{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_10366/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_10366","id":"gutenberg_10366","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/10366","summary":null,"tags":["British -- India","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Politics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Children's History","India -- Politics and government -- 1919-1947","Nonviolence"],"text":"[Transcriber's Note: The inconsistent spelling of the original has been\npreserved in this etext.]\n\nFREEDOM'S BATTLE\n\nBEING A COMPREHENSIVE COLLECTION OF WRITINGS AND SPEECHES ON THE PRESENT\nSITUATION\n\nBY MAHATMA GANDHI\n\nSecond Edition\n\n1922\n\nThe Publishers express their indebtedness to the Editor and Publisher\nof the \"Young India\" for allowing the free use of the articles\nappeared in that journal under the name of Mahatma Gandhi, and also to\nMr. C. Rajagopalachar for the valuable introduction and help rendered in\nbringing out the book.\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nI. INTRODUCTION\n\nII. THE KHILAFAT\n\n  Why I have joined the Khilafat Movement\n\n  The Turkish Treaty\n\n  Turkish Peace Terms\n\n  The Suzerainty over Arabia\n\n  Further Questions Answered\n\n  Mr. Candler's Open Letter\n\n  In process of keeping\n\n  Appeal to the Viceroy\n\n  The Premier's reply\n\n  The Muslim Representation\n\n  Criticism of the Manifesto\n\n  The Mahomedan Decision\n\n  Mr. Andrew's Difficulty\n\n  The Khilafat Agitation\n\n  Hijarat and its Meaning\n\nIII. THE PUNJAB WRONGS\n\n  Political Freemasonry\n\n  The Duty of the Punjabec\n\n  General Dyer\n\n  The Punjab Sentences\n\nIV. SWARAJ\n\n  Swaraj in one year\n\n  British Rule an evil\n\n  A movement of purification\n\n  Why was India lost\n\n  Swaraj my ideal\n\n  On the wrong track\n\n  The Congress Constitution\n\n  Swaraj in nine months\n\n  The Attainment of Swaraj\n\nV. HINDU MOSLEM UNITY\n\n  The Hindus and the Mahomedans\n\n  Hindu Mahomedan unity\n\n  Hindu Muslim unity\n\nVI. TREATMENT OF THE DEPRESSED CLASSES\n\n  Depressed Classes\n\n  Amelioration of the depressed classes\n\n  The Sin of Untouchability\n\nVII. TREATMENT OF INDIANS ABROAD\n\n  Indians abroad\n\n  Indians overseas\n\n  Pariahs of the Empire\n\nVIII. NON-CO-OPERATION\n\n  Non-co-operation\n\n  Mr. Montagu on the Khilafat Agitation\n\n  At the call of the country\n\n  Non-co-operation explained\n\n  Religious Authority for non-co-operation\n\n  The inwardness of non-co-operation\n\n  A missionary on non-co-operation\n\n  How to work non-co-operation\n\n  Speech at Madras\n\n      \"     Trichinopoly\n\n      \"     Calicut\n\n      \"     Mangalore\n\n      \"     Bexwada\n\n  The Congress\n\n  Who is disloyal\n\n  Crusade against non-co-operation\n\n  Speech at Muxafarbail\n\n  Ridicule replacing Repression\n\n  The Viceregal pronouncement\n\n  From Ridicule to--?\n\n  To every Englishman In India\n\n  One step enough for me\n\n  The need for humility\n\n  Some Questions Answered\n\n  Pledges broken\n\n  More Objections answered\n\n  Mr. Pennington's Objections Answered\n\n  Some doubts\n\n  Rejoinder\n\n  Two Englishmen Reply\n\n  Letter to the Viceroy--Renunciation of Medals\n\n  Letter to H.R.H. The Duke of Connaught\n\n  The Greatest thing\n\n  Mahatma Gandhi's Statement\n\nIX. WRITTEN STATEMENT\n\nIndex\n\n\n\n\n\nI. INTRODUCTION\n\nAfter the great war it is difficult, to point out a single nation that\nis happy; but this has come out of the war, that there is not a single\nnation outside India, that is not either free or striving to be free.\n\nIt is said that we, too, are on the road to freedom, that it is better\nto be on the certain though slow course of gradual unfoldment of freedom\nthan to take the troubled and dangerous path of revolution whether\npeaceful or violent, and that the new Reforms are a half-way house\nto freedom.\n\nThe new constitution granted to India keeps all the military forces,\nboth in the direction and in the financial control, entirely outside the\nscope of responsibility to the people of India. What does this mean? It\nmeans that the revenues of India are spent away on what the nation does\nnot want. But after the mid-Eastern complications and the fresh Asiatic\nadditions to British Imperial spheres of action. This Indian military\nservitude is a clear danger to national interests.\n\nThe new constitution gives no scope for retrenchment and therefore no\nscope for measures of social reform except by fresh taxation, the heavy\nburden of which on the poor will outweigh all the advantages of any\nreforms. It maintains all the existing foreign services, and the cost of\nthe administrative machinery high as it already is, is further\nincreased.\n\nThe reformed constitution keeps all the fundamental liberties of person,\nproperty, press, and association completely under bureaucratic control.\nAll those laws which give to the irresponsible officers of the Executive\nGovernment of India absolute powers to override the popular will, are\nstill unrepealed. In spite of the tragic price paid in the Punjab for\ndemonstrating the danger of unrestrained power in the hands of a foreign\nbureaucracy and the inhumanity of spirit by which tyranny in a panic\nwill seek to save itself, we stand just where we were before, at the\nmercy of the Executive in respect of all our fundamental liberties.\n\nNot only is Despotism intact in the Law, but unparalleled crimes and\ncruelties against the people have been encouraged and even after\nboastful admissions and clearest proofs, left unpunished. The spirit of\nunrepentant cruelty has thus been allowed to permeate the whole\nadministration.\n\n\nTHE MUSSALMAN AGONY\n\nTo understand our present condition it is not enough to realise the\ngeneral political servitude. We should add to it the reality and the\nextent of the injury inflicted by Britain on Islam, and thereby on the\nMussalmans of India. The articles of Islamic faith which it is necessary\nto understand in order to realise why Mussalman India, which was once so\nloyal is now so strongly moved to the contrary are easily set out and\nunderstood. Every religion should be interpreted by the professors of\nthat religion. The sentiments and religious ideas of Muslims founded on\nthe traditions of long generations cannot be altered now by logic or\ncosmopolitanism, as others understand it. Such an attempt is the more\nunreasonable when it is made not even as a bonafide and independent\neffort of proselytising logic or reason, but only to justify a treaty\nentered into for political and worldly purposes.\n\nThe Khalifa is the authority that is entrusted with the duty of\ndefending Islam. He is the successor to Muhammad and the agent of God on\nearth. According to Islamic tradition he must possess sufficient\ntemporal power effectively to protect Islam against non-Islamic powers\nand he should be one elected or accepted by the Mussalman world.\n\nThe Jazirat-ul-Arab is the area bounded by the Red Sea, the Arabian Sea,\nthe Persian Gulf, and the waters of the Tigris and the Euphrates. It is\nthe sacred Home of Islam and the centre towards which Islam throughout\nthe world turns in prayer. According to the religious injunctions of the\nMussalmans, this entire area should always be under Muslim control, its\nscientific border being believed to be a protection for the integrity of\nIslamic life and faith. Every Mussalman throughout the world is enjoined\nto sacrifice his all, if necessary, for preserving the Jazirat-ul-Arab\nunder complete Muslim control.\n\nThe sacred places of Islam should be in the possession of the Khalifa.\nThey should not merely be free for the entry of the Mussalmans of the\nworld by the grace or the license of non-Muslim powers, but should be\nthe possession and property of Islam in the fullest degree.\n\nIt is a religions obligation, on every Mussalman to go forth and help\nthe Khalifa in every possible way where his unaided efforts in the\ndefence of the Khilifat have failed.\n\nThe grievance of the Indian Mussalmans is that a government that\npretends to protect and spread peace and happiness among them has no\nright to ignore or set aside these articles of their cherished faith.\n\nAccording to the Peace Treaty imposed on the nominal Government at\nConstantinople, the Khalifa far from having the temporal authority or\npower needed to protect Islam, is a prisoner in his own city. He is to\nhave no real fighting force, army or navy, and the financial control\nover his own territories is vested in other Governments. His capital is\ncut off from the rest of his possessions by an intervening permanent\nmilitary occupation. It is needless to say that under these conditions\nhe is absolutely incapable of protecting Islam as the Mussulmans of the\nworld understand it.\n\nThe Jazirat-ul-Arab is split up; a great part of it given to powerful\nnon-Muslim Powers, the remnant left with petty chiefs dominated all\nround by non-Muslim Governments.\n\nThe Holy places of Islam are all taken out of the Khalifa's kingdom,\nsome left in the possession of minor Muslim chiefs of Arabia entirely\ndependent on European control, and some relegated to newly-formed\nnon-Muslim states.\n\nIn a word, the Mussalman's free choice of a Khalifa such as Islamic\ntradition defines is made an unreality.\n\n\nTHE HINDU DHARMA\n\nThe age of misunderstanding and mutual warfare among religions is gone.\nIf India has a mission of its own to the world, it is to establish the\nunity and the truth of all religions. This unity is established by\nmutual help and understanding between the various religions. It has come\nas a rare privilege to the Hindus in the fulfilment of this mission of\nIndia to stand up in defence of Islam against the onslaught of the\nearth-greed of the military powers of the west.\n\nThe Dharma of Hinduism in this respect is placed beyond all doubt by the\nBhagavat Gita.\n\nThose who are the votaries of other Gods and worship them with\nfaith--even they, O Kaunteya, worship me alone, though not as the\nShastra requires--IX, 23.\n\nWhoever being devoted wishes in perfect faith to worship a particular\nform, of such a one I maintain the same faith unshaken,--VII 21.\n\nHinduism will realise its fullest beauty when in the fulfilment of this\ncardinal tenet, its followers offer themselves as sacrifice for the\nprotection of the faith of their brothers, the Mussalmans.\n\nIf Hindus and Mussalmans attain the height of courage and sacrifice that\nis needed for this battle on behalf of Islam against the greed of the\nWest, a victory will be won not alone for Islam, but for Christianity\nitself. Militarism has robbed the crucified God of his name and his very\ncross and the World has been mistaking it to be Christianity. After the\nbattle of Islam is won, Islam and Hinduism together can emancipate\nChristianity itself from the lust for power and wealth which have\nstrangled it now and the true Christianity of the Gospels will be\nestablished. This battle of non-cooperation with its suffering and\npeaceful withdrawal of service will once for all establish its\nsuperiority over the power of brute force and unlimited slaughter.\n\nWhat a glorious privilege it is to play our part in this history of the\nworld, when Hinduism and Christianity will unite on behalf of Islam, and\nin that strife of mutual love and support each religion will attain its\nown truest shape and beauty.\n\n\nAN ENDURING TREATY\n\nSwaraj for India has two great problems, one internal and the other\nexternal. How can Hindus and Mussalmans so different from each other\nform a strong and united nation governing themselves peacefully? This\nwas the question for years, and no one could believe that the two\ncommunities could suffer for each other till the miracle was actually\nworked. The Khilafat has solved the problem. By the magic of suffering,\neach has truly touched and captured the other's heart, and the Nation\nnow is strong and united.\n\nNot internal strength and unity alone has the Khilafat brought to India.\nThe great block in the way of Indian aspiration for full freedom was\nthe problem of external defence. How is India, left to herself defend\nher frontiers against her Mussalman neighbours? None but emasculated\nnations would accept such difficulties and responsibilities as an answer\nto the demand for freedom. It is only a people whose mentality has been\nperverted that can soothe itself with the domination by one race from a\ndistant country, as a preventative against the aggression of another, a\npermanent and natural neighbour. Instead of developing strength to\nprotect ourselves against those near whom we are permanently placed, a\nfeeling of incurable impotence has been generated. Two strong and brave\nnations can live side by side, strengthening each other through\nenforcing constant vigilance, and maintain in full vigour each its own\nnational strength, unity, patriotism and resources. If a nation wishes\nto be respected by its neighbours it has to develop and enter into\nhonourable treaties. These are the only natural conditions of national\nliberty; but not a surrender to distant military powers to save oneself\nfrom one's neighbours.\n\nThe Khilafat has solved the problem of distrust of Asiatic neighbours\nout of our future. The Indian struggle for the freedom of Islam has\nbrought about a more lasting _entente_ and a more binding treaty between\nthe people of India and the people of the Mussalman states around it\nthan all the ententes and treaties among the Governments of Europe. No\nwars of aggression are possible where the common people on the two sides\nhave become grateful friends. The faith of the Mussulman is a better\nsanction than the seal of the European Diplomats and plenipotentiaries.\nNot only has this great friendship between India and the Mussulman\nStates around it removed for all time the fear of Mussulman aggression\nfrom outside, but it has erected round India, a solid wall of defence\nagainst all aggression from beyond against all greed from Europe, Russia\nor elsewhere. No secret diplomacy could establish a better _entente_ or\na stronger federation than what this open and non-governmental treaty\nbetween Islam and India has established. The Indian support of the\nKhilafat has, as if by a magic wand, converted what Was once the\nPan-Islamic terror for Europe into a solid wall of friendship and\ndefence for India.\n\n\nTHE BRITISH CONNECTION\n\nEvery nation like every individual is born free. Absolute freedom is the\nbirthright of every people. The only limitations are those which a\npeople may place over themselves. The British connection is invaluable\nas long as it is a defence against any worse connection sought to be\nimposed by violence. But it is only a means to an end, not a mandate of\nProvidence of Nature. The alliance of neighbours, born of suffering for\neach other's sake, for ends that purify those that suffer, is\nnecessarily a more natural and more enduring bond than one that has\nresulted from pure greed on the one side and weakness on the other.\nWhere such a natural and enduring alliance has been accomplished among\nAsiatic peoples and not only between the respective governments, it may\ntruly be felt to be more valuable than the British connection itself,\nafter that connection has denied freedom or equality, and even justice.\n\n\nTHE ALTERNATIVE\n\nIs violence or total surrender the only choice open to any people to\nwhom Freedom or Justice is denied? Violence at a time when the whole\nworld has learnt from bitter experience the futility of violence is\nunworthy of a country whose ancient people's privilege, it was, to see\nthis truth long ago.\n\nViolence may rid a nation of its foreign masters but will only enslave\nit from inside. No nation can really be free which is at the mercy of\nits army and its military heroes. If a people rely for freedom on its\nsoldiers, the soldiers will rule the country, not the people. Till the\nrecent awakening of the workers of Europe, this was the only freedom\nwhich the powers of Europe really enjoyed. True freedom can exist only\nwhen those who produce, not those who destroy or know only to live on\nother's labour, are the masters.\n\nEven were violence the true road to freedom, is violence possible to a\nnation which has been emasculated and deprived of all weapons, and the\nwhole world is hopelessly in advance of all our possibilities in the\nmanufacture and the wielding of weapons of destruction.\n\nSubmission or withdrawal of co-operation is the real and only\nalternative before India. Submission to injustice puts on the tempting\ngarb of peace and, gradual progress, but there is no surer way to death\nthan submission to wrong.\n\n\nTHE FIFTH UPAYA\n\nOur ancients classified the arts of conquest into four well-known\n_Upayas_. Sama, Dana, Uheda, and Danda. A fifth Upuya was recognised\nsometimes by our ancients, which they called _Upeshka_. It is this\n_Punchamopaya_ that is placed by Mahatma Gandhi before the people of\nIndia in the form of Non-cooperation as an alternative, besides\nviolence, to surrender.\n\nWhere in any case negotiations have failed and the enemy is neither\ncorruptible nor incapable of being divided, and a resort to violence has\nfailed or would certainly be futile the method of _Upeshka_ remains to\nbe applied to the case. Indeed, when the very existence of the power we\nseek to defeat really depends on our continuous co-operation with it,\nand where our _Upeskha_ its very life, our _Upeskha_ or non-co-operation\nis the most natural and most effective expedient that we can employ to\nbend it to our will.\n\nNo Englishman believes that his nation can rule or keep India for a day\nunless the people of India actively co-operate to maintain that rule.\nWhether the co-operation be given willingly or through ignorance,\ncupidity, habit or fear, the withdrawal of that co-operation means\nimpossibility of foreign rule in India. Some of us may not realise this,\nbut those who govern us have long ago known and are now keenly alive to\nthis truth. The active assistance of the people of this country in the\nsupply of the money, men, and knowledge of the languages, customs and\nlaws of the land, is the main-spring of the continuous life of the\nforeign administration. Indeed the circumstances of British rule in this\ncountry are such that but for a double supply of co-operation on the\npart of the governed, it must have broken down long ago. Any system of\nrace domination is unnatural, and can be kept up only by active\ncoercion through a foreign-recruited public, service invested with large\npowers, however much it may be helped by the perversion of mentality\nshaping the education of the youth of the country. The foreign recruited\nservice must necessarily be very highly paid. This creates a wrong\nstandard for the Indian recruited officials also. Military expenditure\nhas to cover not only the needs of defence against foreign aggression,\nbut also the possibilities of internal unrest and rebellion. Police\ncharges have to go beyond the prevention and deletion of ordinary crime,\nfor though this would be the only expenditure over the police of a\nself-governing people where any nation governs another, a large chapter of\nartificial crime has to be added to the penal code, and the work of the\npolice extended accordingly. The military and public organisations must\nalso be such as not only to result in outside efficiency, but also at\nthe same time guarantee internal impotency. This is to be achieved by\nthe adjustment and careful admixture of officers and units from\ndifferent races. All this can be and is maintained only by extra cost\nand extra-active co-operation on the part of the people. The slightest\nwithdrawal of assistance must put such machinery out of gear. This is\nthe basis of the programme of progressive non violent non-co-operation\nthat has been adopted by the National Congress.\n\n\nSOME OBJECTIONS\n\nThe powerful character of the measure, however, leads some to object to\nnon-co-operation because of that very reason. Striking as it does at the\nvery root of Government in India, they fear that non-co-operation must\nlead to anarchy, and that the remedy is worse than the disease. This is\nan objection arising out of insufficient allowance for human nature. It\nis assumed that the British people will allow their connection with\nIndia to cease rather than remedy the wrongs for which we seek justice.\nIf this assumption be correct, no doubt it must lead to separation and\npossibly also anarchy for a time. If the operatives in a factory have\ngrievances, negotiations having failed, a strike would on a similar\nargument be never admissible. Unyielding obstinacy being presumed, it\nmust end in the closing down of the factory and break up of the men. But\nif in ninety-nine out of a hundred cases it is not the case that strikes\nend in this manner, it is more unlikely that, instead of righting the\nmanifest wrongs that India complains about, the British people will\nvalue their Indian Dominion so low as to prefer to allow us to\nnon-co-operate up to the point of separation. It would be a totally\nfalse reading of British character and British history. But if such\nwicked obstinacy be ultimately shown by a government, far be it from us\nto prefer peace at the price of abject surrender to wrong. There is no\nanarchy greater than the moral anarchy of surrender to unrepentant\nwrong. We may, however, be certain that if we show the strength and\nunity necessary for non-co-operation, long before we progress with it\nfar, we shall have developed true order and true self-government wherein\nthere is no place for anarchy.\n\nAnother fear sometimes expressed that, if non-co-operation were to\nsucceed, the British would have to go, leaving us unable to defend\nourselves against foreign aggression. If we have the self-respect, the\npatriotism, the tenacious purpose, and the power of organisation that are\nnecessary to drive the British out from their entrenched position, no\nlesser foreign power will dare after that, undertake the futile task of\nconquering or enslaving us.\n\nIt is sometimes said that non-co-operation is negative and destructive\nof the advantages which a stable government has conferred on us. That\nnon-co-operation is negative is merely a half-truth. Non-co-operation\nwith the government means greater co-operation among ourselves, greater\nmutual dependence among the many different castes and classes of our\ncountry. Non-co-operation is not mere negation. It will lead to the\nrecovery of the lost art of co-operation among ourselves. Long\ndependence on an outside government which by its interference\nsuppressed or prevented the consequences of our differences has made us\nforget the duty of mutual trust and the art of friendly adjustment.\nHaving allowed Government to do everything for us, we have gradually\nbecome incapable of doing anything for ourselves. Even if we had no\ngrievance against this Government, non-co-operation with it for a time\nwould be desirable so far as it would perforce lead us to trusting and\nworking with one another and thereby strengthen the bonds of\nnational unity.\n\nThe most tragic consequence of dependence on the complex machinery of a\nforeign government is the atrophy of the communal sense. The direct\ntouch with administrative cause and effect is lost. An outside protector\nperforms all the necessary functions of the community in a mysterious\nmanner, and communal duties are not realised by the people. The one\nreason addressed by those who deny to us the capacity for self-rule is\nthe insufficient appreciation by the people of communal duties and\ndiscipline. It is only by actually refraining for a time from dependence\non Government that we can regain self-reliance, learn first-hand the\nvalue of communal duties and build up true national co-operation.\nNon-co-operation is a practical and positive training in Swadharma, and\nSwadharma alone can lead up to Swaraj.\n\nThe negative is the best and most impressive method of enforcing the\nvalue of the positive. Few outside government circles realise in the\npresent police anything but tyranny and corruption. But if the units of\nthe present police were withdrawn we would soon perforce set about\norganising a substitute, and most people would realise the true social\nvalue of a police force. Few realise in the present taxes anything but\ncoercion and waste, but most people would soon see that a share of every\nman's income is due for common purposes and that there are many\nlimitations to the economical management of public institutions; we\nwould begin once again to contribute directly, build up and maintain\nnational institutions in the place of those that now mysteriously spring\nup and live under Government orders.\n\n\nEMANCIPATION\n\nFreedom is a priceless thing. But it is a stable possession only when it\nis acquired by a nation's strenuous effort. What is not by chance or\noutward circumstance, or given by the generous impulse of a tyrant\nprince or people is not a reality. A nation will truly enjoy freedom\nonly when in the process of winning or defending its freedom, it has\nbeen purified and consolidated through and through, until liberty has\nbecome a part of its very soul. Otherwise it would be but a change of\nthe form of government, which might please the fancy of politicians, or\nsatisfy the classes in power, but could never emancipate a people. An\nAct of Parliament can never create citizens in Hindustan. The strength,\nspirit, and happiness of a people who have fought and won their liberty\ncannot be got by Reform Acts. Effort and sacrifice are the necessary\nconditions of real stable emancipation. Liberty unacquired, merely found,\nwill on the test fail like the Dead-Sea-apple or the magician's plenty.\n\nThe war that the people of India have declared and which will purify and\nconsolidate India, and forge for her a true and stable liberty is a war\nwith the latest and most effective weapon. In this war, what has\nhitherto been in the world an undesirable but necessary incident in\nfreedom's battles, the killing of innocent men, has been eliminated; and\nthat which is the true essential for forging liberty, the\nself-purification and self-strengthening of men and women has been kept\npure and unalloyed. It is for men, women and youth, every one of them\nthat lives in and loves India, to do his bit in this battle, not waiting\nfor others, not calculating the chances of his surviving the battle to\nenjoy the fruits of his sacrifice. Soldiers in the old-world wars did\nnot insure their lives before going to the front. The privilege of youth\nin special is for country's sake to exercise their comparative freedom\nand give up the yearning for lives and careers built on the slavery of\nthe people.\n\nThat on which a foreign government truly rests whatever may be the\nillusions on their or our part is not the strength of its armed forces,\nbut our own co-operation. Actual service on the part of one generation,\nand educational preparation for future service on the part of the next\ngeneration are the two main branches of this co-operation of slaves in\nthe perpetuation of slavery. The boycott of government service and the\nlaw-courts is aimed at the first, the boycott of government controlled\nschools is to stop the second. If either the one or the other of these\ntwo branches of co-operation is withdrawn in sufficient measure, there\nwill be an automatic and perfectly peaceful change from slavery\nto liberty.\n\nThe beat preparation for any one who desires to take part in the great\nbattle now going on is a silent study of the writings and speeches\ncollected herein, and proposed to be completed in a supplementary volume\nto be soon issued.\n\nC. RAJAGOPALACHAR\n\n\n\n\nII. THE KHILAFAT\n\n\nWHY I HAVE JOINED THE KHILAFAT MOVEMENT\n\nAn esteemed South African friend who is at present living in England has\nwritten to me a letter from which I make the following excerpts:--\n\n   \"You will doubtless remember having met me in South Africa at the\n   time when the Rev. J.J. Doke was assisting you in your campaign there\n   and I subsequently returned to England deeply impressed with the\n   rightness of your attitude in that country. During the months before\n   war I wrote and lectured and spoke on your behalf in several places\n   which I do not regret. Since returning from military service,\n   however, I have noticed from the papers that you appear to be\n   adopting a more militant attitude... I notice a report in \"The Times\"\n   that you are assisting and countenancing a union between the Hindus\n   and Moslems with a view of embarrassing England and the Allied Powers\n   in the matter of the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire or the\n   ejection of the Turkish Government from Constantinople. Knowing as I\n   do your sense of justice and your humane instincts I feel that I am\n   entitled, in view of the humble part that I have taken to promote\n   your interests on this side, to ask you whether this latter report is\n   correct. I cannot believe that you have wrongly countenanced a\n   movement to place the cruel and unjust despotism of the Stamboul\n   Government above the interests of humanity, for if any country has\n   crippled these interests in the East it has surely been Turkey. I am\n   personally familiar with the conditions in Syria and Armenia and I\n   can only suppose that if the report, which \"The Times\" has published\n   is correct, you have thrown to one side, your moral responsibilities\n   and allied yourself with one of the prevailing anarchies. However,\n   until I hear that this is not your attitude I cannot prejudice my\n   mind. Perhaps you will do me the favour of sending me a reply.\"\n\nI have sent a reply to the writer. But as the views expressed in the\nquotation are likely to be shared by many of my English friends and as I\ndo not wish, if I can possibly help it, to forfeit their friendship or\ntheir esteem I shall endeavour to state my position as clearly as I can\non the Khilafat question. The letter shows what risk public men run\nthrough irresponsible journalism. I have not seen _The Times_ report,\nreferred to by my friend. But it is evident that the report has made the\nwriter to suspect my alliance with \"the prevailing anarchies\" and to\nthink that I have \"thrown to one side\" my \"moral responsibilities.\"\n\nIt is just my sense of moral responsibilities which has made me take up\nthe Khilafat question and to identify myself entirely with the\nMahomedans. It is perfectly true that I am assisting and countenancing\nthe union between Hindus and Muslims, but certainly not with \"a view of\nembarrassing England and the Allied Powers in the matter of the\ndismemberment of the Ottoman Empire,\" it is contrary to my creed to\nembarrass governments or anybody else. This does not how ever mean that\ncertain acts of mine may not result in embarrassment. But I should not\nhold myself responsible for having caused embarrassment when I resist\nthe wrong of a wrong-doer by refusing assistance in his wrong-doing. On\nthe Khilafat question I refuse to be party to a broken pledge. Mr. Lloyd\nGeorge's solemn declaration is practically the whole of the case for\nIndian Mahomedans and when that case is fortified by scriptural\nauthority it becomes unanswerable. Moreover, it is incorrect to say that\nI have \"allied myself to one of the prevailing anarchies\" or that I have\nwrongly countenanced the movement to place the cruel and unjust\ndespotism of the Stamboul Government above the interests of humanity.\nIn the whole of the Mahomedan demand there is no insistance on the\nretention of the so-called unjust despotism of the Stamboul Government;\non the contrary the Mahomedans have accepted the principle of taking\nfull guarantees from that Government for the protection of non-Muslim\nminorities. I do not know how far the condition of Armenia and Syria may\nbe considered an 'anarchy' and how far the Turkish Government may be\nheld responsible for it. I much suspect that the reports from these\nquarters are much exaggerated and that the European powers are\nthemselves in a measure responsible for what misrule there may be in\nArmenia and Syria. But I am in no way interested in supporting Turkish\nor any other anarchy. The Allied Powers can easily prevent it by means\nother than that of ending Turkish rule or dismembering and weakening the\nOttoman Empire. The Allied Powers are not dealing with a new situation.\nIf Turkey was to be partitioned, the position should have been made\nclear at the commencement of the war. There would then have been no\nquestion of a broken pledge. As it is, no Indian Mahomedan has any\nregard for the promises of British Ministers. In his opinion, the cry\nagainst Turkey is that of Christianity _vs._ Islam with England as the\nlouder in the cry. The latest cablegram from Mr. Mahomed Ali strengthens\nthe impression, for he says that unlike as in England his deputation is\nreceiving much support from the French Government and the people.\n\nThus, if it is true, as I hold it is true that the Indian Mussalmans\nhave a cause that is just and is supported by scriptural authority, then\nfor the Hindus not to support them to the utmost would be a cowardly\nbreach of brotherhood and they would forfeit all claim to consideration\nfrom their Mahomedan countrymen. As a public-server therefore, I would\nbe unworthy of the position I claim, if I did not support Indian\nMussalmans in their struggle to maintain the Khilafat in accordance with\ntheir religious belief. I believe that in supporting them I am rendering\na service to the Empire, because by assisting my Mahomedan countrymen to\ngive a disciplined expression to their sentiment it becomes possible to\nmake the agitation thoroughly, orderly and even successful.\n\n\nTHE TURKISH TREATY\n\nThe Turkish treaty will be out on the 10th of May. It is stated to\nprovide for the internationalisation of the Straits, the occupation of\nGallipoli by the Allies, the maintenance of Allied contingents in\nConstantinople and the appointment of a Commission of Control over\nTurkish finances. The San Remo Conference has entrusted Britain with\nMandates for Mesopotamia and Palestine and France with the Mandate for\nSyria. As regards Smyrna the accounts so far received inform that\nTurkish suzerainty over Smyrna will be indicated by the fact that the\npopulation will not be entitled to send delegates to the Greek\nParliament but at the end of five years local Smyrna Parliament will\nhave the right of voting in favour of union with Greece and in such an\nevent Turkish suzerainty will cease. Turkish suzerainty will be confined\nto the area within the Chatalja lines. With regard to Emir Foisul's\nposition there is no news except that the Mandates of Britain and France\ntransform his military title into a civil title.\n\n       *       *       *       *      *\n\nWe have given above the terms of the Turkish treaty as indicated in\nRouter's messages. These reports are incomplete and all of them are not\nequally authenticated. But if these terms are true, they are a challenge\nto the Muslim demands. Turkish Sovereignty is confined to the Chatalja\nlines. This means that the Big Three of the Supreme Council have cut off\nThrace from Turkish dominions. This is a distinct breach of the pledge\ngiven by one of these Three, _viz._, the Premier of the British Empire.\nTo remain within the Chatalja lines and, we are afraid, as a dependent\nof the Allies, is for the Sultan a humiliating position inconsistent\nwith the Koranic injunctions. Such a restricted position of the Turks is\nvirtually a success of the bag and baggage school.\n\nIt is not yet known how the Supreme Council disposed of the rich and\nrenowned lands of Asia Minor. If Mr. Lloyd George's views recently\nexpressed in this respect have received the Allies' sanction--it is\nprobable--nothing less than a common control is expected. The decision\nin the case of Smyrna will be satisfying to none, though the Allies seem\nto have made by their arrangement a skillful attempt to please all the\nparties concerned. Mr. Lloyd George, in his reply to the Khilafat\nDeputation, had talked about the careful investigations by an impartial\ncommittee and had added; \"The great majority of the population\nundoubtedly prefer Greek rule to Turkish rule, so I understand\" But the\ndecision postpones to carry out his understanding till a period of\nfive years.\n\n       *       *       *       *      *\n\nWhen we come to the question of mandates, the Allied Powers' motives\ncome out more distinctly. The Arabs' claim of independence was used as a\ndifficulty against keeping Turkish Sovereignty. This was defended in the\nof self-determination and by pointing out parallels of Transylvania and\nother provinces. When the final moment came, the Allies have ventured to\ndivide the spoils amongst themselves. Britain is given the mandate over\nMesopotamia and Palestine and France has the mandate over Syria. The\nArab delegation complains in their note lately issued expressing their\ndisappointment at the Supreme Council's decision with regard to the\nArab liberated countries, which, it declares, is contrary to the\nprinciple of self-determination.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSo what little news has arrived about the Turkish treaty, is uniformly\ndisquieting. The Moslems have found sufficient ground to honour Russia,\nmore than the Allies. Russia has recognised the freedom of Khiva and\nBokhara. The Moslem world, as H. M. the Amir of Afghanistan said in his\nspeech, will feel grateful towards Russia in spite of all the rumours\nabroad about its anarchy and disorder, whereas the whole Moslem world\nwill resent the action of the other European nations who have allied\nwith each other to carry out a joint coercion and extinction of Turkey\nin the name of self-determination and partly in the guise of the\ninterest of civilization.\n\n       *       *       *       *      *\n\nThe terms of the Turkish treaty are not only a breach of the Premier's\npledge, not only a sin against the principle of self-determination, but\nthey also show a reckless indifference of the Allied Powers towards the\nKoranic injunctions. The terms point out that Mr. Lloyd George's\nmisinformed ideas of Khilafat have prevailed in the Council. Like Mr.\nLloyd George other statesmen also at San Remo have compared Caliphate\nwith Popedom and ignored the Koronic idea of associating spiritual\npower with temporal power. These misguided statesmen were too much\npossessed by haughtiness and so they refused to receive any\nenlightenment on the question of Khilafat from the Deputation. They\ncould have corrected themselves had they heard Mr. Mahomed Ali on this\npoint. Speaking at the Essex Hall meeting Mr. Mahomed Ali distinguished\nbetween Popedom and Caliphate and clearly explained what Caliphate\nmeans. He said:\n\n   \"Islam is supernational and not national, the basis of Islamic\n   sympathy is a common outlook on life and common culture.... And it\n   has two centres. The personal centre is the island of Arabia. The\n   Khalifa is the Commander of the Faithful and his orders must be\n   obeyed by all Muslims so long and so long only, as they are not at\n   variance with the Commandments of God and the Traditions of the\n   Prophet. But since there is no lacerating distinction between things\n   temporal and things spiritual, the Khalifa is something more than a\n   Pope and cannot be \"Vaticanised.\" But he is also less than a Pope for\n   he is not infallible. If he persists in un-Islamic conduct we can\n   depose him. And we have deposed him more than once. But so long as he\n   orders only that which Islam demands we must support him. He and no\n   other ruler is the Defender of _our_ faith.\"\n\nThese few words could have removed the mis-undertakings rooted in the\nminds of those that at San Remo, if they were in earnest for a just\nsolution. But Mr. Mahomed Ali's deputation was not given any hearing by\nthe Peace Conference. They were told that the Peace Conference had\nalready heard the official delegation of India on this question. But the\nwrong notions the Allies still entertain about Caliphate are a\nsufficient indication of the effects of the work of this official\ndelegation. The result of these wrong notions is the present settlement\nand this unjust settlement will unsettle the world. They know not\nwhat they do.\n\n\nTURKISH PEACE TERMS\n\nThe question of question to-day is the Khilafat question, otherwise\nknown as that of the Turkish peace terms. His Excellency the Viceroy\ndeserves our thanks for receiving the joint deputation even at this late\nhour, especially when he was busy preparing to receive the head of the\ndifferent provinces. His Excellency must be thanked for the unfailing\ncourtesy with which he received the deputation and the courteous\nlanguage in which his reply was couched. But mere courtesy, valuable as\nit is at all times, never so valuable as at this, is not enough at this\ncritical moment. 'Sweet words butter no parsnips' is a proverb more\napplicable to-day than ever before. Behind the courtesy there was the\ndetermination to punish Turkey. Punishment of Turkey is a thing which\nMuslim sentiment cannot tolerate for a moment. Muslim soldiers are as\nresponsible for the result of the war as any others. It was to appease\nthem that Mr. Asquith said when Turkey decided to join the Central\nPowers that the British Government had no designs on Turkey and that His\nMajesty's Government would never think of punishing the Sultan for the\nmisdeeds of the Turkish Committee. Examined by that standard the\nViceregal reply is not only disappointing but it is a fall from truth\nand justice.\n\nWhat is this British Empire? It is as much Mahomedan and Hindu as it is\nChristian. Its religious neutrality is not a virtue, or if it is, it is\na virtue of necessity. Such a mighty Empire could not be held together\non any other terms. British ministers are therefore bound to protect\nMahomedan interests as any other. Indeed as the Muslim rejoinder says,\nthey are bound to make the cause their own. What is the use of His\nExcellency having presented the Muslim claim before the Conference? If\nthe cause is lost the Mahomedans will be entitled to think that Britain\ndid not do her duty by them. And the Viceregal reply confirms the view.\nWhen His Excellency says that Turkey must suffer for her having joined\nthe Central Powers he but expresses the opinion of British ministers.\nWe hope, therefore, with the framers of the Muslim rejoinder that His\nMajesty's ministers will mend the mistakes if any have been committed\nand secure a settlement that would satisfy Mahomedan sentiment.\n\nWhat does the sentiment demand? The preservation of the Khilafat with\nsuch guarantee as may be necessary for the protection of the interests\nof the non-Muslim races living under Turkish rule and the Khalif's\ncontrol over Arabia and the Holy Places with such arrangement as may be\nrequired for guaranteeing Arab self-rule, should the Arabs desire it. It\nis hardly possible to state the claim more fairly than has been done. It\nis a claim backed by justice, by the declarations of British ministers\nand by the unanimous Hindu and Muslim opinion. It would be midsummer\nmadness to reject or whittle down a claim so backed.\n\n\nTHE SUZERAINTY OVER ARABIA\n\n   \"As I told you in my last letter I think Mr. Gandhi has made a\n   serious mistake in the Kailafat business. The Indian Mahomedans base\n   their demand on the assertion that their religion requires the\n   Turkish rule over Arabia: but when they have against them in this\n   matter, the Arabs themselves, it is impossible to regard the theory\n   of the Indian Mahomedans as essential to Islam. After all if the\n   Arabs do not represent Islam, who does? It is as if the German Roman\n   Catholics made a demand in the name of Roman Catholicism with Rome\n   and the Italians making a contrary demand. But even if the religion\n   of the Indian Mahomedans did require that Turkish rule should be\n   imposed upon the Arabs against their will, one could not, now-a-days,\n   recognise as a really religious demand, one which required the\n   continued oppression of one people by another. When an assurance was\n   given at the beginning of the war to the Indian Mahomedans that the\n   Mahomedan religion would be respected, that could never have meant\n   that a temporal sovereignty which violated the principles of\n   self-determination would be upheld. We could not now stand by and see\n   the Turks re-conquer the Arabs (for the Arabs would certainly fight\n   against them) without grossly betraying the Arabs to whom we have\n   given pledges. It is not true that the Arab hostility to the Turks\n   was due simply to European suggestion. No doubt, during the war we\n   availed ourselves of the Arab hostility to the Turks to get another\n   ally, but the hostility had existed long before the war. The\n   Non-Turkish Mahomedan subjects of the Sultan in general wanted to get\n   rid of his rule. It is the Indian Mahomedans who have no experience\n   of that rule who want to impose it on others. As a matter of fact the\n   idea of any restoration of Turkish rule in Syria or Arabia, seems so\n   remote from all possibilities that to discuss it seems like\n   discussing a restoration of the Holy Roman Empire. I cannot conceive\n   what series of events could bring it about. The Indian Mahomedans\n   certainly could not march into Arabia themselves and conquer the\n   Arabs for the Sultan. And no amount of agitation and trouble in India\n   would ever induce England to put back Turkish rule in Arabia. In this\n   matter it is not English Imperialism which the Indian Mahomedans are\n   up against, but the mass of English Liberal and Humanitarian opinion,\n   the mass of the better opinion of England, which wants\n   self-determination to go forward in India. Supposing the Indian\n   Mahomedans could stir up an agitation so violent in India as to sever\n   the connection between India and the British Crown, still they would\n   not be any nearer to their purpose. For to-day they do have\n   considerable influence on British world-policy. Even if in this\n   matter of the Turkish question their influence has not been\n   sufficient to turn the scale against the very heavy weights on the\n   other side, it has weighed in the scale. But apart from the British\n   connection, Indian Mahomedans would have no influence at all outside\n   India. They would not count for more in world politics than the\n   Mahomedans of China. I think it is likely (apart from the pressure\n   of America on the other side. I should say certain) that the\n   influence of the Indian Mahomedans may at any rate avail to keep the\n   Sultan in Constantinople. But I doubt whether they will gain any\n   advantage by doing so. For a Turkey cut down to the Turkish parts of\n   Asia-Minor, Constantinople would be a very inconvenient capital. I\n   think its inconvenience would more than outweigh the sentimental\n   gratification of keeping up a phantom of the old Ottoman Empire. But\n   if the Indian Mahomedans want the Sultan to retain his place in\n   Constantinople I think the assurances given officially by the Viceroy\n   in India now binds us to insist on his remaining there and I think he\n   will remain there in spite of America.\"\n\nThis is an extract, from the letter of an Englishman enjoying a position\nin Great Britain, to a friend in India. It is a typical letter, sober,\nhonest, to the point and put in such graceful language that whilst it\nchallenges you, it commands your respect by its very gracefulness. But\nit is just this attitude based upon insufficient or false information\nwhich has ruined many a cause in the British Isles. The superficiality,\nthe one-sidedness the inaccuracy and often even dishonesty that have\ncrept into modern journalism, continuously mislead honest men who want\nto see nothing but justice done. Then there are always interested\ngroups whose business it is to serve their ends by means of faul or\nfood. And the honest Englishman wishing to vote for justice but swayed\nby conflicting opinions and dominated by distorted versions, often ends\nby becoming an instrument of injustice.\n\nThe writer of the letter quoted above has built up convincing argument\non imaginary data. He has successfully shown that the Mahomedan case, as\nit has been presented to him, is a rotten case. In India, where it is\nnot quite easy to distort facts about the Khilafat, English friends\nadmit the utter justice of the Indian-Mahomedan claim. But they plead\nhelplessness and tell us that the Government of India and Mr. Montagu\nhave done all it was humanly possible for them to do. And if now the\njudgment goes against Islam, Indian Mahomedans should resign themselves\nto it. This extraordinary state of things would not be possible except\nunder this modern rush and preoccupations of all responsible people.\n\nLet us for a moment examine the case as it has been imagined by the\nwriter. He suggests that Indian Mahomedans want Turkish rule in Arabia\nin spite of the opposition of the Arabs themselves, and that, if the\nArabs do not want Turkish rule, the writer argues, no false religions\nsentiment can be permitted to interfere with self-determination of the\nArabs when India herself has been pleading for that very status. Now the\nfact is that the Mahomedans, as is known to everybody who has at all\nstudied the case, have never asked for Turkish rule in Arabia in\nopposition to the Arabs. On the contrary, they have said that they have\nno intention of resisting Arabian self-government. All they ask for is\nTurkish suzerainty over Arabia which would guarantee complete self-rule\nfor the Arabs. They want Khalif's control of the Holy Places of Islam.\nIn other words they ask for nothing more than what was guaranteed by Mr.\nLloyd George and on the strength of which guarantee Mahomedan soldiers\nsplit their blood on behalf of the Allied Powers. All the elaborate\nargument therefore and the cogent reasoning of the above extract fall to\npieces based as they are upon a case that has never existed. I have\nthrown myself heart and soul into this question because British pledges\nabstract justice, and religious sentiment coincide. I can conceive the\npossibility of a blind and fanatical religious sentiment existing in\nopposition to pure justice. I should then resist the former and fight\nfor the latter. Nor would I insist upon pledges given dishonestly to\nsupport an unjust cause as has happened with England in the case of the\nsecret treaties. Resistance there becomes not only lawful but obligatory\non the part of a nation that prides itself on its righteousness.\n\nIt is unnecessary for me to examine the position imagined by the English\nfriend, viz., how India would have fared had she been an independent\npower. It is unnecessary because Indian Mahomedans, and for that matter\nIndia, are fighting for a cause that is admittedly just; a cause in aid\nof which they are invoking the whole-hearted support of the British\npeople. I would however venture to suggest that this is a cause in which\nmere sympathy will not suffice. It is a cause which demands support that\nis strong enough to bring about substantial justice.\n\n\nFURTHER QUESTIONS ANSWERED\n\nI have been overwhelmed with public criticism and private advice and\neven anonymous letters telling me exactly what I should do. Some are\nimpatient that I do not advise immediate and extensive non-co-operation;\nothers tell me what harm I am doing the country by throwing it knowingly\nin a tempest of violence on either side. It is difficult for me to deal\nwith the whole of the criticism, but I would summarize some of the\nobjections and endeavour to answer them to the best of my ability. These\nare in addition to those I have already answered:--\n\n(1) Turkish claim is immoral or unjust and how can I, a lover of truth\nand justice, support it? (2) Even if the claim be just in theory, the\nTurk is hopelessly incapable, weak and cruel. He does not deserve any\nassistance.\n\n(3) Even if Turkey deserves all that is claimed for her, why should I\nland India in an international struggle?\n\n(4) It is no part of the Indian Mahomedans' business to meddle in this\naffair. If they cherish any political ambition, they have tried, they\nhave failed and they should now sit still. If it is a religious matter\nwith them, it cannot appeal to the Hindu reason in the manner it is put\nand in any case Hindus ought not to identify themselves with Mahomedans\nin their religious quarrel with Christendom.\n\n(5) In no case should I advocate non-co-operation which in its extreme\nsense is nothing but a rebellion, no matter how peaceful it may be.\n\n(6) Moreover, my experience of last year must show me that it is beyond\nthe capacity of any single human being to control the forces of violence\nthat are lying dormant in the land.\n\n(7) Non-co-operation is futile because people will never respond in\nright earnest, and reaction that might afterwards set in will be worse\nthan the state of hopefulness we are now in.\n\n(8) Non-co-operation will bring about cessation of all other activities,\neven working of the Reforms, thus set back the clock of progress. (9)\nHowever pure my motives may be, those of the Mussalmans are obviously\nrevengeful.\n\nI shall now answer the objections in the order in which they are\nstated--\n\n(1) In my opinion the Turkish claim is not only not immoral and unjust,\nbut it is highly equitable, if only because Turkey wants to retain what\nis her own. And the Mahomedan manifesto has definitely declared that\nwhatever guarantees may be necessary to be taken for the protection of\nnon-Muslim and non-Turkish races, should be taken so as to give the\nChristians theirs and the Arabs their self-government under the Turkish\nsuzerainty.\n\n(2) I do not believe the Turk to be weak, incapable or cruel. He is\ncertainly disorganised and probably without good generalship. He has\nbeen obliged to fight against heavy odds. The argument of weakness,\nincapacity and cruelty one often hears quoted in connection with those\nfrom whom power is sought to be taken away. About the alleged massacres\na proper commission has been asked for, but never granted. And in any\ncase security can be taken against oppression.\n\n(3) I have already stated that if I were not interested in the Indian\nMahomedans, I would not interest myself in the welfare of the Turks any\nmore than I am in that of the Austrians or the Poles. But I am bound as\nan Indian to share the sufferings and trial of fellow-Indians. If I deem\nthe Mahomedan to be my brother. It is my duty to help him in his hour\nof peril to the best of my ability, if his cause commends itself to\nme as just.\n\n(4) The fourth refers to the extent Hindus should join hands with the\nMahomedans. It is therefore a matter of feeling and opinion. It is\nexpedient to suffer for my Mahomedan brother to the utmost in a just\ncause and I should therefore travel with him along the whole road so\nlong as the means employed by him are as honourable as his end. I cannot\nregulate the Mahomedan feeling. I must accept his statement that the\nKhilafat is with him a religious question in the sense that it binds him\nto reach the goal even at the cost of his own life.\n\n(5) I do not consider non-co-operation to be a rebellion, because it is\nfree from violence. In a larger sense all opposition to a Government\nmeasure is a rebellion. In that sense, rebellion in a just cause is a\nduty, the extent of opposition being determined by the measure of the\ninjustice done and felt.\n\n(6) My experience of last year shows me that in spite of aberrations in\nsome parts of India, the country was entirely under control that the\ninfluence of Satyagraha was profoundly for its good and that where\nviolence did break out there were local causes that directly contributed\nto it. At the same time I admit that even the violence that did take\nplace on the part of the people and the spirit of lawlessness that was\nundoubtedly shown in some parts should have remained under check. I have\nmade ample acknowledgment of the miscalculation I then made. But all the\npainful experience that I then gained did not any way shake my belief in\nSatyagraha or in the possibility of that matchless force being utilised\nin India. Ample provision is being made this time to avoid the mistakes\nof the past. But I must refuse to be deterred from a clear course;\nbecause it may be attended by violence totally unintended and in spite\nof extraordinary efforts that are being made to prevent it. At the same\ntime I must make my position clear. Nothing can possibly prevent a\nSatyagrahi from doing his duty because of the frown of the authorities.