{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_61575/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_61575","id":"gutenberg_61575","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/61575","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Biographies","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Gandhi, Mahatma, 1869-1948","India -- Politics and government -- 1919-1947","Nationalists -- India -- Biography","Nobel Prizes in Literature","Statesmen -- India -- Biography"],"text":"MAHATMA GANDHI\n\nTHE MAN WHO BECAME ONE\nWITH THE UNIVERSAL BEING\n\n\nBY\n\nROMAIN HOLLAND\n\n\n\nTRANSLATED BY\n\nCATHERINE D. GROTH\n\nTHE CENTURY CO.\n\nNew York & London\n\n\n\n\nMAHATMA GANDHI\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi]\n\n\n\n\nIn connection with the present essay I wish to tender my affectionate\nthanks to my faithful collaborator, my sister, and to my friend, Kalidas\nNag, whose deep knowledge and indefatigable kindness have guided my\nsteps through the forest of Indian thought.\n\nI also wish to thank the publisher, S. Ganesan of Madras, for having\nplaced, spontaneously, his publications at my disposal.\n\n\n\n\nPART ONE\n\n\n\n\nThe literal translation of Mahatma, the name which the people of India\ngave to Gandhi, is \"the great Soul,\" _maha_, great; _atma_, soul. The\nword goes back to the Upanishads, where it is used in speaking of the\nSupreme Being, and, through communion of Knowledge and Love, of those\nwho become One with Him:\n\n\n\"He is the One Luminous, Creator of All,\nMahatma,\nAlways in the hearts of the people enshrined.\nRevealed through Love, Intuition, and Thought,\nWhoever knows Him, Immortal becomes....\"\n\n\nTagore, on a visit to Ashram, Gandhi's favorite retreat, quoted\nthis stanza, referring to the Apostle.\n\n\n\n\nMAHATMA GANDHI\n\n\n\n\nPART ONE\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1\n\n\nDark, tranquil eyes. A small frail man, a thin face with large\nprotruding ears. His head covered with a little white cap, his body\nclothed in coarse white cloth, barefooted. He lives on rice and fruit\nand drinks only water. He sleeps on the floor--sleeps very little, and\nworks incessantly. His body does not seem to count at all. There is\nnothing striking about him, at first, except his expression of \"great\npatience and great love.\" W. W. Pearson, who met him in South Africa in\n1918, instinctively thought of St. Francis of Assisi. There is an almost\nchildlike simplicity about him.[1] His manner is gentle and courteous\neven when dealing with adversaries,[2] and he is of immaculate\nsincerity.[3] He is modest and unassuming, to the point of sometimes\nseeming almost timid, hesitant, in making an assertion. Yet you feel his\nindomitable spirit. He makes no compromises and never tries to hide a\nmistake. Nor is he afraid to admit having been in the wrong. Diplomacy\nis unknown to him; he shuns oratorical effect or, rather, never thinks\nabout it; and he shrinks unconsciously from the great popular\ndemonstrations organized in his honor. Literally \"ill with the multitude\nthat adores him,\"[4] he distrusts majorities and fears \"mobocracy\" and\nthe unbridled passions of the populace. He feels at ease only in a\nminority, and is happiest when, in meditative solitude, he can listen to\nthe \"still small voice\" within.[5]\n\nThis is the man who has stirred three hundred million people to revolt,\nwho has shaken the foundations of the British Empire, and who has\nintroduced into human politics the strongest religious impetus of the\nlast two thousand years.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2\n\n\nHis real name is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. He was born in a little\nsemi-independent state in the northwestern part of India, at Porbandar,\nthe \"White City\" on the sea of Oman, October 2, 1868. He comes of an\nardent and active race, which to this day has been split by civil\nstrife; a practical race, commercially keen, which established trade\nrelations all the way from Aden to Zanzibar. Gandhi's father and\ngrandfather were both leaders of the people and met with persecution\nbecause of their independent spirit. Both were forced to flee for\nsafety, their lives in peril. Gandhi's family was well-to-do and\nbelonged to a cultivated class of society, but it was not of superior\ncaste. His parents were followers of the Ja\u00efn school of Hinduism, which\nregards _ahimsa_,[6] the doctrine of non-injury to any form of life, as\none of its basic principles. This was the doctrine which Gandhi was to\nproclaim victoriously throughout the world. The Ja\u00efnists believe that\nthe principle of love, not intelligence, is the road which leads to God.\nThe Mahatma's father cared little for wealth and material values, and\nleft scarcely any to his family, having given almost everything away to\ncharity. Gandhi's mother was a very devout woman, a sort of Hindu St.\nElisabeth, fasting, giving alms to the poor, and nursing the sick. In\nGandhi's family the Ramayana was read regularly. His first teacher was a\nBrahman who taught him to memorize the texts of Vishnu.[7] In later\nyears Gandhi expressed regret at not being a better Sanskrit scholar,\nand one of his grievances against English education in India is that it\nmakes the natives lose the treasures of their own language. Gandhi\nbecame, however, a profound student of Hindu scriptures, although he\nread the Vedas and the Upanishads in translation only.[8]\n\nWhile still a boy he passed through a severe religious crisis. Shocked\nat the idolatrous form sometimes assumed by Hinduism, he became, or\nimagined he became, an atheist, and to prove that religion meant nothing\nto him he and some friends went so far as to eat meat, a frightful\nsacrilege for a Hindu. And Gandhi nearly perished with disgust and\nmortification.[9] He was engaged at the age of eight and married at the\nage of twelve.[10] At nineteen he was sent to England to complete his\nstudies at the University of London and at the law school. Before his\nleaving India, his mother made him take the three vows of Ja\u00efn, which\nprescribe abstention from wine, meat, and sexual intercourse.\n\nHe arrived in London in September, 1888, and after the first few months\nof uncertainty and deception, during which, as he says, he \"wasted a lot\nof time and money trying to become an Englishman,\" he buckled down to\nhard work and led a strictly regulated life. Some friends gave him a\ncopy of the Bible, but the time to understand it had not yet come. But\nit was during his stay in London that he realized for the first time the\nbeauty of the Bhagavad Git\u00e2. He was carried away by it. It was the\nlight the exiled Hindu had been seeking, and it gave him back his faith.\nHe realized that for him salvation could lie only in Hinduism.[11]\n\nHe returned to India in 1891, a rather sad home-coming, for his mother\nhad just died, and the news of her death had been withheld from him.\nSoon afterward he began practicing law at the Supreme Court of Bombay.\nHe abandoned this career a few years later, having come to look upon it\nas immoral. But even while practicing law he used to make a point of\nreserving the right to abandon a case if he had reason to believe it\nunjust.\n\nAt this stage of his career he met various people who stirred in him a\npresentiment as to his future mission in life. He was influenced by two\nmen in particular. One of them was the \"Uncrowned King of Bombay,\" the\nParsi Dadabhai, and the other Professor Gokhale. Gokhale was one of the\nleading statesmen in India and one of the first to introduce educational\nreforms, while Dadabhai, according to Gandhi, was the real founder of\nthe Indian nationalist movement. Both men combined the highest wisdom\nand learning with the utmost simplicity and gentleness.[12] It was\nDadabhai who, in trying to moderate Gandhi's youthful ardor, gave him,\nin 1892, his first real lesson in _ahimsa_ by teaching him to apply\nheroic passivity--if two such words may be linked--to public life by\nfighting evil, not by evil, but by love. A little later we will discuss\nthis magic word of _ahimsa_, the sublime message of India to the world.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3\n\n\nGandhi's activity may be divided into two periods. From 1898 to 1914 its\nfield was South Africa; from 1914 to 1922, India.\n\nThat Gandhi could carry on the South-African campaign for more than\ntwenty years without awakening any special comment in Europe is a proof\nof the incredible short-sightedness of our political leaders,\nhistorians, thinkers, and believers, for Gandhi's efforts constituted a\nsoul's epopee, unequaled in our times, not only because of the intensity\nand the constancy of the sacrifice required, but because of the final\ntriumph.\n\nIn 1890-91 some 150,000 Indian emigrants were settled in South Africa,\nmost of them having taken up abode in Natal. The white population\nresented their presence, and the Government encouraged the xenophobia of\nthe whites by a series of oppressive measures designed to prevent the\nimmigration of Asiatics and to oblige those already settled in Africa to\nleave. Through systematic persecution the life of the Indians in Africa\nwas made intolerable; they were burdened with overwhelming taxes and\nsubjected to the most humiliating police ordinances and outrages of all\nsorts, ranging from the looting and destruction of shops and property to\nlynching, all under cover of \"white\" civilization.\n\nIn 1893 Gandhi was called to Pretoria on an important case. He was not\nfamiliar with the situation in South Africa, but from the very first he\nmet with illuminating experiences. Gandhi, a Hindu of high race, who had\nalways been received with the greatest courtesy in England and Europe,\nand who until then had looked upon the whites as his natural friends,\nsuddenly found himself the butt of the vilest affronts. In Natal, and\nparticularly in Dutch Transvaal, he was thrown out of hotels and trains,\ninsulted, beaten, and kicked. He would have returned to India at once if\nhe had not been bound by contract to remain a year in South Africa.