{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_35349/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_35349","id":"gutenberg_35349","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35349","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Politics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Civil disobedience -- India","India -- Politics and government -- 1919-1947"],"text":"</pre>\n\nE-text prepared by Bryan Ness and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team\n(http://www.pgdp.net) from page images generously made available by\nInternet Archive (http://www.archive.org)\n\n\n\nNote: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this\n      file which includes the original illustration.\n      See 35349-h.htm or 35349-h.zip:\n      (https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/35349/pg35349-images.html)\n      or\n      (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/35349/35349-h.zip)\n\n\n      Images of the original pages are available through\n      Internet Archive. See\n      http://www.archive.org/details/freedomthroughdi00dascuoft\n\n\n\n\n\nFREEDOM THROUGH DISOBEDIENCE\n\nby\n\nC. R. DAS\nPresident of the 37th\nIndian National Congress, Gaya, 1922.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArka Publishing House,\nGeorge Town, Madras.\n1922\n\nImperial Book Depot,\nDelhi.\n\nPrinted at the Manoranjini Press,\nSowcarpet, Madras.\n\n\n\n\nFREEDOM THROUGH DISOBEDIENCE\n\n_The following is the full text of the Presidential Address of Desabhandhu\nC. R. Das at the thirty-seventh session of the Indian National Congress\nheld at Gaya on 26th December 1922:--_\n\nSISTERS AND BROTHERS,--\n\nAs I stand before you to-day, a sense of overwhelming loss overtakes me,\nand I can scarce give expression to what is uppermost in the minds of all\nand everyone of us. After a memorable battle which he gave to the\nBureaucracy, Mahatma Gandhi has been seized and cast into prison; and we\nshall not have his guidance in the proceedings of the Congress this year.\nBut there is inspiration for all of us in the last stand which he made in\nthe citadel of the enemy, in the last defiance which he hurled at the\nagents of the Bureaucracy. To read a story equal in pathos, in dignity,\nand in sublimity you have to go back over two thousand years, when Jesus\nof Nazareth, \"as one that perverted the people\" stood to take his trial\nbefore a foreign tribunal.\n\n\"And Jesus stood before the Governor: and the Governor asked him saying,\nArt thou the king of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.\n\n\"And when he has accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered\nnothing.\n\n\"Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness\nagainst thee?\n\n\"And he answered him too never a word; insomuch that the Governor\nmarvelled greatly.\"\n\nMahatma Gandhi took a different course. He admitted that he was guilty,\nand he pointed out to the public Prosecutor, that his guilt was greater\nthan he, the Prosecutor, had alleged; but he maintained that if he had\noffended against the law of Bureaucracy in so offending, he had obeyed the\nlaw of God. If I may hazard a guess, the Judge who tried him and who\npassed a sentence of imprisonment on him was filled with the same feeling\nof marvel as Pontius Pilate had been.\n\nGreat in taking decisions, great in executing them, Mahatma Gandhi was\nincomparably great in the last stand which he made on behalf of his\ncountry. He is undoubtedly one of the greatest men that the world has ever\nseen. The world hath need of him and if he is mocked and jeered at by \"the\npeople of importance,\" the \"people with a stake in the country\"--Scribes\nand Pharisees of the days of Christ he will be gratefully remembered now\nand always by a nation which he led from victory to victory.\n\n\n\"LAW AND ORDER\"\n\nGentlemen, the time is a critical one and it is important to seize upon\nthe real issue which divides the people from the Bureaucracy and its\nIndian allies. During the period of repression which began about this time\nlast year, it was this issue which pressed itself on our attention. This\npolicy of repression was supported and in some cases instigated by the\nModerate Leaders who are in the Executive Government. I do not charge\nthose who supported the Government with dishonesty or want of patriotism.\nI say they were led away by the battle cry of Law and Order. And it is\nbecause I believe that there is a fundamental confusion of thought behind\nthis attitude of mind that I propose to discuss this plea of Law and\nOrder. \"Law and Order\" has indeed been the last refuge of Bureaucracies\nall over the world.\n\nIt has been gravely asserted not only by the Bureaucracy but also by its\napologists, the Moderate Party, that a settled Government is the first\nnecessity of any people and that the subject has no right to present his\ngrievances except in a constitutional way, by which I understand in some\nway recognised by the constitution. If you cannot actively co-operate in\nthe maintenance of \"the law of the land\" they say, \"it is your duty as a\nresponsible citizen to obey it passively. Non-resistance is the least that\nthe Government is entitled to expect from you.\"\n\nThis is the whole political philosophy of the Bureaucracy--the maintenance\nof law and order on the part of the Government, and an attitude of passive\nobedience and non-resistance on the part of the subject. But was not that\nthe political philosophy of every English King from William the Conqueror\nto James II? And was not that the political philosophy of the Romanoffs,\nthe Hohenzollerns and of the Bourbons? And yet freedom has come, where it\nhas come, by disobedience of the very laws which were proclaimed in the\nname of law and order. Where the Government is arbitrary and despotic and\nthe fundamental rights of the people are not recognised, it is idle to\ntalk of law and order.\n\nThe doctrine has apparently made its way to this country from England. I\nshall, therefore, refer to English history to find out the truth about\nthis doctrine. That history has recorded that most of the despots in\nEngland who exercised arbitrary sway over the people proposed to act for\nthe good of the people and for the maintenance of law and order. English\nabsolutism from the Normans down to the Stuarts tried to put itself on a\nconstitutional basis through the process of this very law and order. The\npathetic speech delivered by Charles I. just before his execution puts the\nwhole doctrine in a nutshell. \"For the people,\" he said, \"truly I desire\ntheir liberty and freedom as much as anybody whatsoever, but I must tell\nyou that their liberty and freedom consist in having Government, those\nlaws by which their lives and their goods may be their own. It is not\ntheir having a share in the Government, that is nothing appertaining to\nthem. A subject and a sovereign are clear different things.\" The doctrine\nof law and order could not be stated with more admirable clearness. But\nthough the English kings acted constitutionally in the sense that their\nacts were in accordance with the letter of law and were covered by\nprecedents, the subjects always claimed that they were free to assert\ntheir fundamental rights and to wrest them from the king by force or\ninsurrections. The doctrine of law and order received a rude shock when\nKing John was obliged to put his signature to the Magna Charta on the 15th\nof June, 1215. The 61st clause of the Charter is important for our purpose\nsecuring as it did to the subject the liberty of rebellion as a means for\nenforcing the due observance of the Charter by the Crown. Adams, a\ncelebrated writer of English Constitutional History, says that the\nconditional right to rebel is as much at the foundation of the English\nConstitution to-day as it was in 1215. But though the doctrine of law and\norder had received a rude shock it did not altogether die; for in the\nintervening period the Crown claimed and asserted the right to raise\nmoney, not only by indirect taxes but also by forced loans and\nbenevolences; and frequently exercised large legislative functions not\nonly by applying what are known as suspending and dispensing powers but\nalso by issuing proclamations. The Crown claimed, as Hallam says, \"not\nonly a kind of supplemental right of legislation to perfect and carry out\nwhat the spirit of existing laws might require but also a paramount\nsupremacy, called sometimes the king's absolute or sovereign power which\nsanctioned commands beyond the legal prerogative, for the sake of public\nsafety whenever the Council might judge that to be in hazard.\" By the time\nof the Stuarts the powers claimed by the Crown were recognised by the\ncourts of law as well founded, and, to quote the words of Adams, \"the\nforms of law became the engines for the perpetration of judicial murders.\"\nIt is necessary to remember that it was the process of law and order that\nhelped to consolidate the powers of the Crown; for it was again and again\nlaid down by the Court of Exchequer that the power of taxation was vested\nin the Crown, where it was \"for the general benefit of the people.\" As\nAdams says, \"the Stuarts asserted a legal justification for everything\ndone by them,\" and, \"on the whole, history was with the king.\"\n\nBut how did the Commons meet this assertion of law and order? They were\nstrict non-co-operators both within and outside the Parliament. Within the\nParliament they again and again refused to vote supplies unless their\ngrievances were redressed. The King retorted by raising Customs duties on\nhis own initiative and the courts of law supported him. The Commons passed\na resolution to the effect that persons paying them \"should be reputed\nbetrayers of the liberties of England and enemies to the same.\" There was\nlittle doubt that revolution was on the land; and King Charles finding\nhimself in difficulty gave his Royal Assent to the Bill of Rights on the\n17th of June 1626. The Bill of Rights constitutes a triumph for N. C. O's;\nfor it was by their refusal to have any part or share in the\nadministration of the country that the Commons compelled the King to\nacknowledge their Rights. The events that followed between 1629 and 1640\nmade the history of England. In spite of the Bill of Rights the King\ncontinued to raise customs duties and Elliot and his friends were put on\ntheir trial. They refused to plead and the result was disastrous for the\narbitrary power of the King. The King levied ship money on the nation. The\nchief constables of various places replied that the sherrifs had no\nauthority to assess or tax any man without the consent of the Parliament.\nOn the refusal on the part of the people to pay the taxes, their cattle\nwas destrained and no purchaser could be found for them. The King took\nthe opinion of the Exchequer Court on the question \"when the good and the\nsafety of the kingdom is concerned and the whole kingdom is in danger.\"\nMark how the formula has been copied verbatim in the Government of India\nAct. \"May not the king command all the subjects of his kingdom, to provide\nand furnish such a number of ships with men, victuals and munitions and\nfor such time as he shall think fit for the defence and safeguard of the\nKingdom from such peril\"--again the formula \"and by law compel the doing\nthereof in case of refusal any refractoriness? And whether in such case is\nnot the King the sole judge, both of the danger and when and how the same\nis to be prevented?\" The Judges answered in the affirmative and maintained\nthe answer in the celebrated case which Hampden brought before them.\n\nI desire to emphasise one point and that is that throughout the long and\nbitter struggle between the Stuarts and Parliament, the Stuarts acted for\nthe maintenance of Law and Order, and there is no doubt that both law and\nhistory were on their side. On the eve of the Civil War, the question that\ndivided the parties was this: could the Crown, in the maintenance of Law\nand Order, claim the passive obedience of the subject or was there any\npower of resistance in the subject, though that resistance might result in\ndisorder and in breaches of law? The adherents of the Parliament stood\nfor power and the majesty of the people, the authority and independence\nof Parliament, individual liberty, the right to resist and the right to\ncompel abdication and deposition of the Crown, in a word, they stood by\nthem against the coercive power of the State. The adherence of the Crown\nstood for indefeasible rights--a right to claim passive obedience and\nsecure non-resistance on the part of the subject through the process of\nLaw and Order; in a word, they stood for State coercion and compulsory\nco-operation against individual liability.\n\nThe issue was decided in favour of Parliament but as it must happen in\nevery war of arms, the victory for individual liberty was only temporary.\nThough the result of Civil War was disastrous from the point of view of\nindividual liberty, and though it required another revolution--this time,\na non-violent revolution--to put individual liberty on a sure foundation\n\"the knowledge that the subject had sat in rude judgment on their King,\nman to man, speeded the slow emancipation of the mind from the shackles of\ncustom and ancient reverence.