\nI would risk, if necessary, a million lives so long as they are\nvoluntary sufferers and are innocent, spotless victims. It is the\nmistakes of the people that matter in a Satyagraha campaign. Mistakes,\neven insanity must be expected from the strong and the powerful, and the\nmoment of victory has come when there is no retort to the mad fury of\nthe powerful, but a voluntary, dignified and quiet submission but not\nsubmission to the will of the authority that has put itself in the\nwrong. The secret of success lies therefore in holding every English\nlife and the life of every officer serving the Government as sacred as\nthose of our own dear ones. All the wonderful experience I have gained\nnow during nearly 40 years of conscious existence, has convinced me that\nthere is no gift so precious as that of life. I make bold to say that\nthe moment the Englishmen feel that although they are in India in a\nhopeless minority, their lives are protected against harm not because of\nthe matchless weapons of destruction which are at their disposal, but\nbecause Indians refuse to take the lives even of those whom they may\nconsider to be utterly in the wrong that moment will see a\ntransformation in the English nature in its relation to India and that\nmoment will also be the moment when all the destructive cutlery that is\nto be had in India will begin to rust. I know that this is a far-off\nvision. That cannot matter to me. It is enough for me to see the light\nand to act up to it, and it is more than enough when I gain companions\nin the onward march. I have claimed in private conversations with\nEnglish friends that it is because of my incessant preaching of the\ngospel of non-violence and my having successfully demonstrated its\npractical utility that so far the forces of violence, which are\nundoubtedly in existence in connection with the Khilafat movement, have\nremained under complete control.\n\n(7) From a religious standpoint the seventh objection is hardly worth\nconsidering. If people do not respond to the movement of\nnon-co-operation, it would be a pity, but that can be no reason for a\nreformer not to try. It would be to me a demonstration that the present\nposition of hopefulness is not dependent on any inward strength or\nknowledge, but it is hope born of ignorance and superstition.\n\n(8) If non-co-operation is taken up in earnest, it must bring about a\ncessation of all other activities including the Reforms, but I decline\nto draw therefore the corollary that it will set back the clock of\nprogress. On the contrary, I consider non-co-operation to be such a\npowerful and pure instrument, that if it is enforced in an earnest\nspirit, it will be like seeking first the Kingdom of God and everything\nelse following as a matter of course. People will have then realised\ntheir true power. They would have learnt the value of discipline,\nself-control, joint action, non-violence, organisation and everything\nelse that goes to make a nation great and good, and not merely great.\n\n(9) I do not know that I have a right to arrogate greater purity for\nmyself than for our Mussalman brethren. But I do admit that they do not\nbelieve in my doctrine of non-violence to the full extent. For them it\nis a weapon of the weak, an expedient. They consider non-co-operation\nwithout violence to be the only thing open to them in the war of direct\naction. I know that if some of them could offer successful violence,\nthey would do to-day. But they are convinced that humanly speaking it is\nan impossibility. For them, therefore, non-co-operation is a matter not\nmerely of duty but also of revenge. Whereas I take up non-co-operation\nagainst the Government as I have actually taken it up in practice\nagainst members of my own family. I entertain very high regard for the\nBritish constitution, I have not only no enmity against Englishmen but I\nregard much in English character as worthy of my emulation. I count many\nas my friends. It is against my religion to regard any one as an enemy.\nI entertain similar sentiments with respect to Mahomedans. I find their\ncause to be just and pure. Although therefore their viewpoint is\ndifferent from mine I do not hesitate to associate with them and invite\nthem to give my method a trial, for, I believe that the use of a pure\nweapon even from a mistaken motive does not fail to produce some good,\neven as the telling of truth if only because for the time being it is\nthe best policy, is at least so much to the good.\n\n\nMR. CANDLER'S OPEN LETTER\n\nMr. Candler has favoured me with an open letter on this question of\nquestions. The letter has already appeared in the Press. I can\nappreciate Mr. Candler's position as I would like him and other\nEnglishmen to appreciate mine and that of hundreds of Hindus who feel as\nI do. Mr. Candler's letter is an attempt to show that Mr. Lloyd George's\npledge is not in any way broken by the peace terms. I quite agree with\nhim that Mr. Lloyd George's words ought not to be torn from their\ncontext to support the Mahomedan claim. These are Mr. Lloyd George's\nwords as quoted in the recent Viceregal message: \"Nor are we fighting to\ndestroy Austria-Hungary or to deprive Turkey of its capital or of the\nrich and renowned lands of Asia Minor and Thrace which are predominantly\nTurkish in race.\" Mr. Candler seems to read 'which', as if it meant 'if\nthey,' whereas I give the pronoun its natural meaning, namely, that the\nPrime Minister knew in 1918, that the lands referred to by him were\n\"predominantly Turkish in race.\" And if this is the meaning I venture to\nsuggest that the pledge has been broken in a most barefaced manner, for\nthere is practically nothing left to the Turk of 'the rich and renowned\nlands of Asia Minor and Thrace.'\n\nI have already my view of the retention of the Sultan in Constantinople.\nIt is an insult to the intelligence of man to suggest that 'the\nmaintenance of the Turkish Empire in the homeland of the Turkish race\nwith its capital at Constantinople has been left unimpaired by the terms\nof peace. This is the other passage from the speech which I presume Mr.\nCandler wants me to read together with the one already quoted:--\n\n   \"While we do not challenge the maintenance of the Turkish Empire in\n   the home-land of the Turkish race with its capital at Constantinople,\n   the passage between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea being\n   inter-nationalised, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine are in\n   our judgment entitled to a recognition of their separate national\n   condition.\"\n\nDid that mean entire removal of Turkish influence, extinction of Turkish\nsuzerainty and the introduction of European-Christian influence under\nthe guise of Mandates? Have the Moslems of Arabia, Armenia, Mesopotamia,\nSyria and Palestine been committed, or is the new arrangement being\nsuperimposed upon them by Powers conscious of their own brute-strength\nrather than of justice of their action? I for one would nurse by every\nlegitimate means the spirit of independence in the brave Arabs, but I\nshudder to think what will happen to them under the schemes of\nexploitation of their country by the greedy capitalists protected as\nthey will be by the mandatory Powers. If the pledge is to be fulfilled,\nlet these places have full self-government with suzerainty to be\nretained with Turkey as has been suggested by the _Times of India_. Let\nthere be all the necessary guarantees taken from Turkey about the\ninternal independence of the Arabs. But to remove that suzerainty, to\ndeprive the Khalif of the wardenship of the Holy Places is to render\nKhilafat a mockery which no Mahomedan can possibly look upon with\nequanimity, I am not alone in my interpretation of the pledge. The Right\nHon'ble Ameer Ali calls the peace terms a breach of faith. Mr. Charles\nRoberts reminds the British public that the Indian Mussalman sentiment\nregarding the Turkish Treaty is based upon the Prime Minister's pledge\n\"regarding Thrace, Constantinople and Turkish lands in Asia Minor,\nrepeated on February 26 last with deliberation by Mr. Lloyd George. Mr.\nRoberts holds that the pledge must be treated as a whole, not as binding\nonly regarding Constantinople but also binding as regards Thrace and\nAsia Minor. He describes the pledge as binding upon the nation as a\nwhole and its breach in any part as a gross breach of faith on the part\nof the British Empire. He demands that if there is an unanswerable reply\nto the charge of breach of faith it ought to be given and adds the Prime\nMinister may regard his own word lightly if he chooses, but he has no\nright to break a pledge given on behalf of the nation. He concludes that\nit is incredible that such pledge should not have been kept in the\nletter and in the spirit.\" He adds: \"I have reason to believe that these\nviews are fully shared by prominent members of the Cabinet.\"\n\nI wonder if Mr. Candler knows what is going on to-day in England. Mr.\nPickthall writing in _New Age_ says: \"No impartial international enquiry\ninto the whole question of the Armenian massacres has been instituted in\nthe ample time which has elapsed since the conclusion of armistice with\nTurkey. The Turkish Government has asked for such enquiry. But the\nArmenian organisations and the Armenian partisans refuse to hear of such\na thing, declaring that the Bryce and Lepssens reports are quite\nsufficient to condemn the Turks. In other words the judgment should be\ngiven on the case for prosecution alone. The inter-allied commission\nwhich investigated the unfortunate events in Smyrna last year, made a\nreport unfavourable to Greek claims. Therefore, that report has not been\npublished here in England, though in other countries it has long been\npublic property.\" He then goes on to show how money is being scattered\nby Armenian and Greek emissaries in order to popularise their cause and\nadds: \"This conjunction of dense ignorance and cunning falsehood is\nfraught with instant danger to the British realm,\" and concludes: \"A\nGovernment and people which prefer propaganda to fact as the ground of\npolicy--and foreign policy at that--is self-condemned.\"\n\nI have reproduced the above extract in order to show that the present\nBritish policy has been affected by propaganda of an unscrupulous\nnature. Turkey which was dominant over two million square miles of\nAsia, Africa and Europe in the 17th century, under the terms of the\ntreaty, says the _London Chronicle_, has dwindled down to little more\nthan 1,000 square miles. It says, \"All European Turkey could now be\naccommodated comfortably between the Landsend and the Tamar, Cornawal\nalone exceeding its total area and but for its alliance with Germany,\nTurkey could have been assured of retaining at least sixty thousand\nsquare miles of the Eastern Balkans.\" I do not know whether the\n_Chronicle_ view is generally shared. Is it by way of punishment that\nTurkey is to undergo such shrinkage, or is it because justice demands\nit? If Turkey had not made the mistake of joining Germany, would the\nprinciple of nationality have been still applied to Armenia, Arabia,\nMesopotamia and Palestine?\n\nLet me now remind those who think with Mr. Candler that the promise was\nnot made by Mr. Lloyd George to the people of India in anticipation of\nthe supply of recruits continuing. In defending his own statement Mr.\nLloyd George is reported to have said:\n\n   \"The effect of the statement in India was that recruiting went up\n   appreciably from that very moment. They were not all Mahomedans but\n   there were many Mahomedans amongst them. Now we are told that was an\n   offer to Turkey. But they rejected it, and therefore we were\n   absolutely free. It was not. It is too often forgotten that we are\n   the greatest Mahomedan power in the world and one-fourth of the\n   population of the British Empire is Mahomedan. There have been no\n   more loyal adherents to the throne and no more effective and loyal\n   supporters of the Empire in its hour of trial. _We gave a solemn\n   pledge and they accepted it_. They are disturbed by the prospect of\n   our not abiding by it.\"\n\nWho shall interpret that pledge and how? How did the Government of India\nitself interpret it? Did it or did it not energetically support the\nclaim for the control of the Holy Places of Islam vesting in the Khalif?\nDid the Government of India suggest that the whole of Jazirat-ul-Arab\ncould be taken away consistently with that pledge from the sphere of\ninfluence of the Khalif, and given over to the Allies as mandatory\nPowers? Why does the Government of India sympathise with the Indian\nMussalmans if the terms are all they should be? So much for the pledge.\nI would like to guard myself against being understood that I stand or\nfall absolutely by Mr. Lloyd George's declaration. I have advisedly used\nthe adverb 'practically' in connection with it. It is an important\nqualification.'\n\nMr. Candler seems to suggest that my goal is something more than merely\nattaining justice on the Khilafat. If so, he is right. Attainment of\njustice is undoubtedly the corner-stone, and if I found that I was wrong\nin my conception of justice on this question, I hope I shall have the\ncourage immediately to retrace my steps. But by helping the Mahomedans\nof India at a critical moment in their history, I want to buy their\nfriendship. Moreover, if I can carry the Mahomedans with me I hope to\nwean Great Britain from the downward path along which the Prime Minister\nseems to me to be taking her. I hope also to show to India and the\nEmpire at large that given a certain amount of capacity for\nself-sacrifice, justice can be secured by peacefullest and cleanest\nmeans without sowing or increasing bitterness between English and\nIndians. For, whatever may be the temporary effect of my methods, I know\nenough of them to feel certain that they alone are immune from lasting\nbitterness. They are untainted with hatred, expedience or untruth.\n\n\nIN PROCESS OF KEEPING\n\nThe writer of 'Current Topics' in the \"Times of India\" has attempted to\nchallenge the statement made in my Khilafat article regarding\nministerial pledges, and in doing so cites Mr. Asquith's Guild-Hall\nspeech of November 10, 1914. When I wrote the articles, I had in mind\nMr. Asquith's speech. I am sorry that he ever made that speech. For, in\nmy humble opinion, it betrayed to say the least, a confusion of thought.\nCould he think of the Turkish people as apart from the Ottoman\nGovernment? And what is the meaning of the death-knell of Ottoman\nDominion in Europe and Asia if it be not the death knell of Turkish\npeople as a free and governing race? Is it, again, true historically\nthat the Turkish rule has always been a blight that 'has withered some\nof the fairest regions of the earth?' And what is the meaning of his\nstatement that followed, viz., \"Nothing is further from our thoughts\nthan to imitate or encourage a crusade against their belief?\" If words\nhave any meaning, the qualifications that Mr. Asquith introduced in his\nspeech should have meant a scrupulous regard for Indian Muslim feeling.\nAnd if that be the meaning of his speech, without anything further to\nsupport me I would claim that even Mr. Asquith's assurance is in danger\nof being set at nought if the resolutions of the San Remo Conference are\nto be crystallised into action. But I base remarks on a considered\nspeech made by Mr. Asquith's successor two years later when things had\nassumed a more threatening shape than in 1914 and when the need for\nIndian help was much greater than in 1914. His pledge would bear\nrepetition till it is fulfilled. He said: \"Nor are we fighting to\ndeprive Turkey of its capital or of the rich and renowned lands of Asia\nMinor and Thrace which are predominantly Turkish in race. We do not\nchallenge the maintenance of the Turkish Empire in the homelands of the\nTurkish race with its capital at Constantinople.\" If only every word of\nthis pledge is fulfilled both in letter and in spirit, there would be\nlittle left for quarrelling about. In so far as Mr. Asquith's\ndeclaration can be considered hostile to the Indian Muslim claim, it its\nsuperseded by the later and more considered declaration of Mr. Lloyd\nGeorge--a declaration made irrevocable by fulfilment of the\nconsideration it expected, viz. the enlistment of the brave Mahomedan\nsoldiery which fought in the very place which is now being partitioned\nin spite of the pledge. But the writer of 'Current Topics' says Mr.\nLloyd George \"is now in process of keeping his pledge\" I hope he is\nright. But what has already happened gives little ground for any such\nhope. For, imprisonment or internment of the Khalif in his own capital\nwill be not only a mockery of fulfilment but it would he adding injury\nto insult. Either the Turkish Empire is to be maintained in the\nhomelands of the Turkish race with its capital at Constantinople or it\nis not. If it is, let the Indian Mahomedans feel the full glow of it or\nif the Empire is to be broken up, let the mask of hypocrisy be lifted\nand India see the truth in its nakedness. To join the Khilafat movement\nthen means to join a movement to keep inviolate the pledge of a British\nminister. Surely, such a movement is worth much greater sacrifice than\nmay be involved in non-co-operation.\n\n\nAPPEAL TO THE VICEROY\n\nYour Excellency.\n\nAs one who has enjoyed a certain measure of your Excellency's\nconfidence, and as one who claims to be a devoted well-wisher of the\nBritish Empire, I owe it to your Excellency, and through your Excellency\nto His Majesty's Ministers, to explain my connection with and my conduct\nin the Khilafat question.\n\nAt the very earliest stages of the war, even whilst I was in London\norganising the Indian Volunteer Ambulance Corps, I began to interest\nmyself in the Khilafat question. I perceived how deeply moved the little\nMussalman World in London was when Turkey decided to throw in her lot\nwith Germany. On my arrival in India in the January of 1915, I found the\nsame anxiousness and earnestness among the Mussalmans with whom I came\nin contact. Their anxiety became intense when the information about the\nSecret Treaties leaked out. Distrust of British intentions filled their\nminds, and despair took possession of them. Even at that moment I\nadvised my Mussalman friends not to give way to despair, but to express\ntheir fear and their hopes in a disciplined manner. It will be admitted\nthat the whole of Mussalman India has behaved in a singularly restrained\nmanner during the past five years and that the leaders have been able to\nkeep the turbulent sections of their community under complete control.\n\nThe peace terms and your Excellency's defence of them have given the\nMussalmans of India a shock from which it will be difficult for them to\nrecover. The terms violate ministerial pledges and utterly disregard\nMussalman sentiment. I consider that as a staunch Hindu wishing to live\non terms of the closest friendship with my Mussalman countrymen. I\nshould be an unworthy son of India if I did not stand by them in their\nhour of trial. In my humble opinion their cause is just. They claim that\nTurkey must be _punished_ if their sentiment is to be respected. Muslim\nsoldiers did fight to inflict punishment on their own Khalifa or to\ndeprive him of his territories. The Mussalman attitude has been\nconsistent, throughout these five years.\n\nMy duty to the Empire to which I owe my loyalty requires me to resist\nthe cruel violence that has been done to the Mussalman sentiment. So far\nas I am aware, Mussulmans and Hindus have as a whole lost faith in\nBritish justice and honour. The report of the majority of the Hunter\nCommittee, Your Excellency's despatch thereon and Mr. Montagu's reply\nhave only aggravated the distrust.\n\nIn these circumstances the only course open to one like me is either in\ndespair to sever all connection with British rule, or, if I still\nretained faith in the inherent superiority of the British constitution\nto all others at present in vogue to adopt such means as will rectify\nthe wrong done, and thus restore confidence. I have not lost faith in\nsuch superiority and I am not without hope that somehow or other justice\nwill yet be rendered if we show the requisite capacity for suffering.\nIndeed, my conception of that constitution is that it helps only those\nwho are ready to help themselves. I do not believe that it protects the\nweak. It gives free scope to the strong to maintain their strength and\ndevelop it. The weak under it go to the wall.\n\nIt is, then, because I believe in the British constitution that I have\nadvised my Mussalman friends to withdraw their support from your\nExcellency's Government and the Hindus to join them, should the peace\nterms not be revised in accordance with the solemn pledges of Ministers\nand the Muslim sentiment.\n\nThree courses were open to the Mahomedans in order to mark their\nemphatic disapproval of the utter injustice to which His Majesty's\nMinisters have become party, if they have not actually been the prime\nperpetrators of it. They are:--\n\n(1) To resort to violence,\n\n(2) To advise emigration on a wholesale scale,\n\n(3) Not to be party to the injustice by ceasing to co-operate with the\nGovernment.\n\nYour Excellency must be aware that there was a time when the boldest,\nthough the most thoughtless among the Mussulmans favoured violence, and\nthe \"Hijrat\" (emigration) has not yet ceased to be the battle-cry. I\nventure to claim that I have succeeded by patient reasoning in weaning\nthe party of violence from its ways. I confess that I did not--I did not\nattempt to succeed in weaning them from violence on moral grounds, but\npurely on utilitarian grounds. The result, for the time being at any\nhas, however, been to stop violence. The School of \"Hijrat\" has received\na check, if it has not stopped its activity entirely. I hold that no\nrepression could have prevented a violent eruption, if the people had\nnot had presented to them a form of direct action involving considerable\nsacrifice and ensuring success if such direct action was largely taken\nup by the public. Non-co-operation was the only dignified and\nconstitutional form of such direct action. For it is the right\nrecognised from times immemorial of the subject to refuse to assist a\nruler who misrules.\n\nAt the same time I admit that non-co-operation practised by the mass of\npeople is attended with grave risks. But, in a crisis such as has\novertaken the Mussalmans of India, no step that is unattended with large\nrisks, can possibly bring about the desired change. Not to run some\nrisks now will be to court much greater risks if not virtual destruction\nof Law and Order.\n\nBut there is yet an escape from non-co-operation. The Mussalman\nrepresentation has requested your Excellency to lead the agitation\nyourself, as did your distinguished predecessor at the time of the South\nAfrican trouble. But if you cannot see your way to do so, and\nnon-co-operation becomes a dire necessity, I hope that your Excellency\nwill give those who have accepted my advice and myself the credit for\nbeing actuated by nothing less than a stern sense of duty.\n\nI have the honour to remain,\n\nYour Excellency's faithful servant,\n\n(Sd.) M.K. GANDHI.\n\nLaburnam Road, Gamdevi, Bombay\n\n22nd June 1920\n\n\nTHE PREMIER'S REPLY\n\nThe English mail has brought us a full and official report of the\nPremier's speech which he recently made when he received the Khilafat\ndeputation. Mr. Lloyd George's speech is more definite and therefore\nmore disappointing than H.E. the Viceroy's reply to the deputation here.\nHe draws quite unwarranted deductions from the same high principles on\nwhich he had based his own pledge only two years ago. He declares that\nTurkey must pay the penalty of defeat. This determination to punish\nTurkey does not become one whose immediate predecessor had, in order to\nappease Muslim soldiers, promised that the British Government had no\ndesigns on Turkey and that His Majesty's Government would never think of\npunishing the Sultan for the misdeeds of the Turkish Committee. Mr.\nLloyd George has expressed his belief that the majority of the\npopulation of Turkey did not really want to quarrel with Great Britain\nand that their rulers misled the country. In spite of this conviction\nand in spite of Mr. Asquith's promise, he is out to punish Turkey and\npunish it in the name of justice.\n\nHe expounds the principle of self-determination and justifies the scheme\nof depriving Turkey of its territories one after another. While\njustifying this scheme he does not exclude even Thrace and this strikes\nthe reader most, because this very Thrace he had mentioned in his pledge\nas predominantly Turkish. Now we are told by him that both the Turkish\ncensus and the Greek census agree in pointing out the Mussulman\npopulation in Thrace is in a considerable minority! Mr. Yakub Hussain\nspeaking at the Madras Khilafat conference has challenged the truth of\nthis statement. The Prime Minister cites among others also the example\nof Smyrna where, he says, we had a most careful investigation by a very\nimpartial committee in the whole of the question of Smyrna and it was\nfound that considerable majority was non-Turkish.' Who will believe the\none-sided \"impartial committee's\" investigations until it is disproved\nthat thousands of Musselmans have been murdered and hundreds of\nthousands have been driven away from their hearths and homes? Strangely\nenough Mr. Lloyd George, believes in the necessity of fresh\ninvestigations by a purposely appointed committee in Smyrna as the most\nauthenticated and up-to-date report, whereas he would not accept Mr.\nMahomed Ali's proposal for an impartial commission in regard to Armenian\nmassacre! Doubtful and one-sided facts and figures suffice for him even\nto conclude that the Turkish Government is incapable of protecting its\nsubjects. And he proceeds to suggest foreign interference in ruling over\nAsia Minor in the interests of civilization. Here he cuts at the root of\nthe Sultan's independence. This proposal of appropriating supervision is\ndistinctly unlike the treatment meted out to other enemy powers.\n\nThis detraction of the Sultan's suzerainty is only a corollary of the\nPremier's indifference towards the Muslim idea of the Caliphate. The\npremier's injustice in treating the Turkish question becomes graver when\nhe thus lightly handles the Khilafat question. There had been occasions\nwhen the British have used to their advantage the Muslim idea of\nassociating the Caliph's spiritual power with temporal power. Now this\nvery association is treated as a controversial question by the great\nstatesman.\n\nWill this raise the reputation of Great Britain or stain it? Can this be\ntolerated by those who fought against Turkey with full faith in British\nhonesty? Mere receipts of gratitude cannot console the wounded\nMussalmans. There lies the alternative for England to choose between two\nmandates--a mandate over some Turkish territories which is sure to lead\nto chaos all over the world and a mandate over the hearts of the\nMuhomedans which will redeem the pledged honour of Britain. The prime\nminister has an unwise choice. This narrow view registers the latest\ntemperature of British diplomacy.\n\n\nTHE MUSSULMAN REPRESENTATION\n\nSlowly but surely the Mussulmans are preparing for the battle before\nthem. They have to fight against odds that are undoubtedly heavy but\nnot half as heavy as the prophet had against him. How often did he not\nput his life in danger? But his faith in God was unquenchable. He went\nforward with a light heart, for God was on his side, for he represented\ntruth. If his followers have half the prophet's faith and half his\nspirit of sacrifice, the odds will be presently even and will in little\nwhile turn against the despoilers of Turkey. Already the rapacity of the\nAllies is telling against themselves. France finds her task difficult.\nGreece cannot stomach her ill-gotten gains. And England finds\nMesopotamia a tough job. The oil of Mosul may feed the fire she has so\nwantonly lighted and burn her fingers badly. The newspapers say the\nArabs do not like the presence of the Indian soldiery in their midst. I\ndo not wonder. They are a fierce and a brave people and do not\nunderstand why Indian soldiers should find themselves in Mesopotamia.\nWhatever the fate of non-co-operation, I wish that not a single Indian\nwill offer his services for Mesopotamia whether for the civil or the\nmilitary department. We must learn to think for ourselves and before\nentering upon any employment find out whether thereby we may not make\nourselves instruments of injustice. Apart from the question of Khilafat\nand from the point of abstract justice the English have no right to hold\nMesopotamia. It is no part of our loyalty to help the Imperial\nGovernment in what is in plain language daylight robbery. If therefore\nwe seek civil or military employment in Mesopotamia we do so for the\nsake of earning a livelihood. It is our duty to see that the source is\nnot tainted.\n\nIt surprises me to find so many people shirking over the mention of\nnon-co-operation. There is no instrument so clean, so harmless and yet\nso effective as non-co-operation. Judiciously hauled it need not produce\nany evil consequences. And its intensity will depend purely on the\ncapacity of the people for sacrifice.\n\nThe chief thing is to prepare the atmosphere of non-co-operation. \"We\nare not going to co-operate with you in your injustice,\" is surely the\nright and the duty of every intelligent subject to say. Were it not for\nour utter servility, helplessness and want of confidence in ourselves,\nwe would certainly grasp this clean weapon and make the most effective\nuse of it. Even the most despotic government cannot stand except for the\nconsent of the governed which consent is often forcibly procured by the\ndespot. Immediately the subject ceases to fear the despotic force his\npower is gone. But the British government is never and nowhere entirely\nor laid upon force. It does make an honest attempt to secure the\ngoodwill of the governed. But it does not hesitate to adopt unscrupulous\nmeans to compel the consent of the governed. It has not gone beyond the\n'Honesty is the best policy' idea. It therefore bribes you into\nconsenting its will by awarding titles, medals and ribbons, by giving\nyou employment, by its superior financial ability to open for its\nemployees avenues for enriching themselves and finally when these fail,\nit resorts to force. That is what Sir Michael O'Dwyer did and that is\nalmost every British administrator will certainly do if he thought it\nnecessary. If then we would not be greedy, if we would not run after\ntitles and medals and honorary posts which do the country no good, half\nthe battle is won.\n\nMy advisers are never tired of telling me that even if the Turkish peace\nterms are revised it will not be due to non-co-operation. I venture to\nsuggest to them that non-co-operation has a higher purpose than mere\nrevision of the terms. If I cannot compel revision I must at least cease\nto support a government that becomes party to the usurpation. And if I\nsucceed in pushing non-co-operation to the extreme limit, I do compel\nthe Government to choose between India and the usurpation. I have faith\nenough in England to know that at that moment England will expel her\npresent jaded ministers and put in others who will make a clean sweep of\nthe terms in consultation with an awakened India, draft terms that will\nbe honourable to her, to Turkey and acceptable to India. But I hear my\ncritics say \"India has not the strength of purpose and the capacity for\nthe sacrifice to achieve such a noble end. They are partly right. India\nhas not these qualities now, because we have not--shall we not evolve\nthem and infect the nation with them? Is not the attempt worth making?\nIs my sacrifice too great to gain such a great purpose?\"\n\n\nCRITICISM OF THE MUSLIM MANIFESTO\n\nThe Khilafat representation addressed to the Viceroy and my letter on\nthe same subject have been severely criticised by the Anglo-Indian\npress. _The Times of India_ which generally adopts an impartial attitude\nhas taken strong exception to certain statements made in the Muslim\nmanifesto and has devoted a paragraph of its article to an advance\ncriticism of my suggestion that His Excellency should resign if the\npeace terms are not revised.\n\n_The Times of India_ excepts to the submission that the British Empire\nmay not treat Turkey like a departed enemy. The signatories have, I\nthink, supplied the best of reasons. They say \"We respectfully submit\nthat in the treatment of Turkey the British Government are bound to\nrespect Indian Muslim sentiment in so far as it is neither unjust nor\nunreasonable.\" If the seven crore Mussulmans are partners in the Empire,\nI submit that their wish must be held to be all sufficient for\nrefraining from punishing Turkey. It is beside the point to quote what\nTurkey did during the war. It has suffered for it. _The Times_ inquires\nwherein Turkey has been treated worse than the other Powers. I thought\nthat the fact was self-evident. Neither Germany nor Austria and Hungary\nhas been treated in the same way that Turkey has been. The whole of the\nEmpire has been reduced to the retention of a portion of its capital, as\nit were, to mock the Sultan and that too has been done under terms so\nhumiliating that no self-respecting person much less a reigning\nsovereign can possibly accept.\n\n_The Times_ has endeavoured to make capital out of the fact that the\nrepresentation does not examine the reason for Turkey not joining the\nAllies. Well there was no mystery about it. The fact of Russia being one\nof the Allies was enough to warn Turkey against joining them. With\nRussia knocking at the gate at the time of the war it was not an easy\nmatter for Turkey to join the Allies. But Turkey had cause to suspect\nGreat Britain herself. She knew that England had done no friendly turn\nto her during the Bulgarian War. She was hardly well served at the time\nof the war with Italy. It was still no doubt a bad choice. With the\nMusssalmans of India awakened and ready to support her, her statesmen\nmight have relied upon Britain not being allowed to damage Turkey if she\nhad remained with the Allies. But this is all wisdom after event. Turkey\nmade a bad choice and she was punished for it. To humiliate her now is\nto ignore the Indian Mussulman sentiment. Britain may not do it and\nretain the loyalty of the awakened Mussulmans of India.\n\nFor \"The Times\" to say that the peace terms strictly follow the\nprinciple of self-determination is to throw dust in the eyes of its\nreaders. Is it the principle of self-determination that has caused the\ncessation of Adrianople and Thrace to Greece? By what principle of\nself-determination has Smyrna been handed to Greece? Have the\ninhabitants of Thrace and Smyrna asked for Grecian tutelege?\n\nI decline to believe that the Arabs like the disposition that has been\nmade of them. Who is the King of Hedjaj and who is Emir Feisul? Have the\nArabs elected these kings and chiefs? Do the Arabs like the Mandate\nbeing taken by England? By the time the whole thing is finished, the\nvery name self-determination will stink in one's nostrils. Already signs\nare not wanting to show that the Arabs, the Thracians and the Smyrnans\nare resenting their disposal. They may not like Turkish rule but they\nlike the present arrangement less. They could have made their own\nhonourable terms with Turkey but these self-determining people will now\nbe held down by the 'matchless might' of the allied _i.e._, British\nforces. Britain had the straight course open to her of keeping the\nTurkish Empire intact and taking sufficient guarantees for good\ngovernment. But her Prime Minister chose the crooked course of secret\ntreaties, duplicity and hypocritical subterfuges.\n\nThere is still a way out. Let her treat India as a real partner. Let her\ncall the true representatives of the Mussalmans. Let them go to Arabia\nand the other parts of the Turkish Empire and let her devise a scheme\nthat would not humiliate Turkey, that would satisfy the just Muslim\nsentiment and that will secure honest self-determination for the races\ncomposing that Empire. If it was Canada, Australia or South Africa that\nhad to be placated, Mr. Lloyd George would not have dared to ignore\nthem. They have the power to secede. India has not. Let him no more\ninsult India by calling her a partner, if her feelings count for naught.\nI invite _The Times of India_ to reconsider its position and join an\nhonourable agitation in which a high-souled people are seeking nothing\nbut justice.\n\nI do with all deference still suggest that the least that Lord\nChelmsford can do is to resign if the sacred feelings of India's sons\nare not to be consulted and respected by the Ministers. _The Times_ is\nover-taxing the constitution when it suggests that as a constitutional\nViceroy it is not open to Lord Chelmsford to go against the decision of\nhis Majesty's Ministers. It is certainly not open to a Viceroy to retain\noffice and oppose ministerial decisions. But the constitution does allow\na Viceroy to resign his high office when he is called upon to carry out\ndecisions that are immoral as the peace terms are or like these terms\nare calculated to stir to their very depth the feelings of those whose\naffair he is administering for the time being.\n\n\nTHE MAHOMEDAN DECISION\n\nThe Khilafat meeting at Allahabad has unanimously reaffirmed the\nprinciple of non-co-operation and appointed an executive committee to\nlay down and enforce a detailed programme. This meeting was preceded by\na joint Hindu-Mahomedan meeting at which Hindu leaders were invited to\ngive their views. Mrs. Beasant, the Hon'ble Pandit Malaviyuji, the\nHon'ble Dr. Sapru Motilal Nehru Chintamani and others were present at\nthe meeting. It was a wise step on the part of the Khilafat Committee to\ninvite Hindus representing all shades of thought to give them the\nbenefit of their advice. Mrs. Besant and Dr. Sapru strongly dissuaded\nthe Mahomedans present from the policy of non-co-operation. The other\nHindu speakers made non-committal speeches. Whilst the other Hindu\nspeakers approved of the principle of non-co-operation in theory, they\nsaw many practical difficulties and they feared also complications\narising from Mahomedans welcoming an Afghan invasion of India. The\nMahomedan speakers gave the fullest and frankest assurances that they\nwould fight to a man any invader who wanted to conquer India, but were\nequally frank in asserting that any invasion from without undertaken\nwith a view to uphold the prestige of Islam and to vindicate justice\nwould have their full sympathy if not their actual support. It is easy\nenough to understand and justify the Hindu caution. It is difficult to\nresist Mahomedan position. In my opinion, the best way to prevent India\nfrom becoming the battle ground between the forces of Islam and those of\nthe English is for Hindus to make non-co-operation a complete and\nimmediate success, and I have little doubt that if the Mahomedans remain\ntrue to their declared intention and are able to exercise\nself-restraint, and make sacrifices the Hindus will \"play the game\" and\njoin them in the campaign of non-co-operation. I feel equally certain\nthat the Hindus will not assist Mahomedans in promoting or bringing\nabout an armed conflict between the British Government and their allies,\nand Afghanistan. British forces are too well organised to admit of any\nsuccessful invasion of the Indian frontier. The only way, therefore, the\nMahomedans can carry on an effective struggle on behalf of the honour of\nIslam is to take up non-co-operation in real earnest. It will not only\nbe completely effective if it is adopted by the people on an extensive\nscale, but it will also provide full scope for individual conscience. If\nI cannot bear an injustice done by an individual or a corporation, and\nif I am directly or indirectly instrumental in upholding that individual\nor corporation, I must answer for it before my Maker, but I have done\nall it is humanly possible for me to do consistently with the moral code\nthat refuses to injure even the wrong-doer, if I cease to support the\ninjustice in the manner described above. In applying therefore such a\ngreat force there should be no haste, there should be no temper shown.\nNon-co-operation must be and remain absolutely a voluntary effort. The\nwhole thing then depends upon Mahomedans themselves. If they will but\nhelp themselves Hindu help will come and the Government, great and\nmighty though it is, will have to bend before this irresistible force.\nNo Government can possibly withstand the bloodless opposition of a whole\nnation.\n\n\nMR. ANDREWS' DIFFICULTY\n\nMr. Andrews whose love for India is equalled only by his love for\nEngland and whose mission in life is to serve God, i.e., humanity\nthrough India, has contributed remarkable articles to the 'Bombay\nChronicle' on the Khilafat movement. He has not spared England, France\nor Italy. He has shown how Turkey has been most unjustly dealt with and\nhow the Prime Minister's pledge has been broken. He has devoted the last\narticle to an examination of Mr. Mahomed Ali's letter to the Sultan and\nhas come to the conclusion that Mr. Mahomed Ali's statement of claim is\nat variance with the claim set forth in the latest Khilafat\nrepresentation to the Viceroy which he wholly approves.\n\nMr. Andrews and I have discussed the question as fully as it was\npossible. He asked me publicly to define my own position more fully than\nI have done. His sole object in inviting discussion is to give strength\nto a cause which he holds as intrinsically just, and to gather round it\nthe best opinion of Europe so that the allied powers and especially\nEngland may for very shame be obliged to revise the terms.\n\nI gladly respond to Mr. Andrew's invitation. I should clear the ground\nby stating that I reject any religious doctrine that does not appeal to\nreason and is in conflict with morality. I tolerate unreasonable\nreligious sentiment when it is not immoral. I hold the Khilafat claim to\nbe both just and reasonable and therefore it derives greater force\nbecause it has behind it the religious sentiment of the Mussalman world.\n\nIn my opinion Mr. Mahomed Ali's statement is unexceptionable. It is no\ndoubt clothed in diplomatic language. But I am not prepared to quarrel\nwith the language so long as it is sound in substance.\n\nMr. Andrews considers that Mr. Mahomed Ali's language goes to show that\nhe would resist Armenian independence against the Armenians and the\nArabian against the Arabs. I attach no such meaning to it. What he, the\nwhole of Mussalmans and therefore I think also the Hindus resist is the\nshameless attempt of England and the other Powers under cover of\nself-determination to emasculate and dismember Turkey. If I understand\nthe spirit of Islam properly, it is essentially republican in the truest\nsense of the term. Therefore if Armenia or Arabia desired independence\nof Turkey they should have it. In the case of Arabia, complete Arabian\nindependence would mean transference of the Khilafat to an Arab\nchieftain. Arabia in that sense is a Mussulman trust, not purely\nArabian. And the Arabs without ceasing to be Mussulman, could not hold\nArabia against Muslim opinion. The Khalifa must be the custodian of the\nHoly places and therefore also the routes to them. He must be able to\ndefend them against the whole world. And if an Arab chief arose who\ncould better satisfy that test than the Sultan of Turkey, I have no\ndoubt that he would be recognised as the Khalifa.\n\nI have thus discussed the question academically. The fact is that\nneither the Mussulmans nor the Hindus believe in the English Ministerial\nword. They do not believe that the Arabs or the Armenians want complete\nindependence of Turkey. That they want self-government is beyond doubt.\nNobody disputes that claim. But nobody has ever ascertained that either\nthe Arabs or the Armenians desire to do away with all connection, even\nnominal, with Turkey.\n\nThe solution of the question lies not in our academic discussion of the\nideal position, it lies in an honest appointment of a mixed commission\nof absolutely independent Indian Mussulmans and Hindus and independent\nEuropeans to investigate the real wish of the Armenians and the Arabs\nand then to come to a _modus vivendi_ where by the claims of the\nnationality and those of Islam may be adjusted and satisfied.\n\nIt is common knowledge that Smyrna and Thrace including Adrianople have\nbeen dishonestly taken away from Turkey and that mandates have been\nunscrupulously established in Syria and Mesopotamia and a British\nnominee has been set up in Hedjaj under the protection of British guns.\nThis is a position that is intolerable and unjust. Apart therefore from\nthe questions of Armenia and Arabia, the dishonesty and hypocrisy that\npollute the peace terms require to be instantaneously removed. It paves\nthe way to an equitable solution of the question of Armenian and Arabian\nindependence which in theory no one denies and which in practice may be\neasily guaranteed if only the wishes of the people concerned could with\nany degree of certainty be ascertained.\n\n\nTHE KHILAFAT AGITATION\n\nA friend who has been listening to my speeches once asked me whether I\ndid not come under the sedition section of the Indian Penal Code. Though\nI had not fully considered it, I told him that very probably I did and\nthat I could not plead 'not guilty' if I was charged under it. For I\nmust admit that I can pretend to no 'affection' for the present\nGovernment.\n\nAnd my speeches are intended to create 'dis-affection' such that the\npeople might consider it a shame to assist or co-operate with a\nGovernment that had forfeited all title to confidence, respect or\nsupport.\n\nI draw no distinction between the Imperial and the Indian Government.\nThe latter has accepted, on the Khilafat, the policy imposed upon it by\nthe former. And in the Punjab case the former has endorsed the policy of\nterrorism and emasculation of a brave people initiated by the latter.\nBritish ministers have broken their pledged word and wantonly wounded\nthe feelings of the seventy million Mussulmans of India. Innocent men\nand women were insulted by the insolent officers of the Punjab\nGovernment. Their wrongs not only remain unrighted but the very officers\nwho so cruelly subjected them to barbarous humiliation retain office\nunder the Government.\n\nWhen at Amritsar last year I pleaded with all the earnestness I could\ncommand for co-operation with the Government and for response to the\nwishes expressed in the Royal Proclamation. I did so because I honestly\nbelieved that, a new era was about to begin, and that the old spirit of\nfear, distrust and consequent terrorism was about to give place to the\nnew spirit of respect, trust and goodwill. I sincerely believed that the\nMussulman sentiment would be placated and that the officers that had\nmisbehaved during the Martial Law regime in the Punjab would be at least\ndismissed and the people would be otherwise made to feel that a\nGovernment that had always been found quick (and mighty) to punish\npopular excesses would not fail to punish its agents' misdeeds. But to\nmy amazement and dismay I have discovered that the present\nrepresentatives of the Empire have become dishonest and unscrupulous.\nThey have no real regard for the wishes of the people of India and they\ncount Indian honour as of little consequence.\n\nI can no longer retain affection for a Government so evilly manned as it\nis now-a-days. And for me, it is humiliating to retain my freedom and be\nwitness to the continuing wrong. Mr. Montagu however is certainly right\nin threatening me with deprivation of my liberty if I persist in\nendangering the existence of the Government. For that must be the result\nif my activity bears fruit. My only regret is that inasmuch as Mr.\nMontagu admits my past services, he might have perceived that there must\nbe something exceptionally bad in the Government if a well-wisher like\nme could no longer give his affection to it. It was simpler to insist on\njustice being done to the Mussalmans and to the Punjab than to threaten\nme with punishment so that the injustice might be perpetuated. Indeed I\nfully expect it will be found that even in promoting disaffection\ntowards an unjust Government I had rendered greater services to the\nEmpire than I am already credited with.\n\nAt the present moment, however, the duty of those who approve my\nactivity is clear. They ought on no account to resent the deprivation of\nmy liberty, should the Government of India deem it to be their duty to\ntake it away. A citizen has no right to resist such restriction imposed\nin accordance with the laws of the State to which he belongs. Much less\nhave those who sympathise with him. In my case there can be no question\nof sympathy. For I deliberately oppose the Government to the extent of\ntrying to put its very existence in jeopardy. For my supporters,\ntherefore, it must be a moment of joy when I am imprisoned. It means the\nbeginning of success if only the supporters continue the policy for\nwhich I stand. If the Government arrest me, they would do so in order to\nstop the progress of Non-co-operation which I preach. It follows that if\nNon-co-operation continues with unabated vigour, even after my arrest,\nthe Government must imprison others or grant the people's wish in order\nto gain their co-operation. Any eruption of violence on the part of the\npeople even under provocation would end in disaster. Whether therefore\nit is I or any one else who is arrested during the campaign, the first\ncondition of success is that there must be no resentment shown against\nit. We cannot imperil the very existence of a Government and quarrel\nwith its attempt to save itself by punishing those who place it in\ndanger.\n\n\nHIJARAT AND ITS MEANING\n\nIndia is a continent. Its articulate thousands know what its\ninarticulate millions are doing or thinking. The Government and the\neducated Indians may think that the Khilafat movement is merely a\npassing phase. The millions of Mussalmans think otherwise. The flight of\nthe Mussalmans is growing apace. The newspapers contain paragraphs in\nout of the way corners informing the readers that a special train\ncontaining a barrister with sixty women, forty children including twenty\nsucklings, all told 765, have left for Afghanistan. They were cheered\n_en route_. They were presented with cash, edibles and other things, and\nwere joined by more Muhajarins on the way. No fanatical preaching by\nShaukatali can make people break up and leave their homes for an unknown\nland. There must be an abiding faith in them. That it is better for them\nto leave a State which has no regard for their religious sentiment and\nface a beggar's life than to remain in it even though it may be in a\nprincely manner. Nothing but pride of power can blind the Government of\nIndia to the scene that is being enacted before it.\n\nBut there is yet another side to the movement. Here are the facts as\nstated in the following Government _Communique_ dated 10th July 1920:--\n\n   An unfortunate affair in connection with the Mahajarin occurred on\n   the 8th instant at Kacha Garhi between Peshawar and Jamrud. The\n   following are the facts as at present reported. Two members of a\n   party of the Mahajarins proceeding by train to Jamrud were detected\n   by the British military police travelling without tickets.\n   Altercation ensued at Islamia College Station, but the train\n   proceeded to Kacha Garhi. An attempt was made to evict these\n   Mahajarins, whereupon the military police were attacked by a crowd of\n   some forty Mahajarins and the British officer who intervened was\n   seriously wounded with a spade. A detachment of Indian troops at\n   Kacha Garhi thereupon fired two or three shots at the Mahajarin for\n   making murderous assault on the British officer. One Mahajarin was\n   killed and one wounded and three arrested. Both the military and the\n   police were injured. The body of the Mahajarin was despatched to\n   Peshawar and buried on the morning of the 9th. This incident has\n   caused considerable excitement in Peshawar City, and the Khilafat\n   Hijrat Committee are exercising restraining influence. Shops were\n   closed on the morning of the 9th. A full enquiry has been instituted.\n\nNow Peshawar to Jamrud is a matter of a few miles. It was clearly the\nduty of the military not to attempt to pull out the ticketless\nMahajarins for the sake of a few annas. But they actually attempted\nforce. Intervention by the rest of the party was a foregone conclusion.\nAn altercation ensued. A British officer was attacked with a spade.\nFiring and a death of a Mahajarin was the result. Has British prestige\nbeen enhanced by the episode? Why have not the Government put tactful\nofficers in charge at the frontier, whilst a great religious emigration\nis in progress? The action of the military will pass from tongue to\ntongue throughout India and the Mussalman world around, will not doubt\nbe unconsciously and even consciously exaggerated in the passage and the\nfeeling bitter as it already is will grow in bitterness. The\n_Communique_ says that the Government are making further inquiry. Let us\nhope that it will be full and that better arrangements will be made to\nprevent a repetition of what appears to have been a thoughtless act on\nthe part of the military.\n\nAnd may I draw the attention of those who are opposing non-co-operation\nthat unless they find out a substitute they should either join the\nnon-co-operation movement or prepare to face a disorganised subterranean\nupheaval whose effect no one can foresee and whose spread it would be\nimpossible to check or regulate?\n\n\n\n\nIII. THE PUNJAB WRONGS\n\n\nPOLITICAL FREEMASONRY\n\nFreemasonry is a secret brotherhood which has more by its secret and\niron rules than by its service to humanity obtained a hold upon some of\nthe best minds. Similarly there seems to be some secret code of conduct\ngoverning the official class in India before which the flower of the\ngreat British nation fall prostrate and unconsciously become instruments\nof injustice which as private individuals they would be ashamed of\nperpetrating. In no other way is it possible for one to understand the\nmajority report of the Hunter Committee, the despatch of the Government\nof India, and the reply thereto of the Secretary of State for India. In\nspite of the energetic protests of a section of the Press to the\npersonnel of the committee, it might be said that on the whole the\npublic were prepared to trust it especially as it contained three Indian\nmembers who could fairly be claimed to be independent. The first rude\nshock to this confidence was delivered by the refusal of Lord Hunter's\nCommittee to accept the very moderate and reasonable demand of the\nCongress Committee that the imprisoned Punjab leaders might be allowed\nto appear before it to instruct Counsel. Any doubt that might have been\nleft in the mind of any person has been dispelled by the report of the\nmajority of that committee. The result has justified the attitude of the\nCongress Committee. The evidence collected by it shows what lord\nHunter's Committee purposely denied itself.\n\nThe minority report stands out like an oasis in a desert. The Indian\nmembers deserve the congratulation of their countrymen for having dared\nto do their duty in the face of heavy odds. I wish that they had refused\nto associate themselves even in a modified manner with the condemnation\nof the civil disobedience form of Satyagraha. The defiant spirit of the\nDelhi mob on the 30th March 1919 can hardly be used for condemning a\ngreat spiritual movement which is admittedly and manifestly intended to\nrestrain the violent tendencies of mobs and to replace criminal\nlawlessness by civil disobedience of authority, when it has forfeited\nall title to respect. On the 30th March civil disobedience had not even\nbeen started. Almost every great popular demonstration has been hitherto\nattended all the world over by a certain amount of lawlessness. The\ndemonstration of 30th March and 6th April could have been held under any\nother aegis us under that of Satyagrah. I hold that without the advent\nof the spirit of civility and orderliness the disobedience would have\ntaken a much more violent form than it did even at Delhi. It was only\nthe wonderfully quick acceptance by the people of the principle of\nSatyagrah that effectively checked the spread of violence throughout the\nlength and breadth of India. And even to-day it is not the memory of the\nblack barbarity of General Dyer that is keeping the undoubted\nrestlessness among the people from breaking forth into violence. The\nhold that Satyagrah has gained on the people--it may be even against\ntheir will--is curbing the forces of disorder and violence. But I must\nnot detain the reader on a defence of Satyagrah against unjust attacks.