\nDuring these twelve months he learned the art of self-control, but all\nthe time he longed for his contract to expire, so that he might return\nto India. But when at last he was about to leave, he learned that the\nSouth-African Government was planning to pass a bill depriving the\nIndians of the franchise. The Indians in Africa were helpless, unable to\ndefend themselves; they were completely unorganized and demoralized.\nThey had no leader, no one to guide them. Gandhi felt that it was his\nduty to defend them. He realized it would be wrong to leave. The cause\nof the disinherited Indians became his. He gave himself up to it, and\nremained in Africa.\n\nThen began an epic struggle between spirit on one side and governmental\npower and brute force on the other. Gandhi was a lawyer at the time, and\nhis first step was to prove the illegality of the Asiatic Exclusion Act\nfrom the point of view of law, and he won his case despite the most\nvirulent opposition. In this connection he had huge petitions signed; he\norganized the Indian Congress at Natal, and formed an association for\nIndian education. A little later he founded a paper, \"Indian Opinion,\"\npublished in English and three Indian languages. Finally, in order to\nwork more efficaciously for his compatriots in Africa, he decided to\nbecome one of them. He had a lucrative clientele in Johannesburg\n(Gokhale says Gandhi was making at that time about five or six thousand\npounds a year). He gave it up to espouse poverty, like St. Francis. He\nabandoned all ties in order to live the life of the persecuted Indians,\nto share their trials. And he ennobled them thereby, for he taught them\nthe doctrine of non-resistance. In 1904 he founded at Phoenix, near\nDurban, an agricultural colony along Tolstoian lines.[13] He called upon\nhis compatriots, gave them land, and made them take the solemn oath of\npoverty. He took upon himself the humblest tasks.\n\nFor years the silent colony resisted the Government. It withdrew from\nthe cities, gradually paralyzing the industrial life of the country,\ncarrying on a sort of religious strike against which violence--all\nviolence--was powerless, just as the violence of imperial Rome was\npowerless against the faith of the first Christians. Yet very few of\nthese early Christians would have carried the doctrine of love and\nforgiveness so far as to help their persecutors when in danger, as\nGandhi did. Whenever the South-African state was in serious difficulties\nGandhi suspended the non-participation of the Indian population in\npublic services and offered his assistance. In 1899, during the Boer\nWar, he organized an Indian Red Cross, which was twice cited for bravery\nunder fire. When the plague broke out in Johannesburg in 1904, Gandhi\norganized a hospital. In 1908 the natives in Natal revolted. Gandhi\norganized and served at the head of a corps of _brancardiers_, and the\nGovernment of Natal tendered him public thanks.\n\nBut these disinterested services did not disarm the hatred of the\nwhites. Gandhi was frequently arrested and imprisoned,[14] and shortly\nafter official thanks had been proffered for his services during the war\nhe was sentenced to imprisonment and hard labor, after being beaten by\nthe mob and left behind as dead.[15] But no abuse, no persecution, could\nmake Gandhi renounce his ideal. On the contrary, his faith in it grew\nstronger for his trials. His only reply to the violence meted out to him\nin South Africa was the famous little book, \"Hind Swaraj,\"[16] published\nin 1908. This pamphlet on Indian home rule is the gospel of heroic love.\n\nFor twenty years the struggle lasted, reaching its bitterest phase from\n1907 to 1914. Although the most intelligent and broad-minded Englishmen\nin Africa were opposed to it, in 1906 the South-African Government\nhastily passed a new Asiatic law. This led Gandhi to organize\nnon-resistance on a large scale.\n\nIn September, 1906, a huge demonstration took place at Johannesburg, and\nthe assembled Indians solemnly took the oath of passive resistance. The\nChinese in Africa joined the Hindus; and Asiatics of all races,\nreligions, and castes, rich and poor alike, brought the same enthusiasm\nand abnegation to the cause. The Asiatics were thrown into prison by the\nthousand, and as the jails were not large enough, they were hurled into\nthe mine-pits. But it was as if the prisons fascinated these people whom\nGeneral Smuts, their persecutor, called \"conscientious objectors.\" Three\ntimes Gandhi was thrown into jail,[17] while others died as martyrs. The\nmovement grew. In 1918 it spread from the Transvaal to Natal. Huge\nstrikes and monster meetings, masses of Hindus marching across\nTransvaal, alarmed and excited public opinion in Africa and Asia. All\nIndia was stirred to indignation, and the viceroy, Lord Hardinge, driven\nby public opinion, finally lodged a protest against the Government of\nSouth Africa.\n\nThe indomitable tenacity and the magic of the \"Great Soul\" operated and\nwon out: force had to bow down before heroic gentleness.[18] The man\nmost bitterly opposed to the Indians, General Smuts, who in 1909 had\nsaid he would never erase from the statutes a measure prejudicial to the\nIndians, confessed, five years later, in 1914, that he was glad to do\naway with it.[19] An imperial commission backed Gandhi up on almost\nevery point. In 1914 an act abolished the three-pound poll-tax, while\nNatal was opened to all Indians desirous of settling there as free\nworkers. After twenty years of sacrifice non-resistance was triumphant.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4\n\n\nWhen Gandhi returned to India he had the prestige of a leader.\n\nSince the beginning of the century the movement for Indian independence\nhad been steadily gaining ground, Thirty years before, a few broadminded\nEnglishmen, among whom were A. O. Hume and Sir William Wedderburn, had\norganized a National Indian Congress. Victorian Liberals, they had given\nthe Congress a loyalist stamp and had tried to consolidate India's\nclaims with the demands of England's sovereignty. In the meantime,\nhowever, Japan's victory over Russia had awakened the pride of Asiatic\npeoples, and Indian patriots resented Lord Curzon's provocative\nattitude. An extremist party was formed in the heart of the Congress,\nand its more aggressive nationalism corresponded to a general sentiment\nthroughout the country. Until the war of 1914, however, the old\nconstitutional part remained under the leadership of G. K. Gokhale, who\nwas a great Indian patriot, although he believed in loyalty to England.\n\nAlthough the Indian Congress, reflecting general sentiment, was in favor\nof home rule, or _Swaraj_, the various members disagreed as to the form\nthis home rule should take. Some members believed in cooperation with\nEngland; others wanted to drive the English out of India. Some advocated\nthe dominion system, as in Canada, while others asserted that India\nshould aspire to become an independent nation like Japan. Gandhi\nproposed a solution. It was religious rather than political, but at\nbottom it was more radical than any of the others. The principles are to\nbe found in his \"Hind Swaraj.\" But as this solution was based on\nconditions in South Africa, Gandhi realized it would have to be modified\nto suit conditions in India. He also realized that while his stay in\nSouth Africa had made him unfamiliar with conditions in India, it had\nproved what an irresistible weapon _ahimsa_, non-violence, could be. And\nhe determined, therefore, to study conditions in India in order to adapt\nthe weapon of _ahimsa_ to them.[20]\n\nAt this time Gandhi felt no antagonism for England. On the contrary,\nwhen the war broke out in 1914, he went to London to organize an Indian\nambulance corps. As he explained in a letter written in 1921, he\nhonestly believed himself a citizen of the empire. He refers to his\nattitude again and again, as in his letter addressed to \"Every\nEnglishman in India,\" published in 1920. No Englishman, he says, served\nthe Government more faithfully than he during twenty-nine years of\npublic life. He risked his life four times for England, and until 1919\nhe sincerely believed in cooperating with the Government. But now he can\ndo so no longer.\n\nGandhi was not the only one to experience this change of feeling. In\n1914 all India had been carried away by the hypocritical idealism of the\nso-called \"war for justice.\" In asking for India's support the English\nGovernment had held out the most brilliant hopes. The granting of home\nrule, which the people longed for, was said to depend on India's\nattitude in the war. In August, 1917, the clever Indian secretary, E. S.\nMontagu, promised India a government responsible to the people. A\nconsultation took place, and in July, 1918, the viceroy, Lord\nChelmsford, and Mr. Montagu signed an official report recommending\nconstitutional reform in India. The Allied armies were in a most\nprecarious position in the early days of 1918. On April 2 Lloyd George\nhad sent an appeal to the people of India, while the war conference,\nsitting at Delhi in the end of the same month, had hinted that the hour\nof India's independence was near. And India had replied as one man while\nGandhi promised England his loyal backing. India contributed 985,000 men\nand made tremendous sacrifices. And she waited confidently for the\npromised reward.\n\nThe awakening was terrible. Danger was over in the end of 1918, and gone\nwas the memory of services rendered. After the signing of the armistice\nthe Government saw no reason for feigning any longer. Instead of\ngranting the promised liberties, it suspended whatever freedom already\nexisted. The Rowlatt bills, proposed at the Imperial Legislative Council\nat Delhi, expressed an insulting distrust of the country which had given\nso many proofs of its loyalty. These bills aimed to establish\ndefinitively the provisions of the Defense Act imposed on India dining\nthe war, and made secret police services, censorship, and all the\ntyrannical annoyances of a real state of siege into a permanent reality.\nThere was one burst of indignation all over India. The revolt began.[21]\nGandhi led it.