\"\n\nThe Revolution of 1688--a bloodless revolution--secured for England that\nRule of Law which is the only sure foundation for the maintenance of Law\nand Order. It completed the work which the Long Parliament had begun and\nwhich the execution of Charles I. had interrupted. But how was the\npeaceful revolution of 1688 brought about? By defiance of authority and by\nrigid adherence to the principle that it is the inalienable right of the\nsubject to resist the exercise by the executive of wide, arbitrary or\ndiscretionary powers of constraint.\n\nThe principle for which the revolution of 1688 stood was triumphantly\nvindicated in the celebrated case of Dr. Sacheverell. In the course of a\nsermon which he had preached, he gave expression to the following\nsentiment. \"The grand security of our Government and the very pillar upon\nwhich it stands is founded upon the steady belief of the subjects'\nobligation to an absolute and unconditional obedience to the supreme power\nin all things lawful and the utter illegality of resistance on any\npretence whatsoever.\" This is the doctrine of passive obedience and\nnon-resistance the doctrine of law and order, which is proclaimed to-day\nby every bureaucrat in the country, foreign or domestic and which is\nsupposed to be the last word on the subjects' duty and Government's\nrights. But mark how they solved the problem in England in 1710. The\nCommons impeached Dr. Sacheverell giving expression to a view so\ndestructive of individual liberty and the Lords by a majority of votes\nfound him guilty. The speeches delivered in the course of the trial are\ninteresting. I desire to quote a few sentences from some of those\nspeeches. Sir Joseph Jekyll in the course of his speech said, \"that as\nthe Law is the only measure of the Princes' authority and the peoples'\nsubjection, so the law derives its being and efficacy from common consent;\nand to place it on any other foundation than common consent is to take\naway the obligation.\" This notion of common consent puts both prince and\npeople under, to observe the laws.\n\n\"My Lords, as the doctrine of unlimited non-resistance was impliedly\nrenounced by the whole nation in the resolution, so diverse Acts of\nParliament afterwards passed expressing their renunciation, ... and,\ntherefore I shall only say that it can never be supposed that the laws\nwere made to set up a despotic power to destroy themselves and to warrant\nsubversion of a constitution of a Government which they were designed to\nestablish and defend.\" Mr. Walpole put the whole argument in a nutshell\nwhen he said, \"the doctrine of unlimited, unconditional passive obedience\nwas first invented to support arbitrary and despotic power and was never\npromoted or countenanced by any Government that had not designs sometime\nor other of making use of it.\" The argument against the doctrine of Law\nand Order could not be put more clearly or forcibly, for his argument\ncomes to this: \"that the doctrine is not an honest one if law and order is\nthe process by which absolution consolidates its powers and strengthens\nits hand.\" I will make one more quotation and that is from the speech of\nMajor-Gen. Stanhope. \"As to the doctrine itself of absolute\nnon-resistance, it should seem needless to prove by argument that it is\ninconsistent with the law of reason, with the law of Nature and with the\npractice of all ages and countries.... And indeed one may appeal to the\npractice of all Churches and of all states and of all nations in the\nworld, how they behaved themselves when they found their civil and\nreligious constitutions invaded and oppressed by tyranny.\"\n\nThis then is the history of the freedom movement in England. The\nconclusion is irresistible that it is not by acquiescence in the doctrine\nof Law and Order that the English people have obtained the recognition of\ntheir fundamental rights. It follows from the survey that I have made\nfirstly that no regulation is law unless it is based on the consent of the\npeople; secondly where such consent is wanting the people are under no\nobligation to obey; thirdly, where such laws are not only not based on the\nconsent of the people but profess to attack their fundamental rights the\nsubjects are entitled to compel their withdrawal by force or\ninsurrections; fourthly, that Law and Order is and has always been a plea\nfor absolutism and lastly there can be neither law nor order before the\nreal reign of Law begins.\n\nI have dealt with the question at some length as the question is a vital\none and there are many Moderates who still think that it is the duty of\nevery loyal subject to assist the Government in the maintenance of Law and\nOrder. The personal liberty of every Indian to-day depends to a great\nextent on the exercise by persons in authority of wide, arbitrary or\ndiscretionary powers. Where such powers are allowed the rule of law is\ndenied. To find out the extent to which this exploded doctrine of Law and\nOrder influences the minds of sober and learned men we have only to read\nthe report of the Committee appointed to examine the repressive laws. You\nwill find in the report neither the vision of the patriot nor the wisdom\nof the statesman; but you will find an excessive worship of that much\nadvertised but much misunderstood phrase \"Law and Order.\" \"Why is\nRegulation III of 1818 to be amended and kept on the Statute Book?\"\nBecause for the protection of the frontiers of India and the fulfilment of\nthe responsibility of the Government of India in relation to Indian States\nthere must be some enactment to arm the executive with powers to restrict\nthe movements and activities of certain persons, who though not coming\nwithin the scope of any criminal law have to be put under some measure of\nrestraint. Why are the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act 1908 and the\nPrevention of Seditious Meetings Act 1911 to be retained on the Statute\nBook? For the preservation of law and order? They little think these\nlearned gentlemen responsible for the report that these Statutes, giving\nas they do to the Executive wide, arbitrary and discretionary powers of\nconstraint, constitute a state of things wherein it is the duty of every\nindividual to resist and to defy the tyranny of such lawless laws. These\nStatutes in themselves constitute a breach of law and order, for, law and\norder is the result of the rule of law; and where you deny the existence\nof the rule of law, you cannot turn round and say it is your duty as\nlaw-abiding citizens to obey the law.\n\nWe have had abundance of this law and order during the last few years of\nour National History. The last affront delivered to the nation, was the\npromulgation of an executive order under the authority of the Criminal Law\nAmendment Act making the legitimate work of Congress Volunteers illegal\nand criminal. This was supported by our Moderate friends on the ground\nthat it is the duty of the law-abiding subject to support the maintenance\nof law and order. The doctrine, as I said before, has travelled all the\nway from the shores of England. But may I ask--is there one argument\nadvanced to-day by the Bureaucracy and its friends which was not advanced\nwith equal clearness by the Stuarts? When the Stuarts arrogated to\nthemselves a discretionary power of committing to prison all persons who\nwere on any account obnoxious to the Court, they made the excuse that the\npower was necessary for the safety of the nation. And the power was\nresisted in England, not because it was never exercised for the safety of\nthe nation, but because the existence of the power was inconsistent with\nthe existence, at the same time of individual liberty. When the Stuarts\nclaimed the right to legislate by proclamation and by the wide exercise of\nsuspending and dispensing powers they did so on the express ground that\nsuch legislation was necessary for public safety. That right was denied by\nthe English nation, not because such legislation was not necessary for\npublic safety but because such right could not co-exist with the\nfundamental right of the nation to legislate for itself. Is the power of\nthe Governor-General to certify that the passage of a Bill is essential\nfor safety or tranquility or interest of British India, any different from\nthe power claimed by the Stuarts? There is indeed a striking resemblance\nbetween the power conferred on the Governor-General and the Governors of\nthe provinces and the powers claimed by the Tudors and the Stuarts. When\nthe Stuarts claimed the right to raise revenue on their own initiative,\nthey disclaimed any intention to exercise such right except \"when the good\nand safety of the kingdom in general is concerned and the whole kingdom is\nin danger.\" That right was resisted in England, not because the revenues\nraised by them were not necessary for the good and safety of the kingdom,\nbut because that right was inconsistent with the fundamental right of the\npeople to pay such taxes only as were determined by the representatives of\nthe people for the people. Is the power conferred on the Governor to\ncertify that the expenditure provided for by a particular demand not\nassented to by the legislature is essential to the discharge of his\nresponsibility for the subjects, any different from the power claimed by\nthe Stuarts? It should be patent to everybody that we do not live under\nany history of England as proclaimed that it is idle to talk of the\nmaintenance of law and order when large discretionary powers of constraint\nare vested in the executive. The manhood of England triumphantly resisted\nthe pretensions of \"Law and Order.\" If there is manhood in India to-day,\nIndia will successfully resist the same pretensions, advanced by the\nIndian Bureaucracy.\n\nI have quoted from English History at length, because the argument\nfurnished by that history appeals to people who are frightened by popular\nmovement into raising the cry of \"law and order.\" Follow the lines laid\ndown in that History. For myself, I oppose the pretensions of \"law and\norder\" not on historical precedent, but on the ground that it is the\ninalienable right of every individual and of every nation to stand on\ntruth and to offer a stubborn resistance to the promulgation of lawless\nlaws. There was a law in the time of Christ which forbade the people from\neating on the Sabbath, but allowed the priests to profane Sabbath. And how\nChrists dealt with the law is narrated in the New Testament.\n\n\"At that time Jesus went on the Sabbath day through the corn; and his\ndisciples were an hungered, and began to pluck the ear of corn and to eat.\n\n\"But when the Pharisses saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples\ndo that which is not lawful to do upon the Sabbath day.\n\n\"But he said unto them, have we not read what David did, when he was an\nhungered and they that were with him;\n\n\"How he entered into the House of God and did eat the shew bread, which\nwas not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but\nonly for the priests?\n\n\"Or have we not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath days the priests\nin the temple profaned the Sabbath and are blameless?\"\n\nThe truth is that law and order is for man, and not man for law and order.\nThe development of nationality is a sacred task and anything which impedes\nthat task is an obstacle which the very force and power of nationality\nmust overcome. If therefore you interpose a doctrine to impede the task\nwhy, the doctrine must go. If you have recourse to law and order to\nestablish and defend the rule of law, then your law and order is entitled\nto claim the respect of all law-abiding citizens, but, as soon as you have\nrecourse to it not to establish and defend the rule of law, but to\ndestroy and attack it, there is no longer any obligation on us to respect\nit, for a Higher Law, the virtual law, the Law of God compels to offer our\nstubborn resistance to it. When I find something put forward in the sacred\nname of law and order that it is deliberately intended to hinder the\ngrowth, the development, and the self-realization of the nation, I have no\nhesitation whatever in proclaiming that such law and order is an outrage\non man and an insult to God.\n\nBut though our Moderate friends are often deluded by the battle cry of law\nand order, I rejoice when I hear that cry. It means that the Bureaucracy\nis in danger and that the Bureaucracy has realised its danger. It is not\nwithout reason that the false issue is raised and the fact a false issue\nhas been raised fills me with hope and courage. I ask my countrymen to be\npatient and to press the charge. Freedom has already advanced when the\nalarm of law and order is sounded; that is the history of Bureaucracies\nall over the world.\n\nIn the meantime it is our duty to keep our ideal steadfast. We must not\nforget that we are on the eve of great changes, that world forces are\nworking all around us and that the battle of freedom has yet to be won.\n\n\nNATIONALISM: THE IDEAL\n\nWhat is the ideal which we must set before us? The first and foremost is\nthe ideal of nationalism. Now what is Nationalism? It is, I conceive, a\nprocess through which a nation expresses itself and finds itself, not in\nisolation from other nations but, as part of a great scheme by which, in\nseeking its own expression and therefore its own identity, it materially\nassists the self-expression and self-realization of other nations as well.\nDiversity is as real as Unity. And in order that the unity of the world\nmay be established it is essential that each nationality should proceed on\nits own lines and find fulfilment in self-expression and self-realisation.