\nIf it has gained a foothold in India, it will survive much fiercer\nattacks than the one made by the majority of the Hunter Committee and\nsomewhat supported by the minority. Had the majority report been\ndefective only in this direction and correct in every other there would\nhave been nothing but praise for it. After all Satyagrah is a new\nexperiment in political field. And a hasty attributing to it of any\npopular disorder would have been pardonable.\n\nThe universally pronounced adverse judgment upon the report and the\ndespatches rests upon far more painful revelations. Look at the\nmanifestly laboured defence of every official act of inhumanity except\nwhere condemnation could not be avoided through the impudent admissions\nmade by the actors themselves; look at the special pleading introduced\nto defend General Dyer even against himself; look at the vain\nglorification of Sir Michael O'Dwyer although it was his spirit that\nactuated every act of criminality on the part of the subordinates; look\nat the deliberate refusal to examine his wild career before the events\nof April. His acts were an open book of which the committee ought to\nhave taken judicial notices. Instead of accepting everything that the\nofficials had to say, the Committee's obvious duty was to tax itself to\nfind out the real cause of the disorders. It ought to have gone out of\nits way to search out the inwardness of the events. Instead of patiently\ngoing behind the hard crust of official documents, the Committee allowed\nitself to be guided with criminal laziness by mere official evidence.\nThe report and the despatches, in my humble opinion, constitute an\nattempt to condone official lawlessness. The cautious and half-hearted\ncondemnation pronounced upon General Dyer's massacre and the notorious\ncrawling order only deepens the disappointment of the reader as he goes\nthrough page after page of thinly disguised official whitewash. I need,\nhowever, scarcely attempt any elaborate examination of the report or the\ndespatches which have been so justly censured by the whole national\npress whether of the moderate or the extremist hue. The point to\nconsider is how to break down this secret--be the secrecy over so\nunconscious--conspiracy to uphold official iniquity. A scandal of this\nmagnitude cannot be tolerated by the nation, if it is to preserve its\nself-respect and become a free partner in the Empire. The All-India\nCongress Committee has resolved upon convening a special session of the\nCongress for the purpose of considering, among other things, the\nsituation arising from the report. In my opinion the time has arrived\nwhen we must cease to rely upon mere petition to Parliament for\neffective action. Petitions will have value, when the nation has behind\nit the power to enforce its will. What power then have we? When we are\nfirmly of opinion that grave wrong has been done us and when after an\nappeal to the highest authority we fail to secure redress, there must be\nsome power available to us for undoing the wrong. It is true that in the\nvast majority of cases it is the duty of a subject to submit to wrongs\non failure of the usual procedure, so long as they do not affect his\nvital being. But every nation and every individual has the right and it\nis their duty, to rise against an intolerable wrong. I do not believe in\narmed risings. They are a remedy worse than the disease sought to be\ncured. They are a token of the spirit of revenge and impatience and\nanger. The method of violence cannot do good in the long run. Witness\nthe effect of the armed rising of the allied powers against Germany.\nHave they not become even like the Germans, as the latter have been\ndepicted to us by them?\n\nWe have a better method. Unlike that of violence it certainly involves\nthe exercise of restraint and patience: but it requires also\nresoluteness of will. This method is to refuse to be party to the wrong.\nNo tyrant has ever yet succeeded in his purpose without carrying the\nvictim with him, it may be, as it often is, by force. Most people choose\nrather to yield to the will of the tyrant than to suffer for the\nconsequences of resistance. Hence does terrorism form part of the\nstock-in-trade of the tyrant. But we have instances in history where\nterrorism has failed to impose the terrorist's will upon his victim.\nIndia has the choice before her now. If then the acts of the Punjab\nGovernment be an insufferable wrong, if the report of Lord Hunter's\nCommittee and the two despatches be a greater wrong by reason of their\ngrievous condonation of those acts, it is clear that we must refuse to\nsubmit to this official violence. Appeal the Parliament by all means, if\nnecessary, but if the Parliament fails us and if we are worthy to call\nourselves a nation, we must refuse to uphold the Government by\nwithdrawing co-operation from it.\n\n\nTHE DUTY OF THE PUNJABEE\n\nThe Allahabad _Leader_ deserves to be congratulated for publishing the\ncorrespondence on Mr. Bosworth Smith who was one of the Martial Law\nofficers against whom the complaints about persistent and continuous\nill-treatment were among the bitterest. It appears from the\ncorrespondence that Mr. Bosworth Smith has received promotion instead of\ndismissal. Sometime before Martial Law Mr. Smith appears to have been\ndegraded. \"He has since been restored,\" says the _Leader_ correspondent,\n\"to his position of a Deputy Commissioner of the second grade from which\nhe was degraded and also been invested with power under section 30 of\nthe Criminal Procedure Code. Since his arrival, the poor Indian\npopulation of the town of Amhala Cantonment has been living under a\nregime of horror and tyranny.\" The correspondent adds: \"I use both these\nwords deliberately for conveying precisely what they mean.\" I cull a few\npassage from this illuminating letter to illustrate the meaning of\nhorror and tyranny. \"In private complaints he never takes the statement\nof the complainant. It is taken down by the reader when the court rises\nand got signed by the magistrate the following day. Whether the report\nreceived (upon such complaints) is favourable to the complainant or\nunfavourable to him, it is never ready by the magistrate, and\ncomplaints are dismissed without proper trial. This is the fate of\nprivate complaints. Now as regards police chellans. Pleaders for the\naccused are not allowed to interview under trial prisoners in police\ncustody. They are not allowed to cross-examine prosecution witnesses....\nProsecution witnesses are examined with leading questions.... Thus a\nwhole prosecution story is put into the mouth of police, witnesses for\nthe defence though called in are not allowed to be examined by the\ndefence counsel.... The accused is silenced if he picks up courage to\nsay anything in defence.... Any Cantonment servant can write down the\nname of any citizen of the Cantonment on a chit of paper and ask him to\nappear the next day in court. This is a summons.... If any one does not\nappear in court who is thus ordered, criminal warrants of arrest are\nissued against him.\" There is much more of this style in the letter\nwhich is worth producing, but I have given enough to illustrate the\nwriter's meaning. Let me turn for a while to this official's record\nduring Martial Law. He is the official who tried people in batches and\nconvicted them after a farcical trial. Witnesses have deposed to his\nhaving assembled people, having asked them to give false evidence,\nhaving removed women's veils, called them 'flies, bitches, she-asses'\nand having spat upon them. He it was who subjected the innocent pleaders\nof Shokhupura indescribable persecution. Mr. Andrews personally\ninvestigated complaints against this official and came to the conclusion\nthat no official had behaved worse than Mr. Smith. He gathered the\npeople of Shokhupura, humiliated them in a variety of ways, called them\n'suvarlog,' 'gandi mukkhi.' His evidence before the Hunter Commission\nbetrays his total disregard for truth and this is the officer who, if\nthe correspondent in question has given correct facts, has been\npromoted. The question however is why, he is at all in Government\nservice and why he has not been tried for assaulting and abusing\ninnocent men and women.\n\nI notice a desire for the impeachment of General Dyer and Sir Michael\nO'Dwyer. I will not stop to examine whether the course is feasible. I\nwas sorry to find Mr. Shastriar joining this cry for the prosecution of\nGeneral Dyer. If the English people will willingly do so, I would\nwelcome such prosecution as a sign of their strong disapproval of the\nJallianwalla Bagh atrocity, but I would certainly not spend a single\nfarthing in a vain pursuit after the conviction of this man. Surely the\npublic has received sufficient experience of the English mind.\nPractically the whole English Press has joined the conspiracy to screen\nthese offenders against humanity. I would not be party to make heroes of\nthem by joining the cry for prosecution private or public. If I can only\npersuade India to insist upon their complete dismissal, I should be\nsatisfied. But more than the dismissal, of Sir Michael O'Dwyer and\nGeneral Dyer, is necessary the peremptory dismissal, if not a trial, of\nColonel O'Brien, Mr. Bosworth Smith, Rai Shri Ram and others mentioned\nin the Congress Sub-Committee's Report. Bad as General Dyer is I\nconsider Mr. Smith to be infinitely worse and his crimes to be far more\nserious than the massacre of Jallianwalla Bugh. General Dyer sincerely\nbelieved that it was a soldierly act to terrorise people by shooting\nthem. But Mr. Smith was wantonly cruel, vulgar and debased. If all the\nfacts that have been deposed to against him are true, there is not a\nspark of humanity about him. Unlike General Dyer he lacks the courage to\nconfirm what he has done and he wriggles when challenged. This officer\nremains free to inflict himself upon people who have done no wrong to\nhim, and who is permitted to disgrace the rule he represents for the\ntime being.\n\nWhat is the Punjab doing? Is it not the duty of the Punjabis not to rest\nuntil they have secured the dismissal of Mr. Smith and the like? The\nPunjab leaders have been discharged in vain if they will not utilise the\nliberty they have received, in order to purge the administration of\nMessrs. Bosworth Smith and Company. I am sure that if they will only\nbegin a determined agitation they will have the whole India by their\nside. I venture to suggest to them that the best way to qualify for\nsending General Dyer to the gallows is to perform the easier and the\nmore urgent duty of arresting the mischief still continued by the\nofficials against whom they have assisted in collecting\noverwhelming evidence.\n\n\nGENERAL DYER\n\nThe Army Council has found General Dyer guilty of error of judgment and\nadvised that he should not receive any office under the Crown. Mr.\nMontagu has been unsparing in his criticism of General Dyer's conduct.\nAnd yet somehow or other I cannot help feeling that General Dyer is by\nno means the worst offender. His brutality is unmistakable. His abject\nand unsoldier-like cowardice is apparent in every line of his amazing\ndefence before the Army Council. He has called an unarmed crowd of men\nand children--mostly holiday-makers--'a rebel army.' He believes himself\nto be the saviour of the Punjab in that he was able to shoot down like\nrabbits men who were penned in an inclosure. Such a man is unworthy of\nbeing considered a soldier. There was no bravery in his action. He ran\nno risk. He shot without the slightest opposition and without warning.\nThis is not an 'error of judgement.' It is paralysis of it in the face\nof fancied danger. It is proof of criminal incapacity and\nheartlessness. But the fury that has been spent upon General Dyer is, I\nam sure, largely misdirected. No doubt the shooting was 'frightful,' the\nloss of innocent life deplorable. But the slow torture, degradation and\nemasculation that followed was much worse, more calculated, malicious\nand soul-killing, and the actors who performed the deeds deserve greater\ncondemnation that General Dyer for the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre. The\nlatter merely destroyed a few bodies but the others tried to kill the\nsoul of a nation. Who ever talks of Col. Frank Johnson who was by far\nthe worst offender? He terrorised guiltless Lahore, and by his merciless\norders set the tone to the whole of the Martial Law officers. But what I\nam concerned with is not even Col. Johnson. The first business of the\npeople of the Punjab and of India is to rid the service of Col O'Brien,\nMr. Bosworth Smith, Rai Shri Ram and Mr. Malik Khan. They are still\nretained in the service. Their guilt is as much proved as that of\nGeneral Dyer. We shall have failed in our duty if the condemnation\npronounced upon General Dyer produces a sense of satisfaction and the\nobvious duty of purging the administration in the Punjab is neglected.\nThat task will not be performed by platform rhetoric or resolutions\nmerely. Stern action is required on out part if we are to make any\nheadway with ourselves and make any impression upon the officials that\nthey are not to consider themselves as masters of the people but as\ntheir trusties and servants who cannot hold office if they misbehave\nthemselves and prove unworthy of the trust reposed in them.\n\n\nTHE PUNJAB SENTENCES\n\nThe commissioners appointed by the Congress Punjab Sub Committee have in\ntheir report accused His Excellency the Viceroy of criminal want of\nimagination. His Excellency's refusal to commute two death sentences out\nof five is a fine illustration of the accusation. The rejection of the\nappeal by the Privy Council no more proves the guilt of the condemned\nthan their innocence would have been proved by quashing the proceedings\nbefore the Martial Law Tribunal. Moreover, these cases clearly come\nunder the Royal Proclamation in accordance with its interpretation by\nthe Punjab Government. The murders in Amritsar were not due to any\nprivate quarrel between the murderers and their victims. The offence\ngrave, though it was, was purely political and committed under\nexcitement. More than full reparation has been taken for the murders and\narson. In the circumstances commonsense dictates reduction of the death\nsentences. The popular belief favours the view that the condemned men\nare innocent and have not had a fair trial. The execution has been so\nlong delayed that hanging at this stage would give a rude shock to\nIndian society. Any Viceroy with imagination would have at once\nannounced commutation of the death sentences--not so Lord Chelmsford. In\nhis estimation, evidently, the demands of justice will not be satisfied\nif at least some of the condemned men are not hanged. Public feeling\nwith him counts for nothing. We shall still hope that, either the\nViceroy or Mr. Montagu will commute the death sentences.\n\nBut if the Government will grievously err, if they carry out the\nsentences, the people will equally err if they give way to anger or\ngrief over the hanging if it has unfortunately to take plane. Before we\nbecome a nation possessing an effective voice in the councils of\nnations, we must be prepared to contemplate with equanimity, not a\nthousand murders of innocent men and women but many thousands before we\nattain a status in the world that, shall not be surpassed by any nation.\nWe hope therefore that all concerned will take rather than lose heart\nand treat hanging as an ordinary affair of life.\n\n[Since the above was in type, we have received cruel news. At last H.E.\nthe Viceroy has mercilessly given the rude shock to Indian society. It\nis now for the latter to take heart in spite of the unkindest\ncut.--Ed. Y.I.]\n\n\n\n\nIV. SWARAJ\n\n\nSWARAJ IN ONE YEAR\n\nMuch laughter has been indulged in at my expense for having told the\nCongress audience at Calcutta that if there was sufficient response to\nmy programme of non-co-operation Swaraj would be attained in one year.\nSome have ignored my condition and laughed because of the impossibility\nof getting Swaraj anyhow within one year. Others have spelt the 'if' in\ncapitals and suggested that if 'ifs' were permissible in argument, any\nabsurdity could be proved to be a possibility. My proposition however is\nbased on a mathematical calculation. And I venture to say that true\nSwaraj is a practical impossibility without due fulfilment of my\nconditions. Swaraj means a state such that we can maintain our separate\nexistence without the presence of the English. If it is to be a\npartnership, it must be partnership at will. There can be no Swaraj\nwithout our feeling and being the equals of Englishmen. To-day we feel\nthat we are dependent upon them for our internal and external security,\nfor an armed peace between the Hindus and the Mussulmans, for our\neducation and for the supply of daily wants, nay, even for the\nsettlement of our religious squabbles. The Rajahs are dependent upon the\nBritish for their powers and the millionaires for their millions. The\nBritish know our helplessness and Sir Thomas Holland cracks jokes quite\nlegitimately at the expense of non-co-operationists. To get Swaraj then\nis to get rid of our helplessness. The problem is no doubt stupendous\neven as it is for the fabled lion who having been brought up in the\ncompany of goats found it impossible to feel that he was a lion. As\nTolstoy used to put it, mankind often laboured under hypnotism. Under\nits spell continuously we feel the feeling of helplessness. The British\nthemselves cannot be expected to help us out of it. On the contrary,\nthey din into our ears that we shall be fit to govern ourselves only by\nslow educative processes. The \"Times\" suggested that if we boycott the\ncouncils we shall lose the opportunity of a training in Swaraj. I have\nno doubt that there are many who believe what the \"Times\" says. It even\nresorts to a falsehood. It audaciously says that Lord Milner's Mission\nlistened to the Egyptians only when they were ready to lift the boycott\nof the Egyptian Council. For me the only training in Swaraj we need is\nthe ability to defend ourselves against the whole world and to live our\nnatural life in perfect freedom even though it may be full of defects.\nGood Government is no substitute for self-Government. The Afghans have a\nbad Government but it is self-Government. I envy them. The Japanese\nlearnt the art through a sea of blood. And if we to-day had the power to\ndrive out the English by superior brute force, we would be counted their\nsuperiors, and in spite of our inexperience in debating at the Council\ntable or in holding executive offices, we would be held fit to govern\nourselves. For brute force is the only test the west has hitherto\nrecognised. The Germans were defeated not because they were necessarily\nin the wrong, but because the allied Powers were found to possess\ngreater brute strength. In the end therefore India must either learn the\nart of war which the British will not teach her or, she must follow her\nown way of discipline and self-sacrifice through non-co-operation. It is\nas amazing as it is humiliating that less than one hundred-thousand\nwhite men should be able to rule three hundred and fifteen million\nIndians. They do so somewhat undoubtedly by force, but more by securing\nour co-operation in a thousand ways and making us more and more helpless\nand dependent on them as time goes forward. Let us not mistake reformed\ncouncils, more lawcourts and even governorships for real freedom or\npower. They are but subtler methods of emasculation. The British cannot\nrule us by mere force. And so they resort to all means, honourable and\ndishonourable, in order to retain their hold on India. They want India's\nbillions and they want India's man power for their imperialistic greed.\nIf we refuse to supply them with men and money, we achieve our goal,\nnamely, Swaraj, equality, manliness.\n\nThe cup of our humiliation was filled during the closing scenes in the\nViceregal Council. Mr. Shustri could not move his resolution on the\nPunjab. The Indian victims of Jullianwala received Rs. 1,250, the\nEnglish victims of mob-frenzy received lakhs. The officials who were\nguilty of crimes against those whose servants they were, were\nreprimanded. And the councillors were satisfied. If India were powerful,\nIndia would not have stood this addition of insult, to her injury.\n\nI do not blame the British. If we were weak in numbers as they are, we\ntoo would perhaps have resorted to the same methods as they are now\nemploying. Terrorism and deception are weapons not of the strong but of\nthe weak. The British are weak in numbers we are weak in spite of our\nnumbers. The result is that each is dragging the other down. It is\ncommon experience that Englishmen lose in character after residence in\nIndia and that Indians lose in courage and manliness by contact with\nEnglishmen. This process of weakening is good neither for us, two\nnations, nor for the world.\n\nBut if we Indians take care of ourselves the English and the rest of\nthe world would take care of themselves. Our contributions to the\nworld's progress must therefore consist in setting our own house\nin order.\n\nTraining in arms for the present is out of the question. I go a step\nfurther and believe that India has a better mission for the world. It is\nwithin her to show that she can achieve her destiny by pure\nself-sacrifice, i.e., self-purification. This can be done only by\nnon-co-operation. And non-co-operation is possible only when those who\ncommenced to co-operate being the process of withdrawal. If we can but\nfree ourselves from the threefold _maya_ of Government-controlled\nschools, Government law-courts and legislative councils, and truly\ncontrol our own education regulate our disputes and be indifferent to\ntheir legislation, we are ready to govern ourselves and we are only then\nready to ask the government servants, whether civil or military, to\nresign, and the tax-payers to suspend payment of taxes.\n\nAnd is it such an impracticable proposition to expect parents to\nwithdraw their children from schools and colleges and establish their\nown institutions or to ask lawyers to suspend their practice and devote\ntheir whole time attention to national service against payment where\nnecessary, of their maintenance, or to ask candidates for councils not\nto enter councils and lend their passive or active assistance to the\nlegislative machinery through which all control is exercised. The\nmovement of non-co-operation is nothing but an attempt to isolate the\nbrute force of the British from all the trappings under which it is\nhidden and to show that brute force by itself cannot for one single\nmoment hold India.\n\nBut I frankly confess that, until the three conditions mentioned by me\nare fulfilled, there is no Swaraj. We may not go on taking our college\ndegrees, taking thousands of rupees monthly from clients for cases which\ncan be finished in five minutes and taking the keenest delight in\nwasting national time on the council floor and still expect to gain\nnational self-respect.\n\nThe last though not the least important part of the Maya still remains\nto be considered. That is Swadeshi. Had we not abandoned Swadeshi, we\nneed not have been in the present fallen state. If we would get rid of\nthe economic slavery, we must manufacture our own cloth and at the\npresent moment only by hand-spinning and hand weaving.\n\nAll this means discipline, self-denial, self-sacrifice, organising\nability, confidence and courage. If we show this in one year among the\nclasses that to-day count, and make public opinion, we certainly gain\nSwaraj within one year. If I am told that even we who lead have not\nthese qualities in us, there certainly will never be Swaraj for India,\nbut then we shall have no right to blame the English for what they are\ndoing. Our salvation and its time are solely dependent upon us.\n\n\nBRITISH RULE--AN EVIL\n\nThe _Interpreter_ is however more to the point in asking, \"Does Mr.\nGandhi hold without hesitation or reserve that British rule in India is\naltogether an evil and that the people of India are to be taught so to\nregard it? He must hold it to be so evil that the wrongs it does\noutweigh the benefit it confers, for only so is non-co-operation to be\njustified at the bar of conscience or of Christ.\" My answer is\nemphatically in the affirmative. So long as I believed that the sum\ntotal of the energy of the British Empire was good, I clung to it\ndespite what I used to regard as temporary aberrations. I am not sorry\nfor having done so. But having my eyes opened, it would be sin for me to\nassociate myself with the Empire unless it purges itself of its evil\ncharacter. I write this with sorrow and I should be pleased if I\ndiscovered that I was in error and that my present attitude was a\nreaction. The continuous financial drain, the emasculation of the Punjab\nand the betrayal of the Muslim sentiment constitute, in my humble\nopinion, a threefold robbery of India. 'The blessings of _pax\nBritanica_' I reckon, therefore, to be a curse. We would have at least\nremained like the other nations brave men and women, instead of feeling\nas we do so utterly helpless, if we had no British Rule imposing on us\nan armed peace. 'The blessing' of roads and railways is a return no\nself-respecting nation would accept for its degradation. 'The blessing'\nof education is proving one of the greatest obstacles in our progress\ntowards freedom.\n\n\nA MOVEMENT OF PURIFICATION\n\nThe fact is that non-co-operation by reason of its non-violence has\nbecome a religious and purifying movement. It is daily bringing strength\nto the nation, showing it its weak spots and the remedy for removing\nthem. It is a movement of self-reliance. It is the mightiest force for\nrevolutionising opinion and stimulating thought. It is a movement of\nself-imposed suffering and therefore possesses automatic checks against\nextravagance or impatience. The capacity of the nation for suffering\nregulates its advance towards freedom. It isolates the force of evil by\nrefraining from participation in it, in any shape or form.\n\n\nWHY WAS INDIA LOST?\n\n[A dialog between the Reader and Editor,--_Indian Home Rule_].\n\nReader: You have said much about civilisation--enough to make me ponder\nover it. I do not know what I should adopt and what I should avoid from\nthe nations of Europe. but one question comes to my lips immediately. If\ncivilisation is a disease, and if it has attacked England why has she\nbeen able to take India, and why is she able to retain it?\n\nEditor: Your question is not very difficult to answer, and we shall\npresently be able to examine the true nature of Swaraj; for I am aware\nthat I have still to answer that question. I will, however, take up your\nprevious question. The English have not taken India; we have given it to\nthem. They are not in India because of their strength, but because we\nkeep them. Let us now see whether these positions can be sustained. They\ncame to our country originally for the purpose of trade. Recall the\nCompany Bahadur. Who made it Bahadur? They had not the slightest\nintention at the time of establishing a kingdom. Who assisted the\nCompany's officers? Who was tempted at the sight of their silver? Who\nbought their goods? History testifies that we did all this. In order to\nbecome rich all at once, we welcomed the Company's officers with open\narms. We assisted them. If I am in the habit of drinking Bhang, and a\nseller thereof sells it to me, am I to blame him or myself? By blaming\nthe seller shall I be able to avoid the habit? And, if a particular\nretailer is driven away will not another take his place? A true servant\nof India will have to go to the root of the matter. If an excess of food\nhas caused me indigestion I will certainly not avoid it by blaming\nwater. He is a true physician who probes the cause of disease and, if\nyou pose as a physician for the disease of India, you will have to find\nout its true cause.\n\nReader: You are right. Now, I think you will not have to argue much with\nme to drive your conclusions home. I am impatient to know your further\nviews. We are now on a most interesting topic. I shall, therefore,\nendeavour to follow your thought, and stop you when I am in doubt.\n\nEditor: I am afraid that, in spite of your enthusiasm, as we proceed\nfurther we shall have differences of opinion. Nevertheless, I shall\nargue only when you will stop me. We have already seen that the English\nmerchants were able to get a footing in India because we encouraged\nthem. When our princes fought among themselves, they sought the\nassistance of Company Bahadar. That corporation was versed alike in\ncommerce and war. It was unhampered by questions of morality. Its object\nwas to increase its commerce and to make money. It accepted our\nassistance, and increased the number of its warehouses. To protect the\nlatter it employed an army which was utilised by us also. Is it not then\nuseless to blame the English for what we did at that time? The Hindus\nand the Mahomedans were at daggers drawn. This, too, gave the Company\nits opportunity, and thus we created the circumstances that gave the\nCompany its control over India. Hence it is truer to say that we gave\nIndia to the English than that India was lost.\n\nReader: Will you now tell me how they are able to retain India?\n\nEditor: The causes that gave them India enable them to retain it. Some\nEnglishmen state that they took, and they hold, India by the sword. Both\nthese statements are wrong. The sword is entirely useless for holding\nIndia. We alone keep them. Napoleon is said to have described the\nEnglish as a nation of shop keepers. It is a fitting description. They\nhold whatever dominions they have for the sake of their commerce. Their\narmy and their navy are intended to protect it. When the Transvaal\noffered no such attractions, the late Mr. Gladstone discovered that it\nwas no right for the English to hold it. When it became a paying\nproposition, resistance led to war. Mr. Chamberlain soon discovered that\nEngland enjoyed a suzerainty over the Transvaal. It is related that some\none asked the late President Kruger whether there was gold in the moon?\nHe replied that it was highly unlikely, because, if there were, the\nEnglish would have annexed it. Many problems can be solved by\nremembering that money is their God. Then it follows that we keep the\nEnglish in India for our base self-interest. We like their commerce,\nthey please us by their subtle methods, and get what they want from us.\nTo blame them for this is to perpetuate their power. We further\nstrengthen their hold by quarrelling amongst ourselves. If you accept\nthe above statements, it is proved that the English entered India for\nthe purposes of trade. They remain in it for the same purpose, and we\nhelp them to do so. Their arms and ammunition are perfectly useless. In\nthis connection, I remind you that it is the British flag which is\nwaving in Japan, and not the Japanese. The English have a treaty with\nJapan for the sake of their commerce and you will see that, if they can\nmanage it, their commerce will greatly expand in that country. They\nwish to convert the whole word into a vast market for their goods. That\nthey cannot do so is true, but the blame will not be theirs. They will\nleave no stone unturned to reach the goal.\n\n\nSWARAJ MY IDEAL\n\nThe following is a fairly full report of Mr. Gandhi's important speech\nat Calcutta on the 13th December 1920:--\n\nThe very fact, that so many of you cannot understand Hindi which is\nbound to be the National medium of expression throughout Hindustan in\ngatherings of Indians belonging to different parts of the land, shows\nthe depth of the degradation to which we have sunk, and points to the\nsupreme necessity of the non-co-operation movement which is intended to\nlift us out of that condition. This Government has been instrumental in\ndegrading this great nation in various ways, and it is impossible to be\nfree from it without co-operation amongst ourselves which is in turn\nimpossible without a national medium of expression.\n\nBut I am not here to day to plead for the medium. I am to plead for the\nacceptance by the country of the programme of non-violent, progressive\nnon-co-operation. Now all the words that I have used here are absolutely\nnecessary and the two adjectives 'progressive' and 'non-violent' are\nintegral part of a whole. With me non-violence is part of my religion, a\nmatter of creed. But with the great number of Mussalmans non-violence is\na policy, with thousand, if not millions of Hindus, it is equally a\nmatter of policy. But whether it is a creed or a policy, it is utterly\nimpossible for you to finish the programme for the enfranchisement of\nthe millions of India, without recognising the necessity and the value\nof non-violence. Violence may for a moment avail to secure a certain\nmeasure of success but it could not in the long run achieve any\nappreciable result. On the other hand all violence would prove\ndestructive to the honour and self-respect of the nation. The blue books\nissued by the Government of India show that inasmuch as we have used\nviolence, military expenditure has gone up, not proportionately but in\ngeometrical progression. The bonds of our slavery have been forged all\nthe stronger for our having offered violence. And the whole history of\nBritish rule in India is a demonstration of the fact that we have never\nbeen able to offer successful violence. Whilst therefore I say that\nrather than have the yoke of a Government that has so emasculated us, I\nwould welcome violence. I would urge with all the emphasis that I can\ncommand that India will never be able to regain her own by methods\nof violence.\n\nLord Ronaldshay who has done me the honour of reading my booklet on Home\nRule has warned my countrymen against engaging themselves in a struggle\nfor a Swaraj such as is described in that booklet. Now though I do not\nwant to withdraw a single word of it, I would say to you on this\noccasion that I do not ask India to follow out to-day the methods\nprescribed in my booklet. If they could do that they would have Home\nRule not in a year but in a day, and India by realising that ideal wants\nto acquire an ascendancy over the rest of the world. But it must remain\na day dream more or less for the time being. What I am doing to-day is\nthat I am giving the country a pardonable programme not the abolition of\nlaw courts, posts, telegraphs and of railways but for the attainment of\nParliamentary Swarja. I am telling you to do that so long as we do not\nisolate ourselves from this Government, we are co-operating with it\nthrough schools, law courts and councils, through service civil and\nmilitary and payment of taxes and foreign trade.\n\nThe moment this fact is realised and non-co-operation is effected, this\nGovernment must totter to pieces. If I know that the masses were\nprepared for the whole programme at once, I would not delay in putting\nit at once to work. It is not possible at the present moment, to prevent\nthe masses from bursting out into wrath against those who come to\nexecute the law, it is not possible, that the military would lay down\ntheir arms without the slightest violence. If that were possible to-day,\nI would propose all the stages of non-co-operation to be worked\nsimultaneously. But we have not secured that control over the masses, we\nhave uselessly frittered away precious years of the nation's life in\nmastering a language which we need least for winning our liberty; we\nhave frittered away all those years in learning liberty from Milton and\nShakespeare, in deriving inspiration from the pages of Mill, whilst\nliberty could be learnt at our doors. We have thus succeeded in\nisolating ourselves from the masses: we have been westernised. We have\nfailed these 35 years to utilise our education in order to permeate the\nmasses. We have sat upon the pedestal and from there delivered harangues\nto them in a language they do not understand and we see to-day that we\nare unable to conduct large gatherings in a disciplined manner. And\ndiscipline is the essence of success. Here is therefore one reason why I\nhave introduced the word 'progressive' in the non-co-operation\nResolution. Without any impertinence I may say that I understand the\nmass mind better than any one amongst the educated Indians. I contend\nthat the masses are not ready for suspension of payment of taxes. They\nhave not yet learnt sufficient self-control. If I was sure of\nnon-violence on their part I would ask them to suspend payment to-day\nand not waste a single moment of the nations time. With me the liberty\nof India has become a passion. Liberty of Islam is as dear to me. I\nwould not therefore delay a moment if I found that the whole of the\nprogramme could be enforced at once.\n\nIt grieves me to miss the faces of dear and revered leaders in this\nassembly. We miss here the trumpet voice of Surendranath Banorji, who\nhas rendered inestimable service to the country. And though we stand as\npoles asunder to-day, though we may have sharp differences with him, we\nmust express them with becoming restraint. I do not ask you to give up a\nsingle iota of principle. I urge non-violence in language and in deed.\nIf non-violence is essential in our dealings with Government, it is more\nessential in our dealings with our leaders. And it grieves me deeply to\nhear of recent instances of violence reported to have been used in East\nBongal against our own people. I was pained to hear that the ears of a\nman who had voted at the recent elections had been cut, and night soil\nhad been thrown into the bed of a man who had stood as a candidate.\nNon-co-operation is never going to succeed in this way. It will not\nsucceed unless we create an atmosphere of perfect freedom, unless we\nprize our opponents liberty as much as our own. The liberty of faith,\nconscience, thought and action which we claim for ourselves must be\nconceded equally to others. Non co-operation is a process of\npurification and we must continually try to touch the hearts of those\nwho differ from us, their minds, and their emotions, but never their\nbodies. Discipline and restraint are the cardinal principles of our\nconduct and I warn you against any sort of tyrannical social ostracism.\nI was deeply grieved therefore to hear of the insult offered to a dead\nbody in Delhi and feel that if it was the action of non-co-operators\nthey have disgraced themselves and their creed. I repeat we cannot\ndeliver our land through violence.\n\nIt was not a joke when I said on the congress platform that Swaraj could\nbe established in one year if there was sufficient response from the\nnation. Three months of this year are gone. If we are true to our salt,\ntrue to our nation, true to the songs we sing, if we are true to the\nBhagwad Gita and the Koran, we would finish the programme in the\nremaining nine months and deliver Islam the Punjab and India.\n\nI have proposed a limited programme workable within one year, having a\nspecial regard to the educated classes. We seem to be labouring under\nthe illusion that we cannot possibly live without Councils, law courts\nand schools provided by the Government. The moment we are disillusioned\nwe have Swaraj. It is demoralising both for Government and the governed\nthat a hundred thousand pilgrims should dictate terms to a nation\ncomposed of three hundred millions. And how is it they can thus dictate\nterms. It is because we have been divided and they have ruled. I have\nnever forgotten Humes' frank confession that the British Government was\nsustained by the policy of \"Divide and Rule.\" Therefore it is that I\nhave laid stress upon Hindu Muslim Unity as one of the important\nessentials for the success of Non-co-operation. But, it should be no lip\nunity, nor bunia unity it should be a unity broad based on a recognition\nof the heart. If we want to save Hinduism, I say for Gods sake, do not\nseek to bargain with the Mussalmans. I have been going about with\nMaulana Shaukat Ali all these months, but I have not so much as\nwhispered anything about the protection of the cow. My alliance with the\nAli Brothers is one of honour. I feel that I am on my honour, the whole\nof Hinduism is on its honour, and if it will not be found wanting, it\nwill do its duty towards the Mussalmans of India. Any bargaining would\nbe degrading to us. Light brings light not darkness, and nobility done\nwith a noble purpose will be twice rewarded. It will be God alone who\ncan protect the cow. Ask me not to-day--'what about the cow,' ask me\nafter Islam is vindicated through India. Ask the Rajas what they do to\nentertain their English guests. Do they not provide beef and champagne\nfor their guests. Persuade them first to stop cow killing and then think\nof bargaining with Mussalmans. And how are we Hindus behaving ourselves\ntowards the cow and her progeny! Do we treat her as our religion\nrequires us? Not till we have set our own house in order and saved the\ncow from the Englishmen have we the right to plead on her behalf with\nthe Mussalmans. And the best way of saving the cow from them is to give\nthem unconditional help in their hour of trouble.\n\nSimilarly what do we owe the Punjab? The whole of India was made to\ncrawl on her belly in as much as a single Punjabi was made to crawl in\nthat dirty lane in Amritsar, the whole womanhood of India was unveiled\nin as much as the innocent woman of Manianwalla were unveiled by an\ninsolent office; and Indian childhood was dishonoured in that, that\nschool children of tender age were made to walk four times a day to\nstated places within the martial area in the Punjab and to salute the\nUnion Jack, through the effect of which order two children, seven years\nold died of sunstroke having been made to wait in the noonday sun. In my\nopinion it is a sin to attend the schools and colleges conducted under\nthe aegis of this Government so long as it has not purged itself of\nthese crimes by proper repentance. We may not with any sense of\nself-respect plead before the courts of the Government when we remember\nthat it was through the Punjab Courts that innocent men were sentenced\nto be imprisoned and hanged. We become participators in the crime of the\nGovernment by voluntarily helping it or being helped by it.\n\nThe women of India have intuitively understood the spiritual nature of\nthe struggle. Thousands have attended to listen to the message of\nnon-violent non-co-operation and have given me their precious ornaments\nfor the purpose of advancing the cause of Swaraj. Is it any wonder if I\nbelieve the possibility of gaining Swaraj within a year after all these\nwonderful demonstrations? I would be guilty of want of faith in God if I\nunder-rated the significance of the response from the women of India. I\nhope that the students will do their duty. The country certainly expects\nthe lawyers who have hitherto led public agitation to recognise the new\nawakening.\n\nI have used strong language but I have done so with the greatest\ndeliberation, I am not actuated by any feeling of revenge. I do not\nconsider Englishmen as my enemy. I recognise the worth of many. I enjoy\nthe privilege of having many English friends, but I am a determined\nenemy of the English rule as is conducted at present and if the\npower--tapasya--of one man could destroy it, I would certainly destroy\nit, if it could not be mended. An Empire that stands for injustice and\nbreach of faith does not deserve to stand if its custodians will not\nrepent and non-co-operation has been devised in order to enable the\nnation to compel justice.\n\nI hope that Bengal will take her proper place in this movement of\nself-purification. Bengal began Swadeshi and national education when the\nrest of India was sleeping. I hope that Bengal will come to the front\nin this movement for gaining Swaraj and gaining justice for the Khilafat\nand the Punjab through purification and self-sacrifice.\n\n\nON THE WRONG TRACK\n\nLord Ronaldshay has been doing me the favour of reading my booklet on\nIndian Home Rule which is a translation of Hind Swaraj. His Lordship\ntold his audience that if Swaraj meant what I had described it to be in\nthe booklet, the Bengalis would have none of it. I am sorry that Swaraj\nof the Congress resolution does not mean the Swaraj depicted in the\nbooklet; Swaraj according to the Congress means Swaraj that the people\nof India want, not what the British Government may condescend to give.\nIn so far as I can see, Swaraj will be a Parliament chosen by the people\nwith the fullest power over the finance, the police, the military, the\nnavy, the courts, and the educational institutions.\n\nI am free to confess that the Swaraj I expect to gain within one year,\nif India responds will be such Swaraj as will make practically\nimpossible the repetition of the Khilafat and the Punjab wrongs, and\nwill enable the nation to do good or evil as it chooses, and not he\n'good' at the dictation of an irresponsible, insolent, and godless\nbureaucracy. Under that Swaraj the nation will have the power to impose\na heavy protective tariff on such foreign goods as are capable of being\nmanufactured in India, as also the power to refuse to send a single\nsoldier outside India for the purpose of enslaving the surrounding or\nremote nationalities. The Swaraj that I dream of will be a possibility\nonly, when the nation is free to make its choice both of good and evil.\n\n      *      *      *      *       *\n\nI adhere to all I have said in that booklet and I would certainly\nrecommend it to the reader. Government over self is the truest Swaraj,\nit is synonymous with _moksha_ or salvation, and I have seen nothing to\nalter the view that doctors, lawyers, and railways are no help, and are\noften a hindrance, to the one thing worth striving after. But I know\nthat association, a satanic activity, such as the Government is engaged\nin, makes even an effort for such freedom a practical impossibility. I\ncannot tender allegiance to God and Satan at the same time.\n\n      *      *      *      *       *\n\nThe surest sign of the satanic nature of the present system is that even\na nobleman of the type of Lord Ronaldshay is obliged to put us off the\ntrack. He will not deal with the one thing needful. Why is he silent\nabout the Punjab? Why does he evade the Khilafat? Can ointments soothe\na patient who is suffering from corroding consumption? Does his lordship\nnot see that it is not the inadequacy of the reforms that has set India\naflame but that it is the infliction of the two wrongs and the wicked\nattempt to make us forget them? Does he not see that a complete change\nof heart is required before reconciliation?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut it has become the fashion nowadays to ascribe hatred to\nnon-co-operationism. And I regret to find that even Col. Wedgewood has\nfallen into the trap. I make bold to say that the only way to remove\nhatred is to give it disciplined vent. No man can--I cannot--perform the\nimpossible task of removing hatred so long as contempt and despise for\nthe feelings of India are sedulously nursed. It is a mockery to ask\nIndia not to hate when in the same breath India's most sacred feelings\nare contemptuously brushed aside. India feels weak and helpless and so\nexpresses her helplessness by hating the tyrant who despises her and\nmakes her crawl on the belly, lifts the veils of her innocent women and\ncompels her tender children to acknowledge his power by saluting his\nflag four times a day. The gospel of Non-co-operation addresses itself\nto the task of making the people strong and self-reliant. It is an\nattempt to transform hatred into pity. A strong and self-reliant India\nwill cease to hate Bosworth Smiths and Frank Johnsons, for she will have\nthe power to punish them and therefore the power also to pity and\nforgive them. To-day she can neither punish nor forgive, and therefore\nhelplessly nurses hatred. If the Mussalmans were strong, they would not\nhate the English but would fight and wrest from them the dearest\npossessions of Islam. I know that the Ali Brothers who live only for the\nhonour and the prestige of Islam, and are prepared any moment to die for\nit, will to-day make friends with the latter Englishmen, if they were to\ndo justice to the Khilafat which it is in their power to do.\n\n      *      *      *      *       *\n\nI am positively certain that there is no personal element in this fight.\nBoth the Hindus and the Mahomedans would to-day invoke blessings on the\nEnglish if they would but give proof positive of their goodness,\nfaithfulness, and loyalty to India. Non-co-operation then is a godsend;\nit will purify and strengthen India; and a strong India will be a\nstrength to the world as an Indian weak and helpless is a curse to\nmankind. Indian soldiers have involuntarily helped to destroy Turkey and\nare now destroying the flower of the Arabian nation. I cannot recall a\nsingle campaign in which the Indian soldier has been employed by the\nBritish Government for the good of mankind. And yet, (Oh! the shame of\nit!) Indian Maharajas are never tired of priding themselves on the loyal\nhelp they have rendered the English! Could degradation sink any lower?\n\n\nTHE CONGRESS CONSTITUTION\n\nThe belated report of the Congress Constitution Committee has now been\npublished for general information and opinion has been invited from all\npublic bodies in order to assist the deliberations of the All India\nCongress Committee. It is a pity that, small though the Constitution\nCommittee was, all the members never met at any one time in spite of\nefforts, to have a meeting of them all. It is perhaps no body's fault\nthat all the members could not meet. At the same time the draft report\nhas passed through the searching examination of all but one member and\nthe report represents the mature deliberations of four out of the five\nmembers. It must be stated at the same time that it does not pretend to\nbe the unanimous opinion of the members. Rather than present a\ndissenting minute, a workable scheme has been brought out leaving each\nmember free to press his own views on to several matters in which they\nare not quite unanimous. The most important part of the constitution,\nhowever, is the alteration of the creed. So far as I am aware there is\nno fundamental difference of opinion between the members. In my opinion\nthe altered creed represents the exact feeling of the country at the\npresent moment.\n\nI know that the proposed alteration has been subjected to hostile\ncriticism in several newspapers of note. But the extraordinary situation\nthat faces the country is that popular opinion is far in advance of\nseveral newspapers which have hitherto commanded influence and have\nundoubtedly moulded public opinion. The fact is that the formation of\nopinion to-day is by no means confined to the educated classes, but the\nmasses have taken it upon themselves not only to formulate opinion but\nto enforce it. It would be a mistake to belittle or ignore this opinion,\nor to ascribe it to a temporary upheaval. It would be equally a mistake\nto suppose that this awakening amongst the masses is due either to the\nactivity of the Ali Brothers or myself. For the time being we have the\near of the masses because we voice their sentiments. The masses are by\nno means so foolish or unintelligent as we sometimes imagine. They often\nperceive things with their intuition, which we ourselves fail to see\nwith our intellect. But whilst the masses know what they want, they\noften do not know how to express their wants and, less often, how to get\nwhat they want. Herein comes the use of leadership, and disastrous\nresults can easily follow a bad, hasty, or what is worse, selfish lead.\n\nThe first part of the proposed creed expresses the present desire of\nthe nation, and the second shows the way that desire can be fulfilled.\nIn my humble opinion the Congress creed with the proposed alteration is\nbut an extension of the original. And so long as no break with the\nBritish connection is attempted, it is strictly within even the existing\narticle that defines the Congress creed. The extension lies in the\ncontemplated possibility of a break with the British connection. In my\nhumble opinion, if India is to make unhampered progress, we must make it\nclear to the British people that whilst we desire to retain the British\nconnection, if we can rise to our full height with it we are determined\nto dispense with, and even to get rid of that connection, if that is\nnecessary for full national development. I hold that it is not only\nderogatory to national dignity but it actually impedes national progress\nsuperstitiously to believe that our progress towards our goal is\nimpossible without British connection. It is this superstition which\nmakes some of the best of us tolerate the Punjab wrong and the Khilafat\ninsult. This blind adherence to that connection makes us feel helpless.\nThe proposed alteration in the creed enables us to rid ourselves of our\nhelpless condition. I personally hold that it is perfectly\nconstitutional openly to strive after independence, but lest there may\nbe dispute as to the constitutional character of any movement for\ncomplete independence, the doubtful and highly technical adjective\n\"constitutional\" has been removed from the altered creed in the draft.\nSurely it should be enough to ensure that the methods for achieving our\nend are legitimate, honourable, and peaceful, I believe that this was\nthe reasoning that guided my colleagues in accepting the proposed creed.\nIn any case, such was certainly my view of the whole alteration. There\nis no desire on my part to adopt any means that are subversive of law\nand order. I know, however, that I am treading on delicate ground when I\nwrite about law and order for, to some of our distinguished leaders even\nmy present methods appear to be lawless and conducive to disorder. But\neven they will perhaps grant that the retention of the word\n'constitutional' cannot protect the country against methods such as I am\nemploying. It gives rise, no doubt, to a luminous legal discussion, but\nany such discussion is fruitless when the nation means business. The\nother important alteration refers to the limitation of the number of\ndelegates. I believe that the advantages of such a limitation are\nobvious. We are fast reaching a time when without any such limitation\nthe Congress will become an unwieldy body. It is difficult even to have\nan unlimited number of visitors; it is impossible to transact national\nbusiness if we have an unlimited number of delegates.\n\nThe next important alteration is about the election of the members of\nthe All-India Congress Committee, making that committee practically the\nSubjects Committee, and the redistribution of India for the purposes of\nthe Congress on a linguistic basis. It is not necessary to comment on\nthese alterations, but I wish to add that if the Congress accepts the\nprinciple of limiting the number of delegates it would be advisable to\nintroduce the principle of proportional representation. That would\nenable all parties who wish to be represented at the Congress.\n\nI observe that _the Servant of India_ sees an inconsistency between my\nimplied acceptance of the British Committee, so far as the published\ndraft constitution is concerned, and my recent article in _Young India_\non that Committee and the newspaper _India_. But it is well known that\nfor several years I have held my present views about the existence of\nthat body. It would have been irrelevant for me, perhaps, to suggest to\nmy colleagues the extinction of that committee. It was not our function\nto report on the usefulness or otherwise of the Committee. We were\ncommissioned only for preparing a new constitution. Moreover I knew that\nmy colleagues were not averse to the existence of the British Committee.\nAnd the drawing up of a new constitution enabled me to show that where\nthere was no question of principle I was desirous of agreeing quickly\nwith my opponents in opinions. But I propose certainly to press for\nabolition of the committee as it is at present continued, and the\nstopping of its organ _India_.