\n\nHitherto Gandhi had been interested in social reforms only, devoting\nhimself particularly to the conditions of agricultural workers. At\nKaira, in the Gujarat, and at Champaran, in Behar, he had almost\nunnoticeably and with success tried out the formidable weapon which he\nwas soon to use in national struggles. This weapon was the will of\nactive passionate non-resistance. We will study it later under the name\nof _Satyagraha_, which Gandhi has given it.\n\nUntil 1919, however, Gandhi did not participate actively in the Indian\nnationalist movement. Having been united in 1916 by Mrs. Annie Besant,\nthe most advanced elements soon outdistanced her and rallied under the\nleadership of the great Hindu, Lokamanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, a man of\nextraordinary energy, uniting, as in a triple sheaf of iron, a great\nmind, a strong will, and a high character. His intelligence was perhaps\neven keener than Gandhi's, or, rather, it was more solidly nourished on\nold Asiatic culture. He was an erudite, a mathematician, who had\nsacrificed all personal ambitions to serve his country. Like Gandhi, he\nsought no personal recognition and longed only for the triumph of his\nideal in order to be able to retire from the political field and go back\nto his scientific work. As long as he lived he was the undisputed leader\nof India. Who can say what would have happened if he had not met with an\nuntimely death in 1920? If Tilak had lived, Gandhi, who revered Tilak's\ngenius, while differing radically from him in regard to methods and\npolicies, would no doubt have remained religious leader of the movement.\nHow magnificently the people of India could have marched on under such a\ndouble leadership! They would have been irresistible, for Tilak was a\nmaster of action, just as Gandhi is a master of spiritual power. But\nfate decided otherwise. It is, perhaps, to be regretted, not only for\nTilak's sake, but for India's and even for Gandhi's. The r\u00f4le of\nminority leader, of leader of the moral \u00e9lite, would have been more in\naccordance with Gandhi's inmost desires and nature. He would have been\nhappy to let Tilak rule the majority, for Gandhi never had any faith in\nmajorities. But Tilak had. Tilak, a born mathematician and master of\naction, believed in numbers. He was democratic instinctively. He was\nresolutely a politician, who left religious considerations aside. He\nclaimed that politics were not for _sadhus_ (saints, pious men). This\naustere scientist would have sacrificed truth to patriotism. And this\nscrupulously honest and upright man, whose personal life was one of\nspotless purity, did not hesitate to say that in politics everything is\njustified. It might be said that Tilak's conception of politics and that\nof the dictators of Moscow have something in common. Not so with\nGandhi's ideal.[22] Tilak's and Gandhi's discussions brought out their\ndifferent points of view. Between men as sincere as they there is bound\nto be irreconcilable opposition, since their methods are based on their\nconvictions, which are in fundamental opposition. Each man respected and\nrevered the other. But Gandhi felt that if it came to the point he would\nalways set truth first before liberty and even before his country,\nwhereas Tilak set his country above everything. Gandhi feels that no\nmatter how great his love for his country may be, his faith in his\nideal, in religion as expressed in Truth, is greater still.\n\nAs he says on August 11,1920:\n\n\nI am wedded to India because I believe absolutely that she has a mission\nfor the world ... My religion has no geographical limits. I have a\nliving faith in it which will transcend even my love for India\nherself.[23]\n\n\nThese noble words give the key to the struggle which we now will\ndescribe. They prove that the Apostle of India is the Apostle of the\nWorld, and that he is one of us. The battle the Mahatma began fighting\nfour years ago is our battle.[24]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5\n\n\nIt should be noted that when Gandhi stepped into the political field as\nleader of the opposition to the Rowlatt bills, he was moved only by a\ndesire to spare the country from violence.[25] The revolt was bound to\ncome; he knew there was no possibility of avoiding it. The point,\ntherefore, was to turn it into non-violent channels.\n\nTo understand Gandhi's activity, it should be realized that his doctrine\nis like a huge edifice composed of two different floors or grades. Below\nis the solid groundwork, the basic foundation of religion. On this vast\nand unshakable foundation is based the political and social campaign. It\nis not the ideal continuation of the invisible foundation, but it is the\nbest structure possible under present conditions. It is adapted to\nconditions.\n\nIn other words, Gandhi is religious by nature, and his doctrine is\nessentially religious. He is a political leader by necessity, because\nother leaders disappear, and the force of circumstances obliges him to\npilot the ship through the storm and give practical political expression\nto his doctrine. These developments are interesting, but the essential\npart of the edifice is the crypt, which is deep and well built and meant\nto uphold a very different cathedral from the structure rapidly rising\nabove it. The crypt alone is durable. The rest is temporary and only\ndesigned to serve during the transition years, until the plans for a\ncathedral worthy of the groundwork can be worked out. An understanding\nof the principles on which the vast subterranean crypt is based is\nessential, therefore, for here Gandhi's thought finds its real\nexpression. It is into the depths of this crypt that he descends every\nday to seek inspiration and strength to carry on the work above.\n\nGandhi believes in the religion of his people, in Hinduism. But he is\nnot a scholar, attached to the punctilious interpretation of texts, nor\nis he a blind believer accepting unquestioningly all the traditions of\nhis religion. His religion must satisfy his reason and correspond to the\ndictates of his conscience.\n\n\nI would not make a fetish of religion and condone evil in its\nsacred name.[26]\n\nMy belief in the Hindu scripture does not require me to accept every\nword and every verse as divinely inspired. I decline to be bound by any\ninterpretation however learned it may be if it is repugnant to reason or\nmoral sense.[27]\n\n\nNor does he look upon Hinduism as the only religion, and this is a\nvery important point.\n\n\nI do not believe in the exclusive divinity of the Vedas. I believe the\nBible, the Koran and the Zend-Avesta to be as divinely inspired as the\nVedas.... Hinduism is not a missionary religion. In it there is room for\nthe worship of all the prophets in the world ... Hinduism tells every\none to worship God according to his own faith or _Dharma_ and so it\nlives in peace with all religions.[28]\n\n\nHe sees the errors and vices that have crept into religion through the\ncenturies, and he brands them, but he adds:\n\n\nI can no more describe my feeling for Hinduism than for my own wife. She\nmoves me as no other woman in the world can. Not that she has no faults;\nI dare say, she has many more than I see myself. But the feeling of an\nindissoluble bond is there. Even so I feel about Hinduism with all its\nfaults and limitations. Nothing elates me so much as the music of the\nGit\u00e2 or the Ramayana by Tulasidas, the only two books in Hinduism I may\nbe said to know. I know that vice is going on to-day in all the great\nHindu shrines but I love them in spite of their failings. I am a\nreformer through and through. But my zeal never takes me to the\nrejection of any of the essential things of Hinduism.[29]\n\n\nWhat are the essential things in which Gandhi believes? In an article\nwritten October 6,1921, Gandhi defines his conception of Hinduism:\n\n\n1. He believes, he says, in the \"Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas and\nall that goes by the name of Hindu scriptures.\" He believes, therefore,\nin _Avataras_ and rebirth.\n\n2. He believes in the _Varnashrama Dharma_[30] or the \"Discipline of the\nCastes,\" in a sense which he considers \"strictly Vedic,\" but which may\nnot correspond to the present \"popular and crude sense.\"\n\n3. He believes in the \"protection of the cow in a much larger sense than\nthe popular.\"\n\n4. He does not \"disbelieve in idol worship.\"\n\n\nEvery Occidental who reads Gandhi's \"Credo\" and stops at these lines is\napt to feel that they reveal a mentality so different from ours and so\nfar removed in time and space as to make comparison with our ideals\nimpossible, owing to the lack of a common measure. But if he will read\non, he will find, a few lines below, the following words, which express\na doctrine more familiar to us:\n\n\nI believe implicitly in the Hindu aphorism that no one truly knows the\n_Shastras_ who has not attained perfection in Innocence [_Ahimsa_],\nTruth [_Satya_], and Self-Control [_Brahma-Charya_] and who has not\nrenounced all acquisition or possession of wealth.\n\n\nHere the words of the Hindu join those of the Gospel. And Gandhi was\naware of their similarity. To an English clergyman who asked him in 1920\nwhich books had influenced him most, Gandhi replied, \"The New\nTestament.\"[31]\n\nThe last words of Gandhi's \"Ethical Religion\" are a quotation from the\nNew Testament,[32] and he claims that the revelation of passive\nresistance came to him after reading the Sermon on the Mount in\n1893.[33] When the clergyman asked him, in surprise, if he had not found\nthe same message in Hindu scriptures, Gandhi replied that while he has\nfound inspiration and guidance in the Bhagavad Git\u00e2, which he reveres\nand admires, the secret of passive resistance was made clear to him\nthrough the New Testament. A great joy welled up in him, he says, when\nthe revelation came to him, and again when the Git\u00e2 confirmed this\nrevelation.[34] Gandhi also says that Tolstoi's ideal, that the kingdom\nof God is within us, helped him mold his own faith into a real\ndoctrine.[35]\n\nIt should not be forgotten that this Asiatic believer has translated\nRuskin[36] and Plato[37] and quotes Thoreau, admires Mazzini, reads\nEdward Carpenter, and that he is, in short, familiar with the best that\nEurope and America have produced.