that the
law you are called upon to administer is an evil and that in reality I am
innocent, or to inflict on me the severest penalty if you believe that the
system and the law you are assisting to administer are good for the people of
this country and that my activity is therefore injurious to the public weal.
</p>
<p>
M. K. GHANDI.
</p>
</div><!--end chapter-->
<div>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 10366 ***</div>
</body>
</html>
|