\n\n\nSWARAJ IN NINE MONTHS\n\nAsked by the _Times_ representative as to his impressions formed as a\nresult of his activities during the last three months, Mr. Gandhi\nsaid:--\"My own impression of these three months' extensive experience is\nthat this movement of non-co-operation has come to stay, and it is most\ndecidedly a purifying movement, in spite of isolated instances of\nrowdyism, as for instance at Mrs. Besant's meeting in Bombay, at some\nplaces in Delhi, Bengal, and even in Gujarat. The people are\nassimilating day after day the spirit of non-violence, not necessarily\nas a creed, but as an inevitable policy. I expect most startling\nresults, more startling than, say, the discoveries of Sir J.C. Bose, or\nthe acceptance by the people of non-violence. If the Government could be\nassured beyond any possibility of doubt that no violence would ever be\noffered by us the Government would from that moment alter its character,\nunconsciously and involuntarily, but nonetheless surely on that\naccount.\"\n\n\"Alter its character,--in what, direction?\" asked the _Times_\nrepresentative.\n\n\"Certainly in the direction which we ask it should move--that being in\nthe direction of Government becoming responsive to every call of\nthe nation.\"\n\n\"Will you kindly explain further?\" asked the representative.\n\n\"By that I mean,\" said Mr. Gandhi, \"people will be able by asserting\nthemselves through fixed determination and self-sacrifice to gain the\nredress of the Khilafat wrong, the Punjab wrong, and attain the Swaraj\nof their choice.\"\n\n\"But what is your Swaraj, and where does the Government come in\nthere--the Government which, you say will alter its character\nunconsciously?\"\n\n\"My Swaraj,\" said Mr. Gandhi, \"is the Parliamentary Government of India\nin the modern sense of the term for the time being, and that Government\nwould be secured to us either through the friendly offices of the\nBritish people or without them.\"\n\n\"What do you mean by the phrase, 'without them!'\" questioned the\ninterviewer.\n\n\"This movement,\" continued Mr. Gandhi, \"is an endeavour to purge the\npresent Government of selfishness and greed which determine almost every\none of their activities. Suppose that we have made it impossible by\ndisassociation from them to feed their greed. They might not wish to\nremain in India, as happened in the case of Somaliland, where the moment\nits administration ceased to be a paying proposition they evacuated it.\"\n\n\"How do you think,\" queried the representative, \"in practice this will\nwork out?\"\n\n\"What I have sketched before you,\" said Mr. Gandhi, \"is the final\npossibility. What I expect is that nothing of that kind will happen. In\nso far as I understand the British people I will recognise the force of\npublic opinion when it has become real and patent. Then, and only then,\nwill they realise the hideous injustice which in their name the Imperial\nministers and their representatives in India have perpetrated. They will\ntherefore remedy the two wrongs in accordance with the wishes of the\npeople, and they will also offer a constitution exactly in accordance\nwith the wishes of the people of India, as represented by their\nchosen leaders.\n\n\"Supposing that the British Government wish to retire because India is\nnot a paying concern, what do you think will then be the position\nof India?\"\n\nMr. Gandhi answered: \"At that stage surely it is easy to understand that\nIndia will then have evolved either outstanding spiritual height or the\nability to offer violence, against violence. She will have evolved an\norganising ability of a high order, and will therefore be in every way\nable to cope with any emergency that might arise.\" \"In other words,\"\nobserved the _Times_ representative, \"you expect the moment of the\nBritish evacuation, if such a contingency arises, will coincide with the\nmoment of India's preparedness and ability and conditions favourable for\nIndia to take over the Indian administration as a going concern and work\nit for the benefit and advancement of the Nation?\"\n\nMr. Gandhi answered the question with an emphatic affirmative. \"My\nexperience during the last months fills me with the hope,\" continued Mr.\nGandhi, \"that within the nine months that remain of the year in which I\nhave expected Swaraj for India we shall redress the two wrongs and we\nshall see Swaraj established in accordance with the wishes of the people\nof India.\"\n\n\"Where will the present Government be at the end of the nine months?\"\nAsked the _Times_ representative.\n\nMr. Gandhi, with a significant smile, said: \"The lion will then lie with\nthe lamb.\"\n\n_Young India, December, 1920._\n\n\nTHE ATTAINMENT OF SWARAJ\n\nMr. Gandhi in moving his resolution on the creed before the Congress,\nsaid, \"The resolution which I have the honour to move is as follows: The\nobject of the Indian National Congress is the attainment of Swarajya by\nthe people of India by all legitimate and peaceful means.\"\n\nThere are only two kinds of objections, so far as I understand, that\nwill be advanced from this platform. One is that we may not to-day think\nof dissolving the British connection. What I say is that it is\nderogatory to national dignity to think of permanence of British\nconnection at any cost. We are labouring under a grievous wrong, which\nit is the personal duty of every Indian to get redressed. This British\nGovernment not only refused to redress the wrong, but it refuses to\nacknowledge _its_ mistake and so long as it retains its attitude, it is\nnot possible for us to say all that we want to be or all that we want to\nget, retaining British connection. No matter what difficulties be in our\npath, we must make the clearest possible declaration to the world and to\nthe whole of India, that we may not possibly have British connection, if\nthe British people will not do this elementary justice. I do not, for\none moment, suggest that we want to end at the British connection at all\ncosts, unconditionally. If the British connection is for the advancement\nof India, we do not want to destroy it. But if it is inconsistent with\nour national self respect, then it is our bounden duty to destroy it.\nThere is room in this resolution for both--those who believe that, by\nretaining British connection, we can purify ourselves and purify British\npeople, and those who have no belief. As for instance, take the extreme\ncase of Mr. Andrews. He says all hope for India is gone for keeping the\nBritish connection. He says there must be complete severance--complete\nindependence. There is room enough in this creed for a man like Mr.\nAndrews also. Take another illustration, a man like myself or my brother\nShaukat Ali. There is certainly no room for us, if we have eternally to\nsubscribe to the doctrine, whether these wrongs are redressed or not, we\nshall have to evolve ourselves within the British Empire; there is no\nroom for me in that creed. Therefore this creed is elastic enough to\ntake in both shades of opinions and the British people will have to\nbeware that, if they do not want to do justice, it will be the bounden\nduty of every Indian to destroy the Empire.\n\nI want just now to wind up my remarks with a personal appeal, drawing\nyour attention to an object lesson that was presented in the Bengal\ncamp yesterday. If you want Swaraj, you have got a demonstration of how\nto get Swaraj. There was a little bit of skirmish, a little bit of\nsquabble, and a little bit of difference in the Bengal camp, as there\nwill always be differences so long as the world lasts. I have known\ndifferences between husband and wife, because I am still a husband; I\nhave noticed differences between parents and children, because I am\nstill a father of four boys, and they are all strong enough to destroy\ntheir father so far as bodily struggle is concerned; I possess that\nvaried experience of husband and parent; I know that we shall always\nhave squabbles, we shall always have differences but the lesson that I\nwant to draw your attention to is that I had the honour and privilege of\naddressing both the parties. They gave me their undivided attention and\nwhat is more they showed their attachment, their affection and their\nfellowship for me by accepting the humble advice that I had the honour\nof tendering to them, and I told them I am not here to distribute\njustice that can be awarded only through our worthy president. But I ask\nyou not to go to the president, you need not worry him. If you are\nstrong, if you are brave, if you are intent upon getting Swaraj, and if\nyou really want to revise the creed, then you will bottle up your rage,\nyou will bottle up all the feelings of injustice that may rankle in\nyour hearts and forget these things here under this very roof and I told\nthem to forget their differences, to forgot the wrongs. I don't want to\ntell you or go into the history of that incident. Probably most of you\nknow. I simply want to invite your attention to the fact. I don't say\nthey have settled up their differences. I hope they have but I do know\nthat they undertook to forget the differences. They undertook not to\nworry the President, they undertook not to make any demonstration here\nor in the Subjects Committee. All honour to those who listened to\nthat advice.\n\nI only wanted my Bengali friends and all the other friends who have come\nto this great assembly with a fixed determination to seek nothing but\nthe settlement of their country, to seek nothing but the advancement of\ntheir respective rights, to seek nothing but the conservation of the\nnational honour. I appeal to every one of you to copy the example set by\nthose who felt aggrieved and who felt that their heads were broken. I\nknow, before we have done with this great battle on which we have\nembarked at the special sessions of the Congress, we have to go\nprobably, possibly through a sea of blood, but let it not be said of us\nor any one of us that we are guilty of shedding blood, but let it be\nsaid by generations yet to be born that we suffered, that we shed not\nsomebody's blood but our own, and so I have no hesitation in saying that\nI do not want to show much sympathy for those who had their heads\nbroken or who were said to be even in danger of losing their lives. What\ndoes it matter? It is much better to die at the hands, at least, of our\nown countrymen. What is there to revenge ourselves about or upon. So I\nask everyone of you that if at any time there is blood-boiling within\nyou against some fellow countrymen of yours, even though he may be in\nthe employ of Government, though he may be in the Secret Service, you\nwill take care not to be offended and not to return blow for blow.\nUnderstand that the very moment you return the blow from the detective,\nyour cause is lost. This is your non-violent campaign. And so I ask\neveryone of you not to retaliate but to bottle up all your rage, to\ndismiss your rage from you and you will rise graver men. I am here to\ncongratulate those who have restrained themselves from going to the\nPresident and bringing the dispute before him.\n\nTherefore I appeal to those who feel aggrieved to feel that they have\ndone the right thing in forgetting it and if they have not forgotten I\nask them to try to forget the thing; and that is the object lesson to\nwhich I wanted to draw your attention if you want to carry this\nresolution. Do not carry this resolution only by an acclamation for this\nresolution, but I want you to accompany the carrying out of this\nresolution with a faith and resolve which nothing on earth can move.\nThat you are intent upon getting Swaraj at the earliest possible moment\nand that you are intent upon getting Swaraj by means that are\nlegitimate, that are honourable and by means that are non-violent, that\nare peaceful, you have resolved upon, so far you can say to-day. We\ncannot give battle to this Government by means of steel, but we can give\nbattle by exercising, what I have so often called, \"soul force\" and soul\nforce is not the prerogative of one man of a Sanyasi or even a so-called\nsaint. Soul force is the prerogative of every human being, female or\nmale and therefore I ask my countrymen, if they want to accept this\nresolution, to accept it with that firm determination and to understand\nthat it is inaugurated under such good and favourable auspices as I have\ndescribed to you.\n\nIn my humble opinion, the Congress will have done the rightest thing, if\nit unanimously adopts this resolution. May God grant that you will pass\nthis resolution unanimously, may God grant that you will also have the\ncourage and the ability to carry out the resolution and that within one\nyear.\n\n\n\n\nV. HINDU MOSLEM UNITY\n\n\n[A dialogue between Editor and reader on the Hindu-Moslem Unity--_Indian\nHome Rule_.]\n\n\nTHE HINDUS AND THE MAHOMEDANS.\n\nEDITOR: Your last question is a serious one, and yet, on careful\nconsideration, it will be found to be easy of solution. The question\narises because of the presence of the railways of the lawyers, and of\nthe doctors. We shall presently examine the last two. We have already\nconsidered the railways. I should, however, like to add that man is so\nmade by nature as to require him to restrict his movements as far as his\nhands and feet will take him. If we did not rush about from place to\nplace by means of railways such other maddening conveniences, much of\nthe confusion that arises would be obviated. Our difficulties are of our\nown creation. God set a limit to a man's locomotive ambition in the\nconstruction of his body. Man immediately proceeded to discover means of\noverriding the limit. God gifted man with intellect that he might know\nhis Maker. Man abused it, so that he might forget his Maker. I am so\nconstructed that I can only serve my immediate neighbours, but, in my\nconceit, I pretend to have discovered that I must with my body serve\nevery individual in the Universe. In thus attempting the impossible, man\ncomes in contact with different natures, different religions, and is\nutterly confounded. According to this reasoning, it must be apparent to\nyou that railways are a most dangerous institution. Man has therefore\ngone further away from his Maker.\n\nREADER: But I am impatient to hear your answer to my question. Has the\nintroduction of Mahomedanism not unmade the nation?\n\nEDITOR: India cannot cease to be one nation because people belonging to\ndifferent religions live in it. The introduction of foreigners does not\nnecessarily destroy the nation, they merge in it. A country is one\nnation only when such a condition obtains in it. That country must have\na faculty for assimilation. India has ever been such a country. In\nreality, there are as many religions as there are individuals, but those\nwho are conscious of the spirit of nationality do not interfere with one\nanother's religion. If they do, they are not fit to be considered a\nnation. If the Hindus believe that India should be peopled only by\nHindus, they are living in dreamland. The Hindus, the Mahomedans, the\nParsees and the Christians who have made India their country are fellow\ncountrymen, and they will have to live in unity if only for their own\ninterest. In no part of the world are one nationality and one religion\nsynonymous terms: nor has it ever been so in India.\n\nREADER: But what about the inborn enmity between Hindus and Mahomedans?\n\nEDITOR: That phrase has been invented by our mutual enemy. When the\nHindus and Mahomedans fought against one another, they certainly spoke\nin that strain. They have long since ceased to fight. How, then, can\nthere be any inborn enmity? Pray remember this, too, that we did not\ncease to fight only after British occupation. The Hindus flourished\nunder Moslem sovereigns, and Moslems under the Hindu. Each party\nrecognised that mutual fighting was suicidal, and that neither party\nwould abandon its religion by force of arms. Both parties, therefore,\ndecided to live in peace. With the English advent the quarrels\nrecommenced.\n\nThe proverbs you have quoted were coined when both were fighting; to\nquote them now is obviously harmful. Should we not remember that many\nHindus and Mahomedans own the same ancestors, and the same blood runs\nthrough their veins? Do people become enemies because they change their\nreligion? Is the God of the Mahomedan different from the God of the\nHindu? Religions are different roads converging to the same point. What\ndoes it matter that we take different roads, so long as we reach the\nsame goal? Wherein is the cause for quarrelling?\n\nMoreover, there are deadly proverbs as between the followers of Shiva\nand those of Vishnu, yet nobody suggests that these two do not belong to\nthe same nation. It is said that the Vedic religion is different from\nJainism, but the followers of the respective faiths are not different\nnations. The fact is that we have become enslaved, and, therefore,\nquarrel and like to have our quarrels decided by a third party. There\nare Hindu iconoclasts as there are Mahomedan. The more we advance in\ntrue knowledge, the better we shall understand that we need not be at\nwar with those whose religion we may not follow.\n\nREADER: Now I would like to know your views about cow protection.\n\nEDITOR: I myself respect the cow, that is, I look upon her with\naffectionate reverence. The cow is the protector of India, because, it\nbeing an agricultural country, is dependent on the cow's progeny. She is\na most useful animal in hundreds of ways. Our Mahomedan brethren will\nadmit this.\n\nBut, just as I respect the cow so do I respect my fellow-men. A man is\njust as useful as a cow, no matter whether he be a Mahomedan or a Hindu.\nAm I, then to fight with or kill a Mahomedan in order to save a cow? In\ndoing so, I would become an enemy as well of the cow as of the\nMahomedan. Therefore, the only method I know of protecting the cow is\nthat I should approach my Mahomedan brother and urge him for the sake of\nthe country to join me in protecting her. If he would not listen to me,\nI should let the cow go for the simple reason that the matter is beyond\nmy ability. If I were over full of pity for the cow, I should sacrifice\nmy life to save her, but not take my brother's. This, I hold, is the law\nof our religion.\n\nWhen men become obstinate, it is a difficult thing. If I pull one way,\nmy Moslem brother will pull another. If I put on a superior air, he will\nreturn the compliment. If I bow to him gently, he will do it much, more\nso, and if he does not, I shall not be considered to have done wrong in\nhaving bowed. When the Hindus became insistent, the killing of cows\nincreased. In my opinion, cow protection societies may be considered cow\nkilling societies. It is a disgrace to us that we should need such\nsocieties. When we forgot how to protect cows, I suppose we needed such\nsocieties.\n\nWhat am I to do when a blood-brother is on the point of killing a cow?\nAm I to kill him, or to fall down at his feet and implore him? If you\nadmit that I should adopt the latter course I must do the same to my\nMoslem brother. Who protects the cow from destruction by Hindus when\nthey cruelly ill-treat her? Whoever reasons with the Hindus when they\nmercilessly belabour the progeny of the cow with their sticks? But this\nhas not prevented us from remaining one nation.\n\nLastly, if it be true that the Hindus believe in the doctrine of\nnon-killing, and the Mahomedans do not, what, I pray, is the duty of the\nformer? It is not written that a follower of the religion of Ahimsa\n(non-killing) may kill a fellow-man. For him the way is straight. In\norder to save one being, he may not kill another. He can only\nplead--therein lies his sole duty.\n\nBut does every Hindu believe in Ahimsa? Going to the root of the matter,\nnot one man really practises such a religion, because we do destroy\nlife. We are said to follow that religion because we want to obtain\nfreedom from liability to kill any kind of life. Generally speaking, we\nmay observe that many Hindus partake of meat and are not, therefore,\nfollowers of Ahimsa. It is, therefore, preposterous to suggest that the\ntwo cannot live together amicably because the Hindus believe in Ahimsa\nand the Mahomedans do not.\n\nThese thoughts are put into our minds by selfish and false religious\nteachers. The English put the finishing touch. They have a habit of\nwriting history; they pretend to study the manners and customs of all\npeoples, God has given us a limited mental capacity, but they usurp the\nfunction of the Godhead and indulge in novel experiments. They write\nabout their own researches in most laudatory terms and hypnotise us into\nbelieving them. We in our ignorance, then fall at their feet.\n\nThose who do not wish to misunderstand things may read up the Koran, and\nwill find therein hundreds of passages acceptable to the Hindus; and the\nBhagavad Gita contains passages to which not a Mahomedan can take\nexception. Am I to dislike a Mahomedan because there are passages in the\nKoran I do not understand or like? It takes two to make a quarrel. If I\ndo not want to quarrel with a Mahomedan, the latter will be powerless to\nfoist a quarrel on me, and, similarly, I should be powerless if a\nMahomedan refuses his assistance to quarrel with me. An arm striking the\nair will become disjointed. If everyone will try to understand the core\nof his own religion and adhere to it, and will not allow false teachers\nto dictate to him, there will be no room left for quarrelling.\n\nREADER: But, will the English ever allow the two bodies to join hands?\n\nEDITOR: This question arises out of your timidity. It betrays our\nshallowness. If two brothers want to live in peace, is it possible for a\nthird party to separate them? If they were to listen to evil counsels,\nwe would consider them to be foolish. Similarly, we Hindus and\nMahomedans would have to blame our folly rather than the English, if we\nallowed them to put asunder. A clay pot would break through impact; if\nnot with one stone, thou with another. The way to save the pot is not to\nkeep it away from the danger point, but to bake it so that no stone\nwould break it. We have then to make our hearts of perfectly baked clay.\nThen we shall be steeled against all danger. This can be easily done by\nthe Hindus. They are superior in numbers, they pretend that they are\nmore educated, they are, therefore, better able to shield themselves\nfrom attack on their amicable relations with the Mahomedans.\n\nThere is a mutual distrust between the two communities. The Mahomedans,\ntherefore, ask for certain concessions from Lord Morley. Why should the\nHindus oppose this? If the Hindus desisted, the English would notice it,\nthe Mahomedans would gradually begin to trust the Hindus, and\nbrotherliness would be the outcome. We should be ashamed to take our\nquarrels to the English. Everyone can find out for himself that the\nHindus can lose nothing be desisting. The man who has inspired\nconfidence in another has never lost anything in this world.\n\nI do not suggest that the Hindus and the Mahomedans will never fight.\nTwo brothers living together often do so. We shall sometimes have our\nheads broken. Such a thing ought not to be necessary, but all men are\nnot equi-minded. When people are in a rage, they do many foolish things.\nThese we have to put up with. But, when we do quarrel, we certainly do\nnot want to engage counsel and to resort to English or any law-courts.\nTwo men fight; both have their heads broken, or one only. How shall a\nthird party distribute justice amongst them? Those who fight may expect\nto be injured.\n\n\nHINDU-MAHOMEDAN UNITY\n\nMr. Candler some time ago asked me in an imaginary interview whether if\nI was sincere in my professions of Hindu-Mahomedan Unity. I would eat\nand drink with a Mahomedean and give my daughter in marriage to a\nMahomedan. This question has been asked again by some friends in another\nform. Is it necessary for Hindu Mahomedan Unity that there should he\ninterdining and intermarrying? The questioners say that if the two are\nnecessary, real unity can never take place because crores of _Sanatanis_\nwould never reconcile themselves to interdining, much less to\nintermarriage.\n\nI am one of those who do not consider caste to be a harmful institution.\nIn its origin caste was a wholesome custom and promoted national\nwell-being. In my opinion the idea that interdining or intermarrying is\nnecessary for national growth, is a superstition borrowed from the West.\nEating is a process just as vital as the other sanitary necessities of\nlife. And if mankind had not, much to its harm, made of eating a fetish\nand indulgence we would have performed the operation of eating in\nprivate even as one performs the other necessary functions of life in\nprivate. Indeed the highest culture in Hinduism regards eating in that\nlight and there are thousands of Hindus still living who will not eat\ntheir food in the presence of anybody. I can recall the names of several\ncultured men and women who ate their food in entire privacy but who\nnever had any illwill against anybody and who lived on the friendliest\nterms with all.\n\nIntermarriage is a still more difficult question. If brothers and\nsisters can live on the friendliest footing without ever thinking of\nmarrying each other, I can see no difficulty in my daughter regarding\nevery Mahomedan brother and _vice versa_. I hold strong views on\nreligion and on marriage. The greater the restraint we exercise with\nregard to our appetites whether about eating or marrying, the better we\nbecome from a religious standpoint. I should despair of ever cultivating\namicable relations with the world, if I had to recognise the right or\nthe propriety of any young man offering his hand in marriage to my\ndaughter or to regard it as necessary for me to dine with anybody and\neverybody. I claim that I am living on terms of friendliness with the\nwhole world. I have never quarrelled with a single Mahomedan or\nChristian but for years I have taken nothing but fruit in Mahomedan or\nChristian households. I would most certainly decline to eat food cooked\nfrom the same plate with my son or to drink water out of a cup which his\nlips have touched and which has not been washed. But the restraint or\nthe exclusiveness exercised in these matters by me has never affected\nthe closest companionship with the Mahomedan or the Christian friends\nor my sons.\n\nBut interdining and intermarriage have never been a bar to disunion,\nquarrels and worse. The Pandavas and the Kauravas flew at one another's\nthroats without compunction although they interdined and intermarried.\nThe bitterness between the English and the Germans has not yet died out.\n\nThe fact is that intermarriage and interdining are not necessary factors\nin friendship and unity though they are often emblems thereof. But\ninsistence on either the one or the other can easily become and is\nto-day a bar to Hindu-Mahomedan Unity. If we make ourselves believe that\nHindus and Mahomedans cannot be one unless they interdine or intermarry,\nwe would be creating an artificial barrier between us which it might be\nalmost impossible to remove. And it would seriously interfere with the\nflowing unity between Hindus and Mahomedans if, for example, Mahomedan\nyouths consider it lawful to court Hindu girls. The Hindu parents will\nnot, even if they suspected any such thing, freely admit Mahomedans to\ntheir homes as they have begun to do now. In my opinion it is necessary\nfor Hindu and Mahomedan young men to recognise this limitation.\n\nI hold it to be utterly impossible for Hindus and Mahomedans to\nintermarry and yet retain intact each other's religion. And the true\nbeauty of Hindu-Mahomedan Unity lies in each remaining true to his own\nreligion and yet being true to each other. For, we are thinking of\nHindus and Mahomedans even of the most orthodox type being able to\nregard one another as natural friends instead of regarding one another\nas natural enemies as they have done hitherto.\n\nWhat then does the Hindu-Mahomedan Unity consist in and how can it be\nbest promoted? The answer is simple. It consists in our having a common\npurpose, a common goal and common sorrows. It is best promoted by\nco-operating to reach the common goal, by sharing one another's sorrow\nand by mutual toleration. A common goal we have. We wish this great\ncountry of ours to be greater and self-governing.[4] We have enough\nsorrows to share and to-day seeing that the Mahomedans are deeply\ntouched on the question of Khilafat and their case is just, nothing can\nbe so powerful for winning Mahomedans friendship for the Hindu as to\ngive his whole-hearted support to the Mahomedan claim. No amount of\ndrinking out of the same cup or dining out of the same bowl can bind the\ntwo as this help in the Khilafat question.\n\nAnd mutual toleration is a necessity for all time and for all races. We\ncannot live in peace if the Hindu will not tolerate the Mahomedan form\nof worship of God and his manners and customs or if the mahomedans will\nbe impatient of Hindu idolatory, cow-worship. It is not necessary for\ntoleration that I must approve of what I tolerate. I heartily dislike\ndrinking, meat eating and smoking, but I tolerate all these in Hindus,\nMahomedans and Christians even as I expect them to tolerate my\nabstinence from all these, although they may dislike it. All the\nquarrels between the Hindus and the Mahomedans have arisen from each\nwanting to _force_ the other his view.\n\n\nHINDU-MUSLIM UNITY\n\nThere can be no doubt that successful non-co-operation depends as much\non Hindu-Muslim Unity as on non-violence. Greatest strain will be put\nupon both in the course of the struggle and if it survives that strain,\nvictory is a certainty.\n\nA severe strain was put upon it in Agra and it has been stated that when\neither party went to the authorities they were referred to Maulana\nShaukat Ali and me. Fortunately there was a far better man at hand.\nHakimji Ajmal khan is a devout Muslim who commands the confidence and\nthe respect of both the parties. He with his band of workers hastened to\nAgra, settled the dispute and the parties became friends as they were\nnever before. An incident occurred nearer Delhi and the same influence\nworked successfully to avoid what might have become an explosion.\n\nBut Hakimji Ajmal khan cannot be everywhere appearing at the exact hour\nas an angel of peace. Nor can Maulana Shankat Ali or I go everywhere.\nAnd yet perfect peace must be observed between the two communities in\nspite of attempts to divide them.\n\nWhy was there any appeal made to the authorities at all at Agra? If we\nare to work out non-co-operation with any degree of success we must be\nable to dispense with the protection of the Government when we quarrel\namong ourselves. The whole scheme of non-co-operation must break to\npieces, if our final reliance is to be upon British intervention for the\nadjustment of our quarrels or the punishment of the guilty ones. In\nevery village and hamlet there must be at least one Hindu and one\nMuslim, whose primary business must be to prevent quarrels between the\ntwo. Some times however, even blood-brothers come to blows. In the\ninitial stages we are bound to do so here and there. Unfortunately we\nwho are public workers have made little attempt to understand and\ninfluence the masses and least of all the most turbulent among them.\nDuring the process of insinuating ourselves in the estimation of the\nmasses and until we have gained control over the unruly, there are bound\nto be exhibitions of hasty temper now and then. We must learn at such\ntimes to do without an appeal to the Government. Hakimji Ajmal Khan has\nshown us how to do it.\n\nThe union that we want is not a patched up thing but a union of hearts\nbased upon a definite recognition of the indubitable proposition that\nSwaraj for India must be an impossible dream without an indissoluble\nunion between the Hindus and the Muslims of India. It must not be a mere\ntruce. It cannot be based upon mutual fear. It must be a partnership\nbetween equals each respecting the religion of the other.\n\nI would frankly despair of reaching such union if there was anything in\nthe holy Quran enjoining upon the followers of Islam to treat Hindus as\ntheir natural enemies or if there was anything in Hinduism to warrant a\nbelief in the eternal enmity between the two.\n\nWe would ill learn our history if we conclude that because we have\nquarrelled in the past, we are destined so to continue unless some such\nstrong power like the British keep us by force of arms from flying at\neach other's throats. But I am convinced that there is no warrant in\nIslam or Hinduism for any such belief. True it is that interested\nfanatical priests in both religions have set the one against the other.\nIt is equally true that Muslim rulers like Christian rulers have used\nthe sword for the propagation of their respective faiths. But in spite\nof many dark things of the modern times, the world's opinion to-day will\nas little tolerate forcible conversions as it will tolerate forcible\nslavery. That probably is the most effective contribution of the\nscientific spirit of the age. That spirit has revolutionised many a\nfalse notion about Christianity as it has about Islam. I do not know a\nsingle writer on Islam who defends the use of force in the proselytising\nprocess. The influences exerted in our times are far more subtle than\nthat of the sword.\n\n\nI believe that in the midst of all the bloodshed, chicane and fraud\nbeing resorted to on a colossal scale in the west, the whole humanity is\nsilently but surely making progress towards a better age. And India by\nfinding true independence and self-expression through an imperishable\nHindu-Muslim unity and through non-violent means, i.e., unadulterated\nself sacrifice can point a way out of the prevailing darkness.\n\n\n\n\nVI. TREATMENT OF THE DEPRESSED CLASSES\n\n\nDEPRESSED CLASSES\n\nVivekanand used to call the Panchamas 'suppressed classes.' There is no\ndoubt that Vivekanand's is a more accurate adjective. We have suppressed\nthem and have consequently become ourselves depressed. That we have\nbecome the 'Pariahs of the Empire' is, in Gokhale's language, the\nretributive justice meted out to us by a just God. A correspondent\nindignantly asks me in a pathetic letter reproduced elsewhere, what I am\ndoing for them. I have given the letter with the correspondent's own\nheading. Should not we the Hindus wash our bloodstained hands before we\nask the English to wash theirs? This is a proper question reasonably\nput. And if a member of a slave nation could deliver the suppressed\nclasses from their slavery without freeing myself from my own, I would\ndo so to day. But it is an impossible task. A slave has not the freedom\neven to do the right thing. It is a right for me to prohibit the\nimportation of foreign goods, but I have no power to bring it about. It\nwas right for Maulana Mahomed Ali to go to Turkey and to tell the Turks\npersonally that India was with them in their righteous struggle. He was\nnot free to do so. If I had a truly national legislative I would answer\nHindu insolence by creating special and better wells for the exclusive\nuse of suppressed classes and by erecting better and more numerous\nschools for them, so that there would be not a single member of the\nsuppressed classes left without a school to teach their children. But I\nmust wait for that better day.\n\nMeanwhile are the depressed classes to be loft to their own resources?\nNothing of the sort. In my own humble manner I have done and am doing\nall I can for my Panchama brother.\n\nThere are three courses open to those downtrodden members of the nation.\nFor their impatience they may call in the assistance of the slave owning\nGovernment. They will get it but they will fall from the frying pan into\nthe fire. To-day they are slaves of slaves. By seeking Government aid,\nthey will be used for suppressing their kith and kin. Instead of being\nsinned against, they will themselves be the sinners. The Mussalmans\ntried it and failed. They found that they were worse off than before.\nThe Sikhs did it unwittingly and failed. To-day there is no more\ndiscontented community in India than the Sikhs. Government aid is\ntherefore no solution.\n\nThe second is rejection of Hinduism and wholesale conversion to Islam or\nChristianity. And if a change of religion could be justified for worldly\nbetterment, I would advise it without hesitation. But religion is a\nmatter of the heart. No physical inconvenience can warrant abandonment\nof one's own religion. If the inhuman treatment of the Panchamas were a\npart of Hinduism, its rejection would be a paramount duty both for them\nand for those like me who would not make a fetish even of religion and\ncondone every evil in its sacred name. But, I believe that\nuntouchability is no part of Hinduism. It is rather its excrescence to\nbe removed by every effort. And there is quite an army of Hindu\nreformers who have set their heart upon ridding Hinduism of this blot.\nConversion, therefore, I hold, is no remedy whatsoever.\n\nThen there remains, finally, self-help and self-dependence, with such\naid as the non-Panchama Hindus will render of their own motion, not as a\nmatter of patronage but as a matter of duty. And herein comes the use of\nnon-co-operation. My correspondent was correctly informed by Mr.\nRajagopaluchari and Mr. Hanumantarao that I would favour well-regulated\nnon-co-operation for this acknowledged evil. But non-co-operation means\nindependence of outside help, it means effort from within. It would not\nbe non-co-operation to insist on visiting prohibited areas. That may be\ncivil disobedience if it is peacefully carried out. But I have found to\nmy cost that civil disobedience requires far greater preliminary\ntraining and self-control. All can non-co-operate, but few only can\noffer civil disobedience. Therefore, by way of protest against Hinduism,\nthe Panchamas can certainly stop all contact and connection with the\nother Hindus so long as special grievances are maintained. But this\nmeans organised intelligent effort. And so far as I can see, there is no\nleader among the Panchamas who can lead them to victory through\nnon-co-operation.\n\nThe better way, therefore, perhaps, is for the Panchamas heartily to\njoin the great national movement that is now going on for throwing off\nthe slavery of the present Government. It is easy enough for the\nPanchama friends to see that non-co-operation against this evil\ngovernment presupposes co-operation between the different sections\nforming the Indian nation. The Hindus must realise that if they wish to\noffer successful non-co-operation against the Government, they must make\ncommon cause with the Panchamas, even as they have made common cause\nwith the Mussalmans. Non-co-operation with it is free from violence, is\nessentially a movement of intensive self-purification. That process has\ncommenced and whether the Panchamas deliberately take part in it or\nnot, the rest of the Hindus dare not neglect them without hampering\ntheir own progress. Hence though the Panchama problem is as dear to me\nas life itself, I rest satisfied with the exclusive attention to\nnational non-co-operation. I feel sure that the greater includes\nthe less.\n\nClosely allied to this question is the non-Brahmin question. I wish I\nhad studied it more closely than I have been able to. A quotation from\nmy speech delivered at a private meeting in Madras has been torn from\nits context and misused to further the antagonism between the so-called\nBrahmins and the so-called non-Brahmins. I do not wish to retract a word\nof what I said at that meeting, I was appealing to those who are\naccepted as Brahmins. I told them that in my opinion the treatment of\nnon-Brahmins by the Brahmins was as satanic as the treatment of us by\nthe British. I added that the non-Brahmins should be placated without\nany ado or bargaining. But my remarks were never intended to encourage\nthe powerful non-Brahmins of Maharashira or Madras, or the mischievous\nelement among them, to overawe the so-called Brahmins. I use the word\n'so-called' advisedly. For the Brahmins who have freed themselves from\nthe thraldom of superstitious orthodoxy have not only no quarrel with\nnon-Brahmins as such, but are in every way eager to advance\nnon-Brahmins wherever they are weak. No lover of his country can\npossibly achieve its general advance if he dared to neglect the least of\nhis countrymen. Those non-Brahmins therefore who are coqueting with the\nGovernment are selling themselves and the nation to which they belong.\nBy all means let those who have faith in the Government help to sustain\nit, but let no Indian worthy of his birth cut off his nose to spite\nthe face.\n\n\nAMELIORATION OF THE DEPRESSED CLASSES\n\nThe resolution of the Senate of the Gujarat National University in\nregard to Mr. Andrews' question about the admission of children of the\n'depressed' classes to the schools affiliated to that University is\nreported to have raised a flutter in Ahmedabad. Not only has the flutter\ngiven satisfaction to a 'Times of India' correspondent, but the occasion\nhas led to the discovery by him of another defect in the constitution of\nthe Senate in that it does not contain a single Muslim member. The\ndiscovery, however, I may inform the reader, is no proof of the want of\nnational character of the University. The Hindu-Muslim unity is no mere\nlip expression. It requires no artificial proofs. The simple reason why\nthere is no Mussalman representative on the Senate is that no higher\neducated Mussalman, able to give his time, has been found to take\nsufficient interest in the national education movement. I merely refer\nto this matter to show that we must reckon with attempts to discredit\nthe movement even misinterpretation of motives. That is a difficulty\nfrom without and easier to deal with.\n\nThe 'depressed' classes difficulty is internal and therefore far more\nserious because it may give rise to a split and weaken the cause--no\ncause can survive internal difficulties if they are indefinitely\nmultiplied. Yet there can be no surrender in the matter of principles\nfor the avoidance of splits. You cannot promote a cause when you are\nundermining it by surrendering its vital parts. The depressed classes\nproblem is a vital part of the cause. _Swaraj_ is as inconceivable\nwithout full reparation to the 'depressed' classes as it is impossible\nwithout real Hindu-Muslim unity. In my opinion we have become 'pariahs\nof the Empire' because we have created 'pariahs' in our midst. The slave\nowner is always more hurt than the slave. We shall be unfit to gain\nSwaraj so long as we would keep in bondage a fifth of the population of\nHindustan. Have we not made the 'pariah' crawl on his belly? Have we not\nsegregated him? And if it is religion so to treat the 'pariah.' It is\nthe religion of the white race to segregate us. And if it is no argument\nfor the white races to say that we are satisfied with the badge of our\ninferiority, it is less for us to say that the 'pariah' is satisfied\nwith his. Our slavery is complete when we begin to hug it.\n\nThe Gujarat Senate therefore counted the cost when it refused to bend\nbefore the storm. This non-co-operation is a process of\nself-purification. We may not cling to putrid customs and claim the pure\nboon of _Swaraj_. Untouchability I hold is a custom, not an integral\npart of Hinduism. The world advanced in thought, though it is still\nbarbarous in action. And no religion can stand that which is not based\non fundamental truths. Any glorification of error will destroy a\nreligion as surely as disregard of a disease is bound to destroy a body.\n\nThis government of ours is an unscrupulous corporation. It has ruled by\ndividing Mussalmans from Hindus. It is quite capable of taking advantage\nof the internal weaknesses of Hinduism. It will set the 'depressed'\nclasses against the rest of the Hindus, non-Brahmins against Brahmins.\nThe Gujarat Senate resolution does not end the trouble. It merely points\nout the difficulty. The trouble will end only when the masses and\nclasses of Hindus have rid themselves of the sin of untouchability. A\nHindu lover of Swaraj will as assiduously work for the amelioration of\nthe lot of the 'depressed' classes as he works for Hindu-Muslim unity.\nWe must treat them as our brothers and give them the same rights that we\nclaim for ourselves.\n\n\nTHE SIN OF UNTOUCHABILITY\n\nIt is worthy of note that the subjects Committee accepted without any\nopposition the clause regarding the sin of untouchability. It is well\nthat the National assembly passed the resolution stating that the\nremoval of this blot on Hinduism was necessary for the attainment of\nSwaraj. The Devil succeeds only by receiving help from his fellows. He\nalways takes advantage of the weakest spots in our natures in order to\ngain mastery over us. Even so does the Government retain its control\nover us through our weaknesses or vices. And if we would render\nourselves proof against its machination, we must remove our weaknesses.\nIt is for that reason that I have called non-co-operation a process of\npurification. As soon as that process is completed, this government must\nfall to pieces for want of the necessary environment, just as mosquitos\ncease to haunt a place whose cess-pools are filled up and dried.\n\nHas not a just Nemesis overtaken us for the crime of untouchability?\nHave we not reaped as we have sown? Have we not practised Dwyerism and\nO'Dwyerism on our own kith and kin? We have segregated the 'pariah' and\nwe are in turn segregated in the British Colonies. We deny him the use\nof public wells; we throw the leavings of our plates at him. His very\nshadow pollutes us. Indeed there is no charge that the 'pariah' cannot\nfling in our faces and which we do not fling in the faces of Englishmen.\n\nHow is this blot on Hinduism to be removed? 'Do unto others as you would\nthat others should do unto you.' I have often told English officials\nthat, if they are friends and servants of India, they should come down\nfrom their pedestal, cease to be patrons, demonstrate by their loving\ndeeds that they are in every respect our friends, and believe us to be\nequals in the same sense they believe fellow Englishmen to be their\nequals. After the experiences of the Punjab and the Khilafat, I have\ngone a step further and asked them to repent and to change their hearts.\nEven so is it necessary for us Hindus to repent of the wrong we have\ndone, to alter our behaviour towards those whom we have 'suppressed' by\na system as devilish as we believe the English system of the Government\nof India to be. We must not throw a few miserable schools at them; we\nmust not adopt the air of superiority towards them. We must treat them\nas our blood brothers as they are in fact. We must return to them the\ninheritance of which we have robbed them. And this must not be the act\nof a few English-knowing reformers merely, but it must be a conscious\nvoluntary effort on the part of the masses. We may not wait till\neternity for this much belated reformation. We must aim at bringing it\nabout within this year of grace, probation, preparation and _tapasya_.\nIt is a reform not to follow _Swaraj_ but to precede it.\n\nUntouchability is not a sanction of religion, it is a devise of Satan.\nThe devil has always quoted scriptures. But scriptures cannot transcend\nreason and truth. They are intended to purify reason and illuminate\ntruth. I am not going to burn a spotless horse because the Vedas are\nreported to have advised, tolerated, or sanctioned the sacrifice. For me\nthe Vedas are divine and unwritten. 'The letter killeth.' It is the\nspirit that giveth the light. And the spirit of the Vedas is purity,\ntruth, innocence, chastity, humility, simplicity, forgiveness,\ngodliness, and all that makes a man or woman noble and brave. There is\nneither nobility nor bravery in treating the great and uncomplaining\nscavengers of the nation as worse than dogs to be despised and spat\nupon. Would that God gave us the strength and the wisdom to become\nvoluntary scavengers of the nation as the 'suppressed' classes are\nforced to be. There are Augean stables enough and to spare for us to\nclean.\n\n\n\n\nVII. TREATMENT OF INDIANS ABROAD\n\n\nINDIANS ABROAD\n\nThe prejudice against Indian settlers outside India is showing itself in\na variety of ways: Under the impudent suggestion of sedition the Fiji\nGovernment has deported Mr. Manilal Doctor who with his brave and\ncultured wife has been rendering assistance to the poor indentured\nIndians of Fiji in a variety of ways. The whole trouble has arisen over\nthe strike of the labourers in Fiji. Indentures have been canceled, but\nthe spirit of slavery is by no means dead. We do not know the genesis of\nthe strike; we do not know that the strikers have done no wrong. But we\ndo know what is behind when a charge of sedition is brought against the\nstrikers and their friends. The readers must remember that the\nGovernment that has scented sedition in the recent upheaval in Fiji is\nthe Government that had the hardihood to libel Mr. Andrew's character.\nWhat can be the meaning of sedition in connection with the Fiji strikers\nand Mr. Manilal Doctor? Did they and he want to seize the reins of\nGovernment? Did they want any power in that country? They struck for\nelementary freedom. And it is a prostitution of terms to use the word\nsedition in such connection. The strikers may have been overhasty. Mr.\nManilal Doctor may have misled them. If his advice bordered on the\ncriminal he should have been tried. The information in our possession\ngoes to show that he has been strictly constitutional. Our point,\nhowever, is that it is an abuse of power for the Fiji Government to have\ndeported Mr. Manilal Doctor without a trial. It is wrong in principle to\ndeprive a person of his liberty on mere suspicion and without giving him\nan opportunity of clearing his character. Mr. Manilal Doctor, be it\nremembered, has for years past made Fiji his home. He has, we believe,\nbought property there. He has children born in Fiji. Have the children\nno rights? Has the wife none? May a promising career be ruined at the\nbidding of a lawless Government? Has Mr. Manilal Doctor been compensated\nfor the losses he must sustain? We trust that the Government of India\nwhich has endeavoured to protect the rights of Indian settlers abroad\nwill take up the question of Mr. Doctor's deportation.\n\nNor is Fiji the only place where the spirit of lawlessness among the\npowerful has come to the surface. Indians of (the late) German East\nAfrica find themselves in a worse position than heretofore. They state\nthat even their property is not safe. They have to pay all kinds of dues\non passports. They are hampered in their trade. They are not able even\nto send money orders.\n\nIn British East Africa the cloud is perhaps the thickest. The European\nsettlers there are doing their utmost to deprive the Indian settlers of\npractically every right they have hitherto possessed. An attempt is\nbeing made to compass their ruin both by legislative enactment and\nadministrative action.\n\nIn South Africa every Indian who has anything to do with that part of\nthe British Dominions is watching with bated breath the progress of\ncommission that is now sitting.\n\nThe Government of India have no easy job in protecting the interests of\nIndian settlers in these various parts of His Majesty's dominions. They\nwill be able to do so only by following the firmest and the most\nconsistent policy. Justice is admittedly on the side of the Indian\nsettlers. But they are the weak party. A strong agitation in India\nfollowed by strong action by the Government of India can alone save the\nsituation.\n\n\nINDIANS OVERSEAS\n\nThe meeting held at the Excelsior Theatre in Bombay to pass resolutions\nregarding East Africa and Fiji, and presided over by Sir Narayan\nChandavarkar, was an impressive gathering. The Theatre was filled to\noverflowing. Mr. Andrews' speech made clear what is needed. Both the\npolitical and the civil rights of Indians of East Africa are at stake.\nMr. Anantani, himself an East African settler, showed in a forceful\nspeech that the Indians were the pioneer settlers. An Indian sailor\nnamed Kano directed the celebrated Vasco De Gama to India. He added amid\napplause that Stanley's expedition for the search and relief of Dr.\nLivingstone was also fitted out by Indians. Indian workmen had built the\nUganda Railway at much peril to their lives. An Indian contractor had\ntaken the contract. Indian artisans had supplied the skill. And now\ntheir countrymen were in danger of being debarred from its use.\n\nThe uplands of East Africa have been declared a Colony and the lowlands\na Protectorate. There is a sinister significance attached to the\ndeclaration. The Colonial system gives the Europeans larger powers. It\nwill tax all the resources of the Government of India to prevent the\nhealthy uplands from becoming a whiteman's preserve and the Indians\nfrom being relegated to the swampy lowlands.\n\nThe question of franchise will soon become a burning one. It will be\nsuicidal to divide the electorate or to appoint Indians by nomination.\nThere must be one general electoral roll applying the same\nqualifications to all the voters. This principle, as Mr. Andrews\nreminded the meeting, had worked well at the Cape.\n\nThe second part of the East African resolution shows the condition of\nour countrymen in the late German East Africa. Indian soldiers fought\nthere and now the position of Indians is worse than under German rule.\nH.H. the Agakhan suggested that German East Africa should be\nadministered from India. Sir Theodore Morison would have couped up all\nIndians in German East Africa. The result was that both the proposals\nwent by the board and the expected has happened. The greed of the\nEnglish speculator has prevailed and he is trying to squeeze out the\nIndian. What will the Government of India protect? Has it the will to do\nso? Is not India itself being exploited? Mr. Jehangir Petit recalled the\nlate Mr. Gokhale's views that we were not to expect a full satisfaction\nregarding the status of our countrymen across the seas until we had put\nour own house in order. Helots in our own country, how could we do\nbetter outside? Mr. Petit wants systematic and severe retaliation. In\nmy opinion, retaliation is a double-edged weapon. It does not fail to\nhurt the user if it also hurts the party against whom it is used. And\nwho is to give effect to retaliation? It is too much to expect an\nEnglish Government to adopt effective retaliation against their own\npeople. They will expostulate, they will remonstrate, but they will not\ngo to war with their own Colonies. For the logical outcome of\nretaliation must mean war, if retaliation will not answer.\n\nLet us face the facts frankly. The problem is difficult alike for\nEnglishmen and for us. The Englishmen and Indians do not agree in the\nColonies. The Englishmen do not want us where they can live. Their\ncivilisation is different from ours. The two cannot coalesce until there\nis mutual respect. The Englishman considers himself to belong to the\nruling race. The Indian struggles to think that he does not belong to\nthe subject race and in the very act of thinking admits his subjection.\nWe must then attain equality at home before we can make any real\nimpression abroad.\n\nThis is not to say that we must not strive to do better abroad whilst we\nare ill at ease in our own home. We must preserve, we must help our\ncountrymen who have settled outside India. Only if we recognise the true\nsituation, we and our countrymen abroad will learn to be patient and\nknow that our chief energy must be concentrated on a betterment of our\nposition at home. If we can raise our status here to that of equal\npartners not in name but in reality so that every Indian might feel it,\nall else must follow as a matter of course.\n\n\nPARIAHS OF THE EMPIRE\n\nThe memorable Conference at Gujrat in its resolution on the status of\nIndians abroad has given it as its opinion that even this question may\nbecome one more reason for non-co-operation. And so it may. Nowhere has\nthere been such open defiance of every canon of justice and propriety as\nin the shameless decision of confiscation of Indian rights in the Kenia\nColony announced by its Governor. This decision has been supported by\nLord Milnor and Mr. Montagu. And his Indian colleagues are satisfied\nwith the decision. Indians, who have made East Africa, who out-number\nthe English, are deprived practically of the right of representation on\nthe Council. They are to be segregated in parts not habitable by the\nEnglish. They are to have neither the political nor the material\ncomfort. They are to become 'Pariahs' in a country made by their own\nlabour, wealth and intelligence. The Viceroy is pleased to say that he\ndoes not like the outlook and is considering the steps to be taken to\nvindicate the justice. He is not met with a new situation. The Indians\nof East Africa had warned him of the impending doom. And if His\nExcellency has not yet found the means of ensuring redress, he is not\nlikely to do it in future. I would respectfully ask his Indian\ncolleagues whether they can stand this robbery of their\ncountrymen rights.