\n\nThere is no reason why a Westerner should not understand Gandhi's\ndoctrine as well as Gandhi understands those of our great men, provided\nthe Westerner will take the trouble to study Gandhi a little deeply. It\nis true that the mere words of Gandhi's creed may surprise him, and that\ntwo paragraphs, in fact, if read superficially, may seem so different\nfrom our mentality as to form an almost insurmountable barrier between\nthe religious ideals of Asia and Europe. One of these paragraphs refers\nto cow-protection and the other to the caste system. As for Gandhi's\nreference to idol-worship, it requires no special study. Gandhi explains\nhis attitude when he says that he has no veneration for idols but\nbelieves idol-worship to be part of human nature. He considers it\ninherent to the frailty of the human mind, because we all \"hanker after\nsymbolism\" and must needs materialize our faith in order really to\nunderstand it. When Gandhi says he does not disbelieve in idol-worship,\nhe means no more than what we countenance in all our ritualistic\nchurches of the West.\n\n\"Cow-protection,\" says Gandhi, is the central fact of Hinduism. He looks\nupon it as one of the \"most wonderful phenomena of human evolution.\"\nWhy? Because the cow, to him, is taken as the symbol of the entire\n\"sub-human world.\" Cow-protection means that man concludes a pact of\nalliance with his dumb brethren; it signifies fraternity between man and\nbeast. According to Gandhi's beautiful expression, by learning to\nrespect, revere, an animal, man is \"taken beyond his species and is\nenjoined to realize his identity with all that lives.\"\n\nIf the cow was selected in preference to other creatures it was because\nin India the cow was the best companion, the giver of plenty. Not only\ndid she give the milk but she made agriculture possible. And Gandhi sees\nin \"this gentle animal\" a \"poem of pity.\"\n\nBut there is nothing idolatrous about Gandhi's cow-worship, and no one\ncondemns more harshly than he the fetishism of many so-called believers,\nwho observe the letter of \"cow-worship\" without exercising a spirit of\ncompassion \"for the dumb creatures of God.\" Whoever understands the\nspirit of compassion and fellow-feeling that Gandhi would have men feel\nfor their dumb brethren,--and who would have understood this better than\nthe _poverello_ Assisi?--is not surprised that Gandhi lays such stress\non cow-protection in his creed. From this point of view he is quite\njustified in saying that cow-protection is the \"gift of Hinduism to the\nworld.\" To the precept of the gospel, \"Love thy neighbor as thyself,\"\nGandhi adds, \"And every living being is thy neighbor.\"[38]\n\nGandhi's belief in the caste system is almost more difficult for a\nEuropean or Western mind to understand--it seems more foreign, almost,\nthan the idea of the fellowship of all living beings. I should perhaps\nsay \"European or Western mind of to-day,\" for while we still believe in\na certain equality, Heaven knows how we will feel in the future, when we\nbecome thoroughly imbued with the consequences of the evolution,\ndemocratic in name only, which we are undergoing! I do not imagine that\nat our present stage of development my explanation of Gandhi's views\nwill make them seem acceptable as regards the caste system; nor am I\nanxious to have them seem so. But I would like to make it clear that\nGandhi's conception of the caste system is different from what we\nusually mean by that term, since he does not base it on pride or vain\nnotions of social superiority, but on duties.\n\n\nI am inclined to think [he says] that the law of heredity is an eternal\nlaw, and that any attempt to alter it must lead to utter confusion ...\n_Varnashrama_ or the caste system, is inherent in human nature. Hinduism\nhas simply reduced it to a science.\n\n\nGandhi believes in four classes or castes. The _Brahmans_, the\nintellectual and spiritual class; the the military and governmental\nclass; the _Vaishyas_, the commercial, industrial class; and the\n_Shudras_, manual workers and laborers. This classification does not\nimply any superiority or inferiority. It simply stands for different\nvocations. \"These classes define duties, they confer no privileges.\"[39]\n\n\nIt is against the genius of Hinduism to arrogate to oneself a higher\nstatus or assign others to a lower. All are born to serve God's\ncreation, the _Brahman_ with his knowledge, the _Kshatriya_ with his\npower of protection, the _Vaishya_ with his commercial ability, the\n_Shudra_ with his bodily labor.\n\nThis does not mean that a _Brahman_ is absolved from bodily labor but it\ndoes mean that he is predominantly a man of knowledge and fittest by\ntraining and heredity to impart it to others. There is nothing again to\nprevent a _Shudra_ from acquiring all the knowledge he wishes. Only he\nwill best serve with his body and need not envy others their special\nqualities for service. A _Brahman_ who claims superiority by right of\nknowledge falls and has no knowledge. Varnashrama is self-restraint and\nconservation of economy and energy....\n\n\nGandhi's caste system is based, therefore, on \"abnegation and not on\nprivileges.\" It should not be forgotten, moreover, that according to\nHinduism reincarnation reestablishes a general equilibrium, as in the\ncourse of successive existences a _Brahman_ becomes a _Shudra_, and\n_vice versa._\n\nThe caste system, which deals with different classes of equal rank,\nbears no relation whatsoever to the attitude of Hindus to the\n\"untouchables,\" or pariahs. We will study later on Gandhi's passionate\nappeals for the pariahs. His campaign in favor of the \"suppressed\nclasses\" is one of the most appealing phases of his apostleship. Gandhi\nregards the pariah system as a blot on Hinduism; it is a vile\ndeformation of the real doctrine, and he suffers intolerably by it.\n\n\nI would rather be torn to pieces than disown my brothers of the\nsuppressed classes.... I do not want to be reborn, but if I have to be\nreborn, I should be \"untouchable\" so that I may share their sorrows,\nsufferings and the affronts leveled at them in order that I may endeavor\nto free them from their miserable condition.\n\n\nAnd he adopts a little \"untouchable\" girl and speaks with emotion of\nthis charming little imp of seven who rules the household with her gay\nprattle.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6\n\n\nI have said enough to show Gandhi's great evangelical heart beating\nunder his Hindu creed. Gandhi is a Tolstoi in a more gentle, appeased,\nand, if I dared, I would say, in a more Christian sense, for Tolstoi is\nnot so much a Christian by nature as by force of will.\n\nThe resemblance between the two men is greatest, or perhaps Tolstoi's\ninfluence has been strongest, in their condemnation of European and\nOccidental civilization.\n\nEver since Rousseau our Western civilization has been attacked by the\nfreest and broadest minds of Europe. When Asia began to wake to a\nrealization of her own power and revolt against Western oppression, she\nhad only to peer into Europe's own files to compile formidable records\nof the iniquity of her so-called civilized invaders. Gandhi did not fail\nto do so, and in his \"Hind Swaraj\" he cites a list of books, many of\nwhich were written by Englishmen, condemning European civilization. But\nthe document to which there can be no rejoinder is that which Europe\nherself has traced in the lifeblood of races oppressed and despoiled in\nthe name of lying principles and, above all, in the brazen revelation of\nEurope's lies, greed, and ferocity as unfolded during the last war,\ncalled the \"War for Civilization.\" And in it Europe sank to such depths\nthat in her insanity she even invited the peoples of Asia and Africa to\ncontemplate her nudity. They saw her and judged her.\n\n\nThe last war has shown as nothing else has the Satanic[40] nature of the\ncivilization that dominates Europe to-day. Every canon of public\nmorality has been broken by the victors in the name of virtue. No lie\nhas been considered too foul to be uttered. The motive behind every\ncrime is not religious or spiritual but grossly material... Europe\nto-day is only nominally Christian. In reality it is worshipping\nMammon.[41]\n\n\nYou will find sentiments such as these expressed again and again, during\nthe last five years, both in India and Japan. Leaders too prudent to\nvoice them openly show by their attitude that such is their inmost\nconviction. This is not the least disastrous result of the Pyrrhic\nvictory of 1918.\n\nGandhi, however, had seen the real face of Western civilization long\nbefore 1914. It had revealed itself to him unmasked during his twenty\nyears' campaign in South Africa, and in 1908, in his \"Hind Swaraj,\" he\ncalls modern civilization the \"great vice.\"\n\nCivilization, says Gandhi, is civilization in name only. In reality it\ncorresponds to what ancient Hinduism called the dark ages. It has set\nmaterial well-being up as the only goal of life. It scorns spiritual\nvalues. It maddens Europeans, leads them to worship money only, and\nprevents them from finding peace or cultivating the best within them.\nCivilization in the Western sense means hell for the weak and for the\nworking classes. It saps the vitality of the race. But this Satanic\ncivilization will destroy itself. Western civilization is India's real\nenemy, much more than the English, who, individually, are not bad, hut\nsimply suffer from their civilization. Gandhi criticizes those of his\ncompatriots who would want to drive out the English, to develop India\nthemselves, and civilize her according to European standards. This, he\nsays, would be like having the nature of a tiger without the tiger.\nIndia's aim should be to repudiate Western civilization.\n\nIn his arraignment of Western civilization Gandhi scores three\ncategories of men particularly: magistrates, doctors, and teachers.\n\nGandhi's objection to teachers is quite comprehensible, since they have\nbrought the Hindus up to scorn or neglect their own language and to\ndisown their real aspirations; in fact, the teachers in India have\ninflicted a sort of national degradation on the schoolchildren in their\ncharge. Besides, Western teachers appeal to the mind only; they neglect\nthe education of the heart and of the character. Finally, they\ndepreciate bodily labor, and to spread a purely literary education in a\ncountry where eighty per cent of the population is agricultural and ten\nper cent industrial is positively criminal.