\nThe Nationality of which I am speaking must not be confused with the\nconception of nationality as it exists in Europe to-day. Nationalism in\nEurope is an aggressive nationalism, a selfish nationalism, a commercial\nnationalism of gain and loss. The gain of France is a loss of Germany, and\nthe gain of Germany is a loss of France. Therefore French nationalism is\nnurtured on the hatred of Germany and German nationalism is nurtured in\nthe hatred of France. It is not yet realised that you cannot hurt Germany\nwithout hurting Humanity and in consequence hurting France; and that you\ncannot hurt France without hurting Humanity, and in consequence hurting\nGermany. That is European nationalism; that is not the nationalism of\nwhich I am speaking to you to-day. I contend that each nationality\nconstitutes a particular stream of the great unity, but no nation can\nfulfil itself until it becomes itself and at the same time realises its\nidentity with Humanity. The whole problem of nationalism is therefore to\nfind that stream and to face the destiny. If you find the current and\nestablish a continuity with the past, then the process of self-expression\nhas begun, and nothing can stop the growth of nationality.\n\nThroughout the pages of Indian history, I find a great purpose unfolding\nitself. Movement after movement has swept over this vast country,\napparently creating hostile forces, but in reality stimulating the\nvitality and moulding the life of the people into one great nationality.\nIf the Aryans and the non-Aryans met, it was for the purpose of making one\npeople out of them. Brahmanism with its great culture succeeded in binding\nthe whole of India and was indeed a mighty unifying force. Buddhism with\nits protests against Brahmanism served the same great historical purposes\nand from Magadha to Taxila was one great Buddhistic empire which succeeded\nnot only in broadening the basis of Indian unity, but in creating what is\nperhaps more important, the greater India beyond the Himalayas and beyond\nthe seas, so much so that the sacred city where we have met may be\nregarded as a place of pilgrimage of millions and millions of people of\nAsiatic races. Then came the Mahomedans of divers races, but with one\nculture which was their common heritage. For a time it looked as if there\nwas a disintegrating force, an enemy to the growth of Indian nationalism,\nbut the Mahomedans made their home in India, and, while they brought a new\noutlook and a wonderful vitality to the Indian life, with infinite wisdom,\nthey did as little as possible to disturb the growth of life in the\nvillages where India really lives. This new outlook was necessary for\nIndia: and if the two sister streams met, it was only to fulfil themselves\nand face the destiny of Indian history. Then came the English with their\nalien culture, their foreign methods, delivering a rude shock to this\ngrowing nationality; but the shock has only completed the unifying process\nso that the purpose of history is practically fulfilled. The great Indian\nnationality is in sight. It already stretches its hands across the\nHimalayas not only to Asia but to the whole of the world, not\naggressively, but to demand its recognition, and to offer its\ncontribution, I desire to emphasise that there is no hostility between the\nideal of nationality and that of world-peace. Nationalism is the process\nthrough which alone will world-peace come. A full and unfettered growth of\nnationalism is necessary for world-peace just as a full and unfettered\ngrowth of individuals is necessary for nationality. It is the conception\nof aggressive nationality in Europe that stands in the way of peace; but\nonce the truth is grasped that it is not possible for a nation to inflict\na loss on another nation without at the same time inflicting a loss on\nitself, the problem of Humanity is solved. The essential truth of\nnationality lies in this, that it is necessary for each nation to develop\nitself, express itself and realise itself, so that Humanity itself may\ndevelop itself, express itself and realise itself. It is my belief that\nthis truth of nationality will endure, although, for the moment, unmindful\nof the real issue, the nations are fighting amongst themselves and, if I\nam not mistaken, it is the very instinct of selfishness and\nself-preservation which will ultimately solve the problem, not the narrow\nand the mistaken selfishness of the present, but a selfishness\nuniversalized by intellect and transfigured by spirit, a selfishness that\nwill bring home to the nations of the world that in the efforts to put\ndown their neighbours lies their own ruin and suppression.\n\nWe have, therefore, to foster the spirit of Nationality. True development\nof the Indian nation must necessarily lie in the path of Swaraj. A\nquestion has often been asked as to what is Swaraj. Swaraj is indefinable\nand is not to be confused with any particular system of Government. There\nis also the difference in the world between Swarajya and Samrajya. Swaraj\nis the natural expression of the national mind. The full outward\nexpression of that mind covers, and must necessarily cover, the whole\nlife history of a nation. Yet it is true that Swaraj begins when the true\ndevelopment of a nation begins, because, as I have said, Swaraj is the\nexpression of the national mind.\n\nThe question of nationalism, therefore, looked at from another point of\nview, is the same question as that of Swaraj. The question of all\nquestions in India to-day is the attainment of Swaraj.\n\n\nNON-VIOLENT NON-CO-OPERATION\n\nI now come to the question of method. I have to repeat that it has been\nproved beyond any doubt that the method of non-violent non-co-operation is\nthe only method which we must follow to secure a system of Government\nwhich may in reality be the foundation of Swaraj. It is hardly necessary\nto discuss the philosophy of non-co-operation. I shall simply state the\ndifferent view-points from which this question may be discussed. From the\nnational point of view the method of non-co-operation means the attempt of\nthe nation to concentrate upon its own energy and to stand on its own\nstrength. From the ethical point of view, non-co-operation means the\nmethod of self-purification, the withdrawal from that which is injurious\nto the development of the nation, and therefore to the good of humanity.\nFrom the spiritual point of view Swaraj means that isolation which in the\nlanguage of Sadhana is called protyahar--that withdrawal from the forces\nwhich are foreign to our nature--an isolation and withdrawal which is\nnecessary in order to bring out from our hidden depths the soul of the\nnation in all her glory. I do not desire to labour the point, but from\nevery conceivable point of view, the method of non-violent\nnon-co-operation must be regarded as the true method of \"following in the\npath of Swaraj.\"\n\n\nFORCE AND VIOLENCE\n\nDoubt has, however, been expressed in some quarters about the soundness of\nthe principle of non-violence. I cannot refuse to acknowledge that there\nis a body of Indian opinion within the country as well as outside\naccording to which non-violence is an ideal abstraction incapable of\nrealisation, and that the only way in which Swaraj can ever be attained is\nby the application of force and violence. I do not for a moment question\nthe sacrifice and patriotism of those who hold this view. I know that some\nof them have suffered for the cause which they believe to be true. But may\nI be permitted to point out that apart from any question of principle,\nhistory has proved over and over again the utter futility of revolutions\nbrought about by force and violence. I am one of those who hold to\nnon-violence on principle. But let us consider the question of expediency.\nIs it possible to attain Swaraj by violent means? The answer which\nhistory gives is an emphatic \"No\". Take all the formidable revolutions of\nthe world.\n\n\nTHE FRENCH REVOLUTION\n\nThe history of the French Revolution is the history of a struggle at the\nfirst instance between the Crown and the nobility on one side and the\nRepresentative Assemblies with armed Paris on the other. Both took to\nviolence, one to the bayonet and the other to the pike. The pike succeeded\nbecause the bayonet was held with uncertain hands. And then, as is usual\nafter the victory gained with violence, the popular party was sharply\ndivided between two sections--the Girondins and the Jacobins. Again there\nwas an appeal to force. The Girondins asked the provinces to rise in arms,\nthe Jacobins asked Paris to rise in arms. Paris being nearer and stronger,\nthe Girondins were defeated and sent to the guillotine--the Jacobins\nseized the power. But it did not take them many months to fall out among\nthemselves. First Robespierre and Danton sent Hebert and Chanmette to the\nguillotine, then Robespierre sent Danton to the guillotine. Robespierre in\nhis turn was guillotined by Collot, Billand and Tallien. These men again\nwere banished by others to the far-off South America. If there was a\nslight difference of views between the Girondins and the Jacobins there\nwas practically none between the different sections of the Jacobins. The\nwhole question was which of the various sections was to rule France. Force\ngave way to stronger force and at last under Napoleon, France experienced\na despotism similar to if not worse than the despotism of Louis XIV. As\nregards liberty there was not more liberty in France under the terrible\nCommittee of Public Safety, and Napoleon than under Louis XIV or Louis XV.\nThe law of Prairial was certainly much worse than Lettres de Cachet. And\nthe people--? On the Pont au Change, on the Place de Greve, in long sheds,\nMercier, at the end of the Revolution, saw working men at their repast.\nOne's allotment of daily bread had sunk to an ounce and a half. \"Plates\ncontaining each three grilled herrings, sprinkled with shorn onions,\nwetted with a little vinegar; to this add some morsel of boiled prunes,\nand lentils swimming in a clear sauce; at these frogal tables I have seen\nthem ranged by the hundred; consuming, without bread, their scant messes,\nfar too moderate for the keenness of their appetite, and the extent of\ntheir stomach.\" \"Seine water,\" remarks Carlyle grimly--\"rushing plenteous\nby, will supply the deficiency.\" One cannot forget the exclamation of\nCarlyle in this connection:\n\n\"O Man of Toil! Thy struggling and thy daring, these six long years of\ninsurrection and tribulation, thou hast profited nothing by it, then? Thou\nconsumest thy herring and water, in the blessed gold-red of evening. O why\nwas the Earth so beautiful, becrimsoned with dawn and twilight, if man's\ndealings with man were to make it a vale of scarcity, of tears, not even\nsoft tears? Destroying of Bastilles, discomfiting of Brunswicks, fronting\nof Principalities and Powers, of Earth and Tophet, all that thou hast\ndared and endured,--it was for a Republic of the Saloons? Aristocracy of\nFeudal Parchment has passed away with a mighty rushing; and now, by a\nnatural course, we arrive at Aristocracy of the Moneybag. It is the course\nthrough which all European Societies are, at this hour, travelling.\nApparently a still baser sort of Aristocracy? An infinitely baser the\nbasest yet known.\"\n\nEven to-day France is plodding her weary way towards Swaraj.\n\n\nREVOLUTIONS IN ENGLAND\n\nThe history of England proves the same truth. The revolution of the Barons\nin 1215 took away or purported to take away the power from the King but\nthe power fell into the hands of the aristocracy, and democracy did not\nshare in the triumph of the Barons. Thus the great Charter, as a great\nhistorian has observed, was thus not a Charter of Liberty but of\nliberties. The revolution in the reign of Charles I. produced a new\ndictator who suppressed freedom. The work which the Long Parliament began\nwas interrupted by the Revolution which followed the execution of the\nKing, and it required another Revolution, this time a bloodless\nRevolution, to complete the work. I deny that the work is yet complete.\nThe continual class war and the obvious economic injustice do not proclaim\nthat freedom which England claimed for herself. I maintain that no people\nhas yet succeeded in winning freedom by force and violence. The truth is\nthat love of power is a formidable factor to be reckoned with, and those\nwho secure that power by violence will retain that power by violence. The\nuse of violence degenerates them who use it and it is not easy for them,\nhaving seized the power, to surrender it. And they find it easier to carry\non the work of their predecessor, retaining their power in their own\nhands. Non-violence does not carry with it that degeneration which is\ninherent in the use of violence.\n\n\nREVOLUTIONS IN ITALY AND RUSSIA\n\nThe Revolutions in Italy and Russia illustrate the same principle. The\nItalian Revolution inspired by Mazzini and worked out by Garibaldi and\nCavour, did not result in the attainment of Swaraj. The freedom of Italy\nis yet in the making, and the men and women of Italy are to-day looking\nforward to another revolution. If it results in a war of violence it will\nagain defeat its purpose, but only to allow Freedom and Non-violence to\ntriumph in the end.\n\nThe recent revolution in Russia is a very interesting study. The shape\nwhich it has now assumed is due to the attempt to force Marxian doctrines\nand dogmas on the unwilling genius of Russia. Violence will again fail. If\nI have read the situation accurately I expect a counter-revolution. The\nsoul of Russia must struggle to free herself from the socialism of Carl\nMarx. It may be an independent movement or it may be that the present\nmovement contains within itself the power of working out that freedom. In\nthe meantime the fate of Russia is trembling in the balance.