\n\nIn South Africa the situation is not less disquieting. My misgivings\nseem to be proving true, and repatriation is more likely to prove\ncompulsory than voluntary. It is a response to the anti-Asiatic\nagitation, not a measure of relief for indigent Indians. It looks very\nlike a trap laid for the unwary Indian. The Union Government appears to\nbe taking an unlawful advantage of a section of a relieving law designed\nfor a purpose totally different from the one now intended.\n\nAs for Fiji, the crime against humanity is evidently to be hushed up. I\ndo hope that unless an inquiry is to be made into the Fiji Martial Law\ndoings, no Indian member will undertake to go to Fiji. The Government of\nIndia appear to have given an undertaking to send Indian labour to Fiji\nprovided the commission that was to proceed there in order to\ninvestigate the condition on the spot returns with a favourable report.\n\nFor British Guiana I observe from the papers received from that\nquarter, that the mission that came here is already declaring that\nIndian labour will be forthcoming from India. There seems to me to be no\nreal prospect for Indian enterprise in that part of the world. We are\nnot wanted in any part of the British Dominion except as Pariahs to do\nthe scavenging for the European settlers.\n\nThe situation is clear. We are Pariahs in our own home. We get only what\nGovernment intend to give, not what we demand and have a right to. We\nmay get the crumbs, never the loaf. I have seen large and tempting\ncrumbs from a lavish table. And I have seen the eyes of our Pariahs--the\nshame of Hinduism--brightening to see those heavy crumbs filling their\nbaskets. But the superior Hindu, who is filling the basket from a safe\ndistance, knows that they are unfit for his own consumption. And so we\nin our turn may receive even Governorships which the real rulers no\nlonger require or which they cannot retain with safety for their\nmaterial interest--the political and material hold on India. It is time\nwe realised our true status.\n\n\n\n\nVIII. NON-CO-OPERATION\n\nA writer in the \"Times of India,\" the Editor of that wonderful daily and\nMrs. Besant have all in their own manner condemned non-co-operation\nconceived in connection with the Khilafat movement. All the three\nwritings naturally discuss many side issues which I shall omit for the\ntime being. I propose to answer two serious objections raised by the\nwriters. The sobriety with which they are stated entitles them to a\ngreater consideration than if they had been given in violent language.\nIn non-co-operation, the writers think, it would be difficult if not\nimpossible to avoid violence. Indeed violence, the \"Times of India\"\neditorial says, has already commenced in that ostracism has been\nresorted to in Calcutta and Delhi. Now I fear that ostracism to a\ncertain extent is impossible to avoid. I remember in South Africa in the\ninitial stages of the passive resistance campaign those who had fallen\naway were ostracised. Ostracism is violent or peaceful in according to\nthe manner in which it is practised. A congregation may well refuse to\nrecite prayers after a priest who prizes his title above his honour. But\nthe ostracism will become violent if the individual life of a person is\nmade unbearable by insults innuendoes or abuse. The real danger of\nviolence lies in the people resorting to non-co-operation becoming\nimpatient and revengeful. This may happen, if, for instance, payment of\ntaxes is suddenly withdrawn or if pressure is put upon soldiers to lay\ndown their arms. I however do not fear any evil consequences, for the\nsimple reason that every responsible Mahomedan understands that\nnon-co-operation to be successful must be totally unattended with\nviolence. The other objection raised is that those who may give up their\nservice may have to starve. That is just a possibility but a remote one,\nfor the committee will certainly make due provision for those who may\nsuddenly find themselves out of employment. I propose however to examine\nthe whole of the difficult question much more fully in a future issue\nand hope to show that if Indian-Mahomedan feeling is to be respected,\nthere is nothing left but non-co-operation if the decision arrived at\nis adverse.\n\n\nMR. MONTAGU ON THE KHILAFAT AGITATION\n\nMr. Montagu does not like the Khilafat agitation that is daily gathering\nforce. In answer to questions put in the House of Commons, he is\nreported to have said that whilst he acknowledged that I had rendered\ndistinguished services to the country in the past, he could not look\nupon my present attitude with equanimity and that it was not to be\nexpected that I could now be treated as leniently as I was during the\nRowlatt Act agitation. He added that he had every confidence in the\ncentral and the local Governments, that they were carefully watching the\nmovement and that they had full power to deal with the situation.\n\nThis statement of Mr. Montagu has been regarded in some quarters as a\nthreat. It has even been considered to be a blank cheque for the\nGovernment of India to re-establish the reign of terror if they chose.\nIt is certainly inconsistent with his desire to base the Government on\nthe goodwill of the people. At the same time if the Hunter Committee's\nfinding be true and if I was the cause of the disturbances last year, I\nwas undoubtedly treated with exceptional leniency, I admit too that my\nactivity this year is fraught with greater peril to the Empire as it is\nbeing conducted to-day than was last year's activity. Non-co-operation\nin itself is more harmless than civil disobedience, but in its effect it\nis far more dangerous for the Government than civil disobedience.\nNon-co-operation is intended so far to paralyse the Government, as to\ncompel justice from it. If it is carried to the extreme point, it can\nbring the Government to a standstill.\n\nA friend who has been listening to my speeches once asked me whether I\ndid not come under the sedition section of the Indian Penal Code. Though\nI had not fully considered it, I told him that very probably I did and\nthat I could not plead 'not guilty' if I was charged under it. For I\nmust admit that I can pretend to no 'affection' for the present\nGovernment. And my speeches are intended to create 'disaffection' such\nthat the people might consider it a shame to assist or co-operate with a\nGovernment that had forfeited all title to confidence, respect\nor support.\n\nI draw no distinction between the Imperial and the Indian Government.\nThe latter has accepted, on the Khilafat, the policy imposed upon it by\nthe former. And in the Punjab case the former has endorsed the policy of\nterrorism and emasculation of a brave people initiated by the latter.\nBritish ministers have broken their pledged word and wantonly wounded\nthe feelings of the seventy million Mussulmans of India. Innocent men\nand women were insulted by the insolent officers of the Punjab\nGovernment. Their wrongs not only unrighted but the very officers who so\ncruelly subjected them to barbarous humiliation retain office under the\nGovernment.\n\nWhen at Amritsar last year I pleaded with all the earnestness I could\ncommand for co-operation with the Government and for response to the\nwishes expressed in the Royal Proclamation; I did so because I honestly\nbelieved that a new era was about to begin, and that the old spirit of\nfear, distrust and consequent terrorism was about to give place to the\nnew spirit of respect, trust and good-will. I sincerely believed that\nthe Mussalman sentiment would be placated and that the officers that had\nmisbehaved during the Martial Law regime in the Punjab would be at least\ndismissed and the people would be otherwise made to feel that a\nGovernment that had always been found quick (and rightly) to punish\npopular excesses would not fail to punish its agents' misdeeds. But to\nmy amazement and dismay I have discovered that the present\nrepresentatives of the Empire have become dishonest and unscrupulous.\nThey have no real regard for the wishes of the people of India and they\ncount Indian honour as of little consequence.\n\nI can no longer retain affection for a Government so evilly manned as it\nis now-a-days. And for me, it is humiliating to retain my freedom and be\na witness to the continuing wrong. Mr. Montagu however is certainly\nright in threatening me with deprivation of my liberty if I persist in\nendangering the existence of the Government. For that must be the result\nif my activity bears fruit. My only regret is that inasmuch as Mr.\nMontagu admits my past services, he might have perceived that there\nmust be something exceptionally bad in the Government if a well-wisher\nlike me could no longer give his affection to it. It was simpler to\ninsist on justice being done to the Mussulmans and to the Punjab than to\nthreaten me with punishment so that the injustice might be perpetuated.\nIndeed I fully expect it will be found that even in promoting\ndisaffection towards an unjust Government I have rendered greater\nservices to the Empire than I am already credited with.\n\nAt the present moment, however, the duty of those who approve of my\nactivity is clear. They ought on no account to resent the deprivation of\nmy liberty, should the Government of India deem it to be their duty to\ntake it away. A citizen has no right to resist such restriction imposed\nin accordance with the laws of the State to which he belongs. Much less\nhave those who sympathize with him. In my case there can be no question\nof sympathy. For I deliberately oppose the Government to the extent of\ntrying to put its very existence in jeopardy. For my supporters,\ntherefore, it must be a moment of joy when I am imprisoned. It means the\nbeginning of success if only the supporters continue the policy for\nwhich I stand. If the Government arrest me, they would do so in order to\nstop the progress of non-co-operation which I preach. It follows that if\nnon-co-operation continues with unabated vigour, even after my arrest,\nthe Government must imprison others or grant the people's wish in order\nto gain their co-operation. Any eruption of violence on the part of the\npeople even under provocation would end in disaster. Whether therefore\nit is I or any one else who is arrested during the campaign, the first\ncondition of success is that there must be no resentment shown against\nit. We cannot imperil the very existence of a Government and quarrel\nwith its attempt to save itself by punishing those who place it\nin danger.\n\n\nAT THE CALL OF THE COUNTRY\n\nDr. Sapru delivered before the Khilafat Conference at Allahabad an\nimpassioned address sympathising with the Mussulmans in their trouble\nbut dissuaded them from embarking on non-co-operation. He was frankly\nunable to suggest a substitute but was emphatically of opinion that\nwhether there was a substitute or not non-co-operation was a remedy\nworse than the disease. He said further that Mussulmans will be taking\nupon their shoulders, a serious responsibility, if whilst they appealed\nto the ignorant masses to join them, they could not appeal to the Indian\njudges to resign and if they did they would not succeed.\n\nI acknowledge the force of Dr. Sapru's last argument. At the back of\nDr. Sapru's mind is the fear that non-co-operation by the ignorant\npeople would lead to distress and chaos and would do no good. In my\nopinion any non-co-operation is bound to do some good. Even the\nViceragal door-keeper saying, 'Please Sir, I can serve the Government no\nlonger because it has hurt my national honour' and resigning is a step\nmightier and more effective than the mightiest speech declaiming against\nthe Government for its injustice.\n\nNevertheless it would be wrong to appeal to the door-keeper until one\nhas appealed to the highest in the land. And as I propose, if the\nnecessity arose, to ask the door-keepers of the Government to dissociate\nthemselves from an unjust Government I propose now to address, an appeal\nto the Judges and the Executive Councillors to join the protest that is\nrising from all over India against the double wrong done to India, on\nthe Khilafat and the Punjab question. In both, national honour\nis involved.\n\nI take it that these gentlemen have entered upon their high offices not\nfor the sake of emolument, nor I hope for the sake of fame, but for the\nsake of serving their country. It was not for money, for they were\nearning more than they do now. It must not be for fame, for they cannot\nbuy fame at the cost of national honour. The only consideration, that\ncan at the present moment keep them in office must be service of the\ncountry.\n\nWhen the people have faith in the government, when it represents the\npopular will, the judges and the executive officials possibly serve the\ncountry. But when that government does not represent the will of the\npeople, when it supports dishonesty and terrorism, the judges and the\nexecutive officials by retaining office become instrument of dishonesty\nand terrorism. And the least therefore that these holders of high\noffices can do is to cease to become agents of a dishonest and\nterrorising government.\n\nFor the judges, the objection will be raised that they are above\npolitics, and so they are and should be. But the doctrine is true only\nin so far as the government is on the whole for the benefit of the\npeople and at least represents the will of the majority. Not to take\npart in politics means not to take sides. But when a whole country has\none mind, one will, when a whole country has been denied justice, it is\nno longer a question of party politics, it is a matter of life and\ndeath. It then becomes the duty of every citizen to refuse to serve a\ngovernment which misbehaves and flouts national wish. The judges are at\nthat moment bound to follow the nation if they are ultimately\nits servants.\n\nThere remains another argument to be examined. It applies to both the\njudges and the members of the executive. It will be urged that my appeal\ncould only be meant for the Indians and what good can it do by Indians\nrenouncing offices which have been won for the nation by hard struggle.\nI wish that I could make an effective appeal to the English as well as\nthe Indians. But I confess that I have written with the mental\nreservation that the appeal is addressed only to the Indians. I must\ntherefore examine the argument just stated. Whilst it is true that these\noffices have been secured after a prolonged struggle, they are of use\nnot because of the struggle, but because they are intended to serve the\nnation. The moment they cease to possess that quality, they become\nuseless and as in the present case harmful, no matter how hard-earned\nand therefore valuable they may have been at the outset.\n\nI would submit too to our distinguished countrymen who occupy high\noffices that their giving up will bring the struggle to a speedy end and\nwould probably obviate the danger attendant upon the masses being called\nupon to signify their disapproval by withdrawing co-operation. If the\ntitleholders gave up their titles, if the holders of honorary offices\ngave up their appointment and if the high officials gave up their posts,\nand the would-be councillors boycotted the councils, the Government\nwould quickly come to its senses and give effect to the people's will.\nFor the alternative before the Government then would be nothing but\ndespotic rule pure and simple. That would probably mean military\ndictatorship. The world's opinion has advanced so far that Britain dare\nnot contemplate such dictatorship with equanimity. The taking of the\nsteps suggested by me will constitute the peacefullest revolution the\nworld has ever seen. Once the infallibility of non-co-operation is\nrealised, there is an end to all bloodshed and violence in any shape\nor form.\n\nUndoubtedly a cause must be grave to warrant the drastic method of\nnational non-co-operation. I do say that the affront such as has been\nput upon Islam cannot be repeated for a century. Islam must rise now or\n'be fallen' if not for ever, certainly for a century. And I cannot\nimagine a graver wrong than the massacre of Jallianwalla and the\nbarbarity that followed it, the whitewash by the Hunter Committee, the\ndispatch of the Government of India, Mr. Montagu's letter upholding the\nViceroy and the then Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab, the refusal to\nremove officials who made of the lives of the Punjabis 'a hell' during\nthe Martial Law period. These act constitute a complete series of\ncontinuing wrongs against India which if India has any sense of honour,\nshe must right at the sacrifice of all the material wealth she\npossesses. If she does not, she will have bartered her soul for a 'mess\nof pottage.'\n\n\nNON-CO-OPERATION EXPLAINED\n\n   A representative of Madras Mail called on Mr. M.K. Gandhi at his\n   temporary residence in the Pursewalkam High road for an interview on\n   the subject of non-co-operation. Mr. Gandhi, who has come to Madras\n   on a tour to some of the principal Muslim centres in Southern India,\n   was busy with a number of workers discussing his programme; but he\n   expressed his readiness to answer questions on the chief topic which\n   is agitating Muslims and Hindus.\n\n\"After your experience of the Satyagraha agitation last year, Mr.\nGandhi, are you still hopeful and convinced of the wisdom of advising\nnon-co-operation?\"--\"Certainly.\"\n\n\"How do you consider conditions have altered since the Satyagraha\nmovement of last year?\"--\"I consider that people are better disciplined\nnow than they were before. In this I include even the masses who I have\nhad opportunities of seeing in large numbers in various parts of\nthe country.\"\n\n\"And you are satisfied that the masses understand the spirit of\nSatyagraha?\"--\"Yes.\"\n\n\"And that is why you are pressing on with the programme of\nnon-co-operation?\"--\"Yes. Moreover, the danger that attended the civil\ndisobedience part of Satyagraha does not apply to non-co-operation,\nbecause in non-co-operation we are not taking up civil disobedience of\nlaws as a mass movement. The result hitherto has been most encouraging.\nFor instance, people in Sindh and Delhi in spite of the irritating\nrestrictions upon their liberty by the authorities have carried out the\nCommittee's instructions in regard to the Seditious Meetings\nProclamation and to the prohibition of posting placards on the walls\nwhich we hold to be inoffensive but which the authorities consider to be\noffensive.\"\n\n\"What is the pressure which you expect to bring to bear on the\nauthorities if co-operation is withdrawn?\"--\"I believe, and everybody\nmust grant, that no Government can exist for a single moment without the\nco-operation of the people, willing or forced, and if people suddenly\nwithdraw their co-operation in every detail, the Government will come to\na stand-still.\"\n\n\"But is there not a big 'If' in it?\"--\"Certainly there is.\"\n\n\"And how do you propose to succeed against the big 'If'?\"--\"In my plan\nof campaign expediency has no room. If the Khilafat movement has really\npermeated the masses and the classes, there must be adequate response\nfrom the people.\"\n\n\"But are you not begging the question?\"--\"I am not begging the question,\nbecause so far as the data before me go, I believe that the Muslims\nkeenly feel the Khilafat grievance. It remains to be seen whether their\nfeeling is intense enough to evoke in them the measure of sacrifice\nadequate for successful non-co-operation.\"\n\n\"That is, your survey of the conditions, you think, justifies your\nadvising non-co-operation in the full conviction that you have behind\nyou the support of the vast masses of the Mussalman population?\"--\"Yes.\"\n\n\"This non-co-operation, you are satisfied, will extend to complete\nseverance of co-operation with the Government?\"--No; nor is it at the\npresent moment my desire that it should. I am simply practising\nnon-co-operation to the extent that is necessary to make the Government\nrealise the depth of popular feeling in the matter and the\ndissatisfaction with the Government that all that could be done has not\nbeen done either by the Government of India or by the Imperial\nGovernment, whether on the Khilafat question or on the \"Punjab\nquestion.\"\n\n\"Do you Mr. Gandhi, realise that even amongst Mahomedans there are\nsections of people who are not enthusiastic over non-co-operation\nhowever much they may feel the wrong that has been done to their\ncommunity?\"--\"Yes. But their number is smaller than those who are\nprepared to adopt non-co-operation.\"\n\n\"And yet does not the fact that there has not been an adequate response\nto your appeal for resignation of titles and offices and for boycott of\nelections of the Councils indicate that you may be placing more faith\nin their strength of conviction than is warranted?\"--\"I think not; for\nthe reason that the stage has only just come into operation and our\npeople are always most cautious and slow to move. Moreover, the first\nstage largely affects the uppermost strata of society, who represent a\nmicroscopic minority though they are undoubtedly an influential body\nof people.\"\n\n\"This upper class, you think, has sufficiently responded to your\nappeal?\"--\"I am unable to say either one way or the other at present. I\nshall be able to give a definite answer at the end of this month.\"...\n\n\"Do you think that without one's loyalty to the King and the Royal\nFamily being questioned, one can advocate non-co-operation in connection\nwith the Royal visit?\" \"Most decidedly; for the simple reason that if\nthere is any disloyalty about the proposed boycott of the Prince's\nvisit, it is disloyalty to the Government of the day and not to the\nperson of His Royal highness.\"\n\n\"What do you think is to be gained by promoting this boycott in\nconnection with the Royal visit?\"--\"Because I want to show that the\npeople of India are not in sympathy with the Government of the day and\nthat they strongly disapprove of the policy of the Government in regard\nto the Punjab and Khilafat, and even in respect of other important\nadministrative measures. I consider that the visit of the Prince of\nWales is a singularly good opportunity to the people to show their\ndisapproval of the present Government. After all, the visit is\ncalculated to have tremendous political results. It is not to be a\nnon-political event, and seeing that the Government of India and the\nImperial Government want to make the visit a political event of first\nclass importance, namely, for the purpose of strengthening their hold\nupon India, I for one, consider that it is the bounden duty of the\npeople to boycott the visit which is being engineered by the two\nGovernments in their own interest which at the present moment is totally\nantagonistic to the people.\"\n\n\"Do you mean that you want this boycott promoted because you feel that\nthe strengthening of the hold upon India is not desirable in the best\ninterests of the country?\"--\"Yes. The strengthening of the hold of a\nGovernment so wicked as the present one is not desirable for the best\ninterests of the people. Not that I want the bond between England and\nIndia to become loosened for the sake of loosening it but I want that\nbond to become strengthened only in so far as it adds to the welfare\nof India.\"\n\n\"Do you think that non-co-operation and the non-boycott of the\nLegislative Councils consistent?\"--\"No; because a person who takes up\nthe programme of non-co-operation cannot consistently stand for\nCouncils.\"\n\n\"Is non-co-operation, in your opinion, an end in itself or a means to an\nend, and if so, what is the end?\" \"It is a means to an end, the end\nbeing to make the present Government just, whereas it has become mostly\nunjust. Co-operation with a just Government is a duty; non-co-operation\nwith an unjust Government is equally a duty.\"\n\n\"Will you look with favour upon the proposal to enter the Councils and\nto carry on either obstructive tactics or to decline to take the oath of\nallegiance consistent with your non-co-operation?\"--\"No; as an accurate\nstudent of non-co-operation, I consider that such a proposal is\ninconsistent with the true spirit of non-co-operation. I have often said\nthat a Government really thrives on obstruction and so far as the\nproposal not to take the oath of allegiance is concerned, I can really\nsee no meaning in it; it amounts to a useless waste of valuable time\nand money.\"\n\n\"In other words, obstruction is no stage in non-co-operation?\"\n--\"No,\"....\n\n\"Are you satisfied that all efforts at constitutional agitation have\nbeen exhausted and that non-co-operation is the only course left us?\" \"I\ndo not consider non-co-operation to be unconstitutional remedies now\nleft open to us, non-co-operation is the only one left for us.\" \"Do you\nconsider it constitutional to adopt it with a view merely to paralyse\nGovernment?\"--\"Certainly, it is not unconstitutional, but a prudent man\nwill not take all the steps that are constitutional if they are\notherwise undesirable, nor do I advise that course. I am resorting to\nnon-co-operation in progressive stages because I want to evolve true\norder out of untrue order. I am not going to take a single step in\nnon-co-operation unless I am satisfied that the country is ready for\nthat step, namely, non-co-operation will not be followed by anarchy or\ndisorder.\"\n\n\"How will you satisfy yourself anarchy will not follow?\"\n\n\"For instance, if I advise the police to lay down their arms, I shall\nhave satisfied myself that we are able by voluntary assistance to\nprotect ourselves against thieves and robbers. That was precisely what\nwas done in Lahore and Amritsar last year by the citizens by means of\nvolunteers when the Military and the police had withdrawn. Even where\nGovernment had not taken such measures in a place, for want of adequate\nforce, I know people have successfully protected themselves.\"\n\n\"You have advised lawyers to non-co-operate by suspending their\npractice. What is your experience? Has the lawyers' response to your\nappeal encouraged you to hope that you will be able to carry through\nall stages of non-co-operation with the help of such people?\"\n\n\"I cannot say that a large number has yet responded to my appeal. It is\ntoo early to say how many will respond. But I may say that I do not rely\nmerely upon the lawyer class or highly educated men to enable the\nCommittee to carry out all the stages of non-co-operation. My hope lies\nmore with the masses so far as the later stages of non-co-operation are\nconcerned.\"\n\n_August 1920_.\n\n\nRELIGIOUS AUTHORITY FOR NON-CO-OPERATION\n\nIt is not without the greatest reluctance that I engage in a controversy\nwith so learned a leader like Sir Narayan Chandavarkar. But in view of\nthe fact that I am the author of the movement of non-co-operation, it\nbecomes my painful duty to state my views even though they are opposed\nto those of the leaders whom I look upon with respect. I have just read\nduring my travels in Malabar Sir Narayan's rejoinder to my answer to the\nBombay manifesto against non-co-operation. I regret to have to say that\nthe rejoinder leaves me unconvinced. He and I seem to read the teachings\nof the Bible, the Gita and the Koran from different standpoints or we\nput different interpretations on them. We seem to understand the words\nAhimsa, politics and religion differently. I shall try my best to make\nclear my meaning of the common terms and my reading of the different\nreligious.\n\nAt the outset let me assure Sir Narayan that I have not changed my views\non Ahimsa. I still believe that man not having been given the power of\ncreation does not possess the right of destroying the meanest creature\nthat lives. The prerogative of destruction belongs solely to the creator\nof all that lives. I accept the interpretation of Ahimsa, namely, that\nit is not merely a negative State of harmlessness, but it is a positive\nstate of love, of doing good even to the evil-doer. But it does not mean\nhelping the evil-doer to continue the wrong or tolerating it by passive\nacquiescence. On the contrary love, the active state of Ahimsa, requires\nyou to resist the wrong-doer by dissociating yourself from him even\nthough it may offend him or injure him physically. Thus if my son lives\na life of shame, I may not help him to do so by continuing to support\nhim; on the contrary, my love for him requires me to withdraw all\nsupport from him although it may mean even his death. And the same love\nimposes on me the obligation of welcoming him to my bosom when he\nrepents. But I may not by physical force compel my son to become good.\nThat in my opinion is the moral of the story of the Prodigal Son.\n\nNon-co-operation is not a passive state, it is an intensely active\nstate--more active than physical resistance or violence. Passive\nresistance is a misnomer. Non-co-operation in the sense used by me must\nbe non-violent and therefore neither punitive nor vindictive nor based\non malice ill-will or hatred. It follows therefore that it would be sin\nfor me to serve General Dyer and co-operate with him to shoot innocent\nmen. But it will be an exercise of forgiveness or love for me to nurse\nhim back to life, if he was suffering from a physical malady. I cannot\nuse in this context the word co-operation as Sir Narayan would perhaps\nuse it. I would co-operate a thousand times with this Government to wean\nit from its career of crime but I will not for a single moment\nco-operate with it to continue that career. And I would be guilty of\nwrong doing if I retained a title from it or \"a service under it or\nsupported its law-courts or schools.\" Better for me a beggar's bowl\nthan the richest possession from hands stained with the blood of the\ninnocents of Jallianwala. Better by far a warrant of imprisonment than\nhoneyed words from those who have wantonly wounded the religious\nsentiment of my seventy million brothers.\n\nMy reading of the Gita is diametrically opposed to Sir Narayan's. I do\nnot believe that the Gita teaches violence for doing good. It is\npre-eminently a description of the duel that goes on in our own hearts.\nThe divine author has used a historical incident for inculcating the\nlesson of doing one's duty even at the peril of one's life. It\ninculcates performance of duty irrespective of the consequences, for, we\nmortals, limited by our physical frames, are incapable of controlling\nactions save our own. The Gita distinguishes between the powers of light\nand darkness and demonstrates their incompatibility.\n\nJesus, in my humble opinion, was a prince among politicians. He did\nrender unto Caesar that which was Caesar's. He gave the devil his due.\nHe ever shunned him and is reported never once to have yielded to his\nincantations. The politics of his time consisted in securing the welfare\nof the people by teaching them not to be seduced by the trinkets of the\npriests and the pharisees. The latter then controlled and moulded the\nlife of the people. To-day the system of government is so devised as to\naffect every department of our life. It threatens our very existence. If\ntherefore we want to conserve the welfare of the nation, we must\nreligiously interest ourselves in the doing of the governors and exert a\nmoral influence on them by insisting on their obeying the laws of\nmorality. General Dyer did produce a 'moral effect' by an act of\nbutchery. Those who are engaged in forwarding the movement of\nnon-co-operation, hope to produce a moral effect by a process of\nself-denial, self-sacrifice and self-purification. It surprises me that\nSir Narayan should speak of General Dyer's massacre in the same breath\nas acts of non-co-operation. I have done my best to understand his\nmeaning, but I am sorry to confess that I have failed.\n\n\nTHE INWARDNESS OF NON-CO-OPERATION\n\nI commend to the attention of the readers the thoughtful letter received\nfrom Miss Anne Marie Peterson. Miss Peterson is a lady who has been in\nIndia for some years and has closely followed Indian affairs. She is\nabout the sever her connection with her mission for the purpose of\ngiving herself to education that is truly national.\n\nI have not given the letter in full. I have omitted all personal\nreferences. But her argument has been left entirely untouched. The\nletter was not meant to be printed. It was written just after my Vellore\nspeech. But it being intrinsically important, I asked the writer for her\npermission, which she gladly gave, for printing it.\n\nI publish it all the more gladly in that it enables me to show that the\nmovement of non-co-operation is neither anti-Christian nor anti-English\nnor anti-European. It is a struggle between religion and irreligion,\npowers of light and powers of darkness.\n\nIt is my firm opinion that Europe to-day represents not the spirit of\nGod or Christianity but the spirit of Satan. And Satan's successes are\nthe greatest when he appears with the name of God on his lips. Europe is\nto-day only nominally Christian. In reality it is worshipping Mammon.\n'It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a\nrich man to enter the kingdom.' Thus really spoke Jesus Christ. His\nso-called followers measure their moral progress by their material\npossessions. The very national anthem of England is anti-Christian.\nJesus who asked his followers to love their enemies even as themselves,\ncould not have sung of his enemies, 'confound his enemies frustrate\ntheir knavish tricks.' The last book that Dr. Wallace wrote set forth\nhis deliberate conviction that the much vaunted advance of science had\nadded not an inch to the moral stature of Europe. The last war however\nhas shown, as nothing else has, the Satanic nature of the civilization\nthat dominates Europe to day. Every canon of public morality has been\nbroken by the victors in the name of virtue. No lie has been considered\ntoo foul to be uttered. The motive behind every crime is not religious\nor spiritual but grossly material. But the Mussalmans and the Hindus who\nare struggling against the Government have religion and honour as their\nmotive. Even the cruel assassination which has just shocked the country\nis reported to have a religious motive behind it. It is certainly\nnecessary to purge religion of its excrescences, but it is equally\nnecessary to expose the hollowness of moral pretensions on the part of\nthose who prefer material wealth to moral gain. It is easier to wean an\nignorant fanatic from his error than a confirmed scoundrel from his\nscoundrelism.\n\nThis however is no indictment against individuals or even nations.\nThousands of individual Europeans are rising above their environment. I\nwrite of the tendency in Europe as reflected in her present leaders.\nEngland through her leaders is insolently crushing Indian religious and\nnational sentiment under her heels. England under the false plea of\nself-determination is trying to exploit the oil fields of Mesopotamia\nwhich she is almost to leave because she has probably no choice. France\nthrough her leaders is lending her name to training Cannibals as\nsoldiers and is shamelessly betraying her trust as a mandatory power by\ntrying to kill the spirit of the Syrians. President Wilson has thrown on\nthe scrap heap his precious fourteen points.\n\nIt is this combination of evil forces which India is really fighting\nthrough non-violent non-cooperation. And those like Miss Peterson\nwhether Christian or European, who feel that this error must be\ndethroned can exercise the privilege of doing so by joining the\nnon-co-operation movement. With the honour of Islam is bound up the\nsafety of religion itself and with the honour of India is bound up the\nhonour of every nation known to be weak.\n\n\nA MISSIONARY ON NON-CO-OPERATION\n\n   The following letter has been received by Mr. Gandhi from Miss Anne\n   Marie Peterson of the Danish Mission in Madras:--\n\nDear Mr. Gandhi,\n\nI cannot thank you enough for your kindness and the way in which you\nreceived me and I feel that meeting more or less decided my future. I\nhave thrown myself at the feet of India. At the same time I know that in\nChrist alone is my abode and I have no longing and no desire but to live\nHim, my crucified Saviour, and reveal Him for those with whom I come in\ncontact. I just cling to his feet and pray with tears that I may not\ndisgrace him as we Christians have been doing by our behaviour in India.\nWe go on crucifying Christ while we long to proclaim the Power of His\nresurrection by which He has conquered untruth and unrighteousness. If\nwe who bear His name were true to Him, we would never bow ourselves\nbefore the Powers of this world, but we would always be on the side of\nthe poor, the suffering and the oppressed. But we are not and therefore\nI feel myself under obligation and only to Christ but to India for His\nsake at this time of momentous importance for her future.\n\nTruly it matters little what I, a lonely and insignificant person, may\nsay or do. What is my protest against the common current, the race to\nwhich I belong is taking and (what grieves me more), which the\nmissionary societies seem to follow? Even if a respectable number\nprotested it would not be of any use. Yet were I alone against the whole\nworld, I must follow my conscience and my God.\n\nI therefore cannot but smile when I see people saying, you should have\nawaited the decision of the National Congress before starting the\nnon-co-operation movement. You have a message for the country, and the\nCongress is the voice of the nation--its servant and not its master. A\nmajority has no right simply because it is a majority.\n\nBut we must try to win the majority. And it is easy to see that now that\nCongress is going to be with you. Would it have done so if you had kept\nquiet and not lent your voice to the feelings of the people? Would the\nCongress have known its mind? I think not.\n\nI myself was in much doubt before I heard you. But you convinced me. Not\nthat I can feel much on the question of the Khilafat. I cannot. I can\nsee what service you are doing to India, if you can prevent the\nMahomedans from using the sword in order to take revenge and get their\nrights. I can see that if you unite the Hindus and the Mahomedans, it\nwill be a master stroke. How I wish the Christian would also come\nforward and unite with you for the sake of their country and the honour\nnot only of their Motherland but of Christ. I may not feel much for\nTurkey, but I feel for India, and I can see she (India) has no other way\nto protest against being trampled down and crushed than\nnon-co-operation.\n\nI also want you to know that many in Denmark and all over the world,\nyes, I am sure every true Christian, will feel with and be in sympathy\nwith India in the struggle which is now going on. God forbid that in the\nstruggle between might and right, truth and untruth, the spirit and the\nflesh, there should be a division of races. There is not. The same\nstruggle is going on all over the world. What does it matter then that\nwe are a few? God is on our side.\n\nBrute force often seems to get the upper hand but righteousness always\nhas and always shall conquer, be it even through much suffering, and\nwhat may even appear to be a defeat. Christ conquered, when the world\ncrucified Him. Blessed are the meek; they shall inherit the earth.\n\nWhen I read your speech given at Madras it struck me that it should be\nprinted as a pamphlet in English, Tamil, Hindustani and all the most\nused languages and then spread to every nook and corner of India.\n\nThe non-co-operation movement once started must be worked so as to\nbecome successful. If it is not, I dread to think of the consequences.\nBut you cannot expect it to win in a day or two. It must take time and\nyou will not despair if you do not reach your goal in a hurry. For those\nwho have faith there is no haste.\n\nNow for the withdrawal of the children and students from Government\nschools, I think, it a most important step. Taking the Government help\n(even if it be your money they pay you back), we must submit to its\nscheme, its rules and regulation. India and we who love her have come to\nthe conclusion that the education the foreign Government has given you\nis not healthy for India and can certainly never make for her real\ngrowth. This movement would lead to a spontaneous rise of national\nschools. Let them be a few but let them spring up through\nself-sacrifice. Only by indigenous education can India be truly\nuplifted. Why this appeals so much to me is perhaps because I belong to\nthe part of the Danish people who started their own independent,\nindigenous national schools. The Danish Free Schools and\nFolk-High-Schools, of which you may have heard, were started against\nthe opposition and persecution of the State. The organisers won and\nthus have regenerated the nation. With my truly heartfelt thanks and\nprayers for you.\n\nI am,\nYour sincerely,\nAnne Marie.\n\n\nHOW TO WORK NON-CO-OPERATION\n\nPerhaps the best way of answering the fears and criticism as to\nnon-co-operation is to elaborate more fully the scheme of\nnon-co-operation. The critics seem to imagine that the organisers\npropose to give effect to the whole scheme at once. The fact however is\nthat the organisers have fixed definite, progressive four stages. The\nfirst is the giving up of titles and resignation of honorary posts. If\nthere is no response or if the response received is not effective,\nrecourse will be had to the second stage. The second stage involves much\nprevious arrangement. Certainly not a single servant will be called out\nunless he is either capable of supporting himself and his dependents or\nthe Khilafat Committee is able to bear the burden. All the classes of\nservants will not be called out at once and never will any pressure be\nput upon a single servant to withdraw himself from the Government\nservice. Nor will a single private employee be touched for the simple\nreason that the movement is not anti-English. It is not even\nanti-Government. Co-operation is to be withdrawn because the people must\nnot be party to a wrong--a broken pledge--a violation of deep religious\nsentiment. Naturally, the movement will receive a check, if there is any\nundue influence brought to bear upon any Government servant or if any\nviolence is used or countenanced by any member of the Khilafat\nCommittee. The second stage must be entirely successful, if the response\nis at all on an adequate scale. For no Government--much less the Indian\nGovernment--can subsist if the people cease to serve it. The withdrawal\ntherefore of the police and the military--the third stage--is a distant\ngoal. The organisers however wanted to be fair, open and above\nsuspicion. They did not want to keep back from the Government or the\npublic a single step they had in contemplation even as a remote\ncontingency. The fourth, _i.e.,_ suspension of taxes is still more\nremote. The organisers recognise that suspension of general taxation is\nfraught with the greatest danger. It is likely to bring a sensitive\nclass in conflict with the police. They are therefore not likely to\nembark upon it, unless they can do so with the assurance that there will\nbe no violence offered by the people.\n\nI admit as I have already done that non-co-operation is not unattended\nwith risk, but the risk of supineness in the face of a grave issue is\ninfinitely greater than the danger of violence ensuing form organizing\nnon-co-operation. To do nothing is to invite violence for a certainty.\n\nIt is easy enough to pass resolutions or write articles condemning\nnon-co-operation. But it is no easy task to restrain the fury of a\npeople incensed by a deep sense of wrong. I urge those who talk or work\nagainst non-co-operation to descend from their chairs and go down to the\npeople, learn their feelings and write, if they have the heart against\nnon-co-operation. They will find, as I have found that the only way to\navoid violence is to enable them to give such expression to their\nfeelings as to compel redress. I have found nothing save\nnon-co-operation. It is logical and harmless. It is the inherent right\nof a subject to refuse to assist a Government that will not listen\nto him.\n\nNon-co-operation as a voluntary movement can only succeed, if the\nfeeling is genuine and strong enough to make people suffer to the\nutmost. If the religious sentiment of the Mahomedans is deeply hurt and\nif the Hindus entertain neighbourly regard towards their Muslim\nbrethren, they will both count no cost too great for achieving the end.\nNon-co-operation will not only be an effective remedy but will also be\nan effective test of the sincerity of the Muslim claim and the Hindu\nprofession of friendship.\n\nThere is however one formidable argument urged by friends against my\njoining the Khilafat movement. They say that it ill-becomes me, a friend\nof the English and an admirer of the British constitution, to join hands\nwith those who are to-day filled with nothing but ill-will against the\nEnglish. I am sorry to have to confess that the ordinary Mahomedan\nentertains to-day no affection for Englishmen. He considers, not without\nsome cause, that they have not played the game. But if I am friendly\ntowards Englishmen, I am no less so towards my countrymen, the\nMahomedans. And as such they have a greater claim upon my attention than\nEnglishmen. My personal religion however enables me to serve my\ncountrymen without hurting Englishmen or for that matter anybody else.\nWhat I am not prepared to do to my blood-brother I would not do to an\nEnglishman, I would not injure him to gain a kingdom. But I would\nwithdraw co-operation from him if it becomes necessary as I had\nwithdrawn from my own brother (now deceased) when it became necessary. I\nserve the Empire by refusing to partake in its wrong. William Stead\noffered public prayers for British reverses at the time of the Boer war\nbecause he considered that the nation to which he belonged was engaged\nin an unrighteous war. The present Prime Minister risked his life in\nopposing that war and did everything he could to obstruct his own\nGovernment in its prosecution. And to-day if I have thrown in my lot\nwith the Mahomedans, a large number of whom, bear no friendly feelings\ntowards the British, I have done so frankly as a friend of the British\nand with the object of gaining justice and of thereby showing the\ncapacity of the British constitution to respond to every honest\ndetermination when it is coupled with suffering, I hope by my 'alliance'\nwith the Mahomedans to achieve a threefold end--to obtain justice in the\nface of odds with the method of Satyagrah and to show its efficacy over\nall other methods, to secure Mahomedan friendship for the Hindus and\nthereby internal peace also, and last but not least to transform\nill-will into affection for the British and their constitution which in\nspite of the imperfections weathered many a storm. I may fail in\nachieving any of the ends. I can but attempt. God alone can grant\nsuccess. It will not be denied that the ends are all worthy. I invite\nHindus and Englishman to join me in a full-hearted manner in shouldering\nthe burden the Mahomedans of India are carrying. Theirs is admittedly a\njust fight. The Viceroy, the Secretary of State, the Maharaja of\nBikuner and Lord Sinha have testified to it. Time has arrived to make\ngood the testimony. People with a just cause are never satisfied with a\nmere protest. They have been known to die for it. Are a high-spirited\npeople like the Mahomedans expected to do less?\n\n\nSPEECH AT MADRAS\n\n   Addressing a huge concourse of people of the city of Madras Hindus\n   and Mahomedans numbering over 50,000, assembled on the South Beach\n   opposite to the Presidency College, Madras, on the 12th August 1920,\n   Mahatma Gandhi spoke as follows:--\n\nMr. Chairman and Friends,--Like last year, I have to ask your\nforgiveness that I should have to speak being seated. Whilst my voice\nhas become stronger than it was last year, my body is still weak; and if\nI were to attempt to speak to you standing, I could not hold on for very\nmany minutes before the whole frame would shake. I hope, therefore, that\nyou will grant me permission to speak seated. I have sat here to address\nyou on a most important question, probably a question whose importance\nwe have not measured up to now.\n\nLOKAMANYA TILAK\n\nBut before I approach that question on this dear old beach of Madras,\nyou will expect me--you will want me--to offer my tribute to the great\ndeparted, Lokamanya Tilak Maharaj (loud and prolonged cheers). I would\nask this great assembly to listen to me in silence. I have come to make\nan appeal to your hearts and to your reason and I could not do so unless\nyou were prepared to listen to whatever I have to say in absolute\nsilence. I wish to offer my tribute to the departed patriot and I think\nthat I cannot do better than say that his death, as his life, has poured\nnew vigour into the country. If you were present as I was present at\nthat great funeral procession, you would realise with me the meaning of\nmy words. Mr. Tilak lived for his country. The inspiration of his life\nwas freedom for his country which he called Swaraj the inspiration of\nhis death-bed was also freedom for his country. And it was that which\ngave him such marvellous hold upon his countrymen; it was that which\ncommanded the adoration not of a few chosen Indians belonging to the\nupper strata of society but of millions of his countrymen. His life was\none long sustained piece of self-sacrifice. He began that life of\ndiscipline and self-sacrifice in 1879 and he continued that life up to\nthe end of his day, and that was the secret of his hold upon his\ncountry. He not only knew what he wanted for his country but also how to\nlive for his country and how to die for his country. I hope then that\nwhatever I say this evening to this vast mass of people, will bear fruit\nin that same sacrifice for which the life of Lokamanya Tilak Maharaj\nstands. His life, if it teaches us anything whatsoever, teaches one\nsupreme lesson: that if we want to do anything whatsoever for our\ncountry we can do so not by speeches, however grand, eloquent and\nconvincing they may be, but only by sacrifice at the back of every act\nof our life. I have come to ask everyone of you whether you are ready\nand willing to give sufficiently for your country's sake for country's\nhonour and for religion. I have boundless faith in you, the citizens of\nMadras, and the people of this great presidency, a faith which I began\nto cultivate in the year 1903 when I first made acquaintance with the\nTamil labourers in South Africa; and I hope that in these hours of our\ntrial, this province will not be second to any other in India, and that\nit will lead in this spirit of self-sacrifice and will translate every\nword into action.\n\nNEED FOR NON-CO-OPERATION\n\nWhat is this non-co-operation, about which you have heard so much, and\nwhy do we want to offer this non-co-operation? I wish to go for the time\nbeing into the why. Here are two things before this country: the first\nand the foremost is the Khilafat question. On this the heart of the\nMussalmans of India has become lascerated. British pledges given after\nthe greatest deliberation by the Prime Minister of England in the name\nof the English nation, have been dragged into the mire. The promises\ngiven to Moslem India on the strength of which, the consideration that\nwas expected by the British nation was exacted, have been broken, and\nthe great religion of Islam has been placed in danger. The Mussalmans\nhold--and I venture to think they rightly hold--that so long as British\npromises remain unfulfilled, so long is it impossible for them to tender\nwhole-hearted fealty and loyalty to the British connection; and if it is\nto be a choice for a devout Mussalman between loyalty to the British\nconnection and loyalty to his Code and Prophet, he will not require a\nsecond to make his choice,--and he has declared his choice. The\nMussalmans say frankly openly and honourably to the whole world that if\nthe British Ministers and the British nation do not fulfil the pledges\ngiven to them and do not wish to regard with respect the sentiments of\n70 millions of the inhabitants of India who profess the faith of Islam,\nit will be impossible for them to retain Islamic loyalty. It is a\nquestion, then for the rest of the Indian population to consider whether\nthey want to perform a neighbourly duty by their Mussalman countrymen,\nand if they do, they have an opportunity of a lifetime which will not\noccur for another hundred years, to show their good-will, fellowship and\nfriendship and to prove what they have been saying for all these long\nyears that the Mussalman is the brother of the Hindu. If the Hindu\nregards that before the connection with the British nation comes his\nnatural connection with his Moslem brother, then I say to you that if\nyou find that the Moslem claim is just, that it is based upon real\nsentiment, and that at its back ground is this great religious feeling,\nyou cannot do otherwise than help the Mussalman through and through, so\nlong as their cause remains just, and the means for attaining the end\nremains equally just, honourable and free from harm to India. These are\nthe plain conditions which the Indian Mussalmans have accepted; and it\nwas when they saw that they could accept the proferred aid of the\nHindus, that they could always justify the cause and the means before\nthe whole world, that they decided to accept the proferred hand of\nfellowship. It is then for the Hindus and Mahomedans to offer a united\nfront to the whole of the Christian powers of Europe and tell them that\nweak as India is, India has still got the capacity of preserving her\nself-respect, she still knows how to die for her religion and for her\nself-respect.\n\nThat is the Khilafat in a nut-shell; but you have also got the Punjab.\nThe Punjab has wounded the heart of India as no other question has for\nthe past century. I do not exclude from my calculation the Mutiny of\n1857. Whatever hardships India had to suffer during the Mutiny, the\ninsult that was attempted to be offered to her during the passage of the\nRowlatt legislation and that which was offered after its passage were\nunparalleled in Indian history. It is because you want justice from the\nBritish nation in connection with the Punjab atrocities: you have to\ndevise, ways and means as to how you can get this justice. The House of\nCommons, the House of Lords, Mr. Montagu, the Viceroy of India, everyone\nof them know what the feeling of India is on this Khilafat question and\non that of the Punjab; the debates in both the Houses of Parliament, the\naction of Mr. Montagu and that of the Viceroy have demonstrated to you\ncompletely that they are not willing to give the justice which is\nIndia's due and which she demands. I suggest that our leaders have got\nto find a way out of this great difficulty and unless we have made\nourselves even with the British rulers in India and unless we have\ngained a measure of self-respect at the hands of the British rulers in\nIndia, no connection, and no friendly intercourse is possible between\nthem and ourselves. I, therefore, venture to suggest this beautiful and\nunanswerable method of non-co-operation.\n\nIS IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL?\n\nI have been told that non-co-operation is unconstitutional. I venture to\ndeny that it is unconstitutional. On the contrary, I hold that\nnon-co-operation is a just and religious doctrine; it is the inherent\nright of every human being and it is perfectly constitutional. A great\nlover of the British Empire has said that under the British constitution\neven a successful rebellion is perfectly constitutional and he quotes\nhistorical instances, which I cannot deny, in support of his claim. I\ndo not claim any constitutionality for a rebellion successful or\notherwise, so long as that rebellion means in the ordinary sense of the\nterm, what it does mean namely wresting justice by violent means. On the\ncontrary, I have said it repeatedly to my countrymen that violence\nwhatever end it may serve in Europe, will never serve us in India. My\nbrother and friend Shaukat Ali believes in methods of violence; and if\nit was in his power to draw the sword against the British Empire, I know\nthat he has got the courage of a man and he has got also the wisdom to\nsee that he should offer that battle to the British Empire. But because\nhe recognises as a true soldier that means of violence are not open to\nIndia, he sides with me accepting my humble assistance and pledges his\nword that so long as I am with him and so long as he believes in the\ndoctrine, so long will he not harbour even the idea of violence against\nany single Englishman or any single man on earth. I am here to tell you\nthat he has been as true as his word and has kept it religiously. I am\nhere to bear witness that he has been following out this plan of\nnon-violent Non-co-operation to the very letter and I am asking India to\nfollow this non-violent non-co-operation. I tell you that there is not a\nbetter soldier living in our ranks in British India than Shaukat Ali.