\n\nThe profession of magistrate is immoral. In India the courts are an\ninstrument of British domination; they encourage dissensions among\nIndians, and in a general way they foster and increase misunderstanding\nand animosity. They stand for a fattening, lucrative exploitation of the\nworst instincts.\n\nAs for the medical profession, Gandhi admits he was attracted to it at\nfirst, but he soon realized it was not honorable. For Western medical\nscience is concerned with giving relief to suffering bodies only. It\ndoes not strive to do away with the cause of suffering and disease,\nwhich, as a rule, is nothing but vice. In fact, Western medical science\nmay almost be said to encourage vice by making it possible for a man to\nsatisfy his passions and appetites at the least possible risk. It\ncontributes, therefore, to demoralize people; it weakens their\nwill-power by helping them to cure themselves with \"black magic\"\nprescriptions instead of forcing them to strengthen their character by\ndisciplinary rules for body and soul.[42] In opposition to the false\nmedical science of the West, which Gandhi has often criticized unfairly,\nhe places preventive medical science. He has written a little pamphlet\non the subject entitled \"A Guide to Health,\" which is the fruit of\ntwenty years' experience. It is a moral as well as a therapeutic\ntreatise, for, according to Gandhi, \"disease is the result of our\nthoughts as much as of our acts.\" He considers it a relatively simple\nmatter to establish certain rules that will prevent disease. For all\ndisease springs from the same origin, i. e., from neglect of the natural\nlaws of health. The body is God's dwelling-place. It must be kept pure.\nThere is truth in Gandhi's point of view, but he refuses a little too\nobstinately to recognize the efficacy of remedies that have really\nproved to be useful. His moral precepts are also extremely rigid.[43]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7\n\n\nBut the nucleus of modern civilization, its heart, so to speak, is\nmachinery. Age of iron! Heart of iron! The machine has become a\nmonstrous idol. It must be done away with. Gandhi's most ardent desire\nis to see machinery wiped out of India. To a free India, heir to British\nmachinery, he would prefer an India dependent on the British market. It\nwould be better to buy materials manufactured in Manchester than to set\nup Manchester factories in India. An Indian Rockefeller would be no\nbetter than a European capitalist. Machinery is the great sin which\nenslaves nations, and money is a poison as much as sexual vice.\n\nIndian progressives, however, imbued with modern ideas, ask what would\nbecome of India if she were to have no railroads, tramways, or\nindustries? To this Gandhi asks if India did not exist before they were\ninvented? For thousands of years India has resisted, alone, unshaken,\nthe changing flood of empires. Everything else has passed. But thousands\nof years ago India learned the art of self-control and mastered the\nscience of happiness. She has nothing to learn from other nations. She\ndoes not need the machinery of large cities. Her ancient prosperity was\nfounded on the plow and the spinning-wheel, and on a knowledge of Hindu\nphilosophy. India must go back to the sources of her ancient culture.\nNot all at once, of course, but gradually. And every one must help in\nthe evolution.[44]\n\nThis is Gandhi's fundamental argument. It is a very important one, and\ndemands discussion. For it stands for a denial of progress and,\nvirtually, of Europe's scientific achievement.[45] This medieval\nconception is apt, therefore, to clash with the volcanic forward march\nof the human mind and incurs the risk of being blown to bits. But, first\nof all, it would perhaps be wiser to say, the \"forward march of a\ncertain _phase_ of the human mind,\" for if one may believe, as I\nbelieve, in the symphonic unity of the universal spirit, one must\nrealize that it is made up of many different voices, each one singing\nits own part. Our youthful Occident carried away by its own score, does\nnot realize sufficiently that it has not always led the song, nor that\nits own law of progress is subject to eclipses, backslidings, and\nrecommencements; that the history of human civilization is really a\nhistory of human civilizations, and that while within the domain of each\ncivilization a certain progress may be discernible, a progress\nirregular, chaotic, broken, and at times completely halted, it would be\nwrong to say that the predominance of one great civilization over\nanother necessarily implies general human progress.\n\nBut without entering into a discussion as to the European dogma of\nprogress and merely bearing in mind that this dogma, such as it is,\nconflicts with Gandhi's faith, we must realize that no conflict will\nweaken Gandhi's faith. To believe anything else would be to show a total\nignorance of the workings of the Oriental mind. As Gobineau says:\n\"Asiatics are much more obstinate than we, in every way. They will wait\ncenturies, if necessary, for the fulfilment of their ideal, and when it\nrises triumphant after such a long slumber it does not seem to have aged\nor lost any of its vitality.\" Centuries mean nothing to a Hindu. Gandhi\nis prepared for the triumph of his cause within the year. But he is\nequally prepared for it within the course of several centuries. He does\nnot force time. And if time makes haste slowly, he regulates his gait by\nits march.\n\nIf, therefore, in the course of his campaign Gandhi finds India\ninsufficiently prepared to understand and practise the radical reforms\nhe wishes to impose, he will adapt his doctrine to conditions. He will\nbide his time. That is why it is not astonishing to hear the\nirreconcilable enemy of machinery declare, in 1921:\n\n\nI would not weep over the disappearance of machinery or consider this a\ncalamity. But for the time being I have no designs on machinery as\nsuch.[46]\n\n\nOr:\n\n\nThe law of complete Love is the Law of my being. But I am not preaching\nthis final law through the political measures I advocate. I know that\nany such attempt is foredoomed to failure. To expect a whole mass of men\nand women to obey that law all at once is not to know its working.[47] I\nam not a visionary. I claim to be a practical idealist.[48]\n\n\nGandhi never asks men for more than they can give. But he asks for all\nthat they can give. And this is much in a nation like India--a\nformidable nation, through its numerical power, its force of duration,\nand its abysmal soul. From the very first Gandhi and India have formed a\npact; they understand each other without words. Gandhi knows what he can\ndemand of India, and India is prepared to give whatever Gandhi may\ndemand.\n\nBetween Gandhi and India there reigns, first of all, absolute agreement\nas to goal: _Swaraj_, home rule, for the nation.[49]\n\n\"I know,\" he says, \"that _Swaraj_ is the object of the nation and not\nnon-violence.\"\n\nAnd he adds--words amazing on his lips, \"I would rather see India freed\nby violence than enchained like a slave to her foreign oppressors.\"\n\nBut, he continues, correcting himself at once, this is an impossible\nsupposition, for violence can never free India. _Swaraj_ can only be\nattained by soul-force. This is India's real weapon, the invincible\nweapon of love and truth. Gandhi expresses it by the term _Satyagraha_,\nwhich he defines as truth-force and love-force.[50] Gandhi's genius\nrevealed itself when, by the preaching of this gospel, he revealed to\nhis people their real nature and their hidden strength.\n\nGandhi used the word _Satyagraha_ in South Africa to explain the\ndifference between his ideal and that of passive resistance. Particular\nstress must be laid on the difference between these two movements.\nNothing is more false than to call Gandhi's campaign a movement of\npassive resistance. No one has a greater horror of passivity than this\ntireless fighter, who is one of the most heroic incarnations of a man\nwho _resists._ The soul of his movement is active resistance--resistance\nwhich finds outlet, not in violence, but in the active force of love,\nfaith and sacrifice. This threefold energy is expressed in the word\n_Satyagraha._\n\nLet not the coward try to hide his cowardice under Gandhi's banner!\nGandhi drives him out of the community. Better violence than cowardice!\n\n\nWhere there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I advise\nviolence....[51] I cultivate the quiet courage of dying without killing.\nBut to him who has not this courage I advise that of killing and of\nbeing killed, rather than that of shamefully fleeing from danger. For he\nwho runs away commits mental violence; he runs away because he has not\nthe courage to be killed while he kills.[52]\n\nI would risk violence a thousand times rather than emasculation of the\nrace.[53] I would rather have India resort to arms to defend her honor\nthan that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless\nvictim to her own dishonor.[54]\n\nBut I believe that non-violence is infinitely superior to violence,\nforgiveness more manly than punishment. Forgiveness adorns a soldier.\nAbstinence is forgiveness only when there is power to punish; it is\nmeaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature.... I\ndo not believe India to be helpless. One hundred thousand Englishmen\nneed not frighten three hundred million human beings.\n\nBesides.\n\nStrength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an\nindomitable will. Non-violence does not mean meek submission to the will\nof the evil-doer but the putting of one's whole soul against the will of\nthe tyrant. Working under this law of our being it is possible for a\nsingle individual to defy the whole might of an unjust empire and lay\nthe foundation for that empire's fall or its regeneration.\n\n\nBut at the cost of what? Of _suffering_--the _great law._\n\n\nSuffering is the mark of the human tribe. It is an eternal law.