\n\n\nNON-VIOLENT NON-CO-OPERATION: THE ONLY METHOD\n\nI believe in revolutions, but I repeat, violence defeats freedom. The\nrevolution of non-violence is slower but surer. Step by step the soul of\nthe nation emerges and step by step the nation marches on in the path of\nSwaraj. The only method by which Freedom can be attained in India at any\nrate, is the method of non-violent non-co-operation. Those who believe\nthis method to be impracticable would do well to ponder over the Akali\nmovement. When I saw the injuries of the wounded at Amritsar and heard\nfrom their lips that not one of them had even wished to meet violence by\nviolence, in spite of such grave provocation, I said to myself, \"here was\nthe triumph of non-violence.\"\n\nNon-violence is not an idle dream. It was not in vain that Mahatma\ndeclared, \"put up thy sword into the sheath.\" Let those who are \"of the\ntruth\" hear his voice as those others heard a mightier voice two thousand\nyears ago.\n\nThe attempt of the Indian nation to attain Swaraj by this method was,\nhowever, met by severe repression. The time has come for us to estimate\nour success as well as our failure. So far as repression is concerned, it\nis easy to answer the question. I have not the least doubt in my mind that\nthe nation has triumphed over the repression which was started and\ncontinued to kill the soul of the movement.\n\n\nSUCCESS OF NON-VIOLENT NON-CO-OPERATION\n\nBut the question, which agitates most minds, is as to whether we have\nsucceeded in our work of non-violent non-co-operation. There is, I am\nsorry to say, a great deal of confusion of thought behind the question. It\nis assumed that a movement must either succeed or fail, whereas the truth\nis that human movements, I am speaking of genuine movements, neither\naltogether succeed nor altogether fail. Every genuine movement proceeds\nfrom an ideal, and the ideal is always higher than the achievement. Take\nthe French revolution. Was it a success? Was it a failure? To predicate\neither would be a gross historical blunder. Was the non-co-operation\nmovement in India a success? Yes, a mighty success when we think of the\ndesire for Swaraj which it has succeeded in awakening throughout the\nlength and breadth of this vast country. It is a great success when we\nthink of the practical result of such awakening, in the money which the\nnation contributed, in the enrolment of members of the Indian National\nCongress and in the boycott of foreign cloth. I go further and say that\nthe practical achievement also consists of the loss of prestige suffered\nby Educational Institutions and the Courts of Law and the Reformed\nCouncils throughout the country. If they are still resorted to, it is\nbecause of the weakness of our countrymen. The country has already\nexpressed its strong desire to end these institutions. Yet it must be\nadmitted that from another point of view, when we assess the measure of\nour success in the spirit of Arithmetic, we are face to face with \"the\npetty done\" and \"the undone vast.\" There is much which remains to be\naccomplished. Non-violence has to be more firmly established. The work of\nnon-co-operation has to be strengthened, and the field of non-co-operation\nhas to be extended. We must be firm but reasonable. The spirit of\nsacrifice has got to be further strengthened, and we must proceed with the\nwork of destruction and creation more vigorously than before I say to our\ncritics. I admit we have failed in many directions, but will you also not\nadmit our success where we have succeeded?\n\n\nCHARGE OF CORRUPTING THE YOUTHS\n\nWe have been denounced by the Moderates for having corrupted the youth of\nthis country. It has been asserted that we have taught sons to disobey\ntheir fathers, the pupils, their teachers and the subjects the Government.\nWe plead guilty to the charge and we rely on every spiritual movement as\nargument in our support. Christ himself was tried for having corrupted the\npeople, and the answers which he gave in anticipation is as emphatic as it\nis instructive.\n\n\"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth. I come not to send\npeace, but a sword.\"\n\n\"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father and the\ndaughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.\"\n\n\nCHARGE OF HYPOCRISY\n\nIt has been said that with love on our lips we have been preaching the\nGospel of hatred. Never was such a vile slander uttered. It may be we have\nfailed to love, it may be we lost ourselves some of us in hatred, but that\nonly shows our weakness and imperfectness. Judge us by our ideals, not by\nwhat we have achieved. Wherever we have fallen short of our ideal, put it\ndown to our weakness. On behalf of the Indian National Congress I deny the\ncharge of hypocrisy. To those who are anxious to point out our defects, I\nsay with all humility. \"My friends, if you are weak, come and join us and\nmake us stronger. If the Leaders are worthless, come and join us to lead,\nand the leaders will stand aside. If you do not believe in the ideal what\nis the use of always criticising us in the light of that ideal?\" We need\nno critic to tell us how far we have fallen short of that ideal. Evidence\nof weakness has met me from every direction which I have looked. But in\nspite of our defects of human weakness, of human imperfection I feel bold\nenough to say that our victory is assured and that the Bureaucracy knows\nthat our victory is assured.\n\n\nHOW TO APPLY THE NON-VIOLENT N. C. O. METHOD\n\nBut though the method of non-violent non-co-operation is sure and certain,\nwe have now to consider how best to apply that method to the existing\ncircumstances of the country. I do not agree with those who think that the\nspirit of the nation is so dead that non-violent non-co-operation is no\nlonger possible. I have given the matter my earnest thought and I desire\nto make it perfectly clear that there is absolutely no reason for\nentertaining any feelings of doubt or despair. The outward appearance of\nthe people to-day is somewhat deceptive. They appear to be in a tired\ncondition and a sense of fatigue has partially overcome them. But beneath\nall this exterior of quietude, the pulse of the nation beats as strongly\nas before and as hopefully as at the beginning of this movement. We have\nto consolidate the strength of the nation. We have to devise a plan of\nwork which will stimulate their energy, so that we can accelerate our\njourney towards Swaraj. I shall place before you one by one the items of\nwork which in my opinion the Indian National Congress should prescribe for\nthe nation.\n\n\nDECLARATION OF RIGHTS\n\nIt should commence its work for the year, by a clearer declaration of\nrights of the different communities in India under the Swaraj Government.\nSo far as the Hindus and Mahomedans are concerned, there should be a clear\nand emphatic confirmation of what is known as the Lucknow pact and along\nwith that there should be an emphatic insistence of each others' rights.\nAnd each should be prepared to undergo some kind of sacrifice in favour of\nthe other. Let me give an instant to make my meaning clear. Every devout\nMussalman objects to any music in front of a mosque and every devout and\northodox Hindu objects to cows being slaughtered. May not the Hindus and\nMussalmans of India enter into a solemn pact so that there may not be any\nmusic before any mosque and that no cows may he slaughtered? Other\ninstances may be quoted. There should be a scheme of a series of\nsacrifices to be suffered by each community so that they may advance\nshoulder to shoulder in the path of Swaraj. As regards the other\ncommunities such as Sikhs, Christians and Parsees, the Hindus and\nMohamedans who constitute the bulk of the people should be prepared to\ngive them even more than their proportional share in the Swaraj\nadministration, I suggest that the Congress should bring about real\nagreement between all these communities, by which the rights of every\nminority should be clearly recognised in order to remove all doubts which\nmay arise and all apprehensions which probably exist. I need hardly add\nthat I include among Christians not only pure Indians but also\nAnglo-Indians and other people who have chosen to make India their home.\nSuch an agreement as I have indicated was always necessary but such an\nagreement is specially necessary in view of the work which faces us\nto-day.\n\n\nFOREIGN PROPAGANDA\n\nI further think that the policy of exclusiveness which we have been\nfollowing during the last two years be now abandoned. There is in every\ncountry a number of people who are selfless followers of liberty and who\ndesire to see every country free. We can no longer afford to lose their\nsympathy and co-operation. In my opinion there should be established\nCongress agencies in America and in every European country. We must keep\nourselves in touch with the world's movements and be in constant\ncommunication with the lovers of freedom all over the world.\n\n\nTHE GREAT ASIATIC FEDERATION\n\nEven more important than this is the participation of India in the great\nAsiatic Federation which I see in the course of formation. I have hardly\nany doubt that the Pan-Islamic movement which was started on a somewhat\nnarrow basis has given way or is about to give way to the great Federation\nof all Asiatic people. It is the union of the oppressed nationalities of\nAsia. Is India to remain outside the union? I admit that our freedom must\nbe won by ourselves, but such a bond of friendship and love of sympathy\nand co-operation between India and the rest of Asia, nay between India and\nall the liberty-loving people of the world is destined to bring about\nWorld Peace. World Peace, to my mind, means the freedom of every\nnationality and I go further and say that no nation in the face of the\nearth can be really free when other nations are in bondage. The policy\nwhich we have hitherto pursued, was absolutely necessary for the\nconcentration of the work which we took upon ourselves to perform and I\nagreed to that policy whole-heartedly. The hope of the attainment of\nSwaraj or a substantial basis of Swaraj in the course of the year made\nsuch concentration absolutely necessary. To-day that very work demands\nbroader sympathy and a wider outlook.\n\n\nDEMANDS FOR PUNJAB WRONGS, KHILAFAT AND SWARAJ\n\nWe are on the eve of great changes, and the world-forces are upon us. The\nvictory of Kemal Pasha has broken the bonds of Asia and she is all astir\nwith life. It is Prometheus who spoke within her, and 'her thoughts' are\nlike the many forests of vale through which the might of whirlwind and\nrain had passed. The stir within every European country for the real\nfreedom of the people has also worked a marvellous transformation in the\nmentality of subject races. That which was more or less a matter of Ideal\nhas now come within the range of practical politics. The Indian nation has\nfound out its bearings. At such a time as this it is necessary for us to\nreconsider and to restate our demands. Our demands regarding the Punjab\nwrongs have got to be restated because many of them have already been\nrealised. Our demands regarding Khilafat have got to be reconsidered,\nbecause some of them have already been worked out and we hope that before\nLausanne Commission has finished their work very little of it will remain\nunrealised. Our demand for Swaraj must now be presented in a more\npractical shape. The Congress should frame a clear scheme of what we mean\nby a system of government which may serve as a real foundation for\nSwaraj. Hitherto, we have not defined any such system of Government. We\nhave not done so advisedly as it was on the psychological aspect of Swaraj\nthat we concentrated our attention. But circumstances to-day have changed.\nThe desire is making us impatient. It is therefore the duty of the\nCongress to place before the Country a clear scheme of the system of\nGovernment which we demand. Swaraj, as I have said, is indefinable and is\nnot to be confused with any particular system of Government. Yet the\nnational mind must express itself, and although the full outward\nexpression of Swaraj covers the whole life history of a nation, the\nformulation of such a demand cannot be any further delayed.\n\n\nSCHEME OF A GOVERNMENT\n\nIt is hardly within the province of this address to deal with any detail\nscheme of any such Government. I cannot, however, allow this opportunity\nto pass without giving you an expression of my opinion as to the character\nof that system of Government. No system of Government which is not for the\npeople and by the people can even be regarded as the true foundation of\nSwaraj. I am firmly convinced that a parliamentary Government is not a\ngovernment by the people and for the people. Many of us believe that the\nmiddle class must win Swaraj for the masses. I do not believe in the\npossibility of any class movement being ever converted into a movement\nfor Swaraj. If to-day the British Parliament grants Provincial autonomy in\nthe provinces with responsibility in the Central Government, I for one,\nwill protest against, because that will inevitably lead to the\nconcentration of the power in the hands of the middle class. I do not\nbelieve that the middle class will then part with their power. How will it\nprofit India, if in place of the White Bureaucracy that now rules over\nher, there is substituted an Indian Bureaucracy of the middle classes.