\nWhen the time for the drawing of the sword comes, if it ever comes, you\nwill find him drawing that sword and you will find me retiring to the\njungles of Hindustan. As soon as India accepts the doctrine of the\nsword, my life as an Indian is finished. It is because I believe in a\nmission special to India and it is because I believe that the ancients\nof India after centuries of experience have found out that the true\nthing for any human being on earth is not justice based on violence but\njustice based on sacrifice of self, justice based on Yagna and\nKurbani,--I cling to that doctrine and I shall cling to it for ever,--it\nis for that reason I tell you that whilst my friend believes also in the\ndoctrine of violence and has adopted the doctrine of non-violence as a\nweapon of the weak, I believe in the doctrine of non-violence as a\nweapon of the strongest. I believe that a man is the strongest soldier\nfor daring to die unarmed with his breast bare before the enemy. So much\nfor the non-violent part of non-co-operation. I therefore, venture to\nsuggest to my learned countrymen that so long as the doctrine of\nnon-co-operation remains non-violent, so long there is nothing\nunconstitutional in that doctrine.\n\nI ask further, is it unconstitutional for me to say to the British\nGovernment 'I refuse to serve you?' Is it unconstitutional for our\nworthy Chairman to return with every respect all the titles that he has\never held from the Government? Is it unconstitutional for any parent to\nwithdraw his children from a Government or aided school? Is it\nunconstitutional for a lawyer to say 'I shall no longer support the arm\nof the law so long as that arm of law is used not to raise me but to\ndebase me'? Is it unconstitutional for a civil servant or for a judge to\nsay, 'I refuse to serve a Government which does not wish to respect the\nwishes of the whole people?' I ask, is it unconstitutional for a\npoliceman or for a soldier to tender his resignation when he knows that\nhe is called to serve a Government which traduces his own countrymen? Is\nit unconstitutional for me to go to the 'krishan,' to the agriculturist,\nand say to him 'it is not wise for you to pay any taxes if these taxes\nare used by the Government not to raise you but to weaken you?' I hold\nand I venture to submit, that there is nothing unconstitutional in it.\nWhat is more, I have done every one of these things in my life and\nnobody has questioned the constitutional character of it. I was in Kaira\nworking in the midst of 7 lakhs of agriculturists. They had all\nsuspended the payment of taxes and the whole of India was at one with\nme. Nobody considered that it was unconstitutional. I submit that in the\nwhole plan of non-co-operation, there is nothing unconstitutional. But\nI do venture to suggest that it will be highly unconstitutional in the\nmidst of this unconstitutional Government,--in the midst of a nation\nwhich has built up its magnificent constitution,--for the people of\nIndia to become weak and to crawl on their belly--it will be highly\nunconstitutional for the people of India to pocket every insult that is\noffered to them; it is highly unconstitutional for the 70 millions of\nMohamedans of India to submit to a violent wrong done to their religion;\nit is highly unconstitutional for the whole of India to sit still and\nco-operate with an unjust Government which has trodden under its feet\nthe honour of the Punjab. I say to my countrymen so long as you have a\nsense of honour and so long as you wish to remain the descendants and\ndefenders of the noble traditions that have been handed to you for\ngenerations after generations, it is unconstitutional for you not to\nnon-co-operate and unconstitutional for you to co-operate with a\nGovernment which has become so unjust as our Government has become. I am\nnot anti-English; I am not anti-British; I am not anti any Government;\nbut I am anti-untruth--anti-humbug and anti-injustice. So long as the\nGovernment spells injustice, it may regard me as its enemy, implacable\nenemy. I had hoped at the Congress at Amritsar--I am speaking God's\ntruth before you--when I pleaded on bended knees before some of you for\nco-operation with the Government. I had full hope that the British\nministers who are wise, as a rule, would placate the Mussalman sentiment\nthat they would do full justice in the matter of the Punjab atrocities;\nand therefore, I said:--let us return good-will to the hand of\nfellowship that has been extended to us, which I then believed was\nextended to us through the Royal Proclamation. It was on that account\nthat I pleaded for co-operation. But to-day that faith having gone and\nobliterated by the acts of the British ministers, I am here to plead not\nfor futile obstruction in the Legislative council but for real\nsubstantial non-co-operation which would paralyse the mightiest\nGovernment on earth. That is what I stand for to-day. Until we have\nwrung justice, and until we have wrung our self-respect from unwilling\nhands and from unwilling pens there can be no co-operation. Our Shastras\nsay and I say so with the greatest deference to all the greatest\nreligious preceptors of India but without fear of contradiction, that\nour Shastras teach us that there shall be no co-operation between\ninjustice and justice, between an unjust man and a justice-loving man,\nbetween truth and untruth. Co-operation is a duty only so long as\nGovernment protects your honour, and non-co-operation is an equal duty\nwhen the Government instead of protecting robs you of your honour. That\nis the doctrine of non-co-operation.\n\nNON-CO-OPERATION AND THE SPECIAL CONGRESS\n\nI have been told that I should have waited for the declaration of the\nspecial Congress which is the mouth piece of the whole nation. I know\nthat it is the mouthpiece of the whole nation. If it was for me,\nindividual Gandhi, to wait, I would have waited for eternity. But I had\nin my hands a sacred trust. I was advising my Mussalman countrymen and\nfor the time being I hold their honour in my hands. I dare not ask them\nto wait for any verdict but the verdict of their own Conscience. Do you\nsuppose that Mussalmans can eat their own words, can withdraw from the\nhonourable position they have taken up? If perchance--and God forbid\nthat it should happen--the Special Congress decides against them, I\nwould still advise my countrymen the Mussalmans to stand single handed\nand fight rather than yield to the attempted dishonour to their\nreligion. It is therefore given to the Mussalmans to go to the Congress\non bended knees and plead for support. But support or no support, it was\nnot possible for them to wait for the Congress to give them the lead.\nThey had to choose between futile violence, drawing of the naked sword\nand peaceful non-violent but effective non-co-operation, and they have\nmade their choice. I venture further to say to you that if there is any\nbody of men who feel as I do, the sacred character of non-co-operation,\nit is for you and me not to wait for the Congress but to act and to make\nit impossible for the Congress to give any other verdict. After all what\nis the Congress? The Congress is the collected voice of individuals who\nform it, and if the individuals go to the Congress with a united voice,\nthat will be the verdict you will gain from the Congress. But if we go\nto the Congress with no opinion because we have none or because we are\nafraid to express it, then naturally we wait the verdict of the\nCongress. To those who are unable to make up their mind I say by all\nmeans wait. But for those who have seen the clear light as they see the\nlights in front of them, for them to wait is a sin. The Congress does\nnot expect you to wait but it expects you to act so that the Congress\ncan gauge properly the national feeling. So much for the Congress.\n\nBOYCOTT OF THE COUNCILS\n\nAmong the details of non-co-operation I have placed in the foremost rank\nthe boycott of the councils. Friends have quarrelled with me for the use\nof the word boycott, because I have disapproved--as I disapprove even\nnow--boycott of British goods or any goods for that matter. But there,\nboycott has its own meaning and here boycott has its own meaning. I not\nonly do not disapprove but approve of the boycott of the councils that\nare going to be formed next year. And why do I do it? The people--the\nmasses,--require from us, the leaders, a clear lead. They do not want\nany equivocation from us. The suggestion that we should seek election\nand then refuse to take the oath of allegiance, would only make the\nnation distrust the leaders. It is not a clear lead to the nation. So I\nsay to you, my countrymen, not to fall into this trap. We shall sell our\ncountry by adopting the method of seeking election and then not taking\nthe oath of allegiance. We may find it difficult, and I frankly confess\nto you that I have not that trust in so many Indians making that\ndeclaration and standing by it. To-day I suggest to those who honestly\nhold the view--_viz_. that we should seek election and then refuse to\ntake the oath of allegiance--I suggest to them that they will fall into\na trap which they are preparing for themselves and for the nation. That\nis my view. I hold that if we want to give the nation the clearest\npossible lead, and if we want not to play with this great nation we must\nmake it clear to this nation that we cannot take any favours, no matter\nhow great they may be so long as those favours are accompanied by an\ninjustice a double wrong, done to India not yet redressed. The first\nindispensable thing before we can receive any favours from them is that\nthey should redress this double wrong. There is a Greek proverb which\nused to say \"Beware of the Greek but especially beware of them when they\nbring gifts to you.\" To-day from those ministers who are bent upon\nperpetuating the wrong to Islam and to the Punjab, I say we cannot\naccept gifts but we should be doubly careful lest we may not fall into\nthe trap that they may have devised. I therefore suggest that we must\nnot coquet with the council and must not have anything whatsoever to do\nwith them. I am told that if we, who represent the national sentiment do\nnot seek election, the Moderates who do not represent that sentiment\nwill. I do not agree. I do not know what the Moderates represent and I\ndo not know what the Nationalists represent. I know that there are good\nsheep and black sheep amongst the Moderates. I know that there are good\nsheep and black sheep amongst the Nationalists. I know that many\nModerates hold honestly the view that it is a sin to resort to\nnon-co-operation. I respectfully agree to differ from them. I do say to\nthem also that they will fall into a trap which they will have devised\nif they seek election. But that does not affect my situation. If I feel\nin my heart of hearts that I ought not to go to the councils I ought at\nleast to abide by this decision and it does not matter if ninety-nine\nother countrymen seek election. That is the only way in which public\nwork can be done, and public opinion can be built. That is the only way\nin which reforms can be achieved and religion can be conserved. If it is\na question of religious honour, whether I am one or among many I must\nstand upon my doctrine. Even if I should die in the attempt, it is worth\ndying for, than that I should live and deny my own doctrine. I suggest\nthat it will be wrong on the part of any one to seek election to these\nCouncils. If once we feel that we cannot co-operate with this\nGovernment, we have to commence from the top. We are the natural leaders\nof the people and we have acquired the right and the power to go to the\nnation and speak to it with the voice of non-co-operation. I therefore\ndo suggest that it is inconsistent with non-co-operation to seek\nelection to the Councils on any terms whatsoever.\n\nLAWYERS AND NON-CO-OPERATION\n\nI have suggested another difficult matter, _viz._, that the lawyers\nshould suspend their practice. How should I do otherwise knowing so well\nhow the Government had always been able to retain this power through the\ninstrumentality of lawyers. It is perfectly true that it is the lawyers\nof to-day who are leading us, who are fighting the country's battles,\nbut when it comes to a matter of action against the Government, when it\ncomes to a matter of paralysing the activity of the Government I know\nthat the Government always look to the lawyers, however fine fighters\nthey may have been to preserve their dignity and their self-respect. I\ntherefore suggest to my lawyer friends that it is their duty to suspend\ntheir practice and to show to the Government that they will no longer\nretain their offices, because lawyers are considered to be honorary\nofficers of the courts and therefore subject to their disciplinary\njurisdiction. They must no longer retain these honorary offices if they\nwant to withdraw on operation from Government. But what will happen to\nlaw and order? We shall evolve law and order through the instrumentality\nof these very lawyers. We shall promote arbitration courts and dispense\njustice, pure, simple home-made justice, swadeshi justice to our\ncountrymen. That is what suspension of practice means.\n\nPARENTS AND NON-CO-OPERATION\n\nI have suggested yet another difficulty--to withdraw our children from\nthe Government schools and to ask collegiate students to withdraw from\nthe College and to empty Government aided schools. How could I do\notherwise? I want to gauge the national sentiment. I want to know\nwhether the Mahomodans feel deeply. If they feel deeply they will\nunderstand in the twinkling of an eye, that it is not right for them to\nreceive schooling from a Government in which they have lost all faith;\nand which they do not trust at all. How can I, if I do not want to help\nthis Government, receive any help from that Government. I think that the\nschools and colleges are factories for making clerks and Government\nservants. I would not help this great factory for manufacturing clerks\nand servants if I want to withdraw co-operation from that Government.\nLook at it from any point of view you like. It is not possible for you\nto send your children to the schools and still believe in the doctrine\nof non-co-operation.\n\nTHE DUTY OF TITLE HOLDERS\n\nI have gone further. I have suggested that our title holders should give\nup their titles. How can they hold on to the titles and honour bestowed\nby the Government? They were at one time badges of honours when we\nbelieved that national honour was safe in their hands. But now they are\nno longer badges of honour but badges of dishonour and disgrace when we\nreally believe that we cannot get justice from this Government. Every\ntitle holder holds his titles and honours as trustee for the nation and\nin this first step in the withdrawal of co-operation from the Government\nthey should surrender their titles without a moment's consideration. I\nsuggest to my Mahomedan countrymen that if they fail in this primary\nduty they will certainly fail in non-co-operation unless the masses\nthemselves reject the classes and take up non-co-operation in their own\nhands and are able to fight that battle even as the men of the French\nRevolution were able to take the reins of Government in their own hands\nleaving aside the leaders and marched to the banner of victory. I want\nno revolution. I want ordered progress. I want no disordered order. I\nwant no chaos. I want real order to be evolved out of this chaos which\nis misrepresented to me as order. If it is order established by a tyrant\nin order to get hold of the tyrannical reins of Government I say that it\nis no order for me but it is disorder. I want to evolve justice out of\nthis injustice. Therefore, I suggest to you the passive\nnon-co-operation. If we would only realise the secret of this peaceful\nand infallible doctrine you will know and you will find that you will\nnot want to use even an angry word when they lift the sword at you and\nyou will not want even to lift your little finger, let alone a stick\nor a sword.\n\nNON-CO-OPERATION--SERVICE TO THE EMPIRE\n\nYou may consider that I have spoken these words in anger because I have\nconsidered the ways of this Government immoral, unjust, debasing and\nuntruthful. I use these adjectives with the greatest deliberation. I\nhave used them for my own true brother with whom I was engaged in battle\nof non-co-operation for full 13 years and although the ashes cover the\nremains of my brother I tell you that I used to tell him that he was\nunjust when his plans were based upon immoral foundation. I used to tell\nhim that he did not stand for truth. There was no anger in me, I told\nhim this home truth because I loved him. In the same manner, I tell the\nBritish people that I love them, and that I want their association but I\nwant that association on conditions well defined. I want my self-respect\nand I want my absolute equality with them. If I cannot gain that\nequality from the British people, I do not want that British connection.\nIf I have to let the British people go and import temporary disorder and\ndislocation of national business, I will favour that disorder and\ndislocation than that I should have injustice from the hands of a great\nnation such as the British nation. You will find that by the time the\nwhole chapter is closed that the successors of Mr. Montagu will give me\nthe credit for having rendered the most distinguished service that I\nhave yet rendered to the Empire, in having offered this non-co-operation\nand in having suggest the boycott, not of His Royal Highness the\nprinciple of Wales, but of boycott of a visit engineered by Government\nin order to tighten its hold on the national neck. I will not allow it\neven if I stand alone, if I cannot persuade this nation not to welcome\nthat visit but will boycott that visit with all the power at my command.\nIt is for that reason I stand before you and implore you to offer this\nreligious battle, but it is not a battle offered to you by a visionary\nor a saint. I deny being a visionary. I do not accept the claim of\nsaintliness. I am of the earth, earthy, a common gardener man as much as\nany one of you, probably much more than you are. I am prone to as many\nweaknesses as you are. But I have seen the world. I have lived in the\nworld with my eyes open. I have gone through the most fiery ordeals that\nhave fallen to the lot of man. I have gone through this discipline. I\nhave understood the secret of my own sacred Hinduism. I have learnt the\nlesson that non-co-operation is the duty not merely of the saint but it\nis the duty of every ordinary citizen, who not know much, not caring to\nknow much but wants to perform his ordinary household functions. The\npeople of Europe touch even their masses, the poor people the doctrine\nof the sword. But the Rishis of India, those who have held the tradition\nof India have preached to the masses of India this doctrine, not of the\nsword, not of violence but of suffering, of self-suffering. And unless\nyou and I am prepared to go through this primary lesson we are not\nready even to offer the sword and that is the lesson my brother Shaukal\nAli has imbibed to teach and that is why he to-day accepts my advice\ntendered to him in all prayerfulness and in all humility and says 'long\nlive non-co-operation.' Please remember that even in England the little\nchildren were withdrawn from the schools; and colleges in Cambridge and\nOxford were closed. Lawyers had left their desks and were fighting in\nthe trenches. I do not present to you the trenches but I do ask you to\ngo through the sacrifice that the men, women and the brave lads of\nEngland went through. Remember that you are offering battle to a nation\nwhich is saturated with their spirit of sacrifice whenever the occasion\narises. Remember that the little band of Boers offered stubborn\nresistance to a mighty nation. But their lawyers had left their desks.\nTheir mothers had withdrawn their children from the schools and colleges\nand the children had become the volunteers of the nation, I have seen\nthem with these naked eyes of mine. I am asking my countrymen in India\nto follow no other gospel than the gospel of self-sacrifice which\nprecedes every battle. Whether you belong to the school of violence or\nnon-violence you will still have to go through the fire of sacrifice,\nand of discipline. May God grant you, may God grant our leaders the\nwisdom, the courage and the true knowledge to lead the nation to its\ncherished goal. May God grant the people of India the right path, the\ntrue vision and the ability and the courage to follow this path,\ndifficult and yet easy, of sacrifice.\n\n\nSPEECH AT TRICHINOPOLY\n\n   Mahatma Gandhi made the following speech at Trichinopoly on the 18th\n   August 1920:--\n\nI think you on behalf of my brother Shaukat Ali and myself for the\nmagnificent reception that the citizens of Trichinopoly have given to\nus. I thank you also for the many addresses that you have been good\nenough to present to us, but I must come to business.\n\nIt is a great pleasure to me to renew your acquaintance for reasons that\nI need not give you. I expect great things from Trichinopoly, Madura and\na few places I could name. I take it that you have read my address on\nthe Madras Beach on non-co-operation. Without taking up your time in\nthis great assembly, I wish to deal with one or two matters that arise\nout of Mr. S. Kasturiranga Iyongar's speech. He says in effect that I\nshould have waited for the Congress mandate on Non-co-operation. That\nwas impossible, because the Mussulmans had and still have a duty,\nirrespective of the Hindus, to perform in reference to their own\nreligion. It was impossible for them to wait for any mandate save the\nmandate of their own religion in a matter that vitally concerned the\nhonour of Islam. It is therefore possible for them only to go to the\nCongress on bended knees with a clear cut programme of their own and ask\nthe Congress to pronounce its blessings upon that programme and if they\nare not so fortunate as to secure the blessings of the National Assembly\nwithout meaning any disrespect to that assembly, it is their bounden\nduty to go on with their programme, and so it is the duty of every Hindu\nwho considers his Mussalman brother as a brother who has a just cause\nwhich he wishes to vindicate, to throw in his lot with his Mussalman\nbrother. Our leader does not quarrel with the principle of\nnon-co-operation by itself, but he objects to the three principal\ndetails of non-co-operation.\n\nCOUNCIL ELECTIONS\n\nHe considers that it is our duty to seek election to the Councils and\nfight our battle on the floor of the Council hall. I do not deny the\npossibility of a fight and a royal fight on the Council floor. We have\ndone it for the last 35 years, but I venture to suggest to you and to\nhim, with all due respect, that it is not non-co-operation and it is not\nhalf as successful as non-co-operation can be. You cannot go to a class\nof people with a view to convince them by any fight--call it even\nobstruction--who have got a settled conviction and a settled policy to\nfollow. It is in medical language an incompatible mixture out of which\nyou can gain nothing, but if you totally boycott the Council, you create\na public opinion in the country with reference to the Khilafat wrong and\nthe Punjab wrong which will become totally irresistible. The first\nadvantage of going to the Councils must be good-will on the part of the\nrulers. It is absolutely lacking. In the place of good-will you have got\nnothing but injustice but I must move on.\n\nLAWYERS' PRACTICE\n\nI come now to the second objection of Mr. Kasturiranga Iyengar with\nreference to the suspension by lawyers of their practice. Milk is good\nin itself but it comes absolutely poisonous immediately a little bit of\narsenic is added to it. Law courts are similarly good when justice is\ndistilled through them on behalf of a Sovereign power which wants to do\njustice to its people. Law courts are one of the greatest symbols of\npower and in the battle of non-co-operation, you may not leave law\ncourts untouched and claim to offer non-co-operation, but if you will\nread that objection carefully, you will find in that objection the great\nfear that the lawyers will not respond to the call that the country\nmakes upon them, and it is just there that the beauty of\nnon-co-operation comes in. If one lawyer alone suspends practice, it is\nso much to the good of the country and so if we are sure to deprive the\nGovernment of the power that it possess through its law courts, whether\none lawyer takes it up or many, we must adopt that step.\n\nGOVERNMENT SCHOOLS\n\nHe objects also to the plan of boycotting Government schools. I can only\nsay what I have said with reference to lawyers that if we mean\nnon-co-operation, we may not receive any favours from the Government, no\nmatter how advantageous by themselves they may be. In a great struggle\nlike this, it is not open to us to count how many schools will respond\nand how many parents will respond and just as a geometrical problem is\ndifficult, because it does not admit of easy proof, so also because a\ncertain stage in national evolution is difficult, you may not avoid that\nstep without making the whole of the evolution a farce.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWe have had a great lesson in non-co-operation and co-operation. We had\na lesson in non-co-operation when some young men began to fight there\nand it is a dangerous weapon. I have not the slightest doubt about it.\nOne man with a determined will to non-co-operate can disturb a whole\nmeeting and we had a physical demonstration of it to night but ours is\nnon-violent, non-co-operation in which there can be no mistake\nwhatsoever in the fundamental conditions are observed. If\nnon-co-operation fails, it will not be for want of any inherent strength\nin it, but it will fall because there is no response to it, or because\npeople have not sufficiently grasped its simple principles. You had also\na practical demonstration of co-operation just now; that heavy chair\nwent over the heads of so many people, because all wanted to lift their\nlittle hand to move that chair away from them and so was that heavier\ndome also removed from our sight by co-operation of man, woman and\nchild. Everybody believes and knows that this Government of our exists\nonly by the co-operation of the people and not by the force of arms it\ncan wield and everyman with a sense of logic will tell you that the\nconverse of that also is equally true that Government cannot stand if\nthis co-operation on which it exists is withdrawn. Difficulties\nundoubtedly there are, we have hitherto learned how to sacrifice our\nvoice and make speeches. We must also learn to sacrifice ease, money,\ncomfort and that, we may learn form the Englishmen themselves. Every one\nwho has studied English history knows that we are now engaged in a\nbattle with a nation which is capable of great sacrifice and the three\nhundred millions of India cannot make their mark upon the world, or gain\ntheir self-respect without an adequate measure of sacrifice.\n\nBOYCOTT OF BRITISH GOODS\n\nOur friend has suggested the boycott of British or foreign goods.\nBoycott of all foreign goods is another name for Swadeshi. He thinks\nthat there will be a greater response in the boycott of all foreign\ngoods. With the experience of years behind me and with an intimate\nknowledge of the mercantile classes, I venture to tell you that boycott\nof foreign goods, or boycott of merely British goods is more\nimpracticable than any of the stops I have suggested. Whereas in all the\nsteps that I have ventured to suggest there is practically no sacrifice\nof money involved, in the boycott of British or foreign goods you are\ninviting your merchant princes to sacrifice their millions. It has got\nto be done, but it is an exceedingly low process. The same may be said\nof the steps that I have ventured to suggest, I know, but boycott of\ngoods in conceived as a punishment and the punishment is only effective\nwhen it is inflicted. What I have ventured to suggest is not a\npunishment, but the performance of a sacred duty, a measure of\nself-denial from ourselves, and therefore it is effective from its very\ninception when it is undertaken even by one man and a substantial duty\nperformed even by one single man lays the foundation of nations liberty.\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nI am most anxious for my nation, for my Mussalman brethren also, to\nunderstand that if they want to vindicate national honour or the honour\nof Islam, it will be vindicated without a shadow of doubt, not be\nconceiving a punishment or a series of punishments, but by an adequate\nmeasure of self-sacrifice. I wish to speak of all our leaders in terms\nof the greatest respect, but whatever respect we wish to pay them may\nnot stop or arrest the progress of the country, and I am most anxious\nthat the country at this very critical period of its history should make\nits choice. The choice clearly does not lie before you and me in\nwresting by force of arms the sceptre form the British nation, but the\nchoice lies in suffering this double wrong of the Khilafat and the\nPunjab, in pocketing humiliation and in accepting national emasculation\nor vindication of India's honour by sacrifice to-day by every man, woman\nand child and those who feel convinced of the rightness of things, we\nshould make that choice to-night. So, citizens of Trichinopoly, you may\nnot wait for the whole of India but you can enforce the first step of\nnon-co-operation and begin your operations even from to-morrow, if you\nhave not done so already. You can surrender all your titles to-morrow\nall the lawyers may surrender their practice to-morrow; those who cannot\nsustain body and soul by any other means can be easily supported by the\nKhilafat Committee, if they will give their whole time and attention to\nthe work of that Committee and if the layers will kindly do that, you\nwill find that there is no difficulty in settling your disputes by\nprivate arbitration. You can nationalise your schools from to-morrow if\nyou have got the will and the determination. It is difficult, I know,\nwhen only a few of you think these things. It is as easy as we are\nsitting here when the whole of this vast audience is of one mind and as\nit was easy for you to carry that chair so is it easy for you to enforce\nthis programme from to-morrow if you have one will, one determination\nand love for your country, love for the honour of your country and\nreligion. (Loud and prolonged cheers.)\n\n\nSPEECH AT CALICUT\n\nMr. Chairman and friends.--On behalf of my brother Shaukut Ali and\nmyself I wish to thank you most sincerely for the warm welcome you have\nextended to us. Before I begin to explain the purpose of our mission I\nhave to give you the information that Pir Mahboob Shah who was being\ntried in Sindh for sedition has been sentenced to two years' simple\nimprisonment. I do not know exactly what the offence was with which the\nPir was charged. I do not know whether the words attributed to him were\never spoken by him. But I do know that the Pirsaheb declined to offer\nany defence and with perfect resignation he has accepted his penalty.\nFor me it is a matter of sincere pleasure that the Pirsaheb who\nexercises great influence over his followers has understood the spirit\nof the struggle upon which we have embarked. It is not by resisting the\nauthority of Government that we expect to succeed in the great task\nbefore us. But I do expect that we shall succeed if we understand the\nspirit of non-co-operation. The Lieutenant-Governor of Burma himself has\ntold us that the British retain their hold on India not by the force of\narms but by the force of co-operation of the people. Thus he has given\nus the remedy for any wrong that the Government may do to the people,\nwhether knowingly or unknowingly. And so long as we co-operate with the\nGovernment, so long as we support that Government, we become to that\nextent sharers in the wrong. I admit that in ordinary circumstances a\nwise subject will tolerate the wrongs of a Government, but a wise\nsubject never tolerates a wrong that a Government imposes on the\ndeclared will of a people. And I venture to submit to this great meeting\nthat the Government of India and the Imperial Government have done a\ndouble wrong to India, and if we are a nation of self-respecting people\nconscious of its dignity, conscious of its right, it is not just and\nproper that we should stand the double humiliation that the Government\nhas heaped upon us. By shaping and by becoming a predominant partner in\nthe peace terms imposed on the helpless Sultan of Turkey, the Imperial\nGovernment have intentionally flouted the cherished sentiment of the\nMussalman subjects of the Empire. The present Prime Minister gave a\ndeliberate pledge after consultation with his colleagues when it was\nnecessary for him to conciliate the Mussalmans of India. I claim to have\nstudied this Khilafat question in a special manner. I claim to\nunderstand the Mussalman feeling on the Khilafat question and I am here\nto declare for the tenth time that on the Khilafat matter the Government\nhas wounded the Mussalman sentiment as they had never done before. And I\nsay without fear of contradiction that if the Mussalmans of India had\nnot exercised great self-restraint and if there was not the gospel of\nnon-co-operation preached to them and if they had not accepted it, there\nwould have been bloodshed in India by this time. I am free to confess\nthat spilling of blood would not have availed their cause. But a man\nwho is in a state of rage whose heart has become lacerated does not\ncount the cost of his action. So much for the Khilafat wrong.\n\nI propose to take you for a minute to the Punjab, the northern end of\nIndia. And what have both Governments done for the Punjab? I am free to\nconfess again that the crowds in Amritsar went mad for a moment. They\nwere goaded to madness by a wicked administration. But no madness on the\npart of a people can justify the shedding of innocent blood, and what\nhave they paid for it? I venture to submit that no civilised Government\ncould ever have made the people pay the penalty and retribution that\nthey have paid. Innocent men were tried through mock-tribunals and\nimprisoned for life. Amnesty granted to them after; I count of no\nconsequence. Innocent, unarmed men, who knew nothing of what was to\nhappen, were butchered in cold blood without the slightest notice.\nModesty of women in Manianwalla, women who had done no wrong to any\nindividual, was outraged by insolent officers. I want you to understand\nwhat I mean by outrage of their modesty. Their veils were opened with\nhis stick by an officer. Men who were declared to be utterly innocent by\nthe Hunter Committee were made to crawl on their bellies. And all these\nwrongs totally undeserved remain unavenged. If it was the duty of the\nGovernment of India to punish those who were guilty of incendiarism and\nmurder, as I hold it was their duty, it was doubly their duty to punish\nofficers who insulted and oppressed innocent people. But in the face of\nthese official wrongs we have the debate in the house of lords\nsupporting official terrorism, it is this double wrong, the affront to\nIslam and the injury to the manhood of the Punjab, that we feel bound to\nwipe out by non-co-operation. We have prayed, petitioned, agitated, we\nhave passed resolutions. Mr. Mahomed Ali supported by his friends is now\nwaiting on the British public. He has pleaded the cause of Islam in a\nmost manful manner, but his pleading has fallen on deaf ears and we have\nhis word for it that whilst France and Italy have shown great sympathy\nfor the cause of Islam, it is the British Ministers who have shown no\nsympathy. This shows which way the British Ministers and the present\nholders of office in India mean to deal by the people. There is no\ngoodwill, there is no desire to placate the people of India. The people\nof India must therefore have a remedy to redress the double wrong. The\nmethod of the west is violence. Wherever the people of the west have\nfelt a wrong either justly or unjustly, they have rebelled and shed\nblood. As I have said in my letter to the Viceroy of India, half of\nIndia does not believe in the remedy of violence. The other half is too\nweak to offer it. But the whole of India is deeply hurt and stirred by\nthis wrong, and it is for that reason that I have suggested to the\npeople of India the remedy of non-co-operation. I consider it perfectly\nharmless, absolutely constitutional and yet perfectly efficacious. It is\na remedy in which, if it is properly adopted, victory is certain, and it\nis the age-old remedy of self-sacrifice. Are the Mussalmans of India who\nfeel the great wrong done to Islam ready to make an adequate\nself-sacrifice? All the scriptures of the world teach us that there can\nbe no compromise between justice and injustice. Co-operation on the part\nof a justice-loving man with an unjust man is a crime. And if we desire\nto compel this great Government to the will of the people, as we must,\nwe must adopt this great remedy of non-co-operation. And if the\nMussalmans of India offer non-co-operation to Government in order to\nsecure justice in the Khilafat matter, I believe it is duty of the\nHindus to help them so long as their moans are just. I consider the\neternal friendship between the Hindus and Mussalmans is more important\nthan the British connection. I would prefer any day anarchy and chaos in\nIndia to an armed peace brought about by the bayonet between the Hindus\nand Mussalmans. I have therefore ventured to suggest to my Hindu\nbrethren that if they wanted to live at peace with Mussalmans, there is\nan opportunity which is not going to recur for the next hundred years.\nAnd I venture to assure you that if the Government of India and the\nImperial Government come to know that there is a determination on the\npart of the people to redress this double wrong they would not hesitate\nto do what is needed. But in the Mussalmans of India will have to take\nthe lead in the matter. You will have to commence the first stage of\nnon-co-operation in right earnest. And if you may not help this\nGovernment, you may not receive help from it. Titles which were the\nother day titles of honour are to-day in my opinion badges of our\ndisgrace. We must therefore surrender all titles of honour, all honorary\noffices. It will constitute an emphatic demonstration of the disapproval\nby the leaders of the people of the acts of the Government. Lawyers must\nsuspend their practice and must resist the power of the Government which\nhas chosen to flout public opinion. Nor may we receive instruction from\nschools controlled by Government and aided by it. Emptying of the\nschools will constitute a demonstration of the will of the middle class\nof India. It is far better for the nation even to neglect the literary\ninstruction of the children than to co-operate with a Government that\nhas striven to maintain an injustice and untruth on the Khilafat and\nPunjab matters. Similarly have I ventured to suggest a complete boycott\nof reformed councils. That will be an emphatic declaration of the part\nof the representatives of the people that they do not desire to\nassociate with the Government so long as the two wrongs continue. We\nmust equally decline to offer ourselves as recruits for the police or\nthe military. It is impossible for us to go to Mesopotamia or to offer\nto police that country or to offer military assistance and to help the\nGovernment in that blood guiltiness. The last plank in the first stage is\nSwadeshi. Swadeshi is intended not so much to bring pressure upon the\nGovernment as to demonstrate the capacity for sacrifice on the part of\nthe men and women of India. When one-fourth of India has its religion at\nstake and when the whole of India has its honour at stake, we can be in\nno mood to bedeck ourselves with French calico or silks from Japan. We\nmust resolve to be satisfied with cloth woven by the humble weavers of\nIndia in their own cottages out of yarn spun by their sisters in their\nown homes. When a hundred years ago our tastes were not debased and we\nwere not lured by all the fineries from the foreign countries, we were\nsatisfied with the cloth produced by the men and women in India, and if\nI could but in a moment revolutionize the tastes of India and make it\nreturn to its original simplicity, I assure you that the Gods would\ndescent to rejoice at the great act of renunciation. That is the first\nstage in non-co-operation. I hope it is as easy for you as it is easy\nfor me to see that if India is capable of taking the first step in\nanything like a full measure that step will bring the redress we want. I\ntherefore do not intend to take you to the other stages of\nnon-co-operation. I would like you to rivet your attention upon the\nplans in the first stage. You will have noticed that but two things are\nnecessary in going through the first stage: (1) Prefect spirit of\nnon-violence is indispensable for non-co-operation, (2) only a little\nself-sacrifice, I pray to God that He will give the people of India\nsufficient courage and wisdom and patience to go through this experiment\nof non-co-operation. I think you for the great reception that you have\ngiven us. And I also thank you for the great patience and exemplary\nsilence with which you have listened to my remarks.\n\n_August_ 1920.\n\n\nSPEECH AT MANGALORE\n\nMr. Chairman and friends,--To my brother Shaukat Ali and me it was a\npleasure to go through this beautiful garden of India. The great\nreception that you gave us this afternoon, and this great assembly are\nmost welcome to us, if they are a demonstration of your sympathy with\nthe cause which you have the honour to represent. I assure you that we\nhave not undertaken this incessant travelling in order to have\nreceptions and addresses, no matter how cordial they may be. But we have\nundertaken this travelling throughout the length and breadth of this\ndear Motherland to place before you the position that faces us to-day.\nIt is our privilege, as it is our duty, to place that position before\nthe country and let her make the choice.\n\nThroughout our tour we have received many addresses, but in my humble\nopinion no address was more truly worded than the address that was\npresented to us at Kasargod. It addressed both of us as 'dear revered\nbrothers.' I am unable to accept the second adjective 'revered.' The\nword 'dear' is dear to me I must confess. But dearer than that is the\nexpression 'brothers.' The signatories to that address recognized the\ntrue significance of this travel. No blood brothers can possibly be more\nintimately related, can possibly be more united in one purpose, one aim\nthan my brother Shaukat Ali and I. And I considered it a proud privilege\nand honour to be addressed as blood brother to Shaukat Ali. The contents\nof that address were as equally significant. It stated that in our\nunited work was represented the essence of the unity between the\nMussalmans and Hindus in India. If we two cannot represent that very\ndesirable unity, if we two cannot cement the relation between the two\ncommunities, I do not know who can. Then without any rhetoric and\nwithout any flowery language the address went on to describe the\ninwardness of the Punjab and the Khilafat struggle; and then in simple\nand beautiful language it described the spiritual significance of\nSatyagrah and Non-co-operation. This was followed by a frank and simple\npromise. Although the signatories to the address realised the momentous\nnature of the struggle on which we have embarked, and although they\nsympathise with the struggle with their whole heart, they wound up by\nsaying that even if they could not follow non-co-operation in all its\ndetails, they would do as much as they could to help the struggle. And\nlastly, in eloquent, and true language, they said 'if we cannot rise\nequal to the occasion it will not be due to want of effort but to want\nof ability.' I can desire no better address, no better promise, and if\nyou, the citizens of Mangalore, can come up to the level of the\nsignatories, and give us just the assurance that you consider the\nstruggle to be right and that it commands your entire approval, I am\ncertain you will make all sacrifice that lies in your power. For we are\nface to face with a peril greater than plagues, greater than influenza,\ngreater than earthquakes and mighty floods, which sometimes overwhelm\nthis land. These physical calamities can rob us of so many Indian\nbodies. But the calamity that has at the present moment overtaken India\ntouches the religious honour of a fourth of her children and the\nself-respect of the whole nation. The Khilafat wrong affects the\nMussalmans of India, and the Punjab calamity very nearly overwhelms the\nmanhood of India. Shall we in the face of this danger be weak or rise to\nour full height. The remedy for both the wrongs is the spiritual solvent\nof non-co-operation. I call it a spiritual weapon, because it demands\ndiscipline and sacrifice from us. It demands sacrifice from every\nindividual irrespective of the rest. And the promise that is behind this\nperformance of duty, the promise given by every religion that I have\nstudied is sure and certain. It is that there is no spotless sacrifice\nthat has been yet offered on earth, which has not carried with it its\nabsolute adequate reward. It is a spiritual weapon, because it waits for\nno mandate from anybody except one's own conscience. It is a spiritual\nweapon, because it brings out the best in the nation and it absolutely\nsatisfies individual honour if a single individual takes it, and it will\nsatisfy national honour if the whole nation takes it up. And therefore\nit is that I have called non-co-operation in opposition to the opinion\nof many of my distinguished countrymen and leaders--a weapon that is\ninfallible and absolutely practicable. It is infallible and practicable,\nbecause it satisfies the demands of individual conscience. God above\ncannot, will not expect Maulana Shaukat Ali to do more than he has been\ndoing, for he has surrendered and placed at the disposal of God whom he\nbelieves to be the Almighty ruler of everyone, he has delivered all in\nthe service of God. And we stand before the citizens of Mangalore and\nask them to make their choice either to accept this precious gift that\nwe lay at their feet or to reject it. And after having listened to my\nmessage if you come to the come to the conclusion that you have no other\nremedy than non-co-operation for the conservation of Islam and the\nhonour of India, you will accept that remedy. I ask you not to be\nconfused by so many bewildering issues that are placed before you, nor\nto be shaken from your purpose because you see divided counsels amongst\nyour leaders. This is one of the necessary limitations of any spiritual\nor any other struggle that has ever been fought on this earth. It is\nbecause it comes so suddenly that it confuses the mind if the heart is\nnot tuned properly. And we would be perfect human beings on this earth\nif in all of us was found absolutely perfect correspondence between the\nmind and the heart. But those of you who have been following the\nnewspaper controversy, will find that no matter what division of opinion\nexists amongst our journals and leaders there is unanimity that the\nremedy is efficacious if it can be kept free from violence, and if it is\nadopted on a large scale. I admit the difficulty the virtue however lies\nin surmounting it. We cannot possibly combine violence with a spiritual\nweapon like non-co-operation. We do not offer spotless sacrifice if we\ntake the lives of others in offering our own. Absolute freedom from\nviolence is therefore it condition precedent to non-co-operation. But I\nhave faith in my country to know that when it has assimilated the\nprinciple of the doctrine In the fullest extent, it will respond to it.\nAnd in no case will India make any headway whatsoever until she has\nlearnt the lesson of self-sacrifice. Even if this country were to take\nup the doctrine of the sword, which God forbid, it will have to learn\nthe lesson of self-sacrifice. The second difficulty suggested is the\nwant of solidarity of the nation. I accept it too. But that difficulty I\nhave already answered by saying that it is a remedy that can be taken up\nby individuals for individual and by the nation for national\nsatisfaction; and therefore even if the whole nation does not take up\nnon-co-operation, the individual successes, which may be obtained by\nindividuals taking up non-co-operation will stand to their own credit as\nof the nation to which they belong.\n\nThe first stage in my humble opinion is incredibly easy inasmuch as it\ndoes not involve any very great sacrifice. If your Khan bahadurs and\nother title-holders were to renounce their titles I venture to submit\nthat whilst the renunciation will stand to the credit and honour of the\nnation it will involve a little or no sacrifice. On the contrary, they\nwill not only have surrendered no earthly riches but they will have\ngained the applause of the nation. Let us see what it means, this first\nstep. The able editor of _Hindu_, Mr. Kastariranga Iyengar, and almost\nevery journalist in the country are agreed that the renunciation of\ntitles is a necessary and a desirable step. And if these chosen people\nof the Government were without exception to surrender their titles to\nGovernment giving notice that the heart of India is doubly wounded in\nthat the honour of India and of muslim religion is at stake and that\ntherefore they can no longer retain their titles, I venture to suggest,\nthat this their step which costs not a single penny either to them or to\nthe nation will be an effective demonstration of the national will.\n\nTake the second step or the second item of non-co-operation. I know\nthere is strong opposition to the boycott of councils. The opposition\nwhen you begin to analyse it means not that the step is faulty or that\nit is not likely to succeed, but it is due to the belief that the whole\ncountry will not respond to it and that the Moderates will steal into\nthe councils. I ask the citizens of Mangalore to dispel that fear from\nyour hearts. United the voters of Mangalore can make it impossible for\neither a moderate or an extremist or any other form of leader to enter\nthe councils as your representative. This step involves no sacrifice of\nmoney, no sacrifice of honour but the gaining of prestige for the whole\nnation. And I venture to suggest to you that this one step alone if it\nis taken with any degree of unanimity even by the extremists can bring\nabout the desired relief, but if all do not respond the individual need\nnot be afraid. He at least will have laid the foundation for true self\nprogress, let him have the comfort that he at least has washed his hands\nclean of the guilt of the Government.\n\nThen I come to the members of the profession which one time I used to\ncarry on. I have ventured to ask the lawyers of India to suspend their\npractice and withdraw their support from a Government which no longer\nstands for justice, pure and unadulterated, for the nation. And the step\nis good for the individual lawyer who takes it and is good for the\nnation if all the lawyers take it.\n\nAnd so for the Government and the Government aided schools, I must\nconfess that I cannot reconcile my conscience to my children going to\nGovernment schools and to the programme of non-co-operation is intended\nto withdraw all support from Government, and to decline all help\nfrom it.\n\nI will not tax your patience by taking you through the other items of\nnon-co-operation important as they are. But I have ventured to place\nbefore you four very important and forcible steps any one of which if\nfully taken up contains in it possibilities of success. Swadeshi is\npreached as an item of non-co-operation, as a demonstration of the\nspirit of sacrifice, and it is an item which every man, woman and child\ncan take up.\n\n_August_ 1920.\n\n\nSPEECH AT BEZWADA\n\nAs I said this morning one essential condition for the progress of India\nis Hindu-Muslim Unity. I understand that there was a little bit of\nbickering between Hindus and Mussalmans to-day in Bezwada. My brother\nMaulana Shaukat Ali adjusted the dispute between the two communities and\nhe illustrated in his own person the entire efficacy of one item in the\nfirst stage of Non-co-operation. He sat without any vakils appearing\nbefore him for either parties to arbitrate on the dispute between them.\nHe required no postponement for the consideration of the question from\ntime to time. His fees consisted in a broken lead pencil. That is what\nwe should do, if all the lawyers suspended practice and set up\narbitration for the settlement of private disputes. But why was there\nany quarrel at all? It is laughable in the extreme when you come to\nthink of it. Because the Hindus seem to have played music whilst passing\nthe mosque. I think it was improper for them to do so. Hindu Moslem\nUnity does not mean that Hindus should cease to respect the prejudices\nand sentiments cherished by Mussalmans. And as this question of music\nhas given rise to many a quarrel between the two communities it behoves\nthe Hindus, if they want to cultivate true Hindu-Moslem Unity, to\nrefrain from acts which they know injure the sentiments of their\nMussalman brethren. We may not take undue advantage of the great spirit\nof toleration that is developing in Mussalmans and do things likely to\nirritate them. It is never a matter of principle for a Hindu procession\nto continue playing music before mosques. And now that we desire\nvoluntarily to respect Mussalman sentiment, we should be doubly careful\nat a time when Hindus are offering assistance to Mussalmans in their\ntroubles. That assistance should be given in all humility and without\nany arrogation of rights. To my Mussalman brethren I would say that it\nwould become their dignity to restrain themselves and not feel irritated\nwhen any Hindu had done anything to irritate their religious sentiment.\nBut in any event, you have today presented to you a remedy for the\nsettlement of any such issue. We must settle our disputes by arbitration\nas was done this after-noon. You cannot always get a Moulana Shankat\nAli, exercising unrivalled influence on the community. But we can always\nget people enough in our own villages, towns and districts who exercise\ninfluence over such villages and towns and command the confidence of\nboth the communities. The offended party should consider it its duty to\napproach them and not to take the law in its own hands.