[55] The\nmother suffers so that her child may live. Life comes out of death. The\ncondition of wheat growing is that the seed grain should perish. No\ncountry has ever risen without being purified through the fire of\nsuffering.... It is impossible to do away with the law of suffering\nwhich is the one indispensable condition of our being. Progress is to be\nmeasured by the amount of suffering undergone ... the purer the\nsuffering, the greater is the progress.[56]\n\nNon-violence in its dynamic condition means conscious suffering.... I\nhave ventured to place before India the ancient law of self-sacrifice,\nthe law of suffering. The _Rishis_ who discovered the law of\nnon-violence in the midst of violence were greater geniuses than Newton,\ngreater warriors than Wellington. Having themselves known the use of\narms they realized their uselessness and taught a weary world that\nsalvation lay not through violence but through non-violence.... The\nreligion of non-violence is not meant merely for the _Rishis_ and\nsaints. It is meant for the common people as well. Non-violence is the\nlaw of our species as violence is the law of the brute. The dignity of\nman requires obedience to a higher law--to the strength of the\nspirit.... I want India to practise non-violence being conscious of her\nstrength and power. I want India to recognize that she has a soul that\ncannot perish and that can rise triumphant above every physical weakness\nand defy the physical combination of a whole world.[57]\n\n\nExalted pride, his proud love of India, demands she should scorn\nviolence as unworthy and be ready to sacrifice herself. Non-violence is\nher title of nobility. If she abandons it she falls. Gandhi cannot bear\nthe thought.\n\n\nIf India made violence her creed I would not care to live in India. She\nwould cease to evoke any pride in me. My patriotism is subservient to my\nreligion. I cling to India like a child to its mother's breast because I\nfeel that she gives me the spiritual nourishment I need. If she were to\nfail me, I would feel like an orphan, without hope of ever finding a\nguardian. Then the snow altitudes of the Himalayas must give what rest\nthey can to my bleeding soul....[58]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 8\n\n\nBut Gandhi does not doubt India's endurance. In February, 1919, he\ndecided to start the _Satyagraha_ movement, whose efficacy had already\nbeen tested during the agrarian revolt in 1918.\n\nThe campaign is not at all political, as yet: Gandhi is still a\nloyalist. And he remains one as long as he retains a grain of faith in\nEngland's loyalty. Until January, 1920, he advocated cooperation with\nthe empire, even though the nationalists criticized him bitterly\ntherefore.[59] Gandhi's arguments are inspired by his sincere\nconviction, and during the first year of his campaign against the\nGovernment he could truthfully assure Lord Hunter that he believed the\ndisciples of _Satyagraha_ to be the most loyal supporters of the\nConstitution. Only the narrow-minded obstinacy of the Government forced\nIndia's moral guide finally to tear up the contract of loyalty by which\nhe considered himself hound.\n\nTo begin with, therefore, the _Satyagraha_ campaign takes the form of\nconstitutional opposition to the Government. It is a respectful appeal\nfor certain urgent reforms. The Government is guilty of passing an\nunjust law. The _Satyagrahi_, who are law-abiding people, will disobey\nthis law deliberately, because they consider it unjust. If their\nattitude does not convince the Government of the necessity of repealing\nthe law, they will extend their disobedience to other laws, and\neventually they may cease all cooperation with the Government. But how\ndifferent is the meaning which India gives to this word from that which\nwe in the West give to it! Such extraordinary religious heroism as is\ncontained in it!\n\nAs the _Satyagrahi_ are not allowed to use violence in advancing their\ncause (the idea being that the adversary, too, is sincere, since what\nseems truth to one person may seem untruth to another, while violence\nnever carries conviction),[60] they must rely solely on the love-force\nthat radiates from their faith and on their willingness to accept\nsuffering and sacrifice joyously, freely.[61] This constitutes\nirresistible propaganda. With it the cross of Christ and his little\nflock conquered the Roman Empire.\n\nIn order to emphasize the religious character of the people's\nwillingness to sacrifice themselves for the eternal ideals of justice\nand liberty, the Mahatma inaugurated the movement by setting April 6,\n1919,[62] aside as a day of prayers and fasting, by imposing a _hartal_\nof all India.[63] This was the first step.\n\nThis first step went right to the heart of the people, stirred their\ninmost consciousness. For the first time all classes of India united in\nthe same ideal. India found herself.\n\nOrder reigned everywhere. At Delhi only there were a few\ndisturbances.[64] Gandhi set out to quiet them. But the Government had\nhim arrested and sent him back to Bombay. The news of his arrest caused\nriots in Punjab; at Amritsar some houses were looted, and a few people\nwere killed. In the night of April 11 General Dyer arrived with his\ntroops and occupied the city. Order reigned everywhere. The fifteenth\nwas a great Hindu feast-day. A meeting was to take place at an open\nspace called Jallianwalla Bagh. The crowd was peaceful and numbered many\nwomen and children. The night before General Dyer had sent out an order\nforbidding public meetings, but no one had heard about it. The general,\nhowever, came to Jallianwalla Bagh with his machine-guns and without\nwarning opened fire on the defenseless mass of people. The firing lasted\nabout ten minutes, till the ammunition was used up. As the grounds were\nsurrounded by high walls, no one could escape. From five to six hundred\nHindus were killed, and a much larger number wounded. There was no one\nto care for the dead and wounded. As the result of the massacre, martial\nlaw was proclaimed, and a reign of terror spread over Punjab.\nA\u00ebroplanes threw bombs on the unarmed crowds. The most honorable\ncitizens were dragged to court, flogged, and forced to crawl on their\nknees, and subjected to the most shocking indignities. It was as if a\nwind of madness swept over the English rulers. It was as if the law of\nnon-violence, proclaimed by India, stirred European violence to frenzy.\nGandhi saw bloodshed and suffering were ahead. But he had not promised\nto lead his people to victory along a white road. He had warned them\nthat the path would be washed with blood. Jallianwalla Bagh was only the\nbeginning:\n\n\nWe must be prepared to contemplate with equanimity not a thousand\nmurders of innocent men and women but many thousands before we attain a\nstatus in the world that shall not be surpassed by any nation.... We\nhope, therefore, that all concerned will take rather than lose heart and\ntreat hanging as an ordinary affair of life.[65]\n\n\nOwing to the rigorous military censorship, the news of the horrors of\nPunjab did not leak out for several months. But when it did leak out[66]\na wave of indignation swept over India and alarmed even English opinion.\nAn investigation was ordered, and Lord Hunter presided over the\ncommission.\n\nIn the meantime, the National Indian Congress formed a subcommission to\ncarry on investigations independently of the Government, but along the\nsame lines. It was to the obvious interest of the Government, as all\nintelligent Englishmen realized, to punish those guilty of the massacre\nof Amritsar. Gandhi did not demand as much as that. In his admirable\nmoderation he did not ask for the punishment of General Dyer and the\nguilty officers. While denouncing them, he felt no bitterness and sought\nno vengeance. One bears no ill will to a madman. But one must put him\nwhere he can do no damage. Gandhi, therefore, merely asked that General\nDyer be recalled. But _quos vult perdere._... Before the results of the\ninvestigation could be published, the Government passed an indemnity act\nto protect official employees. Though Dyer was removed from his post, he\nwas rewarded with money contributed from private sources.\n\nWhile India was still in effervescence after the Punjab affair, a second\nconflict arose between the Government and the people, a more serious one\nthis time, because it implied a flagrant violation of solemn promises.\nThe Government's attitude shattered whatever confidence India still had\nin the good faith of the English rulers, and brought on the great\nrevolt.\n\nThe European War had placed the Moslems of India in a very painful\ndilemma. They were torn between their duty as loyal citizens of the\nempire and faithful followers of their religious chief. They agreed to\nhelp England when she promised not to attack the sultan's or the\ncaliph's sovereignty. It was the sense of Moslem opinion in India that\nthe Turks should remain in Turkey in Europe and that the sultan should\nretain not only authority over the Holy Places of Islam, but over Arabia\nas delimited by Mohammedan scholars with the enclaves of Mesopotamia,\nSyria, and Palestine. This Lloyd George and the viceroy solemnly\npromised. When the war was over, however, all pledges were forgotten.\nAnd when the rumors of the peace terms to be imposed on Turkey began to\ncirculate in 1919, the Moslems in India began to grow restless, and\ntheir discontent finally started the Khilafat or Califat movement.\n\nIt began October 17,1919 (Khilafat day), with an imposing peaceful\ndemonstration, which was followed, about a month later (November 24), by\nthe opening of an All-India Khilafat Conference at Delhi. Gandhi\npresided. With his quick glance he had realized that the Islamic\nagitation might be made into the instrument of Indian unity. The problem\nof uniting the various races in India was a most difficult one. The\nEnglish had always taken advantage of the natural enmity between Hindus\nand Moslems; Gandhi even accuses them of having fostered it. At any\nrate, they had never tried to conciliate the two peoples, who challenged\neach other childishly. To annoy the Mohammedans, for instance, the\nHindus used to make a point of singing when they passed the mosques\nwhere silence should reign, while the Mohammedans lost no opportunity of\njeering the Hindus' cow-worship. Mutual ill will and persistent\nanimosity reigned between the two races, who never associated with each\nother and were not allowed to intermarry or even eat in common. The\nEnglish Government rested sweetly on the cushion of implicit trust in\nthe impossibility of the two ever agreeing and adopting a common policy.