\nBureaucracy is Bureaucracy and I believe that the very idea of Swaraj is\ninconsistent with the existence of a Bureaucracy. My ideal of Swaraj will\nnever be satisfied unless the people co-operate with us in its attainment.\nAny other attempt will inevitably lead to what European Socialists call\nthe \"Bourgeoise\" Government. In France and in other European countries it\nis the middle class who fought the battle of freedom and the result is\nthat power is still in the hands of this class. Having usurped the power\nthey are unwilling to face with it. If to-day the whole Europe is engaged\nin a battle of real freedom it is because the nations of Europe are\ngathering their strength to wrest this power from the hands of the middle\nclasses. I desire to avoid repetition of that chapter of European history.\nIt is for India to show the light to the world, Swaraj by Non-violence and\nSwaraj by the people.\n\nTo me the organisation of village life and the practical autonomy of small\nlocal centres are more important than either provincial autonomy or\ncentral responsibility; and if the choice lay between the two, I would\nunhesitatingly accept the autonomy of the local centres. I must not be\nunderstood as implying that the village centres will he disconnected\nunits. They must be held together by a system of co-operation and\nintegration. For the present, there must be power in the hands of the\nprovincial and the Indian Government; but the ideal should be accepted\nonce for all, that the proper function of the central authority, whether\nin the provincial or in the Indian Government is to advise, having a\nresiduary power of control only in case of need and to be exercised under\nproper safeguard. I maintain that real Swaraj can only be attained by\nvesting the power of Government in these local centres, and I suggest that\nthe Congress should appoint a Committee to draw up a scheme of Government\nwhich would be acceptable to the Nation.\n\nThe most advanced thought of Europe is turning from the false\nindividualism on which European culture and institutions are based to what\nI know to be the ideal of the ancient village organisation of India.\nAccording to this thought modern democracy of the ballot box and large\ncrowds has failed, but real democracy has not yet been tried. What is the\nreal democracy of modern European thought?\n\nThe foundation of real democracy must be laid in small centres--not\ngradual decentralisation which implies a previous centralisation--but a\ngradual integration of the practically autonomous small centres into one\nliving harmonious whole. What is wanted is a human state, not a mechanical\ncontrivance. We want the growth of institutions and organisations which\nare really dynamic in their nature and not the mere static stability of a\ncentralised state.\n\nThis strain of European thought found some expression in the philosophy of\nHegel according to whom \"human institutions belong to the region not of\ninert externality, but of mind and purpose and are therefore dynamic and\nself-developing.\"\n\nModern European thought has made it clear that from the individual to the\n\"unified state,\" it is one continuous process of real and natural growth.\nSovereignity (Swaraj) is a relative notion. \"The individual is sovereign\nover himself\"--attains his Swaraj \"in so far as he can develop control and\nunify his manifold nature.\" From the individual we come to the integrated\nneighbourhood which is the real foundation of the unified State, which\nagain in its turn gives us the true ideal of the world-state. This\nintegrated neighbourhood is a great deal more than the mere physical\ncontiguity of the people who live in the neighbourhood area. It requires\nthe coalition of what has been called \"neighbourhood consciousness.\" In\nother words, the question is \"how can the force generated by the\nneighbourhood life become part of our whole critic and national life?\" It\nis this question which now democracy takes upon itself to solve.\n\nThe process prescribed is the generation of the collective will. The\ndemocracy which obtains to-day rests on an attempt of securing a common\nwill by a process of addition. This really means a war of wills, the issue\nbeing left to be decided by a mere superiority of numbers. New democracy\ndiscountenances this process of addition, and insists on the discovery of\ndetailed means and methods by which the different wills of a neighbourhood\nentity may grow into one common collective will. This process is not a\nprocess addition but of integration and the consciousness of the\nneighbourhood thus awakened must express the common collective will of\nthat neighbourhood entity. The collective will of several neighbourhood\ncentres, must by a similar process of integration be allowed to evolve the\nCommon collective will of the whole nation. It is only thus, by a similar\nprocess of integration that any league of nations may be real and the\nvision of a world state may be realized. The whole of this philosophy is\nbased on the idea of the evolution of the individual. The idea is to\n\"release the powers of the individual.\" Ordinary notions of state have\nlittle to do with true individualism, (_i. e._) with the individual as\nconsciously responsible for the life from which he draws his breath and to\nwhich he contributes his all. According to this school of thought\n'Representative government, party organisation, majority rule, with all\ntheir excrescences in their stead must appear the organisation of\nnon-partisan groups for the begetting, the bringing into being of common\nideas, a common purpose and the collective will.' This means the true\ndevelopment and extension of the individual self. The institutions that\nexist to-day have made machines of men. No Government will be successful,\nno true Government is possible which does not rest on the individual. \"Up\nto the present moment,\" says the gifted authoress of the New State, \"we\nhave never seen the individual yet. The search for him has been the whole\nlong striving of our Anglo-Saxon history. We sought to improve the method\nof representation and failed to find him. We sought to reach him by\nextending the suffrage to every man and then to every woman and yet he\neludes us. Direct Government now seeks the individual.\" In another place\nthe same writer says; \"Thus group organisation releases us from the\ndomination of mere numbers, thus democracy transcends time and space. It\ncan never be understood except as a spiritual force. Majority rule rests\non numbers; democracy rests on the well-grounded assumption that society\nis not a collection of units, but a network of human relations. Democracy\nis not worked out at the polling booths, it is the bringing forth of a\ngenuine collective will, one to which every single being must contribute\nthe whole of his complex life, as one which every single being must\nexpress the whole of it at one point. Thus the essence of democracy is\ncreating. The technique of democracy is group organization.\" According to\nthis school of thought no living state is possible without the development\nand the extension of the individual self. The State itself is no static\nunit. Nor is it an arbitrary creation. \"It is a process; a continual\nself-modification to express its different stages of growth in which each\nand all must be so flexible that continual change of form is twin fellow\nof continual growth.\" This can only be realised when there is a clear\nperception that individuals and groups and the nation stand in no\nantithesis. The integration of all these into one conscious whole means\nand must necessarily mean the integration of the wills of individuals into\nthe common and collective will of the entire nation.\n\nThe general trend of European thought has not accepted the ideal of this\nnew democracy. But the present problems which are agitating Europe seem\nto offer no other solution. I have very little doubt that this ideal which\nappears to many practical politicians as impracticable will be accepted as\nthe real ideal at no distant future. \"There is little yet,\" I again quote\nfrom the same author, \"that is practical in practical politics.\"\n\nThe fact is that all the progressive movements in Europe have suffered\nbecause of the want of a really spiritual basis and it is refreshing to\nfind that this writer has seized upon it. So to those who think that the\nneighbourhood group is puny to serve as a real foundation of\nself-Government, she says, \"is our daily life profane and only so far as\nwe rise out of it do we approach the sacred life? Then no wonder politics\nare what they have become. But this is not the creed of men to-day; we\nbelieve in the sacredness of life; we believe that divinity is for ever\nincarnating in humanity, and so we believe in Humanity and the common\ndaily life of all men.\"\n\nThere is thus a great deal of correspondence between this view of life and\nthe view which I have been endeavouring to place before my countrymen for\nthe last 15 years. For the truth of all truths, is that the outer Leela of\nGod reveals itself in history. Individual Society, Nation, and Humanity\nare the different aspects of that very Leela and no scheme of\nself-Government which is practically true and which is really practical\ncan be based on any other philosophy of life. It is the realisation of\nthis truth which is the supreme necessity of the hour. This is the soul of\nIndian thought, and this is the ideal towards which the recent thought of\nEurope is slowly, but surely, advancing.\n\nTo frame such a scheme of Government regard must therefore be had:--\n\n1. To the formation of local centres more or less on the lines of the\nancient village system of India.\n\n2. The growth of larger and larger groups out of the integration of these\nvillage centres.\n\n3. The unifying state should be the result of minor growth.\n\n4. The village centres and the larger groups must be practically\nautonomous.\n\n5. The residuary power of control must remain in the Central Government,\nbut the exercise of such power should be exceptional and for that purpose\nproper safeguards should be provided, so that the practical autonomy of\nthe local centres may be maintained and at the same time the growth of the\nCentral Government into a really unifying state may be possible. The\nordinary work of such Central Government should be mainly advisory.\n\nAs a necessary corollary to what I have ventured to suggest as the form of\nGovernment which we should accept, I think that the work of organising\nthese local centres should be forthwith commenced. The modern\nsub-divisions or even smaller units may be conveniently taken as the local\ncentres, and larger centres may be conveniently formed. Once we have our\nlocal areas--\"the neighbourhood group\"--we should foster the habit of\ncorporate thinking, and leave all local problems to be worked out by them.\nThere is no reason why we should not start the Government by these local\ncentres to-day. They would depend for their authority on the voluntary\nco-operation of the people, and voluntary co-operation is much better than\nthe compulsory co-operation which is at the bottom of the Bureaucratic\nrule in India. This is not the place to elaborate the scheme which I have\nin mind; but I think that it is essentially necessary to appoint a\nCommittee with power, not only to draw up a scheme of Government but to\nsuggest means by which the scheme can be put in operation at once.\n\n\nBOYCOTT OF COUNCILS\n\nThe next item of work to which I desire to refer is the Boycott of\nCouncils. Unhappily the question has become part of the controversy of\nChange or No change. To my mind the whole controversy proceeds on a\nsomewhat erroneous assumption. The question is not so much as to whether\nthere should be a change in the programme of the work; the real question\nis, whether it is not necessary now to change the direction of our\nactivities in certain respects for the success of the very movement which\nwe hold so dear. Let me illustrate what I mean. Take the Bardoli\nResolution. In the matter of boycott of schools and colleges the Bardoli\nResolution alters the direction of our activity, which does not in any way\ninvolve the abandonment of the boycott. During the Swaraj year the idea\nwas to bring the students out of Government schools and colleges, and if\nNational schools were started they were regarded as concessions to the\n\"weakness\" of those students. The idea was, to quote the words of Mahatma\nGandhi, \"political\" and not \"educational.\" Under the Bardoli Resolution,\nhowever, it is the establishment of schools and colleges which must be the\nmain activity of national education. The idea is \"educational\" and if it\nstill be the desire of the Congress to bring students out of Government\nschools and colleges, it is by offering them educational advantages. Here\nthe boycott of schools and colleges is still upheld, but the direction of\nour activities is changed. In fact, such changes must occur in every\nrevolution, violent or non-violent, as it is only by such changes that the\nideal is truly served.\n\nIn the next place, we must keep in view the fact that according to the\nunanimous opinion of the members of the Enquiry Committee, Civil\nDisobedience on a large scale is out of question because the people are\nnot prepared for it.