\n\nIt gives me much pleasure to announce to you that, Mr. Kaleswar Rao has\nconsented to refrain from standing for election to the new Legislative\nCouncils. You will be also pleased to know that Mr. Gulam Nohiuddin has\nresigned his Honorary Magistrateship, I hope that both these patriots\nwill not consider that they have done their last duty by their acts of\nrenunciation, but I hope they will regard their acts as a prelude to\nacts of greater purpose and greater energy and I hope they will take in\nhand the work of educating the electorate in their districts regarding\nboycott of councils. I have said elsewhere that never for another\ncentury will India be faced with a conjunction of events that faces it\nto-day. The cloud that has descended upon Islam has solidified the\nMoslem world as nothing else could have. It has awakened the men and\nwomen of Mussulman India from their deep sleep. Inasmuch as a single\nPanjabi was made to crawl on his belly in the famous street of Amitsar,\nI hold that the whole of was made to crawl on its belly. And if we want\nto straighten up ourselves from that crawling position and stand erect\nbefore the whole world, it requires, a tremendous effort. H.E. the\nViceroy in his Viceregal pronouncement at the opening of the Council was\npleased to say that he did not desire to make any remarks on the Punjab\nevents. He treated them as a closed chapter and referred us to the\nfuture verdict of history. I venture to tell you the citizens of Bezwada\nthat India will have deserved to crawl in that lane if she accepts this\npronouncement as the final answer, and if we want to stand erect before\nthe whole world, it is impossible for a single child, man or woman in\nIndia to rest until fullest reparation has been done for the Punjab\nwrong. Similarly with reference to the Khilafat grievance the Mussalmans\nof India in my humble opinion will forfeit all title to consider\nthemselves the followers of the great Prophet in whose name they recite\nthe Kalama, day in and day out, they will forfeit their title if they do\nnot put their shoulders to the wheel and lift this cloud that is hanging\non them. But we shall make a serious blunder. India will commit suicide,\nif we do not understand and appreciate the forces that are arrayed\nagainst us. We have got to face a mighty Government with all its power\nranged against us. This composed of men who are able, courageous,\ncapable of making sacrifices. It is a Government which does not scruple\nto use means, fair or foul, in order to gain its end. No craft is above\nthat Government. It resorts to frightfulness, terrorism. It resorts to\nbribery, in the shape of titles, honour and high offices. It administers\nopiates in the shape of Reforms. In essence then it is an autocracy\ndouble distilled in the guise of democracy. The greatest gift of a\ncrafty cunning man are worthless so long as cunning resides in his\nheart. It is a Government representing a civilisation which is purely\nmaterial and godless. I have given to you these qualities of this\ngovernment in order not to excite your angry passions, but in order that\nyou may appreciate the forces that are matched against you. Anger will\nserve no purpose. We shall have to meet ungodliness by godliness. We\nshall have to meet their untruth by truth; we shall have to meet their\ncunning and their craft by openness and simplicity; we shall have to\nmeet their terrorism and frightfulness by bravery. And it is an\nunbending bravery which is demanded of every man, woman and child. We\nmust meet their organisation by greater organising ability. We must meet\ntheir discipline by grater discipline, and we must meet their sacrifices\nby infinitely greater sacrifices, and if we are in a position to show\nthese qualities in a full measure I have not the slightest doubt that we\nshall win this battle. If really we have fear of God in us, our prayers\nwill give us the strength to secure victory. God has always come to the\nhelp of the helpless and we need not go before any earthly power for\nhelp.\n\nYou heard this morning of the bravery of the sword, and the bravery of\nsuffering. For me personally I have forever rejected the bravery of the\nsword. But, to-day it is not my purpose to demonstrate to you the final\nineffectiveness of the sword. But he who runs may see that before India\npossesses itself a sword which will be more than a match for the forces\nof Europe, it will he generations. India may resort to the destruction\nof life and property here and there but such destructive cases serve no\npurpose. I have therefore presented to you a weapon called the bravery\nof suffering, otherwise called Non-co-operation. It is a bravery which\nis open to the weakest among the weak. It is open to women and children.\nThe power of suffering is the prerogative of nobody, and if only 300\nmillions of Indians could show the power of suffering in order to\nredress a grievous wrong done to the nation or to its religion, I make\nbold to say that, India will never require to draw the sword. And unless\nwe are able to show an adequate measure of sacrifice we shall lose this\nbattle. No one need tell me that India has not got this power of\nsuffering. Every father and mother is witness to what I am about to say,\nviz., that every father and mother have shown in the domestic affairs\nmatchless power of suffering. And if we have only developed national\nconsciousness, if we have developed sufficient regard for our religion,\nwe shall have developed power of suffering in the national and religious\nfield. Considered in these terms the first stage in Non-co-operation is\nthe simplest and the easiest state. If the title-holders of India\nconsider that India is suffering from a grievous wrong both as regards\nthe Punjab and the Khilafat is it any suffering on their part to\nrenounce their titles to-day? What is the measure of the suffering\nawaiting the lawyers who are called upon to suspend practice when\ncompared to the great benefit which is in store for the nation? And if\nthy parents of India will summon up courage to sacrifice secular\neducation, they will have given their children the real education of a\nlife-time. For they will have learnt the value of religion and national\nhonour. And I ask you, the citizens of Bezwada, to think well before you\naccept the loaves and fishes in the form of Government offices set them\non one side and set national honour on the other and make your service.\nWhat sacrifice is there involved in the individual renouncing his\ncandidature for legislative councils. The councils are a tempting bait.\nAll kinds of arguments are being advanced in favour of joining the\ncouncils. India will sacrifice the opportunity of gaining her liberty if\nshe touches them. It passes comprehension how we, who have known this\nGovernment, who have read the Viceregal pronouncement, how we who have\nknown their determination not to give justice in the Punjab and the\nKhilafat matters, can gain any benefit by co-operation, constructive or\nobstructive, with this Government? But the Nationalists, belonging to a\ngreat popular party, tell us that if they do not contest these scats,\nthe moderates will get in. Surely, it is nothing but an exhibition of\nwant of courage and faith in our own cause to feel that we must enter\nthe councils lest moderates should get in. Moderates believe in the\npossibility of obtaining justice at the hands of the Government.\nNationalists have on the other hand filled the platforms with\ndenunciations of the Government and its measures. How can the\nNationalists ever hope to gain anything by entering the councils,\nholding the belief that they do? They will better represent the popular\nwill if they wring justice from the Government by means of\nNon-co-operation. A calculating spirit at the present moment in the\nhistory of India will prove its ruin. I, therefore, tender my hearty\ncongratulation to those who have announced their resignations of\ncandidature or honorary offices, and I hope that their example will\nprove infectious. I have been told, and I believe it myself from what I\nhave seen, that the Andhrus are a brave, courageous and\nspiritually-inclined people. I venture therefore to ask my Andhra\nbrethren whether they have understood the spirituality of this beautiful\ndoctrine of Non-co-operation. If they have, I hope they will not wait\nfor a single moment for a mandate from the Congress or the Moslem\nLeague. They will understand that a spiritual weapon is god whether it\nis wielded by one or many. I, therefore, invite you to go to Calcutta\nwith a united will and a united purpose, sanctified by a spirit of\nsacrifice, with a will of your own to convert those who are still\nundecided about the spirituality or the practicability of the weapon.\n\nI thank you for the attention and patience with which you have listened\nto me. I pray to the Almighty that He may give you wisdom and courage\nthat are so necessary at the present moment.--\n\n_August 1920_.\n\n\nTHE CONGRESS\n\nThe largest and the most important Congress ever held has come and gone,\nIt was the biggest demonstration ever held against the present system of\nGovernment. The President uttered the whole truth when he said that it\nwas a Congress in which, instead of the President and the leaders\ndriving the people, the people drove him and the latter. It was clear to\nevery one on the platform that the people had taken the reins in their\nown hands. The platform would gladly have moved at a slower pace.\n\nThe Congress gave one day to a full discussion of the creed and voted\nsolidly for it with but two dissentients after two nights' sleep over\nthe discussion. It gave one day to a discussion of non-co-operation\nresolution and voted for it with unparalleled enthusiasm. It gave the\nlast day to listening to the whole of the remaining thirty-two Articles\nof the Constitution which were read and translated word for word by\nMaulana Mahomed Ali in a loud and clear voice. It showed that it was\nintelligently following the reading of it, for there was dissent when\nArticle Eight was reached. It referred to non-interference by the\nCongress in the internal affairs of the Native States. The Congress\nwould not have passed the proviso if it had meant that it could even\nvoice the feelings of the people residing in the territories ruled by\nthe princes. Happily it resolution suggesting the advisability of\nestablishing Responsible Government in their territories enabled me to\nillustrate to the audience that the proviso did not preclude the\nCongress from ventilating the grievances and aspirations of the subjects\nof these states, whilst it clearly prevented the Congress from taking\nany executive action in connection with them; as for instance holding a\nhostile demonstration in the Native States against any action of theirs.\nThe Congress claims to dictate to the Government but it cannot do so by\nthe very nature of its constitution in respect of the Native States.\n\nThus the Congress has taken three important steps after the greatest\ndeliberation. It has expressed its determination in the clearest\npossible terms to attain complete null-government, if possible still in\nassociation with the British people, but even without, if necessary. It\nproposes to do so only by means that are honourable and non-violent. It\nhas introduced fundamental changes in the constitution regulating its\nactivities and has performed an act of self-denial in voluntarily\nrestricting the number of delegates to one for every fifty thousand of\nthe population of India and has insisted upon the delegates being the\nreal representatives of those who want to take any part in the political\nlife of the country. And with a view to ensuring the representation of\nall political parties it has accepted the principle of \"single\ntransferable vote.\" It has reaffirmed the non-co-operation resolution of\nthe Special Session and amplified it in every respect. It has emphasised\nthe necessity of non-violence and laid down that the attainment of\nSwaraj is conditional upon the complete harmony between the component\nparts of India, and has therefore inculcated Hindu-Muslim unity. The\nHindu delegates have called upon their leaders to settle disputes\nbetween Brahmins and non-Brahmins and have urged upon the religious\nheads the necessity of getting rid of the poison of untouchability. The\nCongress has told the parents of school-going children, and the lawyers\nthat they have not responded sufficiently to the call of the nation and\nand that they must make greater effort in doing so. It therefore follows\nthat the lawyers who do not respond quickly to the call for suspension\nand the parents who persist in keeping their children in Government and\naided institutions must find themselves dropping out from the public\nlife of the country. The country calls upon every man and woman in India\nto do their full share. But of the details of the non-co-operation\nresolution I must write later.\n\n\nWHO IS DISLOYAL?\n\nMr. Montagu has discovered a new definition of disloyalty. He considers\nmy suggestion to boycott the visit of the Prince of Wales to be disloyal\nand some newspapers taking the cue from him have called persons who have\nmade the suggestion 'unmannerly'. They have even attributed to these\n'unmannerly' persons the suggestion of boycotting the Prince. I draw a\nsharp and fundamental distinction between boycotting the Prince and\nboycotting any welcome arranged for him. Personally I would extend the\nheartiest welcome to His Royal Highness if he came or could come without\nofficial patronage and the protecting wings of the Government of the\nday. Being the heir to a constitutional monarch, the Prince's movements\nare regulated and dictated by the ministers, no matter how much the\ndictation may be concealed beneath diplomatically polite language. In\nsuggesting the boycott therefore the promoters have suggested boycott of\nan insolent bureaucracy and dishonest ministers of his Majesty.\n\nYou cannot have it both ways. It is true that under a constitutional\nmonarchy, the royalty is above politics. But you cannot send the Prince\non a political visit for the purpose of making political capital out of\nhim, and then complain that those who will not play your game and in\norder to checkmate you, proclaim boycott of the Royal visit do not know\nconstitutional usage. For the Prince's visit is not for pleasure. His\nRoyal Highness is to come in Mr. Lloyd George's words, as the\n\"ambassador of the British nation,\" in other words, his own ambassador\nin order to issue a certificate of merit to him and possibly to give the\nministers a new lease of life. The wish is designed to consolidate and\nstrengthen a power that spells mischief for India. Even us it is, Mr.\nMontagu has foreseen, that the welcome will probably be excelled by any\nhitherto extended to Royalty, meaning that the people are not really and\ndeeply affected and stirred by the official atrocities in the Punjab and\nthe manifestly dishonest breach of official declarations on the\nKhilafat. With the knowledge that India was bleeding at heart, the\nGovernment of India should have told His Majesty's ministers that the\nmoment was inopportune for sending the Prince. I venture to submit that\nit is adding insult to injury to bring the Prince and through his visit\nto steal honours and further prestige for a Government that deserves to\nbe dismissed with disgrace. I claim that I prove my loyalty by saying\nthat India is in no mood, is too deeply in mourning, to take part in and\nto welcome His Royal Highness, and that the ministers and the Indian\nGovernment show their disloyalty by making the Prince a catspaw of their\ndeep political game. If they persist, it is the clear duty of India to\nhave nothing to do with the visit.\n\n\nCRUSADE AGAINST NON-CO-OPERATION\n\nI have most carefully read the manifesto addressed by Sir Narayan\nChandavarkar and others dissuading the people from joining the non\nco-operation movement. I had expected to find some solid argument\nagainst non-co-operation, but to my great regret I have found in it\nnothing but distortion (no doubt unconscious) of the great religions and\nhistory. The manifesto says that 'non-co-operation is deprecated by the\nreligious tenets and traditions of our motherland, nay, of all the\nreligions that have saved and elevated the human race.' I venture to\nsubmit that the Bhagwad Gita is a gospel of non-co-operation between\nforces of darkness and those of light. If it is to be literally\ninterpreted Arjun representing a just cause was enjoined to engage in\nbloody warfare with the unjust Kauravas. Tulsidas advises the Sant (the\ngood) to shun the Asant (the evil-doers). The Zendavesta represents a\nperpetual dual between Ormuzd and Ahriman, between whom there is no\ncompromise. To say of the Bible that it taboos non-co-operation is not\nto know Jesus, a Prince among passive resisters, who uncompromisingly\nchallenged the might of the Sadducees and the Pharisees and for the sake\nof truth did not hesitate to divide sons from their parents. And what\ndid the Prophet of Islam do? He non-co-operated in Mecca in a most\nactive manner so long as his life was not in danger and wiped the dust\nof Mecca off his feet when he found that he and his followers might have\nuselessly to perish, and fled to Medina and returned when he was strong\nenough to give battle to his opponents. The duty of non-co-operation\nwith unjust men and kings is as strictly enjoined by all the religions\nas is the duty of co-operation with just men and kings. Indeed most of\nthe scriptures of the world seem even to go beyond non-co-operation and\nprefer a violence to effeminate submission to a wrong. The Hindu\nreligious tradition of which the manifesto speaks, clearly proves the\nduty of non-co-operation. Prahlad dissociated himself from his father,\nMeerabai from her husband, Bibhishan from his brutal brother.\n\nThe manifesto speaking of the secular aspect says, 'The history of\nnations affords no instance to show that it (meaning non-co-operation)\nhas, when employed, succeeded and done good,' One most recent instance\nof brilliant success of non-co-operation is that of General Botha who\nboycotted Lord Milner's reformed councils and thereby procured a perfect\nconstitution for his country. The Dukhobours of Russia offered\nnon-co-operation, and a handful though they were, their grievances so\ndeeply moved the civilized world that Canada offered them a home where\nthey form a prosperous community. In India instances can be given by the\ndozen, in which in little principalities the raiyats when deeply grieved\nby their chiefs have cut off all connection with them and bent them to\ntheir will. I know of no instance in history where well-managed\nnon-co-operation has failed.\n\nHitherto I have given historical instances of bloodless\nnon-co-operation, I will not insult the intelligence of the reader by\nciting historical instances of non-co-operation combined with,\nviolence, but I am free to confess that there are on record as many\nsuccesses as failures in violent non-co-operation. And it is because I\nknow this fact that I have placed before the country a non-violent\nscheme in which, if at all worked satisfactorily, success is a certainty\nand in which non-response means no harm. For if even one man\nnon-co-operates, say, by resigning some office, he has gained, not lost.\nThat is its ethical or religious aspect. For its political result\nnaturally it requires polymerous support. I fear therefore no disastrous\nresult from non-co-operation save for an outbreak of violence on the\npart of the people whether under provocation or otherwise. I would risk\nviolence a thousand times than risk the emasculation of a whole race.\n\n\nSPEECH AT MUZAFFARABAD\n\nBefore a crowded meeting of Mussalmans in the Muzaffarabad, Bombay, held\non the 29th July 1920, speaking on the impending non-co-operation which\ncommenced on the 1st of August, Mr. Gandhi said: The time for speeches\non non-co-operation was past and the time for practice had arrived. But\ntwo things were needful for complete success. An environment free from\nany violence on the part of the people and a spirit of self-sacrifice.\nNon-co-operation, as the speaker had conceived it, was an impossibility\nin an atmosphere surcharged with the spirit of violence. Violence was an\nexhibition of anger and any such exhibition was dissipation of valuable\nenergy. Subduing of one's anger was a storing up of national energy,\nwhich, when set free in an ordered manner, would produce astounding\nresults. His conception of non-co-operation did not involve rapine,\nplunder, incendiarism and all the concomitants of mass madness. His\nscheme presupposed ability on their part to control all the forces of\nevil. If, therefore, any disorderliness was found on the part of the\npeople which they could not control, he for one would certainly help the\nGovernment to control them. In the presence of disorder it would be for\nhim a choice of evil, and evil through he considered the present\nGovernment to be, he would not hesitate for the time being to help the\nGovernment to control disorder. But he had faith in the people. He\nbelieved that they knew that the cause could only be won by non-violent\nmethods. To put it at the lowest, the people had not the power, even if\nthey had the will, to resist with brute strength the unjust Governments\nof Europe who had, in the intoxication of their success disregarding\nevery canon of justice dealt so cruelly by the only Islamic Power\nin Europe.\n\nIn non-co-operation they had a matchless and powerful weapon. It was a\nsign of religious atrophy to sustain an unjust Government that supported\nan injustice by resorting to untruth and camouflage. So long therefore\nas the Government did not purge itself of the canker of injustice and\nuntruth, it was their duty to withdraw all help from it consistently\nwith their ability to preserve order in the social structure. The first\nstage of non-co-operation was therefore arranged so as to involve\nminimum of danger to public peace and minimum of sacrifice on the part\nof those who participated in the movement. And if they might not help an\nevil Government nor receive any favours from it, it followed that they\nmust give up all titles of honour which were no longer a proud\npossession. Lawyers, who were in reality honorary officers of the Court,\nshould cease to support Courts that uphold the prestige of an unjust\nGovernment and the people must be able to settle their disputes and\nquarrels by private arbitration. Similarly parents should withdraw their\nchildren from the public schools and they must evolve a system of\nnational education or private education totally independent of the\nGovernment. An insolent Government conscious of its brute strength,\nmight laugh at such withdrawals by the people especially as the Law\ncourts and schools were supposed to help the people, but he had not a\nshadow of doubt that the moral effect of such a step could not possibly\nbe lost even upon a Government whose conscience had become stifled by\nthe intoxication of power.\n\nHe had hesitation in accepting Swadeshi as a plank in non-co-operation.\nTo him Swadeshi was as dear as life itself. But he had no desire to\nsmuggle in Swadeshi through the Khilafat movement, if it could not\nlegitimately help that movement, but conceived as non-co-operation was,\nin a spirit of self-sacrifice, Swadeshi had a legitimate place in the\nmovement. Pure Swadeshi meant sacrifice of the liking for fineries. He\nasked the nation to sacrifice its liking for the fineries of Europe and\nJapan and be satisfied with the coarse but beautiful fabrics woven on\ntheir handlooms out of yarns spun by millions of their sisters. If the\nnation had become really awakened to a sense of the danger to its\nreligions and its self-respect, it could not but perceive the absolute\nand immediate necessity of the adoption of Swadeshi in its intense form\nand if the people of India adopted Swadeshi with the religious zeal he\nbegged to assure them that its adoption would arm them with a new power\nand would produce an unmistakable impression throughout the whole world.\nHe, therefore, expected the Mussalmans to give the lead by giving up all\nthe fineries they were so fond of and adopt the simple cloth that could\nbe produced by the manual labour of their sisters and brethren in their\nown cottages. And he hoped that the Hindus would follow suit. It was a\nsacrifice in which the whole nation, every man, woman and child could\ntake part.\n\nRIDICULE REPLACING REPRESSION\n\nHad His Excellency the Viceroy not made it impossible by his defiant\nattitude on the Punjab and the Khilafat, I would have tendered him\nhearty congratulations for substituting ridicule for repression in order\nto kill a movement distasteful to him. For, torn from its context and\nread by itself His Excellency's discourse on non-co-operation is\nunexceptionable. It is a symptom of translation from savagery to\ncivilization. Pouring ridicule on one's opponent is an approved method\nin civilised politics. And if the method is consistently continued, it\nwill mark an important improvement upon the official barbarity of the\nPunjab. His interpretation of Mr. Montagu's statement about the movement\nis also not open to any objection whatsoever. Without doubt a government\nhas the right to use sufficient force to put down an actual outbreak\nof violence.\n\nBut I regret to have to confess that this attempt to pour ridicule on\nthe movement, read in conjunction with the sentiments on the Punjab and\nthe Khilafat, preceding the ridicule, seems to show that His Excellency\nhas made it a virtue of necessity. He has not finally abandoned the\nmethod of terrorism and frightfulness, but he finds the movement being\nconducted in such an open and truthful manner that any attempt to kill\nit by violent repression would not expose him not only to ridicule but\ncontempt of all right-thinking men.\n\nLet us however examine the adjectives used by His Excellency to kill the\nmovement by laughing at it. It is 'futile,' 'ill-advised,'\n'intrinsically insane,' 'unpractical,' 'visionary.' He has rounded off\nthe adjectives by describing the movement as 'most foolish of all\nfoolish schemes.' His Excellency has become so impatient of it that he\nhas used all his vocabulary for showing the magnitude of the ridiculous\nnature of non-co-operation.\n\nUnfortunately for His Excellency the movement is likely to grow with\nridicule as it is certain to flourish on repression. No vital movement\ncan be killed except by the impatience, ignorance or laziness of its\nauthors. A movement cannot be 'insane' that is conducted by men of\naction as I claim the members of the Non-co-operation Committee are. It\nis hardly 'unpractical,' seeing that if the people respond, every one\nadmits that it will achieve the end. At the same time it is perfectly\ntrue that if there is no response from the people, the movement will be\npopularly described as 'visionary.' It is for the nation to return an\neffective answer by organised non-co-operation and change ridicule into\nrespect. Ridicule is like repression. Both give place to respect when\nthey fail to produce the intended effect.\n\nTHE VICEREGAL PRONOUNCEMENT\n\nIt may be that having lost faith in His Excellency's probity and\ncapacity to hold the high office of Viceroy of India, I now read his\nspeeches with a biased mind, but the speech His Excellency delivered at\nthe time of opening of the council shows to me a mental attitude which\nmakes association with him or his Government impossible for\nself-respecting men.\n\nThe remarks on the Punjab mean a flat refusal to grant redress. He would\nhave us to 'concentrate on the problems of the immediate future!' The\nimmediate future is to compel repentance on the part of the Government\non the Punjab matter. Of this there is no sign. On the contrary, His\nExcellency resists the temptation to reply to his critics, meaning\nthereby that he has not changed his opinion on the many vital matters\naffecting the honour of India. He is 'content to leave the issues to the\nverdict of history.' Now this kind of language, in my opinion, is\ncalculated further to inflame the Indian mind. Of what use can a\nfavourable verdict of history be to men who have been wronged and who\nare still under the heels of officers who have shown themselves utterly\nunfit to hold offices of trust and responsibility? The plea for\nco-operation is, to say the least, hypocritical in the face of the\ndetermination to refuse justice to the Punjab. Can a patient who is\nsuffering from an intolerable ache be soothed by the most tempting\ndishes placed before him? Will he not consider it mockery on the part of\nthe physician who so tempted him without curing him of his pain?\n\nHis Excellency is, if possible, even less happy on the Khilafat. \"So far\nas any Government could,\" says this trustee for the nation, \"we pressed\nupon the Peace Conference the views of Indian Moslems. But\nnotwithstanding our efforts on their behalf we are threatened with a\ncampaign of non-co-operation because, forsooth, the allied Powers found\nthemselves unable to accept the contentions advanced by Indian Moslems.\"\nThis is most misleading if not untruthful. His Excellency knows that the\npeace terms are not the work of the allied Powers. He knows that Mr.\nLloyd George is the prime author of terms and that the latter has never\nrepudiated his responsibility for them. He has with amazing audacity\njustified them in spite of his considered pledge to the Moslems of India\nregarding Constantinople, Thrace and the rich and renowned lands of Asia\nminor. It is not truthful to saddle responsibility for the terms on the\nallied Powers when Great Britain alone has promoted them. The offence of\nthe Viceroy becomes greater when we remember that he admits the justness\nof the Muslim claim. He could not have 'pressed' it if he did not admit\nits justice.\n\nI venture to think that His Excellency by his pronouncement on the\nPunjab has strengthened the nation in its efforts to seek a remedy to\ncompel redress of the two wrongs before it can make anything of the\nso-called Reforms.\n\nFROM RIDICULE, TO--?\n\nIt will be admitted that non-co-operation has passed the stage ridicule.\nWhether it will now be met by repression or respect remains to be seen.\nOpinion has already been expressed in these columns that ridicule is an\napproved and civilized method of opposition. The viceregal ridicule\nthough expressed in unnecessarily impolite terms was not open to\nexception.\n\nBut the testing time has now arrived. In a civilized country when\nridicule fails to kill a movement it begins to command respect.\nOpponents meet it by respectful and cogent argument and the mutual\nbehaviour of rival parties never becomes violent. Each party seeks to\nconvert the other or draw the uncertain element towards its side by pure\nargument and reasoning.\n\nThere is little doubt now that the boycott of the councils will be\nextensive if it is not complete. The students have become disturbed.\nImportant institutions may any day become truly national. Pandit Motilal\nNehru's great renunciation of a legal practice which was probably second\nto nobody's is by itself an event calculated to change ridicule into\nrespect. It ought to set people thinking seriously about their own\nattitude. There must be something very wrong about our Government--to\nwarrant the step Pundit Motilal Nehru has taken. Post graduate students\nhave given up their fellowships. Medical students have refused to appear\nfor their final examination. Non-co-operation in these circumstances\ncannot be called an inane movement.\n\nEither the Government must bend to the will of the people which is being\nexpressed in no unmistakable terms through non-co-operation, or it must\nattempt to crush the movement by repression.\n\nAny force used by a government under any circumstance is not repression.\nAn open trial of a person accused of having advocated methods of\nviolence is not repression. Every State has the right to put down or\nprevent violence by force. But the trial of Mr. Zafar Ali Khan and two\nMoulvis of Panipat shows that the Government is seeking not to put down\nor prevent violence but to suppress expression of opinion, to prevent\nthe spread of disaffection. This is repression. The trials are the\nbeginning of it. It has not still assumed a virulent form but if these\ntrials do not result in stilling the propaganda, it is highly likely\nthat severe repression will be resorted to by the Government.\n\nThe only other way to prevent the spread of disaffection is to remove\nthe causes thereof. And that would be to respect the growing response of\nthe country to the programme of non-co-operation. It is too much to\nexpect repentance and humility from a government intoxicated with\nsuccess and power.\n\nWe must therefore assume that the second stage in the Government\nprogramme will be repression growing in violence in the same ratio as\nthe progress of non-co-operation. And if the movement survives\nrepression, the day of victory of truth is near. We must then be\nprepared for prosecutions, punishments even up to deportations. We must\nevolve the capacity for going on with our programme without the leaders.\nThat means capacity for self-government. And as no government in the\nworld can possibly put a whole nation in prison, it must yield to its\ndemand or abdication in favour of a government suited to that nation.\n\nIt is clear that abstention from violence and persistence in the\nprogramme are our only and surest chance of attaining our end.\n\nThe government has its choice, either to respect the movement or to try\nto repress it by barbarous methods. Our choice is either to succumb to\nrepression or to continue in spite of repression.\n\n\nTO EVERY ENGLISHMAN IN INDIA\n\nDear Friend,\n\nI wish that every Englishman will see this appeal and give thoughtful\nattention to it.\n\nLet me introduce myself to you. In my humble opinion no Indian has\nco-operated with the British Government more than I have for an unbroken\nperiod of twenty-nine years of public life in the face of circumstances\nthat might well have turned any other man into a rebel. I ask you to\nbelieve me when I tell you that my co-operation was not based on the\nfear of the punishments provided by your laws or any other selfish\nmotives. It was free and voluntary co-operation based on the belief that\nthe sum total of the activity of the British Government was for the\nbenefit of India. I put my life in peril four times for the sake of the\nEmpire,--at the time of the Boer war when I was in charge of the\nAmbulance corps whose work was mentioned in General Buller's dispatches,\nat the time of the Zulu revolt in Natal when I was in charge of a\nsimilar corps at the time of the commencement of the late war when I\nraised an Ambulance corps and as a result of the strenuous training had\na severe attack of pleurisy, and lastly, in fulfilment of my promise to\nLord Chelmsford at the War Conference in Delhi. I threw myself in such\nan active recruiting campaign in Kuira District involving long and\ntrying marches that I had an attack of dysentry which proved almost\nfatal. I did all this in the full belief that acts such as mine must\ngain for my country an equal status in the Empire. So late as last\nDecember I pleaded hard for a trustful co-operation, I fully believed\nthat Mr. Lloyd George would redeem his promise to the Mussalmans and\nthat the revelations of the official atrocities in the Punjab would\nsecure full reparation for the Punjabis. But the treachery of Mr. Lloyd\nGeorge and its appreciation by you, and the condonation of the Punjab\natrocities have completely shattered my faith in the good intentions of\nthe Government and the nation which is supporting it.\n\nBut though, my faith in your good intentions is gone, I recognise your\nbravery and I know that what you will not yield to justice and reason,\nyou will gladly yield to bravery.\n\n_See what this Empire means to India_\n\nExploitation of India's resources for the benefit of Great Britain.\n\nAn ever-increasing military expenditure, and a civil service the most\nexpensive in the world.\n\nExtravagant working of every department in utter disregard of India's\npoverty.\n\nDisarmament and consequent emasculation of a whole nation lest an armed\nnation might imperil the lives of a handful of you in our midst.\nTraffic in intoxicating liquors and drugs for the purposes of\nsustaining a top heavy administration.\n\nProgressively representative legislation in order to suppress an\nevergrowing agitation seeking to give expression to a nation's agony.\n\nDegrading treatment of Indians residing in your dominions, and\n\nYou have shown total disregard of our feelings by glorifying the Punjab\nadministration and flouting the Mosulman sentiment.\n\nI know you would not mind if we could fight and wrest the sceptre form\nyour hands. You know that we are powerless to do that, for you have\nensured our incapacity to fight in open and honourable battle. Bravery\non the battlefield is thus impossible for us. Bravery of the soul still\nremains open to us. I know you will respond to that also. I am engaged\nin evoking that bravery. Non-co-operation means nothing less than\ntraining in self-sacrifice. Why should we co-operate with you when we\nknow that by your administration of this great country we are lifting\ndaily enslaved in an increasing degree. This response of the people to\nmy appeal is not due to my personality. I would like you to dismiss me,\nand for that matter the Ali Brothers too, from your consideration. My\npersonality will fail to evoke any response to anti-Muslim cry if I were\nfoolish enough to rise it, as the magic name of the Ali Brothers would\nfail to inspire the Mussalmans with enthusiasm if they were madly to\nraise in anti-Hindu cry. People flock in their thousands to listen to us\nbecause we to-day represent the voice of a nation groaning under iron\nheels. The Ali Brothers were your friends as I was, and still am. My\nreligion forbids me to bear any ill-will towards you. I would not raise\nmy hand against you even if I had the power. I expect to conquer you\nonly by my suffering. The Ali Brothers will certainly draw the sword, if\nthey could, in defence of their religion and their country. But they and\nI have made common cause with the people of India in their attempt to\nvoice their feelings and to find a remedy for their distress.\n\nYou are in search of a remedy to suppress this rising ebullition of\nnational feeling. I venture to suggest to you that the only way to\nsuppress it is to remove the causes. You have yet the power. You can\nrepent of the wrongs done to Indians. You can compel Mr. Lloyd George to\nredeem his promises. I assure you he has kept many escape doors. You can\ncompel the Viceroy to retire in favour of a better one, you can revise\nyour ideas about Sir Michael O'Dwyer and General Dyer. You can compel\nthe Government to summon a conference of the recognised lenders of the\npeople, duly elected by them and representing all shades of opinion so\nas to devise means for granting _Swaraj_ in accordance with the wishes\nof the people of India. But this you cannot do unless you consider\nevery Indian to be in reality your equal and brother. I ask for no\npatronage, I merely point out to you, as a friend, as honourable\nsolution of a grave problem. The other solution, namely repression is\nopen to YOU. I prophesy that it will fail. It has begun already. The\nGovernment has already imprisoned two brave men of Panipat for holding\nand expressing their opinions freely. Another is on his trial in Lahore\nfor having expressed similar opinion. One in the Oudh District is\nalready imprisoned. Another awaits judgment. You should know what is\ngoing on in your midst. Our propaganda is being carried on in\nanticipation of repression. I invite you respectfully to choose the\nbetter way and make common cause with the people of India whose salt you\nare eating. To seek to thwart their inspirations is disloyalty to\nthe country.\n\nI am,\nYour faithful friend,\nM. K. GANDHI\n\n\nONE STEP ENOUGH FOR ME\n\nMr. Stokes is a Christian, who wants to follow the light that God gives\nhim. He has adopted India as his home. He is watching the\nnon-co-operation movement from the Kotgarh hills where he is living in\nisolation from the India of the plains and serving the hillmen. He has\ncontributed three articles on non-co-operation to the columns of the\nServant of Calcutta and other papers. I had the pleasure of reading them\nduring my Bengal tour. Mr. Stokes approves of non-co-operation but\ndreads the consequences that may follow complete success _i.e.,_\nevacuation of India by the British. He conjures up before his mind a\npicture of India invaded by the Afghans from the North-West, plundered\nby the Gurkhas from the Hills. For me I say with Cardinal Newman: 'I do\nnot ask to see the distant scene; one step enough for me.' The movement\nis essentially religious. The business of every god-fearing man is to\ndissociate himself from evil in total disregard of consequences. He must\nhave faith in a good deed producing only a good result: that in my\nopinion is the Gita doctrine of work without attachment. God does not\npermit him to peep into the future. He follows truth although the\nfollowing of it may endanger his very life. He knows that it is better\nto die in the way of God than to live in the way of Satan. Therefore who\never is satisfied that this Government represents the activity of Satan\nhas no choice left to him but to dissociate himself from it.\n\nHowever, let us consider the worst that can happen to India on a sudden\nevacuation of India by the British. What does it matter that the Gurkhas\nand the Pathans attack us? Surely we would be better able to deal with\ntheir violence than we are with the continued violence, moral and\nphysical, perpetrated by the present Government. Mr. Stokes does not\nseem to eschew the use of physical force. Surely the combined labour of\nthe Rajput, the Sikh and the Mussalman warriors in a united India may be\ntrusted to deal with plunderers from any or all the sides. Imagine\nhowever the worst: Japan overwhelming us from the Bay of Bengal, the\nGurkhas from the Hills, and the Pathans from the North-West. If we not\nsucceed in driving them out we make terms with them and drive them at\nthe first opportunity. This will be a more manly course than a hopeless\nsubmission to an admittedly wrongful State.\n\nBut I refuse to contemplate the dismal out-look. If the movement\nsucceeds through non-violent non-co-operation, and that is the\nsupposition Mr. Stokes has started with, the English whether they remain\nor retire, they will do so as friends and under a well-ordered agreement\nas between partners. I still believe in the goodness of human nature,\nwhether it is English or any other. I therefore do not believe that the\nEnglish will leave in a night.\n\nAnd do I consider the Gurkha and the Afghan being incorrigible thieves\nand robbers without ability to respond to purifying influences? I do\nnot. If India returns to her spirituality, it will react upon the\nneighbouring tribes, she will interest herself in the welfare of these\nhardy but poor people, and even support them if necessary, not out of\nfear but as a matter of neighbourly duty. She will have dealt with Japan\nsimultaneously with the British. Japan will not want to invade India, if\nIndia has learnt to consider it a sin to use a single foreign article\nthat she can manufacture within her own borders. She produces enough to\neat and her men and women can without difficulty manufacture enough to\nclothe to cover their nakedness and protect themselves from heat and\ncold. We become prey to invasion if we excite the greed of foreign\nnation, by dealing with them under a feeling dependence on them. We must\nlearn to be independent of every one of them.\n\nWhether therefore we finally succeed through violence or non-violence in\nmy opinion, the prospect is by no means so gloomy as Mr. Stokes has\nimagined. Any conceivable prospect is, in my opinion, less black than\nthe present unmanly and helpless condition. And we cannot do better than\nfollowing out fearlessly and with confidence the open and honourable\nprogramme of non-violence and sacrifice that we have mapped for\nourselves.\n\n\nTHE NEED FOR HUMILITY\n\nThe spirit of non-violence necessarily leads to humility. Non-violence\nmeans reliance on God, the Rocks of ages. If we would seek His aid, we\nmust approach Him with a humble and a contrite heart.\nNon-co-operationists may not trade upon their amazing success at the\nCongress. We must act, even as the mango tree which drops as it bears\nfruit. Its grandeur lies in its majestic lowliness. But one hears of\nnon-co-operationists being insolent and intolerant in their behaviour\ntowards those who differ from them. I know that they will lose all their\nmajesty and glory, if they betray any inflation. Whilst we may not be\ndissatisfied with the progress made so far, we have little to our\ncredit to make us feel proud. We have to sacrifice much more than we\nhave done to justify pride, much less elation. Thousands, who flocked to\nthe Congress pandal, have undoubtedly given their intellectual assent to\nthe doctrine but few have followed it out in practice. Leaving aside the\npleaders, how many parents have withdrawn their children from schools?\nHow many of those who registered their vote in favour of\nnon-co-operation have taken to hand-spinning or discarded the use of all\nforeign cloth?\n\nNon-co-operation is not a movement of brag, bluster, or bluff. It is a\ntest of our sincerity. It requires solid and silent self-sacrifice. It\nchallenges our honesty and our capacity for national work. It is a\nmovement that aims at translating ideas into action. And the more we do,\nthe more we find that much more must be done than we have expected. And\nthis thought of our imperfection must make us humble.\n\nA non-co-operationist strives to compel attention and to set an example\nnot by his violence but by his unobtrusive humility. He allows his solid\naction to speak for his creed. His strength lies in his reliance upon\nthe correctness of his position. And the conviction of it grows most in\nhis opponent when he least interposes his speech between his action and\nhis opponent. Speech, especially when it is haughty, betrays want of\nconfidence and it makes one's opponent sceptical about the reality of\nthe act itself. Humility therefore is the key to quick success. I hope\nthat every non-co-operationist will recognise the necessity of being\nhumble and self-restrained. It is because so little is really required\nto be done because all of that little depends entirely upon ourselves\nthat I have ventured the belief that Swaraj is attainable in less\nthan one year.\n\n\nSOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED\n\n\"I write to thank you for yours of the 7th instant and especially for\nyour request that I should after reading your writings in \"Young India\"\non non-co-operation, give a full and frank criticism of them. I know\nthat your sole desire is to find out the truth and to act accordingly,\nand hence I venture to make the following remarks. In the issue of May\n5th you say that non-co-operation is \"not even anti-Government.\" But\nsurely to refuse to have anything to do with the Government to the\nextent of not serving it and of not paying its taxes is actually, if not\ntheoretically anti-Government; and such a course must ultimately make\nall Government impossible. Again, you say, \"It is the inherent right of\na subject to refuse to assist a government that will not listen to him.\"\nLeaving aside the question of the ethical soundness of this\nproposition, may I ask which Government, in the present case? Has not\nthe Indian Government done all it possibly can in the matter? Then if\nits attempts to voice the request of India should fail, would it be fair\nand just to do anything against it? Would not the proper course be\nnon-co-operation with the Supreme Council of the Allies, including Great\nBritain, if it be found that the latter has failed properly to support\nthe demand of the Indian Government and people? It seems to me that in\nall your writings and speeches you forget that in the present question\nboth Government and people are as one, and if they fail to get what they\njustly want, how does the question of non-co-operation arise? Hindus\nand Englishmen and the Government are all at present \"shouldering in a\nfull-hearted manner the burden that Muhomedans of India are carrying\netc. etc.\" But supposing we fail of our object--what then? Are we all to\nrefuse to co-operate and with whom?\n\nMight I recommend the consideration of the following course of conduct?\n\n(1) \"Wait and see\" what the actual terms of the Treaty with Turkey are?\n\n(2) If they are not in accordance with the aspirations and\nrecommendations of the Government and the people of India, the every\nlegitimate effort should be made to have the terms revised.\n\n(3) To the bitter end, co-operate with a Government that co-operates\nwith us, and only when it refuses co-operation, go in for\nnon-co-operation.\n\nSo far I personally see no reason whatsoever for non-co-operation with\nthe Indian Government, and till it fails to voice the needs and demands\nof India as a whole there can be no reason. The Indian Government does\nsome times make mistakes, but in the Khilafat matter it is sound and\ntherefore deserves or ought to have the sympathetic and whole-hearted\nco-operation of every one in India. I hope that you will kindly consider\nthe above and perhaps you will be able to find time for a reply in\n_Young India_.\"\n\nI gladly make room for the above letter and respond to the suggestion\nto give a public reply as no doubt the difficulty experienced by the\nEnglish friend is experienced by many. Causes are generally lost, not\nowing to the determined opposition of men who will not see the truth as\nthey want to perpetuate an injustice but because they are able to enlist\nin their favour the allegiance of those who are anxious to understand a\nparticular cause and take sides after mature judgment. It is only by\npatient argument with such honest men that one is able to check oneself,\ncorrect one's own errors of judgment and at times to wean them from\ntheir error and bring them over to one's side. This Khilafat question is\nspecially difficult because there are so many side-issues. It is\ntherefore no wonder that many have more or less difficulty in making up\ntheir minds. It is further complicated because the painful necessity for\nsome direct action has arisen in connection with it. But whatever the\ndifficulty, I am convinced that there is no question so important as\nthis one if we want harmony and peace in India.\n\nMy friend objects to my statement that non-co-operation is not\nanti-Government, because he considers that refusal to serve it and pay\nits taxes is actually anti-Government. I respectfully dissent from the\nview. If a brother has fundamental differences with his brother, and\nassociation with the latter involves his partaking of what in his\nopinion is an injustice. I hold that it is brotherly duty to refrain\nfrom serving his brother and sharing his earnings with him. This happens\nin everyday life. Prahalad did not act against his father, when he\ndeclined to associate himself with the latter's blasphemies. Nor was\nJesus anti-Jewish when he declaimed against the Pharisees and the\nhypocrites, and would have none of them. In such matters, is it not\nintention that determines the character of a particular act? It is\nhardly correct as the friend suggests that withdrawal of association\nunder general circumstances would make all government impossible. But it\nis true that such withdrawal would make all injustice impossible.\n\nMy correspondent considers that the Government of India having done all\nit possibly could, non-co-operation could not be applicable to that\nGovernment. In my opinion, whilst it is true that the Government of\nIndia has done a great deal, it has not done half as much as it might\nhave done, and might even now do. No Government can absolve itself from\nfurther action beyond protesting, when it realises that the people whom\nit represents feel as keenly as do lakhs of Indian Mussalmans in the\nKhilafat question. No amount of sympathy with a starving man can possibly\navail. He must have bread or he dies, and what is wanted at that\ncritical moment is some exertion to fetch the wherewithal to feed the\ndying man. The Government of India can to-day heed the agitation and\nask, to the point of insistence for full vindication of the pledged word\nof a British Minister. Has the Government of India resigned by way of\nprotest against the threatened, shameful betrayal of trust on the part\nof Mr. Lloyd George? Why does the Government of India hide itself behind\nsecret despatches? At a less critical moment Lord Hardiage committed a\nconstitutional indiscretion, openly sympathised with South African\nPassive Resistance movement and stemmed the surging tide of public\nindignation in India, though at the same time he incurred the wrath of\nthe then South African Cabinet and some public men in Great Britain.\nAfter all, the utmost that the Government of India has done is on its\nown showing to transmit and press the Mahomedan claim. Was that not the\nleast it could have done? Could it have done anything less without\ncovering itself with disgrace? What Indian Mahomedans and the Indian\npublic expect the Government of India to do at this critical juncture is\nnot the least, but the utmost that it could do. Viceroys have been known\nto tender resignations for much smaller causes. Wounded pride brought\nforth not very long ago the resignation of a Lieutenant Governor. On the\nKhilafat question, a sacred cause dear to the hearts of several million\nMahomedans is in danger of being wounded. I would therefore invite the\nEnglish friend, and every Englishman in India, and every Hindu, be he\nmoderate or extremist, to make common cause with the Mahomedans and\nthereby compel the Government of India to do its duty, and thereby\ncompel His Majesty's Ministers to do theirs.\n\nThere has been much talk of violence ensuing from active\nnon-co-operation. I venture to suggest that the Mussalmans of India, if\nthey had nothing in the shape of non-co-operation in view, would have\nlong ago yielded to counsels of despair. I admit that non-co-operation\nis not unattended with danger. But violence is a certainty without,\nviolence is only a possibility with non-co-operation. And it will he a\ngreater possibility if all the important men, English, Hindu and others\nof the country discountenance it.\n\nI think, that the recommendation made by the friend is being literally\nfollowed by the Mahomedans. Although they practically know the fate,\nthey are waiting for the actual terms of the treaty with Turkey. They\nare certainly going to try every means at their disposal to have the\nterms revised before beginning non-co-operation. And there will\ncertainly be no non-co-operation commenced so long as there is even hope\nof active co-operation on the part of the Government of India with the\nMahomedans, that is, co-operation strong enough to secure a revision of\nthe terms should they be found to be in conflict with the pledges of\nBritish statesmen. But if all these things fail, can Mahomedans as men\nof honour who hold their religion dearer than their lives do anything\nless than wash their hands clean of the guilt of British Ministers and\nthe Government of India by refusing to co-operate with them? And can\nHindus and Englishmen, if they value Mahomedan friendship, and if they\nadmit then full justice of the Mahomaden friendship and if they admit\nthe full justice of the Mahomedan claim do otherwise than heartily\nsupport the Mahomedans by word and deed.\n\n\nPLEDGES BROKEN\n\nAfter the forgoing was printed the long-expected peace terms regarding\nTurkey were received. In my humble opinion they are humiliating to the\nSupreme Council, to the British ministers, and if as a Hindu with deep\nreverence for Christianity I may say so, a denial of Christ's teachings.\nTurkey broken down and torn with dissentions within may submit to the\narrogant disposal of herself, and Indian Mahomedans may out of fear do\nlikewise. Hindus out of fear, apathy or want of appreciation of the\nsituation, may refuse to help their Mahomedan brethren in their hour of\nperil. The fact remains that a solemn promise of the Prime Minister of\nEngland has been wantonly broken. I will say nothing about President\nWilson's fourteen points, for they seem now to be entirely forgotten as\na day's wonder. It is a matter of deep sorrow that the Government of\nIndia _communique_ offers a defence of the terms, calls them a\nfulfilment of Mr. Lloyd George's pledge of 5th January 1918 and yet\napologises for their defective nature and appeals to the Mahomedans of\nIndia as if to mock them that they would accept the terms with quiet\nresignation. The mask that veils the hypocrisy is too thin to deceive\nanybody. It would have been dignified if the _communique_ had boldly\nadmitted Mr. Lloyd George's mistake in having made the promise referred\nto. As it is, the claim of fulfilment of the promise only adds to the\nirritation caused by its glaring breach. What is the use of the Viceroy\nsaying, \"The question of the Khilafat is one for the Mahomedans and\nMahomedans only and that with their free choice in the matter Government\nhave no desire to interfere,\" while the Khalif's dominions are\nruthlessly dismembered, his control of the Holy places of Islam\nshamelessly taken away from him and he himself reduced to utter\nimpotence in his own palace which can no longer be called a palace but\nwhich can he more fitly described us a prison? No wonder, His Excellency\nfears that the peace includes \"terms which must be painful to all\nMoslems.