\nWhen Gandhi's voice, therefore, proclaimed the identity of the Hindu and\nthe Moslem cause, it awoke with a start. In an outburst of generosity,\nwhich happened to be sound politics, Gandhi urged the Hindus to do all\nin their power to advance Mohammedan claims.\n\n\nHindus, Parsees, Christians, or Jews, if we wish to live as one nation,\nthe interest of any one of us must be the interest of all. The only\ndeciding consideration can be the justice of a particular cause.\n\n\nMohammedan blood had already mixed with that of the Hindus in the tragic\nmassacre of Amritsar. The two people now had to seal their alliance, an\nunconditional alliance. The Moslems were the most advanced and audacious\nelement in India. And they were the first to announce, at this Khilafat\nConference, that they would refuse to cooperate with the Government if\ntheir demands were not met. Gandhi approved of this measure, but in his\ninnate horror of going to extremes he refused at the time to advocate\nthe boycott of British goods, for he looked upon the boycott as an\nexpression of weakness or thirst for vengeance. A second Khilafat\nConference met at Amritsar in the end of December, 1919, and decided to\nsend a deputation to Europe to inform the English Government and the\nSupreme Council of India's attitude. It also voted for the sending of an\nultimatum to the viceroy, warning him of trouble if the peace terms\nshould prove unsatisfactory. Finally a third conference, meeting in\nBombay in February, 1920, issued a manifesto which, in its violent\narraignment of Great Britain's policy, was a forerunner of the coming\nstorm.\n\nGandhi realized the storm was brewing, and instead of trying to call it\nforth he did all in his power to break its violence.\n\nIt seemed as if England also realized the danger. By belated\nconcessions she seemed to be making desperate efforts to avert the\nconsequences of her former attitude. An Indian Reform Act based on the\nMontagu-Chelmsford report gave the people in India more influence in the\nCentral Government as well as in local administrations. The king\napproved the act by a proclamation of December 24, 1919, in which he\ninvited the people of India and the functionaries to cooperate with the\nGovernment in every way, while he also urged the viceroy to pardon\npolitical offenses and recommended a general amnesty. Gandhi, always\nready to believe in the adversary's good faith, interpreted these\nmeasures as signifying a sort of tacit agreement to deal more justly\nwith India, and he called upon the people to welcome the reforms. He\nconfessed that they were insufficient, but he said they should be\naccepted as the starting-point for greater victories. He urged the\nconference to approve them unreservedly. After a heated debate the\nNational Indian Congress adopted his view.\n\nBut soon it became evident that Gandhi's hopes were built on illusions.\nThe viceroy did not heed the king's appeal for clemency, and instead of\nsetting prisoners free, the doors of the jails opened only for\nexecutions. It became evident that the promised reforms would remain\ninoperative.\n\nOn top of this came the news of the peace conditions imposed on Turkey,\nMay 14, 1920. In a message to the people the viceroy admitted they would\nprove disappointing, but he advised the Moslems to resign themselves to\nthe inevitable.\n\nThen came the publication of the official report on the Amritsar\nmassacres. It was the last straw.\n\nIndia's national consciousness was aroused. All ties were broken.\n\nThe Khilafat Committee, meeting at Bombay, May 28, 1920, passed a\nresolution adopting Gandhi's non-cooperation policy, and this resolution\nwas ratified unanimously by the Moslem Conference of Allahabad, June 80,\n1920.\n\nGandhi, in the meantime, wrote an open letter to the viceroy informing\nhim that the movement of non-cooperation would begin. He explained why\nhe had recourse to it, and his arguments are worth studying, for they\nprove that even then Gandhi was hoping to avoid a break with England. In\nthe bottom of his heart he still hoped that the Government might be\nbrought to mend its ways by purely legal methods:\n\n\nThe only course open to me is either in despair to sever all connection\nwith British rule or, if I still retain faith in the inherent\nsuperiority of the British Constitution, to adopt such means as will\nrectify the wrong done and thus restore confidence. I have not lost\nfaith in the superiority of the British Constitution and it is because I\nbelieve in it that I have advised my Moslem friends to withdraw their\nsupport from Your Excellency's Government, and advised the Hindus to\njoin them.\n\n\nAnd this noble citizen of the empire the blind pride of the empire\nspurned.\n\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: As C. F. Andrews says, \"He laughs like a child and\nadores children.\"]\n\n[Footnote 2: \"Few can resist the charm of his personality. His bitterest\nenemies become courteous when confronted with his beautiful courtesy.\"\n(Joseph J. Doke.)]\n\n[Footnote 3: \"Every departure from truth, no matter how trifling, is\nintolerable to him.\" (C. F. Andrews.)]\n\n[Footnote 4: \"He is not a passionate orator; his manner is calm and\nserene and he appeals particularly to the intelligence. But his serenity\nplaces the subject he discusses in the clearest light. The inflexions of\nhis voice are not varied but they are intensely sincere. He never makes\nany gestures with his arms, in fact he rarely even moves a finger. But\nhis luminous words, expressed in terse, concise sentences, carry\nconviction. He never abandons a subject before he feels that he has made\nit perfectly clear.\" (Joseph J. Doke.)]\n\n[Footnote 5: \"Young India,\" March 2, 1922. The dates cited in the motes\nof this volume refer to the date of publication of Gandhi\u2019s articles\nin \"Young India.\"]\n\n[Footnote 6: _A_, privative, _himsa_, to do evil. Hence, _ahimsa_,\nprinciple of not harming any form of life, nonviolence. It is one of\nHinduism's most ancient precepts, proclaimed by Mahavira, the founder of\nJa\u00efnism, by Buddha, as well as by the disciples of Vishnu.]\n\n[Footnote 7: He attended the elementary school of Porbandar till the age\nof seven and then the public school of Rajkot till ten. After that he\nwent to the high school of Katyavar until, at the age of seventeen, he\nentered the University of Ahmedabad.]\n\n[Footnote 8: He described his childhood in a speech at the Pariah\nConference, April 13, 1921.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Long afterward he told Joseph Doke of the anguish he had\nsuffered after eating meat. He was unable to sleep; he felt like a\nmurderer.]\n\n[Footnote 10: He is not in favor of child marriages, however, and made a\ncampaign against them, on the ground that they weaken the race. In\nexceptional cases, however, he says that such unions, sealed before the\nindividual's character is molded, may build up between husband and wife\nan exceptionally beautiful relationship of sympathy and harmony.\nGandhi's own wife is an admirable example of this. Mrs. Gandhi shared\nall her husband's trials and adversities with unfailing steadfastness of\npurpose and indomitable courage.]\n\n[Footnote 11: Speech of April 13, 1921.]\n\n[Footnote 12: These two men, precursors, have suffered from the\ningratitude and forgetfulness of younger generations. Their political\nideal having been surpassed, their efforts in paving the way have been\ndeprecated. Gandhi, however, always realized their contribution to the\ncause and remained true to them, particularly to Gokhale, for whom he\nfelt a deep and almost religious affection. He frequently speaks of\nGokhale and Dadabhai as men whom Young India should venerate. (See \"Hind\nSwaraj, Letter to the Parsecs, Young India,\" March 23, 1921, and the\nConfession of Faith, July 13, 1921.)]\n\n[Footnote 13: A long letter from Tolstoi to Gandhi is published in the\n\"Golden Number\" of \"Indian Opinion.\" It was written September 7, 1910,\nshortly before Tolstoi's death. Tolstoi had read \"Indian Opinion,\" and\nhe was gratified to hear of the Indian non-resisters. He praised their\ncampaign and says that non-resistance is the law of love, an aspiration\nto form part of the communion of human souls. It is the law of Christ\nand of all the spiritual leaders of the world.\n\nMy friend Paul Biroukoff found several other letters from Tolstoi to\nGandhi in the Tolstoi archives at Moscow. He is planning to publish them\nin a volume entitled \"Tolstoi and the Orient,\" adding them to several\nother letters written by Tolstoi to various great men of the East.]\n\n[Footnote 14: Gandhi himself tells in his quiet humorous way of his\nexperiences in prison in a curious article printed in the volume,\n\"Speeches and Writings of M. K. Gandhi,\" Natesan, Madras, pp. 152-178.]\n\n[Footnote 15: In 1907 Gandhi was the victim of the violence of his own\ncompatriots, for his moderation was eyed with suspicion by certain\nIndians, while, the Government, on the other hand, did all in its power\nto compromise him. Gandhi, therefore, suffered from the violence of the\noppressed as well as of the oppressors.]\n\n[Footnote 16: I will dwell on \"Hind Swaraj\" a little more at length,\nlater on.]\n\n[Footnote 17: Joseph J. Doke, interesting because of his interviews with\nGandhi, tells in the last chapter of his book how, in 1908, Gandhi was\nled to the fort of Johannesburg in prison garb and thrown into a cell\nwith Chinese common-law criminals of the worst sort.]\n\n[Footnote 18: Two high-minded Englishmen, C. F. Andrews and W. W.\nPearson, seconded Gandhi's efforts by all means within their power.]\n\n[Footnote 19: Gandhi refers to this in an article dated May 12, 1920.]