\n\nI confess that I am not in favour of the restrictions which have been put\nupon the practical adoption of any system of civil disobedience, and in my\nopinion, the Congress should abolish those restrictions. I have not yet\nbeen able to understand why to enable a people to civilly disobey\nparticular laws, it should be necessary that at least 80 per cent. of them\nshould be clad in pure \"Khadi\". I am not much in favour of general Mass\nCivil Disobedience. To my mind, the idea is impracticable. But the\ndisobedience of particular laws which are eminently unlawful, laws which\nare the creatures of \"Law and Order,\" laws which are like an outrage on\nhumanity and an insult to God ... disobedience of such laws is within the\nrange of practical politics, and, in my opinion, every attempt should be\nmade to offer disobedience to such laws. It is only by standing on truth\nthat the cause of Swaraj may prevail. When we submit to such laws, we\nabandon the plank of truth. What hope is there for a nation so dead to the\nsense of truth as not to rebel against lawless laws, against regulations\nwhich insult their national being and hamper their national development?\n\nI am of opinion that the question of the boycott of Councils which is\nagitating the country so much must be considered and decided in the light\nof the circumstances I have just mentioned. There is no opposition in idea\nbetween such civil disobedience as I have mentioned and the entry into the\nCouncils for the purpose and with the avowed object of either ending or\nmending them. I am not against the boycott of Councils. I am simply of\nopinion that the system of the Reformed Councils with their steel frame of\nthe Indian Civil Service covered over by a dyarchy of deadlocks and\ndepartments is absolutely unsuitable to the nature and genius of the\nIndian nation. It is an attempt of the British Parliament to force a\nforeign system upon the Indian people. India has unhesitatingly refused to\nrecognise this foreign system as real foundation for Swaraj. With me, as I\nhave often said, it is not a question of more or less; I am always\nprepared to sacrifice much for a real basis of Swaraj, nor do I attach any\nimportance to the question as to whether the attainment of full and\ncomplete independence will be a matter of 7 years or 10 years or 20 years.\nA few years is nothing in the life history of a nation. But I maintain\nIndia cannot accept a system such as this as a foundation of Swaraj. These\nCouncils must therefore be either mended or ended. Hitherto we have been\nboycotting the Councils from outside. We have succeeded in doing much. The\nprestige of the councils is diminished and the country knows that the\npeople who adorn those chambers are not the true representatives of the\npeople. But though we have succeeded in doing much, these Councils are\nstill there. It shall be the duty of the Congress to boycott the councils\nmore effectively from within. Reformed councils are really a mask which\nthe Bureaucracy has put on. I conceive it to be our clear duty to tear\nthis mask from off their face. The very idea of boycott implies, to my\nmind, something more than mere withdrawal. The boycott of foreign goods\nmeans that such steps must be taken that these councils may not be there\nto impede the progress of Swaraj. The only successful boycott of these\ncouncils is either to mend them in a manner suitable to the attainment of\nSwaraj or to end them completely. That is the way in which I advise the\nnation to boycott the councils.\n\nA great deal of discussion has taken place in the country as to whether\nthe boycott of councils in the sense in which I mean it is within the\nprinciple of non-violent non-co-operation. I am emphatically of opinion\nthat it does not offend against any principle of non-co-operation which\nhas been adopted and applied by the Indian National Congress. I am not\ndealing with the logical, or philosophical abstractions. I am only dealing\nwith that which the Congress has adopted and called non-co-operation. In\nthe first place, may I point out that we have not up to now\nnon-co-operated with the Bureaucracy? We have been merely preparing the\npeople of this country to offer non-co-operation. Let me quote the Nagpur\nResolution on non-co-operation in support of my proposition. I am quoting\nonly the portions which are relevant to this point.\n\nWhereas in the opinion of the Congress the existing Government of India\nhas forfeited the confidence of the country, and, whereas the people of\nIndia are now determined to establish Swaraj ... now this Congress ...\ndeclares that the entire or any part or parts of the scheme of non-violent\nnon-co-operation with the renunciation of voluntary association with the\npresent Government at one end and the refusal to pay taxes at the other,\nshould be put into force at a time to be determined by either the Indian\nNational Congress, or the All-India Congress Committee and that \"in the\nmeanwhile to prepare the country for it, effective steps should continue\nto be taken in that behalf.\"\n\nThen follows the effective steps such as, national education, boycott of\nlaw courts, boycott of foreign goods, etc., which must be taken \"in the\nmeanwhile.\" It is clear therefore that the Congress has not yet advocated\nthe application of non-co-operation but has merely recommended certain\nsteps to be taken so that at some time or other to be determined by the\nCongress, the Indian Nation may offer non-co-operation. In the second\nplace, let us judge of the character of this principle not by thinking of\nany logical idea or philosophical abstraction but by gathering principle\nfrom the work and the activity which the Congress has enjoined. When I\nsurvey the work it is clear to my mind that the Congress was engaged in a\ntwo-fold activity. In everything that the Congress has commanded there is\nan aspect of destruction as there is an aspect of creation. The boycott of\nLawyers and Law Courts means the destruction of existing legal\ninstitutions; and the formation of Panchayats means the creation of\nagencies through which justice may be administered. The boycott of schools\nand colleges means the destruction of the department of Education; and the\nestablishment of National schools and colleges means the creation of\neducational institutions for the Youth of India. The boycott of foreign\ngoods followed as it was by the burning of foreign goods covering into the\ncountry. But, on the other hand, the spinning wheel and looms means\ncreative activity in supplying the people with indigenous cloth. Judged by\nthis principle what is wrong about the desire either to convert the\nCouncils into institutions which may lead us to Swaraj, or to destroy them\naltogether? The same twofold aspect of creation and destruction is to be\nfound in the boycott of Councils in the way I want them to be boycotted.\n\nIt has also been suggested that it offends against the morality and\nspirituality of this movement. Let us take the two points separately. As\nregards morality apart from the ethics of Non-co-operation, it has been\nurged that entering the Councils for the purpose of ending the Councils is\nunfair and dishonest. The argument implies that the Reformed Councils\nbelong entirely to the Bureaucracy, and the idea is that we should not\nenter into other peoples' property with a view to injure it. To my mind,\nthe argument is based on a misconception of facts. Inadequate as the\nReforms undoubtedly are, I do not for a moment admit that the Reform Act\nwas a gift of the British Parliament. It was, to quote the words of\nMahatma Gandhi, \"a concession to popular agitation.\" The fact is that it\nis the resultant of two contending forces, the desire of the people for\nfreedom and the desire of the Bureaucracy to oppose such a desire. The\nresult is that it has travelled along lines neither entirely popular nor\nentirely bureaucratic. The people of India do not like these Reforms, but\nlet us not forget that the Bureaucracy does not like them either because\nit is the result of two contending forces pulling in different directions\nor the Reforms have assumed a tortured state. But so far as the rights\nrecognised are concerned, they are our rights--our property, and there is\nnothing immoral or unfair or dishonest in making use of the rights which\nthe people have extorted from the British Parliament. If the fulfilment of\nthe very forces which have succeeded in securing the Reforms require that\nthe Councils should either be mended or ended, if the struggle for\nfreedom compels the adoption of either course, what possible charge of\nimmorality can be levelled against it? I admit if we had proposed to enter\nthe Councils stealthily with the avowed object of co-operation keeping\nwithin our hearts the desire to break the Councils, such a course would\nundoubtedly have been dishonest. European diplomacy, let us hope, has been\nabolished by Indian National Congress under the leadership of Mahatma\nGandhi. If we play now, we play with all our cards on the table.\n\nBut some people say that it is immoral from the point of view of\nnon-co-operation, because it involves an idea of destruction. The work of\nnon-co-operation according to these,--I have the highest reverence for\nthem,--is only to build our national life ignoring altogether the\nexistence of the Bureaucracy. It may be an honest ideal, and, logically\nspeaking, it may be the inner meaning of non-co-operation. But the\nnon-co-operation which the Congress has followed is not so logical and I\nclaim that if the principle of non-co-operation is to be advanced as a\ntest of my programme, let it be the same principle which the Congress has\naccepted, adopted and applied. As I have already said, that principle\ncountenance destruction as well as creation. As a matter of fact\ncircumstanced as we are with Bureaucracy to the right and the Bureaucracy\nto the left Bureaucracy all around us, it is impossible to create without\ndestroying: nor must it be forgotten that if we break, it is only that we\nmay build.\n\nIt has also been suggested that the very entry into the Council is\ninconsistent with the ideal of non-co-operation. I confess I do not\nunderstand the argument. Supposing the Congress had sanctioned an armed\ninsurrection could it be argued that entry into the fort of the\nBureaucracy is inconsistent with the principle of non-co-operation? Surely\nthe charge of inconsistency must depend on the object of the entry. An\nadvancing army does not co-operate with the enemy when it marches into\nthe enemy's territory. Co-operation must therefore depend on the object\nwith which such entry is made. The argument if analysed comes to this,\nthat whenever the phrase entry into Councils is used it calls up the\nassociation of co-operation, and then the mere idea of this entry\nis proclaimed to be inconsistent with non-co-operation. But this\nis the familiar logical fallacy of our terms. Entry into the\nCouncils to co-operate with the Government and entry into the\nCouncils to non-co-operate with the Government are two terms and two\ndifferent propositions. The former is inconsistent with the idea of\nnon-co-operation, the latter is absolutely consistent with that very idea.\n\nNext let us understand the opposition from the point of view of the\nspirituality of our movement. The question of spirituality is not to be\nconfused with the dictates of any particular religion. I am not aware of\nthe injunctions of any religion against entering the Councils with a view\neither to mend them or end them. I have heard from many Mahomedans that\nthe Koran lays down no such injunction. Other Mahomedan friends have told\nme that there may be some difficulty on that ground, but that is a matter\nwith regard to which I am not competent to speak. The Khilafat must answer\nthat question with such assistance as they may obtain from the Ulemas. It\nis needless to point out that should the Ulemas come to the conclusion\nthat under the present circumstances it would be an offence against their\nreligion to enter the Councils, the Congress should unhesitatingly accept\ntheir decision because no work in this country towards the attainment of\nSwaraj is possible without the hearty co-operation of both Hindus and\nMussalmans. But I am dealing with that spirituality which does not affect\nany particular creed or any particular religion. Judged from the\nstandpoint of such spirituality what objection there can be in removing\nfrom our path by all legitimate means any obstacle to the attainment of\nSwaraj? We burned foreign cloth without a scruple, and the spirituality of\nthe movement did not receive a shock when we burned them. It is as well to\nstart with a clear conception as to what that spiritually is. Apart from\nany creedal or doctrinal injunction and apart from any question of\nmorality, the basis of spirituality must be the attainment of freedom and\nof Swaraj. What is the duty which every human being owes not only to his\nrace, not only to his nation, not only to humanity but also to his God? It\nis the right to fulfil oneself. It is the duty of living in the light of\nGod. Shortly after my release from imprisonment I said in a public speech\nthat all our national activities should be based on truth. Ever since that\nday questions and conundrums have been put to me. I have been asked to\ndefine what is truth. It has also been suggested that because I dare not\ntell the truth that I took refuge under the general expression. I still\ninsist that our national activities must be based on truth. I repeat