\" Why should he insult Muslim intelligence by sending the\nMussalmans of India a of encouragement and sympathy? Are they expected\nto find encouragement in the cruel recital of the arrogant terms or in a\nremembrance of 'the splendid response' made by them to the call of the\nKing 'in the day of the Empire's need.' It ill becomes His Excellency to\ntalk of the triumph of those ideals of justice and humanity for which\nthe Allies fought. Indeed, the terms of the so called peace with Turkey\nif they are to last, will be a monument of human arrogance and man-made\ninjustice. To attempt to crush the spirit of a brave and gallant race,\nbecause it has lost in the fortunes of war, is a triumph not of humanity\nbut a demonstration of inhumanity. And if Turkey enjoyed the closest\nties of friendship with Great Britain before the war, Great Britain has\ncertainly made ample reparation for her mistake by having made the\nlargest contribution to the humiliation of Turkey. It is insufferable\ntherefore when the Viceroy feels confident that with the conclusion of\nthis new treaty that friendship will quickly take life again and a\nTurkey regenerate full of hope and strength, will stand forth in the\nfuture as in the past a pillar of the Islamic faith. The Viceregal\nmessage audaciously concludes, \"This thought will I trust strengthen you\nto accept the peace terms with resignation, courage and fortitude and to\nkeep your loyalty towards the Crown bright and untarnished as it has\nbeen for so many generations.\" If Muslim loyalty remains untarnished it\nwill certainly not be for want of effort on the part of the Government\nof India to put the heaviest strain upon it, but it will remain so\nbecause the Mahomedans realise their own strength--the strength in the\nknowledge that their cause is just and that they have got the power to\nvindicate justice in spite of the aberration suffered by Great Britain\nunder a Prime Minister whom continued power has made as reckless in\nmaking promises as in breaking them.\n\nWhilst therefore I admit that there is nothing either in the peace terms\nor in the Viceregal message covering them to inspire the Mahomedans and\nIndians in general with confidence or hope, I venture to suggest that\nthere is no cause for despair and anger. Now is the time for Mahomedans\nto retain absolute self-control, to unite their forces and, weak though\nthey are, with firm faith in God to carry on the struggle with redoubled\nvigour till justice is done. If India--both Hindu and Mahomedan--can act\nas one man and can withdraw her partnership in this crime against\nhumanity which the peace terms represent, she will soon secure a\nrevision of the treaty and give herself and the Empire at least, if not\nthe world, a lasting peace. There is no doubt that the struggle would be\nbitter sharp and possibly prolonged, but it is worth all the sacrifice\nthat it is likely to call forth. Both the Mussalmans and the Hindus are\non their trial. Is the humiliation of the Khilafat a matter of concern\nto the former? And if it is, are they prepared to exercise restraint,\nreligiously refrain from violence and practise non-co-operation without\ncounting the material loss it may entail upon the community? Do the\nHindus honestly feel for their Mahomedan brethren to the extent of\nsharing their sufferings to the fullest extent? The answer to these\nquestions and not the peace terms, will finally decide the fate of\nthe Khilafat.\n\n\nMORE OBJECTIONS ANSWERED\n\n_Swadeshmitran_ is one of the most influential Tamil dailies of Madras.\nIt is widely read. Everything appearing in its columns is entitled to\nrespect. The Editor has suggested some practical difficulty in the way\nof non-co-operation. I would therefore like, to the best of my ability,\nto deal with them.\n\nI do not know where the information has been derived from that I have\ngiven up the last two stages of non-co-operation. What I have said is\nthat they are a distant goal. I abide by it. I admit that all the stages\nare fraught with some danger, but the last two are fraught with the\ngreatest--the last most of all. The stages have been fixed with a view\nto running the least possible risk. The last two stages will not be\ntaken up unless the committee has attained sufficient control over the\npeople to warrant the beliefs that the laying down of arms or suspension\nof taxes will, humanly speaking, be free from an outbreak of violence on\nthe part of the people. I do entertain the belief that it is possible\nfor the people to attain the discipline necessary for taking the two\nsteps. When once they realise that violence is totally unnecessary to\nbend an unwilling government to their will and that the result can be\nobtained with certainty by dignified non-co-operation, they will cease\nto think of violence even by way of retaliation. The fact is that\nhitherto we have not attempted to take concerted and disciplined action\nfrom the masses. Some day, if we are to become truly a self-governing\nnation, that attempt has to be made. The present, in my opinion, is a\npropitious movement. Every Indian feels the insult to the Punjab as a\npersonal wrong, every Mussalman resents the wrong done to the Khilafat.\nThere is therefore a favourable atmosphere for expecting cohesive and\nrestrained movement on the part of the masses.\n\nSo far as response is concerned, I agree with the Editor that the\nquickest and the largest response is to be expected in the matter of\nsuspension of payment of taxes, but as I have said so long as the masses\nare not educated to appreciate the value of non-violence even whilst\ntheir holding are being sold, so long must it be difficult to take up\nthe last stage into any appreciable extent.\n\nI agree too that a sudden withdrawal of the military and the police will\nbe a disaster if we have not acquired the ability to protect ourselves\nagainst robbers and thieves. But I suggest that when we are ready to\ncall out the military and the police on an extensive scale we would find\nourselves in a position to defend ourselves. If the police and the\nmilitary resign from patriotic motives, I would certainly expect them to\nperform the same duty as national volunteers, not has hirelings but as\nwilling protectors of the life and liberty of their countrymen. The\nmovement of non-co-operation is one of automatic adjustment. If the\nGovernment schools are emptied, I would certainly expect national\nschools to come into being. If the lawyers as a whole suspended\npractice, they would devise arbitration courts and the nation will have\nexpeditions and cheaper method of setting private disputes and awarding\npunishment to the wrong-doer. I may add that the Khilafat Committee is\nfully alive to the difficulty of the task and is taking all the\nnecessary steps to meet the contingencies as they arise.\n\nRegarding the leaving of civil employment, no danger is feared, because\nno one will leave his employment, unless he is in a position to find\nsupport for himself and family either through friends or otherwise.\n\nDisapproval of the proposed withdrawal of students betrays, in my\nhumble opinion, lack of appreciation of the true nature of\nnon-co-operation. It is true enough that we pay the money wherewith our\nchildren are educated. But, when the agency imparting the education has\nbecome corrupt, we may not employ it without partaking of the agents,\ncorruption. When students leave schools or colleges I hardly imagine\nthat the teachers will fail to perceive the advisability of themselves\nresigning. But even if they do not, money can hardly be allowed to count\nwhere honour or religion are at the stake.\n\nAs to the boycott of the councils, it is not the entry of the Moderates\nor any other persons that matters so much as the entry of those who\nbelieve in non-co-operation. You may not co-operate at the top and\nnon-co-operate at the bottom. A councillor cannot remain in the council\nand ask the _gumasta_ who cleans the council-table to resign.\n\n\nMR. PENNINGTON'S OBJECTIONS ANSWERED\n\nI gladly publish Mr. Pennington's letter with its enclosure just as I\nhave received them. Evidently Mr. Pennington is not a regular reader of\n'Young India,' or he would have noticed that no one has condemned mob\noutrages more than I have. He seems to think that the article he has\nobjected to was the only thing I have ever written on General Dyer. He\ndoes not seem to know that I have endeavoured with the utmost\nimpartiality to examine the Jallianwala massacre. And he can see any day\nall the proof adduced by my fellow-commissioners and myself in support\nof our findings on the massacre. The ordinary readers of 'Young India'\nknew all the facts and therefore it was unnecessary for me to support my\nassertion otherwise. But unfortunately Mr. Pennington represents the\ntypical Englishman. He does not want to be unjust, nevertheless he is\nrarely just in his appreciation of world events because he has no time\nto study them except cursorily and that through a press whose business\nis to air only party views. The average Englishman therefore except in\nparochial matters is perhaps the least informed though he claims to be\nwell-informed about every variety of interest. Mr. Pennington's\nignorance is thus typical of the others and affords the best reason for\nsecuring control of our own affairs in our own hands. Ability will come\nwith use and not by waiting to be trained by those whose natural\ninterest is to prolong the period of tutelage as much as possible.\n\nBut to return to Mr. Pennington's letter he complains that there has\nbeen no 'proper trial of any one.' The fault is not ours. India has\nconsistently and insistently demanded a trial of all the officers\nconcerned in the crimes against the Punjab.\n\nHe next objects to be 'violence' of my language. If truth is violent, I\nplead guilty to the charge of violence of language. But I could not,\nwithout doing violence to truth, refrain from using the language, I\nhave, regarding General Dyer's action. It has been proved out of his own\nmouth or hostile witnesses:\n\n(1) That the crowd was unarmed.\n\n(2) That it contained children.\n\n(3) That the 13th was the day of Vaisakhi fair.\n\n(4) That thousands had come to the fair.\n\n(5) That there was no rebellion.\n\n(6) That during the intervening two days before the 'massacre' there was\npeace in Amritsar.\n\n(7) That the proclamation of the meeting was made the same day as\nGeneral Dyer's proclamation.\n\n(8) That General Dyer's proclamation prohibited not meetings but\nprocessions or gatherings of four men on the streets and not in private\nor public places.\n\n(9) That General Dyer ran no risk whether outside or inside the city.\n\n(10) That he admitted himself that many in the crowd did not know\nanything of his proclamation.\n\n(11) That he fired without warning the crowd and even after it had\nbegun to disperse. He fired on the backs of the people who were\nin flight.\n\n(12) That the men were practically penned in an enclosure.\n\nIn the face of these admitted facts I do call the deed a 'massacre.' The\naction amounted not to 'an error of judgment' but its 'paralysis in the\nface of fancied danger.'\n\nI am sorry to have to say that Mr. Pennington's notes, which too the\nreader will find published elsewhere, betray as much ignorance as\nhis letter.\n\nWhatever was adopted on paper in the days of Canning was certainly not\ntranslated into action in its full sense. 'Promises made to the ear were\nbroken to the hope,' was said by a reactionary Viceroy. Military\nexpenditure has grown enormously since the days of Canning.\n\nThe demonstration in favour of General Dyer is practically a myth.\n\nNo trace was found of the so-called Danda Fauj dignified by the name of\nbludgeon-army by Mr. Pennington. There was no rebel army in Amritsar.\nThe crown that committed the horrible murders and incendiarism contained\nno one community exclusively. The sheet was found posted only in Lahore\nand not in Amritsar. Mr. Pennington should moreover have known by this\ntime that the meeting held on the 13th was held, among other things, for\nthe purpose of condemning mob excesses. This was brought out at the\nAmritsar trial. Those who surrounded him could not stop General Dyer. He\nsays he made up his mind to shoot in a moment. He consulted nobody. When\nthe correspondent says that the troops would have objected to being\nconcerned in 'what might in that case be not unfairly called a\n'massacre,' he writes as if he had never lived in India. I wish the\nIndian troops had the moral courage to refuse to shoot innocent, unarmed\nmen in full flight. But the Indian troops have been brought in too\nslavish an atmosphere to dare do any such correct act.\n\nI hope Mr. Pennington will not accuse me again of making unverified\nassertions because I have not quoted from the books. The evidence is\nthere for him to use. I can only assure him that the assertions are\nbased on positive proofs mostly obtained from official sources.\n\nMr. Pennington wants me to publish an exact account of what happened on\nthe 10th April. He can find it in the reports, and if he will patiently\ngo through them he will discover that Sir Michael O'Dwyer and his\nofficials goaded the people into frenzied fury--a fury which nobody, as\nI have already said, has condemned more than I have. The account of the\nfollowing days is summed up in one word, _viz._ 'peace' on the part of\nthe crowd disturbed by indiscriminate arrests, the massacre and the\nseries of official crimes that followed.\n\nI am prepared to give Mr. Pennington credit for seeking after the truth.\nBut he has gone about it in the wrong manner. I suggest his reading the\nevidence before the Hunter Committee and the Congress Committee. He need\nnot read the reports. But the evidence will convince him that I have\nunderstated the case against General Dyer.\n\nWhen however I read his description of himself as \"for 12 years Chief\nMagistrate of Districts in the South of India before reform, by\nassassination and otherwise, became so fashionable.\" I despair of his\nbeing able to find the truth. An angry or a biased man renders himself\nincapable of finding it. And Mr. Pennington is evidently both angry and\nbiased. What does he mean by saying, \"before reform by assassination and\notherwise became so fashionable?\" It ill becomes him to talk of\nassassination when the school of assassination seems happily to have\nbecome extinct. Englishmen will never see the truth so long as they\npermit their vision to be blinded by arrogant assumption of superiority\nor ignorant assumptions of infallibility.\n\n\nMR. PENNINGTON'S LETTER TO MR. GANDHI\n\n   Dear Sir,\n\n   I do not like your scheme for \"boycotting\" the Government of India\n   under what seems to be the somewhat less offensive (though more\n   cumbrous) name of non-co-operation; but have always given you credit\n   for a genuine desire to carry out revolution by peaceful means and am\n   astonished at the violence of the language you use in describing\n   General Dyer on page 4 of your issue of the 14th July last. You begin\n   by saying that he is \"by no means the worst offender,\" and, so far, I\n   am inclined to agree, though as there has been no proper trial of\n   anyone it is impossible to apportion their guilt; but then you say\n   \"his brutality is unmistakable,\" \"his abject and unsoldierlike\n   cowardice is apparent, he has called an _unarmed crowd_ of men and\n   children--mostly holiday makers--a rebel army.\" \"He believes himself\n   to be the saviour of the Punjab in that he was able to shoot down\n   like rabbits men who were _penned_ in an enclosure; such a man is\n   unworthy to be considered a soldier. There was no bravery in his\n   action. He ran no risk. He shot without the slightest opposition and\n   without warning. This is not an error of judgement. It is paralysis\n   of it in the face of _fancied_ danger. It is proof of criminal\n   incapacity and heartlessness,\" etc.\n\n   You must excuse me for saying that all this is mere rhetoric\n   unsupported by any proof, even where proof was possible. To begin\n   with, neither you nor I were present at the Jallianwalla Bagh on that\n   dreadful day--dreadful especially for General Dyer for whom you show\n   no sympathy,--and therefore cannot know for certain whether the crowd\n   was or was not unarmed.' That it was an 'illegal,' because a\n   'prohibited,' assembly is evident; for it is absurd to suppose that\n   General Dyer's 4-1/2 hours march, through the city that very morning,\n   during the whole of which he was warning the inhabitants against the\n   danger of any sort of gathering, was not thoroughly well-known. You\n   say they were 'mostly holiday makers,' but you give nor proof; and\n   the idea of holiday gathering in Amritsar just then in incredible. I\n   cannot understand your making such a suggestion. General Dyer was not\n   the only officer present on the occasion and it is impossible to\n   suppose that he would have been allowed to go on shooting into an\n   innocent body of holiday-makers. Even the troops would have refused\n   to carry out what might then have been not unfairly called a\n   \"massacre.\"\n\n   I notice that you never even allude to the frightful brutality of the\n   mob which was immediately responsible for the punitive measure\n   reluctantly adopted by General Dyer. Your sympathies seem to be only\n   with the murderers, and I am not sanguine enough to suppose that my\n   view of the case will have much influence with you. Still I am bound\n   to do what I can to get at the truth, and enclose a copy of some\n   notes I have had occasion to make. If you can publish an _exact_\n   account of what happened at Amritsar on the 10th of April, 1919 and\n   the following days, especially on the 13th, including the\n   demonstration in favour of General Dyer, (if there was one), I for\n   one, as a mere seeker after the truth, should be very much obliged to\n   you. Mere abuse is not convincing, as you so often observe in your\n   generally reasonable paper,\n\n   Yours faithfully,\n   J. R. PENNINGTON, I.O.S. (Retd.)\n   35, VICTORIA ROAD, WORTHING, SUSSEX\n   27th Aug. 1920.\n\n   For 12 years Chief Magistrate of Districts in the south of India\n   before reform, by assassination and otherwise, became so fashionable.\n\n   P.S. Let us get the case in this way. General Dyer, acting as the\n   only representative of Government on the spot shot some hundreds of\n   people (some of them _perhaps_ innocently mixed up in an illegal\n   assembly), in the _bona fide_ belief that he was dealing with the\n   remains of a very dangerous rebellion and was thereby saving the\n   lives of very many thousands, and in the opinion of a great many\n   people did actually save the city from falling in the hands of a\n   dangerous mob.\n\n\nSOME DOUBTS\n\nBabu Janakdhari Prasad was a staunch coworker with me in Champaran. He\nhas written a long letter setting forth his reasons for his belief that\nIndia has a great mission before her, and that she can achieve her\npurpose only by non-violent non-co-operation. But he has doubts which he\nwould have me answer publicly. The letter being long, I am withholding.\nBut the doubts are entitled to respect and I must endeavour to answer\nthem. Here they are us framed by Bubu Janakdhari Prasad.\n\n(a) Is not the non-co-operation movement creating a sort of race-hatred\nbetween Englishmen and Indians, and is it in accordance with the Divine\nplan of universal love and brotherhood?\n\n(b) Does not the use of words \"devilish,\" \"satanic,\" etc., savour of\nunbrotherly sentiment and incite feelings of hatred?\n\n(c) Should not the non-co-operation movement be conducted on strictly\nnon-violent and non-emotional lines both in speech and action?\n\n(d) Is there no danger of the movement going out of control and lending\nto violence?\n\nAs to (a), I must say that the movement is not 'creating' race-hatred.\nIt certainly gives, as I have already said, disciplined expression to\nit. You cannot eradicate evil by ignoring it. It is because I want to\npromote universal brotherhood that I have taken up non-co-operation so\nthat, by self-purification, India may make the world better than it is.\n\nAs to (b), I know that the words 'satanic' and 'devilish' are strong,\nbut they relate the exact truth. They describe a system not persons: We\nare bound to hate evil, if we would shun it. But by means of\nnon-co-operation we are able to distinguish between the evil and the\nevil-doer. I have found no difficulty in describing a particular\nactivity of a brother of mine to be devilish, but I am not aware of\nhaving harboured any hatred about him. Non-co-operation teaches us to\nlove our fellowmen in spite of their faults, not by ignoring or\nover-looking them.\n\nAs to (c), the movement is certainly being conducted on strictly\nnon-violent lines. That all non-co-operators have not yet thoroughly\nimbibed the doctrine is true. But that just shows what an evil legacy we\nhave inherited. Emotion there is in the movement. And it will remain. A\nman without emotion is a man without feeling.\n\nAs to (d), there certainly is danger of the movement becoming violent.\nBut we may no more drop non-violent non-co-operation because of its\ndangers, than we may stop freedom because of the danger of its abuse.\n\n\nREJOINDER\n\nMessrs. Popley and Philips have been good enough to reply to my letter\n\"To Every Englishman in India.\" I recognise and appreciate the friendly\nspirit of their letter. But I see that there are fundamental differences\nwhich must for the time being divide them and me. So long as I felt\nthat, in spite of grievous lapses the British Empire represented an\nactivity for the worlds and India's good, I clung to it like a child to\nits mother's breast. But that faith is gone. The British nation has\nendorsed the Punjab and Khilsfat crimes. The is no doubt a dissenting\nminority. But a dissenting minority that satisfies itself with a mere\nexpression of its opinion and continues to help the wrong-doer partakes\nin wrong-doing.\n\nAnd when the sum total of his energy represents a minus quantity one may\nnot pick out the plus quantities, hold them up for admiration, and ask\nan admiring public to help regarding them. It is a favourite design of\nSatan to temper evil with a show of good and thus lure the unwary into\nthe trap. The only way the world has known of defeating Satan is by\nshunning him. I invite Englishmen, who could work out the ideal the\nbelieve in, to join the ranks of the non-co-operationists. W.T. Stead\nprayed for the reverse of the British arms during the Boer war. Miss\nHobbhouse invited the Boers to keep up the fight. The betrayal of India\nis much worse than the injustice done to the Boers. The Boers fought and\nbled for their rights. When therefore, we are prepared to bleed, the\nright will have become embodied, and idolatrous world will perceive it\nand do homage to it.\n\nBut Messers. Popley and Phillips object that I have allied myself with\nthose who would draw the sword if they could. I see nothing wrong in\nit. They represent the right no less than I do. And is it not worth\nwhile trying to prevent an unsheathing of the sword by helping to win\nthe bloodless battle? Those who recognise the truth of the Indian\nposition can only do God's work by assisting this non-violent campaign.\n\nThe second objection raised by these English friends is more to the\npoint. I would be guilty of wrong-doing myself if the Muslim cause was\nnot just. The fact is that the Muslim claim is not to perpetuate foreign\ndomination of non-Muslim or Turkish races. The Indian Mussalmans do not\nresist self-determination, but they would fight to the last the\nnefarious plan of exploiting Mesopotamia under the plea of\nself-determination. They must resist the studied attempt to humiliate\nTurkey and therefore Islam, under the false pretext of ensuring Armenian\nindependence.\n\nThe third objection has reference to schools. I do object to missionary\nor any schools being carried on with Government money. It is true that\nit was at one time our money. Will these good missionaries be justified\nin educating me with funds given to them by a robber who has robbed me\nof my money, religion and honour because the money was originally mine.\n\nI personally tolerated the financial robbery of India, but it would\nhave been a sin to have tolerated the robbery of honour through the\nPunjab, and of religion through Turkey. This is strong language. But\nnothing less would truly describe my deep conviction. Needless to add\nthat the emptying of Government aided, or affiliated, schools does not\nmean starving the young mind National Schools are coming into being as\nfast as the others are emptied.\n\nMessrs. Popley and Phillips think that my sense of justice has been\nblurred by the knowledge of the Punjab and the Khilafat wrongs. I hope\nnot. I have asked friends to show me some good fruit (intended and\ndeliberately produced) of the British occupation of India. And I assure\nthem that I shall make the amplest amends if I find that I have erred in\nmy eagerness about the Khilafat and the Punjab wrongs.\n\n\nTWO ENGLISHMEN REPLY\n\nDear Mr. Gandhi,\n\nThank you for your letter to every Englishman in India, with its\nhard-hitting and its generous tone. Something within us responds to the\nnote which you have struck. We are not representatives of any corporate\nbody, but we think that millions of our countrymen in England, and not\na few in India, feel as we do. The reading of your letter convinces us\nthat you and we cannot be real enemies.\n\nMay we say at once that in so far as the British Empire stands for the\ndomination and exploitation of other races for Britain's benefit, for\ndegrading treatment of any, for traffic in intoxicating liquors, for\nrepressive legislation, for administration such as that which to the\nAmritsar incidents, we desire the end of it as much as you do? We quite\nunderstand that in the excitement of the present crisis, owing to\ncertain acts of the British Administration, which we join with you in\ncondemning, the Empire presents itself to you under this aspect along.\nBut from personal contact with our countrymen, we know that working like\nleaven in the midst of such tendencies, as you and we deplore, is the\nfaith in a better ideal--the ideal of a commonwealth of free peoples\nvoluntarily linked together by the ties of common experience in the past\nand common aspirations for the future, a commonwealth which may hope to\nspread liberty and progress through the whole earth. With vast numbers\nof our countrymen we value the British Empire mainly as affording the\npossibility of the realization of such an idea and on the ground give it\nour loyal allegiance.\n\nMeanwhile we do repent of that arrogant attitude to Indians which has\nbeen all too common among our countrymen, we do hold Indians to be our\nbrothers and equals, many of them our superiors, and we would rather be\nservants than rulers of India. We desire an administration which cannot\nhe intimated either by the selfish element in Anglo-Indian political\nopinion or by any other sectional interest and which shall govern in\naccordance with the best democratic principles. We should welcome the\nconvening of a National assembly of recognized leaders of the people,\nrepresenting all shades of political opinion of every caste, race and\ncreed, to frame a constitution for Swaraj. In all the things that matter\nmost we are with you. Surely you and we can co-operate in the service of\nIndia, in such matters for example as education. It seems to us nothing\nshort of a tragedy that you should be rallying Indian Patriotism to\ninaugurate a new era of good will under a watchword that divides,\ninstead of uniting all.\n\nWe have spoken of the large amount of common ground upon which you and\nwe can stand. But frankness demands that we express our anxiety about\nsome items in your programme. Leaving aside smaller questions on which\nyour letter seems to us to do the British side less than justice, may we\nmention three main points? Your insistence on spiritual forces alone we\ndeeply respect and desire to emulate, but we cannot understand your\ncombining into it with a close alliance with those who, as you frankly\nsay, would draw the sword as soon as they could.\n\nYour desire for an education truly national commands our whole-hearted\napproval. But instead of Indianizing the present system, as you could\nbegin to do from the beginning of next year, or instead of creating a\nhundred institutions such as that at Bolpur and turning into them the\nstream of India's young intellectual life, you appear to be turning that\nstream out of its present channel into open sands where it may dry up.\nIn other words, you seem to us to be risking the complete cessation, for\na period possibly, of years, of all education, for a large number of\nboys and young men. Is it best, for those young men or for India that\nthe present imperfect education should cease before a better education\nis ready to take its place?\n\nYour desire to unite Mohammedan and Hindu and to share with your\nMohammedan brethren in seeking the satisfaction of Mohammedan\naspirations, we can understand and sympathize with. But is there no\ndanger, in the course which some of your party have urged upon the\nGovernment, that certain races in the former Ottoman Empire might be\nfixed under a foreign yoke, for worse than that which you hold the\nEnglish yoke to be? You could not wish to purchase freedom in India at\nthe price of enslavement in the middle East.\n\nTo sum up, we thank you for the spirit of your letter, to which we have\ntried to respond in the same spirit. We are with you in the desire for\nan India genuinely free to develop the best that is in her and in the\nbelief that best is something wonderful of which the world to-day\nstands in need.\n\nWe are ready to co-operate with you and with every other man of any race\nor nationality who will help India to realize her best. Are you going to\ninsist that you can have nothing to do with us if we receive a\ngovernment grant (i.e., Indian money), for an Indian School. Surely some\nmore inspiring battle cry than non-co-operation can be discovered. We\nhave ventured quite frankly to point out three items in your present\nprogramme, which seem to us likely to hinder the attainment of your true\nideals for Indian greatness. But those ideals themselves command our\nwarm sympathy, and we desire to work, so far as we have opportunity, for\ntheir attainment. In fact, it is only thus that we can interpret our\nBritish citizenship.\n\nYours sincerely,\n(Sd.) H.A. POPLEY,\n(Sd.) G.E. PHILLIPS.\nBangalore,\nNovember 15, 1920.\n\n\nRENUNCIATION OF MEDALS\n\nMr. Gandhi has addressed the following letter to the Viceroy:--\n\nIt is not without a pang that I return the Kaisar-i-Hind gold medal\ngranted to me by your predecessor for my humanitarian work in South\nAfrica, the Zulu war medal granted in South Africa for my services as\nofficer in charge of the Indian volunteer ambulance corps in 1906 and\nthe Boer war medal fur my services as assistant superintendent of the\nIndian volunteer stretcher bearer corps during the Boer war of\n1899-1900. I venture to return these medals in pursuance of the scheme\nof non-co-operation inaugurated to-day in connection with the Khilafat\nmovement. Valuable as those honours have been to me, I cannot wear them\nwith an easy conscience so long as my Mussalman countrymen have to\nlabour under a wrong done to their religious sentiment. Events that have\nhappened during the past month have confirmed me in the opinion that the\nImperial Government have acted in the Khilafat matter in an\nunscrupulous, immoral and unjust manner and have been moving from wrong\nto wrong in order to defend their immorality. I can retain neither\nrespect nor affection for such a Government.\n\nThe attitude of the Imperial and Your Excellency's Governments on the\nPunjab question has given me additional cause for grave dissatisfaction.\nI had the honour, as Your Excellency is aware, as one of the congress\ncommissioners to investigate the causes of the disorders in the Punjab\nduring the April of 1919. And it is my deliberate conviction that Sir\nMichael O'Dwyer was totally unfit to hold the office of Lieutenant\nGovernor of Punjab and that his policy was primarily responsible for\ninfuriating the mob at Amritsar. No doubt the mob excesses were\nunpardonable; incendiarism, murder of five innocent Englishmen and the\ncowardly assault on Miss Sherwood were most deplorable and uncalled for.\nBut the punitive measures taken by General Dyer, Col. Frank Johnson,\nCol. O'Brien, Mr. Bosworth Smith, Rai Shri Ram Sud, Mr. Malik Khan and\nother officers were out of all proportional to the crime of the people\nand amounted to wanton cruelty and inhumanity and almost unparalleled in\nmodern times. Your excellency's light-hearted treatment of the official\ncrime, your, exoneration of Sir Michael O'Dwyer, Mr. Montagu's dispatch\nand above all the shameful ignorance of the Punjab events and callous\ndisregard of the feelings of Indians betrayed by the House of Lords,\nhave filled me with the gravest misgivings regarding the future of the\nEmpire, have estranged me completely from the present Government and\nhave disabled me from tendering, as I have hitherto whole-heartedly\ntendered, my loyal co-operation.\n\nIn my humble opinion the ordinary method of agitating by way of\npetitions, deputations and the like is no remedy for moving to\nrepentence a Government so hopelessly indifferent to the welfare of its\ncharges as the Government of India has proved to me. In European\ncountries, condonation of such grievous wrongs as the Khilafat and the\nPunjab would have resulted in a bloody revolution by the people. They\nwould have resisted at all costs national emasculation such as the said\nwrongs imply. But half of India is to weak to offer violent resistance\nand the other half is unwilling to do so.\n\nI have therefore ventured to suggest the remedy of non-co-operation which\nenables those who wish, to dissociate themselves from the Government and\nwhich, if it is unattended by violence and undertaken in an ordered\nmanner, must compel it to retrace its steps and undo the wrongs\ncommitted. But whilst I shall pursue the policy of non-co-operation in\nso far as I can carry the people with me, I shall not lose hope that you\nwill yet see your way to do justice. I therefore respectfully ask Your\nExcellency to summon a conference of the recognised leaders of the\npeople and in consultation with them find a way that would placate the\nMussalmans and do reparation to the unhappy Punjab.\n\n_August 4, 1920._\n\n\nMAHATMA GANDHI'S LETTER TO H.R.H. THE DUKE OF CONNAUGHT\n\nThe following letter has been addressed by Mr. Gandhi to his Royal\nHighness the Duke of Connaught;--\n\nSir,\n\nYour Royal Highness must have heard a great deal about non-co-operation,\nnon-co-operationists and their methods and incidentally of me its humble\nauthor. I fear that the information given to Your Royal Highness must\nhave been in its nature one-sided. I owe it to you and to my friends and\nmyself that I should place before you what I conceive to be the scope of\nnon-co-operation as followed not only be me but my closest associates\nsuch as Messrs. Shaukat Ali and Mahomed Ali.\n\nFor me it is no joy and pleasure to be actively associated in the\nboycott of your Royal Highness' visit--I have tendered loyal and\nvoluntary association to the Government for an unbroken period of nearly\n30 years in the full belief that through that way lay the path of\nfreedom for my country. It was therefore no slight thing for me to\nsuggest to my countrymen that we should take no part in welcoming Your\nRoyal Highness. Not one among us has anything against you as an English\ngentleman. We hold your person as sacred as that of a dearest friend. I\ndo not know any of my friends who would not guard it with his life, if\nhe found it in danger. We are not at war with individual Englishmen we\nseek not to destroy English life. We do desire to destroy a system that\nhas emasculated our country in body, mind and soul. We are determined to\nbattle with all our might against that in the English nature which has\nmade O'Dwyerism and Dyerism possible in the Punjab and has resulted in a\nwanton affront upon Islam a faith professed by seven crores of our\ncountrymen. The affront has been put in breach of the letter and the\nspirit of the solemn declaration of the Prime Minister. We consider it\nto be inconsistent with our self respect any longer to brook the spirit\nof superiority and dominance which has systematically ignored and\ndisregarded the sentiments of thirty crores of the innocent people of\nIndia on many a vital matter. It is humiliating to us, it cannot be a\nmatter of pride to you, that thirty crores of Indians should live day in\nand day out in the fear of their lives from one hundred thousand\nEnglishmen and therefore be under subjection to them.\n\nYour Royal Highness has come not to end the system I have described but\nto sustain it by upholding its prestige. Your first pronouncement was a\nlaudation of Lord Wellingdon. I have the privilege of knowing him. I\nbelieve him to be an honest and amiable gentleman who will not willingly\nhurt even a fly. But, he has certainly failed as a ruler. He allowed\nhimself to be guided by those whose interest it was to support their\npower. He is reading the mind of the Dravidian province. Here in Bengal\nyou are issuing a certificate of merit to a Governor who is again from\nall I have heard an estimable gentleman. But he knows nothing of the\nheart of Bengal and its yearnings. Bengal is not Calcutta. Fort William\nand the palaces of Calcutta represent an insolent exploitation of the\nunmurmuring and highly cultured peasantry of this fair province.\nNon-co-operationists have come to the conclusion that they must not be\ndeceived by the reforms that tinker with the problem of India's distress\nand humiliation. Nor must they be impatient and angry. We must not in\nour impatient anger resort, to stupid violence. We freely admit that we\nmust take our due share of the blame for the existing state. It is not\nso much the British guns that are responsible fur our subjection, as our\nvoluntary co-operation. Our non-participation in a hearty welcome to\nyour Royal Highness is thus in no sense a demonstration against your\nhigh personage but it is against the system you have come to uphold. I\nknow that individual Englishmen cannot even if they will alter the\nEnglish nature all of a sudden. If we would be equals of Englishmen we\nmust cast off fear. We must learn to be self-reliant and independent of\nthe schools, courts, protection, and patronage of a Government, we seek\nto end, if it will not mend. Hence this non-violent non-co-operation. I\nknow that we have not all yet become non-violent in speech and deed. But\nthe results so far achieved have I assure Your Royal Highness, been\namazing. The people have understood the secret and the value of\nnon-violence as they have never done before. He who runs may see that\nthis a religious, purifying movement. We are leaving off drink, we are\ntrying to rid India of the curse of untouchability. We are trying to\nthrow off foreign tinsel splendour and by reverting to the spinning\nwheel reviving the ancient and the poetic simplicity of life. We hope\nthereby to sterilize the existing harmful institution. I ask Your Royal\nHighness as an Englishman to study this movement and its possibilities\nfor the Empire and the world. We are at war with nothing that is good in\nthe world. In protecting Islam in the manner we are, we are protecting\nall religions. In protecting the honour of India we are protecting the\nhonour of humanity. For our means are hurtful to none. We desire to live\non terms of friendship with Englishmen but that friendship must be\nfriendship of equals in both theory and practice. And we must continue\nto non-co-operate, i.e. to purify ourselves till the goal is achieved.\n\nI ask Your Royal Highness and through you every Englishman to\nappreciate the view-point of the non-co-operationists.\n\nI beg to remain,\nYour Royal Highness's faithful servant,\n(Sd.) M.K. GANDHI.\n_February_, 1921\n\n\nTHE GREATEST THING\n\nIt is to be wished that non-co-operationists will clearly recognise that\nnothing can stop the onward march of the nation as violence. Ireland may\ngain its freedom by violence. Turkey may regain her lost possessions by\nviolence within measurable distance of time. But India cannot win her\nfreedom by violence for a century, because her people are not built in\nthe manner of other nations. They have been nurtured in the traditions\nof suffering. Rightly or wrongly, for good or ill, Islam too has evolved\nalong peaceful lines in India. And I make bold to say that, if the\nhonour of Islam is to be vindicated through its followers in India, it\nwill only be by methods of peaceful, silent, dignified, conscious, and\ncourageous suffering. The more I study that wonderful faith, the more\nconvinced I become that the glory of Islam is due not to the sword but\nto the sufferings, the renunciation, and the nobility of its early\nCaliphs. Islam decayed when its followers, mistaking the evil for the\ngood, dangled the sword in the face of man, and lost sight of the\ngodliness, the humility, and austerity of its founder and his disciples.\nBut, I am not at the present moment, concerned with showing that the\nbasis of Islam, as of all religions, is not violence but suffering not\nthe taking of life but the giving of it.\n\nWhat I am anxious to show is that non-co-operationists must be true as\nwell to the spirit as to the letter of their vow if they would gain\nSwaraj within one year. They may forget non-co-operation but they dare\nnot forget non-violence. Indeed, non-co-operation is non-violence. We\nare violent when we sustain a government whose creed is violence. It\nbases itself finally not on right but on might. Its last appeal is not\nto reason, nor the heart, but to the sword. We are tired of this creed\nand we have risen against it. Let us not ourselves belie our profession\nby being violent. Though the English are very few, they are organised\nfor violence. Though we are many we cannot be organised for violence for\na long time to come. Violence for us is a gospel or despair.\n\nI have seen a pathetic letter from a god-fearing English woman who\ndefends Dyerism for she thinks that, if General Dyer had not enacted\nJallianwala, women and children would have been murdered by us. If we\nare such brutes as to desire the blood of innocent women and children,\nwe deserve to be blotted out from the face of the earth. There is the\nother side. It did not strike this good lady that, if we were friends,\nthe price that her countrymen paid at Jallianwala for buying their\nsafety was too great. They gained their safety at the cost of their\nhumanity. General Dyer has been haltingly blamed, and his evil genius\nSir Michael O'Dwyer entirely exonerated because Englishmen do not want\nto leave this country of fields even if everyone of us has to be killed.\nIf we go mad again as we did at Amritsar, let there be no mistake that a\nblacker Jallianwala will be enacted.\n\nShall we copy Dyerism and O'Dwyerism even whilst we are condemning it?\nLet not our rock be violence and devilry. Our rock must be non-violence\nand godliness. Let us, workers, be clear as to what we are about.\n_Swaraj depends upon our ability to control all the forces of violence\non our side._ Therefore there is no Swaraj within one year, if there is\nviolence on the part of the people.\n\nWe must then refrain from sitting _dhurna_, we must refrain from crying\n'shame, shame' to anybody, we must not use any coercion to persuade our\npeople to adopt our way. We must guarantee to them the same freedom we\nclaim for ourselves. We must not tamper with the masses. It is dangerous\nto make political use of factory labourers or the peasantry--not that we\nare not entitled to do so, but we are not ready for it. We have\nneglected their political (as distinguished from literary) education all\nthese long years. We have not got enough honest, intelligent, reliable,\nand brave workers to enable us to act upon these countrymen of ours.\n\n\n\n\nIX. MAHATMA GANDHI'S STATEMENT\n\n\n[The following is the Statement of Mahatma Gandhi made before the Court\nduring his Trial in Ahmedabad on the 18th March 1921.]\n\nBefore reading his written statement Mahatma Gandhi spoke a few words as\nintroductory remarks to the whole statement. He said: Before I read this\nstatement, I would like to state that I entirely endorse the learned\nAdvocate-General's remarks in connection with my humble self. I think\nthat he was entirely fair to me in all the statements that he has made,\nbecause it is very true and I have no desire whatsoever to conceal from\nthis Court the fact that to preach disaffection towards the existing\nsystem of Government has become almost a passion with me. And the\nlearned Advocate-General is also entirely in the right when he says that\nmy preaching of disaffection did not commence with my connection with\n\"Young India\" but that it commenced much earlier and in the statement\nthat I am about to read it will be my painful duty to admit before this\nCourt that it commenced much earlier than the period stated by the\nAdvocate-General. It is the most painful duty with me but I have to\ndischarge that duty knowing the responsibility that rested upon my\nshoulders. And I wish to endorse all the blame that the\nAdvocate-General has thrown on my shoulders in connection with the\nBombay occurrence, Madras occurrences, and the Chouri Choura occurrences\nthinking over these things deeply, and sleeping over them night after\nnight and examining my heart I have come to the conclusion that it is\nimpossible for me to dissociate myself from the diabolical crimes of\nChouri Choura or the mad outrages of Bombay. He is quite right when he\nsays that as a man of responsibility, a man having received a fair share\nof education, having had a fair share of experience of this world, I\nshould know them. I knew that I was playing with fire. I ran the risk\nand if I was set free I would still do the same. I would be failing in\nmy duty if I do not do so. I have felt it this morning that I would have\nfailed in my duty if I did not say all what I said here just now. I\nwanted to avoid violence. Non-violence is the first article of my faith.\nIt is the last article of my faith. But I had to make my choice. I had\neither to submit to a system which I considered has done an irreparable\nharm to my country or incur the risk of the mad fury of my people\nbursting forth when they understood the truth from my lips. I know that\nmy people have sometimes gone mad. I am deeply sorry for it; and I am,\ntherefore, here to submit not to a light penalty but to the highest\npenalty. I do not ask for mercy. I do not plead any extenuating act. I\nam here, therefore, to invite and submit to the highest penalty that can\nbe inflicted upon me for what in law is a deliberate crime and what\nappears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen. The only course open\nto you, Mr. Judge, is, as I am just going to say in my statement, either\nto resign your post or inflict on me the severest penalty if you believe\nthat the system and law you are assisting to administer are good for the\npeople. I do not expect that kind of conversion. But by the time I have\nfinished with my statement you will, perhaps, have a glimpse of what is\nraging within my breast to run this maddest risk which a sane man\ncan run.\n\nWRITTEN STATEMENT\n\nI owe it perhaps to the Indian public and to the public in England to\nplacate which this prosecution is mainly taken up that I should explain\nwhy from a staunch loyalist and co-operator I have become an\nuncompromising disaffectionist and non-co-operator. To the Court too I\nshould say why I plead guilty to the charge of promoting disaffection\ntowards the Government established by law in India. My public life\nbegan in 1893 in South Africa in troubled weather. My first contact with\nBritish authority in that country was not of a happy character. I\ndiscovered that as a man and as an Indian I had no rights. On the\ncontrary I discovered that I had no rights as a man because I was\nan Indian.\n\nBut I was not baffled. I thought that this treatment of Indians was an\nexcrescence upon a system that was intrinsically and mainly good. I gave\nthe Government my voluntary and hearty co-operation, criticising it\nfully where I felt it was faulty but never wishing its destruction.\n\nConsequently when the existence of the Empire was threatened in 1899 by\nthe Boer challenge, I offered my services to it, raised a volunteer\nambulance corps and served at several actions that took place for the\nrelief of Ladysmith. Similarly in 1906 at the time of the Zulu revolt I\nraised a stretcher-bearer party and served till the end of the\n'rebellion'. On both these occasions I received medals and was even\nmentioned in despatches. For my work in South Africa I was given by Lord\nHardinge a Kaiser-i-Hind Gold Medal. When the war broke out in 1914\nbetween England and Germany I raised a volunteer ambulance corps in\nLondon consisting of the then resident Indians in London, chiefly\nstudents. Its work was acknowledged by the authorities to be valuable.\nLastly in India when a special appeal was made at the War Conference\nin Delhi in 1917 by Lord Chelmsford for recruits, I struggled at the\ncost of my health to raise a corps in Kheda and the response was being\nmade when the hostilities ceased and orders were received that no more\nrecruits were wanted. In all those efforts at service I was actuated by\nthe belief that it was possible by such services to gain a status of\nfull equality in the Empire for my countrymen.\n\nThe first shock came in the shape of the Rowlalt Act a law designed to\nrob the people of all real freedom. I felt called upon to lead an\nintensive agitation against it. Then followed the Punjab horrors\nbeginning with the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh and culminating in\nbrawling orders, public floggings and other indescribable humiliations,\nI discovered too that the plighted word of the Prime Minister to the\nMussalmans of India regarding the integrity of Turkey and the holy\nplaces of Islam was not likely to be fulfilled. But in spite of the\nforeboding and the grave warnings of friends, at the Amritsar Congress\nin 1919 I fought for co-operation and working the Montagu-Chelmsford\nreforms, hoping that the Prime Minister would redeem his promise to the\nIndian Mussalmans, that the Punjab wound would be healed and that the\nreforms inadequate and unsatisfactory though they were, marked a new era\nof hope in the life of India. But all that hope was shattered. The\nKhilafat promise was not to be redeemed. The Punjab crime was\nwhite-washed and most culprits went not only unpunished but remained in\nservice and some continued to draw pensions from the Indian revenue, and\nin some cases were even rewarded. I saw too that not only did the\nreforms not mark a change of heart, but they were only a method of\nfurther draining India of her wealth and of prolonging her servitude.\n\nI came reluctantly to the conclusion that the British connection had\nmade India more helpless than she ever was before, politically and\neconomically. A disarmed India has no power of resistance against any\naggressor if she wanted to engage in an armed conflict with him. So much\nis this the case that some of our best men consider that India must take\ngenerations before she can achieve the Dominion status. She has become\nso poor that she has little power of resisting famines. Before the\nBritish advent India spun and wove in her millions of cottages just the\nsupplement she needed for adding to her meagre agricultural resources.\nThe cottage industry, so vital for India's existence, has been ruined by\nincredibly heartless and inhuman processes as described by English\nwitnesses. Little do town-dwellers know how the semi-starved masses of\nIndians are slowly sinking to lifelessness. Little do they know that\ntheir miserable comfort represents the brokerage they get for the work\nthey do for the foreign exploiter, that the profits and the brokerage\nare sucked from the masses. Little do they realise that the Government\nestablished by law in British India is carried on for this exploitation\nof the masses. No sophistry, no jugglery in figures can explain away the\nevidence the skeletons in many villages present to the naked eye. I have\nno doubt whatsoever that both England and the town dwellers of India\nwill have to answer, if there is a God above, for this crime against\nhumanity which is perhaps unequalled in history. The law itself in this\ncountry has been used to serve the foreign exploiter. My unbiased,\nexamination of the Punjab Martial Law cases had led me to believe that\nat least ninety-five per cent. of convictions were wholly bad. My\nexperience of political cases in India leads me to the conclusion that\nin nine out of every ten the condemned men were totally innocent. Their\ncrime consisted in love of their country. In ninety-nine cases out of\nhundred justice has been denied to Indians as against Europeans in the\nCourt of India. This is not an exaggerated picture. It is the experience\nof almost every Indian who has had anything to do such cases. In my\nopinion the administration of the law is thus prostituted consciously or\nunconsciously for the benefit of the exploiter. The greatest misfortune\nis that Englishmen and their Indian associates in the administration of\nthe country do not know that they are engaged in the crime I have\nattempted to describe. I am satisfied that many English and Indian\nofficials honestly believe that they are administering one of the best\nsystems devised in the world and that India is making steady though slow\nprogress. They do not know that a subtle but effective system of\nterrorism and an organised display of force on the one hand and the\ndeprivation of all powers of retaliation of self-defence on the other\nhave emasculated the people and induced in them the habit of simulation.\nThis awful habit has added to the ignorance and the self-deception of\nthe administrators. Section 124-A under which I am happily charged is\nperhaps the prince among the political sections of the Indian Penal Code\ndesigned to suppress the liberty of the citizen. Affection cannot be\nmanufactured or regulated by law. If one has no affection for a person\nor thing one should be free to give the fullest expression to his\ndisaffection so long as he does not contemplate, promote or incite to\nviolence. But the section under which mere promotion of disaffection is\na crime. I have studied some of the cases tried under it, and I know\nthat some of the most loved of India's patriots have been convicted\nunder it. I consider it a privilege therefore, to be charged under it.\nI have endeavoured to give in their briefest outline the reasons for my\ndisaffection. I have no personal ill-will against any single\nadministrator, much less can I have any disaffection towards the King's\nperson. But I hold it to be a virtue to be disaffected towards a\nGovernment which in its totality has done more harm to India than any\nprevious system. India is less manly under the British rule than she\never was before. Holding such a belief, I consider it to be a sin to\nhave affection for the system. And it has been a precious privilege for\nme to be able to write what I have in the various articles tendered in\nevidence against me.\n\nIn fact I believe that I have rendered a service to India and England by\nshowing in non-co-operation the way out of the unnatural state in which\nboth are living. In my humble opinion, non-co-operation with evil is as\nmuch a duty as is co-operation with good. But in the past,\nnon-co-operation has been deliberately expressed in violence to the evil\ndoer. I am endeavouring to show to my countrymen that violent\nnon-co-operation only multiplies evil and that as evil can only be\nsustained by violence, withdrawal of support of evil requires complete\nabstention from violence. Non-violent implies voluntary submission to\nthe penalty for non-co-operation with evil. I am here, therefore, to\ninvite and submit cheerfully to the highest penalty that can he\ninflicted upon me for what in law is a deliberate crime and what appears\nto me to be the highest duty of a citizen. The only course open to you,\nthe Judge and the Assessors, is either to resign your posts and thus\ndissociate yourselves from evil if you feel that the law you are called\nupon to administer is an evil and that in reality I am innocent, or to\ninflict on me the severest penalty if you believe that the system and\nthe law you are assisting to administer are good for the people of this\ncountry and that my activity is therefore injurious to the public weal.\n\nM. K. GHANDI.","title":"Freedom's Battle: Being a Comprehensive Collection of Writings and Speeches on the Present Situation","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":78027}