that\nI do not believe in politics, or in making water-tight compartments of our\nnational life which is an indivisible organic whole. I repeat that as you\ncannot define life, you cannot define truth. The test of Truth is not\nlogical definition. The test of Truth lies in its all-compelling force, in\nmaking itself felt. You know truth when you have felt it. God cannot be\ndefined, nor can truth because truth is the revelation of God. Two\nthousand years ago, a jesting judge asked the same question of the Son of\nGod. He made no answer by word of mouth; but he sacrificed himself and\nTruth was revealed. When I speak of spirituality I speak of the same\ntruth. I look upon history as the revelation of God. I look upon human\nindividual personality, nationality and humanity, each contributing to\nthe life of the other as the revelation of God to man. I look upon the\nattainment of freedom and Swaraj the only way of fulfilling oneself as\nindividuals, as nations. I look upon all national activities as the real\nfoundation of the service of that greater humanity which again is the\nrevelation of God to man. The Son of God brought to the world not peace\nbut a sword--not the peace of death and immortality and corruption but the\n\"separating sword\" of Truth. We have to fight against all corruptions and\nall immorality. It is only thus that freedom can be attained. Whatever\nobstacles there may be in the path of Swaraj either of the individual or\nof the nation, or humanity at large, these obstacles must be removed by\nthe individual if he desires his freedom by the nation, if that nation\ndesires to ruin itself by all the nations of the world if the cause of\nhumanity is to prosper. That being the spirituality of the movement as I\nunderstand it I am prepared to put away all obstacles that lie between the\nIndian nation and the attainment of its freedom, not stealthily but\nopenly, reverently in the name of truth and God. Judged from this ideal of\nspirituality the entry into the Councils for the purpose I have stated is\nnecessary to advance the cause of truth. Everything in connection with the\ncontroversy must be judged by that standard.\n\nAt present the question before the country put by those members of the\nCivil Disobedience Enquiry Committee who are in favour of the Council\nEntry is simply that the members of the Congress should stand as\ncandidates. It is unnecessary therefore to go into other questions raised,\nsuch as in the matter of taking oath, the probability or otherwise of\nsecuring a majority and so on. With regard to the question of oath all\nthat I need say at present is this, that apart from the dictates of any\nparticular religion which I do not propose to deal with, the question does\nnot present any difficulty at all. The oath is a constitutional one. The\nking stands for the constitution. Great changes in the constitution have\ntaken place in England under that very oath. Now what is the oath? It\nbinds those who take it,--first not to make any use of powers which are\nnot allowed by the Reforms Act; secondly to discharge their duties\nfaithfully. So far as the first point is concerned, there is nothing in my\nsuggestion which militates against it. So far as the second point is\nconcerned, I am aware that a forced interpretation has been sought to be\nput upon it, namely, that a member taking the oath is bound to discharge\nhis duties faithfully to the Bureaucracy. All that I need say is, that\nthere is no constitutional authority of any kind to justify that\ninterpretation. To my mind the words mean a faithful discharge of a\nmember's duties to his constituency by the exercise of powers recognised\nunder the Reforms Act. I do not therefore understand what possible\nobjection there may be to take the Oath. But there again the question\ndoes not arise at present.\n\nVarious other questions have been asked as to whether it is possible to\nsecure a majority and as to what we should do, supposing we are in a\nmajority. I think it possible that having regard to the present\ncircumstances of the country, the Non-co-operators are likely to get the\nmajority. I am aware of the difficulty of the franchise. I am aware of the\nrules which prevent many of us from entering the Councils; but making\nevery allowances for all these difficulties, I believe that we shall be in\nthe majority. But here also the question doesn't arise till we meet in the\nCongress of 1923 when the matter may be discussed not on suppositions but\non actualities.\n\nAs regards the question as to what we should do if we have the majority\nthe answer is clear. We should begin our proceedings by a solemn\ndeclaration of the existence of our inherent right, and by formal demand\nfor a constitution which would recognise and conserve those rights and\ngive effect to our claims for the particular system of Government which we\nmay choose for ourselves. If our demands are accepted, then the fight is\nover. But, as I have often said, if it is conceded that we are entitled to\nhave that form of Government which we may choose for ourselves, and the\nreal beginning is made with that particular form of Government in view,\nthen it matters nothing to me whether the complete surrender of power is\nmade up to-day, or in five years or even in twenty years. If, however, our\ndemand is not given effect to, we must non-co-operate with the Bureaucracy\nby opposing each and every work of the Council. We must disallow the\nentire Budget. We must move the adjournment of the House on every possible\noccasion and defeat every Bill that may be introduced. In fact we must so\nproceed that the Council will refuse to do any work unless and until our\ndemands are satisfied. I am aware of the large powers of certification\nwhich Governors can exercise under the Reform Act. But Government by\ncertification is just as impossible as Government by veto. Such procedure\nmay be adopted on a few occasions. The time must soon come when the\nBureaucracy must yield or withdraw the Reforms Act. In either case it is a\ndistinct triumph for the nation, and either course if adopted by the\nBureaucracy will bring us nearer to the realisation of our ideal.\n\nAnother question is often asked, suppose we end these Reformed\nCouncils,--what then? Could not the same question be asked with regard to\nevery step the Congress has hitherto undertaken in the way of breaking, of\ndestroying institutions. If we had succeeded in destroying the Educational\nDepartment, might not somebody ask--what then? If we had succeeded in\ndestroying the legal institutions, might not the question be put with\nequal relevance? The fact is destruction itself will never bring us\nSwaraj. The fact further is that no construction is possible without\ndestruction. We must not forget that it is not this activity or that\nactivity by itself that can bring Swaraj. It is the totality of our\nnational activity in the way of destruction and in the way of creation,\nthat will bring Swaraj. If we succeeded in demolishing these Reformed\nCouncils you will find the whole nation astir with life. Let them put\nother obstacles in our way; we shall remove them with added strength and\ngreater vitality.\n\nIt has also been suggested that the Bureaucracy will never allow the\nNon-co-operators to enter the Councils, they will alter the rules to\nprevent such entry. I cannot conceive of anything better calculated to\nstrengthen the cause of Non-co-operation than this. If any such rule is\nframed I should welcome it and again change the direction of our activity.\nThe infant nation in India requires constant struggle for its growth and\ndevelopment. We must not forget that a great non-violent revolution is on\nthe land, and we shall change the direction of our activities as often as\ncircumstances require it. To-day the Councils are open and we must attack\nthem,--to-morrow if the Councils are closed, we must be prepared to deal\nwith the contingency when it arises. What do we do when it pours with\nrain? We turn our umbrella in the direction from which the water comes.\nIt is in the same way that we must turn the direction of our activities\nwhenever the fulfilment of our national life demands it.\n\nThe work of the Councils for the last two years has made it necessary for\nnon-co-operators to enter the Councils. The Bureaucracy has received added\nstrength from these Reformed Councils, and those who have entered the\nCouncils, speaking generally, have practically helped the cause of\nBureaucracy. What is most necessary to consider is the fact that taxation\nhas increased by leaps and bounds. The expenditure of the Government of\nIndia has grown enormously since the pre-war year 1913-14. In that year\nthe total expenditure of the Government of India amounted to 79 crores and\n37 lakhs; in 1919-20, it rose to 138 crores, and in 1920-21, the first\nyear of the reformed system of administration, it stood at 149 crores. The\nexpenses of the current year are likely to be even higher. To meet the\nsuccessive increases in expenditure, additional taxation was levied in\n1916-17, 1917-18, 1919-20, 1921-22 and 1922-23. We may prepare ourselves\nfor proposals for further additional taxation in the ensuing year. In\nspite of the levy of additional taxation, seven out of the last nine years\nhave been years of deficit.\n\nThe increase in military expenditure is chiefly responsible for the\npresent financial situation. In 1913-14, the expenses of this department\namounted to about 31-1/2 crores, in 1919-20, after the conclusion of the\nwar they mounted up to 87 crores, and in 1920-21 they stood at 88 crores.\nAs Sir Visveswaraya remarks the expenses under the head \"Civil\nAdministration\" also have shown a perpetual tendency to increase. As a\npart and parcel of the Reform Scheme, the emoluments of the members of the\nIndian Civil Service, the Indian Educational Service, the Indian Medical\nService and of all the other services recruited in England have been\nenormously increased; and to maintain some kind of fairness the salaries\nof the subordinate services which are manned by Indians have also been\nincreased.\n\nThe financial situation in the provinces is not much better. Under the\nfinancial arrangements of the Reform Scheme, the provinces of India, taken\ntogether, secured an accession to their resources of about 11 crores of\nRupees. Besides, the provinces had between them in 1920-21 a total\naccumulated balance of 21 crores and 68 lakhs. But so great has been the\nincrease in provincial expenditure during the last two years that even\nthose provinces which had hoped to realise large surpluses are now on the\nverge of bankruptcy. In the first year of the reform era, most of the\nprovinces were faced with deficits and were just able to tide over their\nfinancial difficulties by drawing upon their balances. But in the current\nyear, the financial situation in many of the provinces has become worse.\nThe Burma budget shows a deficit of 1 crore and 90 lakhs, the Punjab, 1\ncrore and 30 lakhs, Bihar and Orissa, 51 lakhs, Madras, 41 lakhs, the\nUnited Provinces, 27 lakhs and the Central Provinces 37 lakhs. The deficit\nof the Madras Government would have been much higher had it not taken\nsteps to increase its revenues by Rs. 77-1/2 lakhs from fresh taxation.\nThe Bengal statement shows an estimated surplus owing to the remission of\nthe Provincial contribution to the Central Government and expected\nreceipts from fresh taxation amounting to 1 crore and 40 lakhs. But it is\nvery doubtful if the expectation will be realised, and early next year,\nfurther fresh taxes are likely to be imposed. Assam has budgeted for a\ndeficit of 14-1/2 lakhs after the imposition of additional taxation.\nProposals for further taxation are under consideration in the Punjab,\nBihar and Orissa, the Central Provinces and Assam. In the United Provinces\nthe proposals brought forward by the Government were rejected by the\nLegislative Council.\n\nI warn my countrymen against the policy of allowing these Reformed\nCouncils to work their wicked will. There will undoubtedly be a further\nincrease of taxation and there is an apprehension in my mind, I desire to\nexpress it with all the emphasis that I can command, that if we allow this\npolicy of drift to continue the result will be that we shall lose the\npeople who are with us to-day. Let us break the Councils if the\nBureaucracy does not concede to the demands of the people. If there is\nfresh taxation as it is bound to be let the responsibility be on the\nBureaucracy. Then you and I and the people will jointly fight the powers\nthat be.\n\n\nLABOUR ORGANISATION\n\nI am further of opinion that the Congress should take up the work of\nLabour and Peasant organisation. With regard to labour there is a\nresolution of the Nagpur Congress, but I am sorry to say that it has not\nbeen acted upon. There is an apprehension in the minds of some\nnon-co-operators that the cause of non-co-operation will suffer if we\nexploit Labour for Congress purposes. I confess again I do not understand\nthe argument. The word \"exploitation\" has got an ugly association, and the\nargument assumes that Labour and Peasants are not with us in this struggle\nof Swaraj. I deny the assumption. My experience has convinced me that\nlabour and the Peasantry of India to-day are, if anything, more eager to\nattain Swaraj than the so called middle and educated classes. If we are\n\"exploiting\" boys of tender years and students of colleges, if we are\nexploiting the women of India, if we are exploiting the whole of the\nmiddle classes irrespective of their creed and caste and occupation, may I\nask what justification is there for leaving out Labourers and the\nPeasants? I suppose the answer is that they are welcome to be the members\nof the Congress Committees but that there should not be a separate\norganisation of them. But Labour has got a separate interest and they are\noften oppressed by foreign capitalists and the Peasantry of India is often\noppressed by a class of men who are the standard bearers of the\nBureaucracy. Is the service of this special interest in any way\nantagonistic to the service of nationalism? To find bread for the poor, to\nsecure justice to a class of people who are engaged in a particular trade\nor avocation--how is that work different from the work of attaining\nSwaraj? Anything which strengthens the national cause, anything which\nsupports the masses of India is surely as much a matter of Swaraj as any\nother items of work which the Congress has in hand. My advice is that the\nCongress should lose no time in appointing a Committee, a calm workable\nCommittee to organise labour, and the peasantry of India. We have delayed\nthe matter already too long. If the Congress fails to do its duty, you may\nexpect to find organisations set up in the country by labour and peasants\ndetached from you, dissociated from the cause of Swaraj which will\ninevitably bring within the arena of a peaceful evolution class struggles\nand the war of special interests. If the object of the Congress be to\navoid that disgraceful issue let us take labour and the peasantry in\nhand, and let us organise them both from the point of view of their own\nspecial interests and also from the point of view of the higher ideal\nwhich demands the satisfaction of their special interests and the devotion\nof such interests to the cause of Swaraj. Here again we have to make use\nof very selfishness of the labourers and peasants, as we know that the\nfulfilment of that very selfishness requires its just and proper\ncontribution to the life of the nation.\n\n\nWORK ALREADY TAKEN UP\n\nI now turn to the work which the Congress has already taken up. I may at\nonce point out that it is not my desire that any work which the Congress\nhas taken up should be surrendered. The change of direction which I\nadvocate and the other practical change which I have mentioned is not by\nway of surrendering anything that is already on the plank but it is simply\nby way of addition.\n\n\nBOYCOTT OF SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES\n\nI am firmly of opinion that the boycott of schools and colleges should be\ncarried on as effectively as before. I defer from the Civil Disobedience\nEnquiry Committee when they propose the abandonment of the withdrawal of\nboys from such schools and colleges. The question to my mind is of vital\nimportance. It is on the youth of the country that the cause of Swaraj\nlargely depends--and what chance is there for a nation which willingly,\nknowingly sends its boys, its young men to schools and colleges to be\nstamped with the stamps of slavery and foreign culture? I do not desire to\nenter into the question more minutely. I have expressed my views on the\nsubject so often that I find it unnecessary to repeat them. I, however,\nagree with the recommendation of the Enquiry Committee that national\nschools and colleges should also be started.\n\n\nBOYCOTT OF LAW COURTS AND LAWYERS\n\nWith regard to the question of the boycott of lawyers and the legal\ninstitutions I agree with the main recommendations of the Committee. Many\nquestions have been raised as to whether the right of defence should be\nallowed or not and on what occasions, and for what purposes. I have never\nbeen in love with formal rules, and I think it impossible to frame rules\nwhich will cover all the circumstances which may arise in particular\ncases. All that I desire to insist on, is the keeping in view of the\nprinciple of the boycott of courts.\n\n\nHINDU-MUSLIM UNITY\n\nWith regard to the question of Hindu-Muslim Unity, untouchability and such\nmatters, I agree with the recommendations of the Enquiry Committee. I\ndesire to point out however the true unity of all sections of the Indian\nnation can only be based on a proper co-operation and the recognition by\neach section of the rights of the others--that is why I proposed that\nthere should be a compact between different sections, between the\ndifferent communities of India. We will do little good to the section\nknown as untouchables if we approach them in a spirit of superiority. We\nmust engage them in the work before us, and we must work with them side by\nside and shoulder to shoulder.\n\n\nKHADDAR\n\nI now come to the question of khaddar which I regard as one of the most\nimportant questions before us. As I have already said, I am opposed to the\nmanufacture of Khaddar on a commercial basis. I said among the other\nthings when I seconded the Bezwada resolution on the 31st of March in 1921\nproposed by Mahatma Gandhi:\n\n\"Our reason in asking the people to take to Charka was not based upon any\ndesire to enter into any competition with foreign capitalist production\neither from without or from within. Our idea is to enable the people to\nunderstand and fashion for themselves, their economic life and utilise the\nspare time of their families and opportunities with a view to create more\neconomic goods for themselves and improve their own condition.\" The idea\nis to make the people of this country self-reliant and self-contained.\nThis work is difficult but essential and should be carried on with all our\nstrength. I would much rather that few families were self-contained than\nthat factories were started on a large scale. Such factories represent a\nshort-sighted policy, and there is no doubt that though it would satisfy\nthe present need it will create an evil which it would be difficult to\neradicate. I am naturally opposed to the creation of a new Manchester in\nIndia of which we have had sufficient experience. Let us avoid that\npossibility, if we can.\n\nIt is often stated that Khaddar alone will bring us Swaraj. I ask my\ncountrymen in what way is it possible for khaddar to lead us to Swaraj? It\nis in one sense only that the statement may be true. We must regard\nkhaddar as the symbol of Swaraj. As the khaddar makes us self-contained\nwith regard to a very large department of our national life, so it is\nhoped that the inspiration of khaddar will make the whole of our national\nlife self-contained and independent. That is the meaning of the symbol. To\nmy mind such symbol worship requires the spreading out of all\nnon-co-operation activities in every possible direction. It is only thus\nand only thus that the speedy attainment of Swaraj is possible.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nIt remains to me to deliver to you a last message of hope and confidence.\nThere is no royal road to freedom, and dark and difficult will be the path\nleading to it. But dauntless is your courage, and firm your resolution;\nand though there will be reverses, sometimes severe reverses, they will\nonly have the effect of speeding your emancipation from the bondage of a\nForeign Government. Do not make the mistake of confusing achievements with\nsuccess. Achievement as in appearances are often deceptive. I contend\nthat, though we cannot point to a great deal as solid achievement of the\nmovement, the success of it is assured. That success is proclaimed by the\nbureaucracy in the repeated attempts which were made, and are still being\nmade, to crush the growth of the movement, and to arrest its progress, in\nthe refusal to repeal some of the most obnoxious of the repressive\nlegislation, in the frequent use that has been made of the arbitrary or\ndiscretionary authority that is vested in the executive Government and in\nsending to prison our beloved leader, who offered himself as a sacrifice\nto the wrath of the Bureaucracy. But though the ultimate success of the\nmovement is assured, I warn you that the issue depends wholly on you and\nhow you conduct yourselves in meeting the forces that are arrayed against\nyou. Christianity rose triumphant when Jesus of Nazareth offered himself\nas a sacrifice to the excessive worship of law and order by the Scribes\nand the Pharisees. The forces that are arrayed against you are the forces\nnot only of the bureaucracy but of the modern Scribes and Pharisees whose\ninterest it is to maintain the Bureaucracy in all its pristine glory. Be\nit yours to offer yourself as sacrifice in the interest of truth and\njustice, so that your children and your children's children may have the\nfruit of your sufferings. Be it yours to wage a spiritual warfare so that\nthe victory, when it comes does not debase you, nor tempt you to retain\nthe power of Government in your own hands. But if yours is to be a\nspiritual warfare, your weapons must be those of the spiritual soldier.\nAnger is not for you, hatred is not for you, nor for you is pettiness,\nmeanness or falsehood.\n\nFor you is the hope of dawn and the confidence of the morning, and for you\nis the song that was sung by Titan, chained and imprisoned, but the\nchampion of man in the Greek fable:\n\n  To Suffer woes with Hope, things infinite;\n  To forgive wrongs darker than death or night;\n  To defy power which seems Omnipotent:\n  To love, and bear, to hope till Hope creates\n  From its own wreck, the thing it contemplates;\n  Neither to change, nor falter, nor repent;\n  This like thy glory, Titan, is to be\n  Good, Great and joyous, beautiful and free;\n  This alone Life, Joy, Empire and Victory.\n\n  BANDE MATARAM.\n\n\n\n\nIMPERIALISM IN PRACTICE AND IN THEORY\n\nBY K. M. Panikkar. Re. 1\n\n(_Late Scholar of Christ Church, Oxford_).\n\nPress Opinions.\n\nMr. K. M. Panikkar, lately Chairman of the Department of History in\nAligarh University; has done a distinct service to the country by his able\nanalysis of the processes of aggrandisement with which the Br. Empire was\nbuilt up. In his small book he has laid bare the selfishness which\nunderlies the foundation of the British Empire. \"What it stands for,\" says\nMr. Panikkar, \"is a white oligarchy exploiting coloured nations. It is in\nfact a British Empire Co., Ltd.\" The Book is a valuable addition to the\ngrowing Indian Political Literature.--_Bombay Chronicle._\n\nWe have learnt to associate Mr. Panikkar's name with first class work and\nour expectations have not been disappointed in this volume. The vulgar\npretensions of Imperialism have been shown up with perfect candour, but\nthe days of Imperialism, according to the author, are numbered in Asia\nthough not in Africa. It has done the great service of calling forth the\nmighty spirit of Asia from its decaying cell.--_Modern Review, Calcutta._\n\n\"Your remarkable little book _on Imperialism_ which I have read _three\ntimes_--I have been anxious to write a review on it appreciating it.\"--_C.\nF. Andrews._\n\n_ARKA PUBLISHING HOUSE_,\n\nGeorge Town, Madras.\n\n\n\n\nBOOKS WORTH READING\n\n\n  Struggle for Swaraj by Pandit Motilal Nehru.            As. 4\n\n  India and the Empire by Edward Carpenter.                \"  4\n\n  Voice of Bengal by Mrs. C. R. Das.                       \"  4\n\n  A Guide to Matrimonial Alliance by Aristotle             \"  12\n\n  Non-co-operation in Other Lands by Fenner Brockway\n  (cloth bound)                                           Re. 1-8\n\n  National Education by Arabinda Gose                     Re. 1\n\n  Indian Industrialism by K. V. Ganapathy Aiyar with\n  introduction by Hon. V. G. Kale                          \"\n\n  Indian Boy Scouts Hand Book by F. G. Pearce             Re. 1-8\n\n  The New Russia by R. U. Postgate & T. A. Jackson        As. 12\n\n  Amritsar and Our Duty to India by B. G. Horniman        Rs. 2-10\n\n  My Childhood and Boyhood by Tolstoy                     Re. 1-12\n\n  My Youth by Tolstoy                                     Re. 1-12\n\n  Life and Writings of Bal Gangadhar Tilak                Rs. 4\n\n  Tolstoy's Teachings                                     As. 6\n\n\nARKA PUBLISHING HOUSE,\n\n_George Town, MADRAS_.\n\n\n\n\nThe RELATIONS OF THE SEXES\n\nBY COUNT LEO TOLSTOY\n\nTranslated by V. T. and A. C. F., Principally from private letters,\ndiaries and unpublished Mss.\n\nPrice Re. 1.\n\n_Some Extracts._\n\nWomen who demand masculine work and liberty equal to that of man are\ngenerally unconsciously demanding the liberty of License, and in\nconsequence descend to a plane lower than the family one, while imagining\nthey are ascending higher....\n\nI think that a man who has entered upon physical connection with a woman\ncannot, and must not, forsake her especially when there is or may be a\nchild....\n\nChastity is an ideal after which one should always; under all conditions,\nstrive. The nearer you are realising it the more you--not to say attain a\nmerit before God--attain a greater degree of your own well being. Man may\nserve God more by being chaste than by giving himself up to carnal\nlife....\n\nAttacks of sexual lust engender confusion of thought. The absence of\nthought rather--the whole world darkens. Man loses his relation to\nit--chance, blackness and failure....\n\nOne thing is rational: \"Be perfect, as your Father\", and this perfection\nis in purity and then in Love, deduction: first, purity, then preservation\nof the race....\n\n\n_ARKA PUBLISHING HOUSE_,\n\nG. T., MADRAS.\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"Freedom Through Disobedience","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":18374}