\n\n[Footnote 20: Shortly before he died, Gokhale, Gandhi's beloved master,\nhad suggested that Gandhi make a trip through India and study conditions\nat first hand, before going into politics. And Gandhi had promised not\nto take an active part in the political life of India for a year.]\n\n[Footnote 21: The Satyagraha movement may be said to have begun\nFebruary 28, 1919.]\n\n[Footnote 22: Gandhi explained his attitude toward Bolshevism on\nNovember 24, 1921.]\n\n[Footnote 23: August 11, 1920: Gandhi protests against the doctrine\nof the sword.]\n\n[Footnote 24: \"Humanity is one. There are different races, but the\nhigher a race the greater its duties.\" (\"Ethical Religion\")]\n\n[Footnote 25: November 5, 1919.]\n\n[Footnote 26: October 27, 1920.]\n\n[Footnote 27: October 6, 1921.]\n\n[Footnote 28: All religions are like different roads leading to the same\ngoal. (\"Hind Swaraj.\") \"All religions are founded on the same moral\nlaws. My ethical religion is made up of laws which bind men all over the\nworld.\" (\"Ethical Religion.\")]\n\n[Footnote 29: October 6, 1921.]\n\n[Footnote 30: Etymologically, _varna_, color, class or caste; _ashrama_,\nplace of discipline; _dharma_, religion. Society, in other words, stands\nfor \"discipline of the castes.\"]\n\n[Footnote 31: February 25, 1920. In a second line Gandhi adds, \"Ruskin\nand Tolstoi.\"]\n\n[Footnote 32: \"Seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness and all\nthese things shall be added unto you.\"]\n\n[Footnote 33: \"Young India,\" February 25, 1920.]\n\n[Footnote 34: He says to Joseph J. Doke in 1908 that God has been\nincarnate throughout the ages, in different forms, because, as explained\nin the Git\u00e2, Krishna says: \"When religion falls into decadence and\nunbelief prevails, I manifest myself. For the protection of all that is\ngood, and the destruction of all that is evil, for the establishment of\nDharma, I must be born and reborn, for ever and ever.\" Christianism is\npart of Gandhi's theology. Christ is a radiant revelation of God. But\nnot the only revelation. He is not seated on the throne alone.]\n\n[Footnote 35: The \"Hind Swaraj\" contains a list of about sixty of\nTolstoi's works which Gandhi recommends to his followers, among them,\n\"The Kingdom of God Is within You, What Is Art?\" and \"What Shall We Do?\"\nHe tells Joseph Doke that Tolstoi influenced him deeply, but that he\ndoes not agree with Tolstoi's political ideals. To a question asked him\nin 1921 as to his feeling for and opinion of Count Tolstoi, Gandhi\nreplies (in \"Young India\" of October 25, 1921), \"My relation to him was\nthat of a devoted admirer who owes him much in life.\"]\n\n[Footnote 36: He was particularly fond of Ruskin's \"Crown of Wild\nOlives.\"]\n\n[Footnote 37: \"Apologia and Death of Socrates,\" translated by Gandhi,\nwas one of the books confiscated by the Indian Government in 1919.]\n\n[Footnote 38: In regard to cow-worship see \"Young India,\" March 16, June\n8, June 29, August 4, 1920, and May 18, October 6, 1921. In regard to\ncastes see articles December 8, 1920, and October 6, 1921.]\n\n[Footnote 39: This is in accordance with the Upanishads, for when the\nprimitive classes hardened into proud castes, in the course of\ncenturies, these Hindu scriptures express protest and disapproval.]\n\n[Footnote 40: A term often used by Gandhi. \"Untouchability is an\ninvention of Satan.\" (June 19, 1921.)]\n\n[Footnote 41: September 8, 1920.]\n\n[Footnote 42: It should not be forgotten that one of Gandhi's main\narguments against the medical science of Europe is its use of\nvivisection, which he brands as \"man's blackest crime.\"]\n\n[Footnote 43: Particularly in regard to sexual relations. Gandhi's\ndoctrine resembles that of St. Paul in its rigorism.]\n\n[Footnote 44: \"Hind Swaraj.\"]\n\n[Footnote 45: Although Gandhi does not approve of European science, he\nrealizes the necessity of scientific achievement. He admires the\ndisinterested zeal and the spirit of self-sacrifice of European men of\nscience and frequently calls their abnegation greater than that of Hindu\nbelievers. But he disapproves the goal they are pursuing even though he\nadmires their state of mind. There is an evident antagonism between\nGandhi and European science. And in this connection we will see, later\non, how Tagore protests against Gandhi's medievalism.]\n\n[Footnote 46: January 19, 1921.]\n\n[Footnote 47: March 9, 1920.]\n\n[Footnote 48: August 11, 1920.]\n\n[Footnote 49: Etymology: _Swa_, self; _raj_, government, autonomy. The\nword is as old as the Vedas, but it was adopted by Dadabhai, Gandhi's\nParsee master, who made it part of the political vocabulary.]\n\n[Footnote 50: Etymology: _Satya_, just right; _Agraha_, attempt, effort.\nHence, _Satyagraha_, a just effort, in the sense of meaning\nnon-acceptation of or resistance to injustice. Gandhi defines it,\nNovember 5, 1919, as meaning \"holding on to truth, hence, truth-force.\"\nAnd he adds, \"I have also defined it as love-force or soul-force.\"]\n\n[Footnote 51: August 11, 1920.]\n\n[Footnote 52: October 20, 1921.]\n\n[Footnote 53: August 4, 1920.]\n\n[Footnote 54: August 11, 1920. One of the rules of the _Satayagraha\nAshram_, the school founded by Gandhi, is \"absence of fear.\" The spirit\nmust be freed from fear of kings, nations, castes, family, men, wild\nbeasts, and death. It is also the fourth condition of non-violent\nresistance in the Hindra. The others are chastity, poverty, and truth.]\n\n[Footnote 55: June 16, 1920.]\n\n[Footnote 56: August 11, 1920.]\n\n[Footnote 57: April 6, 1921.]\n\n[Footnote 58: A few months before his imprisonment Gandhi replies to the\ncriticisms as to \"illogic\" of his conduct. His critics jeer at the\nassistance he tendered England in South Africa and during the World War.\nGandhi, in replying, does not try to evade the issue. He honestly\nbelieved, he says, that he was a citizen of the empire; it was not his\nbusiness to judge the Government. He would consider it wrong for every\nman to look upon himself as justified in criticizing the Government. He\nhad confidence in England's wisdom and loyalty as long as possible. The\nGovernment's aberration has destroyed his faith in it. Let the\nGovernment take the consequences! (November 17, 1921.)]\n\n[Footnote 59: April 6, 1921.]\n\n[Footnote 60: On the contrary, violence degrades the person who makes\nuse of it. The Allies' violence made them like unto the Germans, whose\nacts they flayed, in the beginning of the war. (June 9, 1920.)]\n\n[Footnote 61: The hardest fiber must melt in the fire of love. If it\ndoes not melt it is because the fire is not strong enough. (March 9,\n1920.) Those joining the _Satyagraha_ movement had to promise to disobey\nthe laws declared by the _Satyagraha_ committee to be unjust, to follow\nin the path of truth, and to abstain from all violence against the\nlives, persons, or property of their adversaries.]\n\n[Footnote 62: March 23, 1919.]\n\n[Footnote 63: This Hindustani word of Mohammedan origin means\ncessation of work.]\n\n[Footnote 64: Delhi, incidentally, made a mistake in the date\nof the _hartal_ and celebrated it March 30.]\n\n[Footnote 65: April 7, 1920.]\n\n[Footnote 66: Gandhi, to quiet the effervescence instead of trying to\nexploit it as an ordinary revolutionary leader would have done,\nsuspended the movement on April 18.]\n\n\n\n\nPART TWO\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1\n\n\nOn July 28, 1920, Gandhi announced that non-co\u00f6peration would be\nproclaimed August 1, and as a preparatory measure he ordered that a day\nof fasting and prayer be held the day before. He had no fear of\ngovernmental fury, but he feared the fury of the populace, and he bent\nevery effort to have order and discipline reign within the Indian ranks.\nHe declared:\n\n\nEffective non-co\u00f6peration depends upon complete organization.\nDisorderliness comes from anger. There must be no violence. Violence\nmeans retrogression in our case, and useless waste of innocent lives.\nAbove everything else, there must be complete order.\n\n\nThe tactics of non-co\u00f6peration had been defined two months before by\nGandhi and the committee of non-co\u00f6peration, and they included the\nfollowing measures:\n\n(1) Surrender of all titles of honor and honorary offices.\n\n(2) Non-participation in government loans.\n\n(3) Suspension by lawyers of practice, and settlement of court disputes\nby private arbitration.\n\n(4) Boycott of government schools by children and parents.\n\n(5) Boycott of the reformed Councils.\n\n(6) Non-participation in government parties and other official\nfunctions.\n\n(7) Refusal to accept any civil or military post.\n\n(8) Agreements to spread the doctrine of Swadeshi.[67]\n\nIn other words, the negative part of the program should be completed by\nconstructive measures, which would lead to the building up of the new\nIndia of the future.\n\nThis program specified the first steps to be taken, and we must admire\nthe prudent sagacity of the leader who, after cranking up the enormous\nmachine of Hindu revolt, stops it short, so to speak, and holds it back,\npulsating, at the first turn, a method in startling opposition to that\nof our European revolutionaries. Gandhi is not planning civil\ndisobedience for the present. He knows civil disobedience. He has\nstudied it in Thoreau, whom he quotes in his articles, and he takes\npains to explain the difference between it and non-co\u00f6peration. Civil\ndisobedience, he says, is more than a mere refusal to obey the law. It\nmeans deliberate opposition to the law; it is an infraction of the law,\nand can be carried out only by an elite, while non-co\u00f6peration should\nbe a mass movement. Gandhi means to prepare the masses in India for\ncivil disobedience but they must be trained for it by a gradual process.\nHe knows that at present people are not ripe for it, and he does not\nwant to set them loose before he feels sure that they have mastered the\nart of self-control. So he launches non-co\u00f6peration. Non-co\u00f6peration,\nin this first stage, does not include a refusal to pay taxes. Gandhi is\nbiding his time.\n\nAugust 1,1920, Gandhi gives the signal for the movement by his famous\nletter to the viceroy, surrendering his decorations and honorary titles:\n\n\nIt is not without a pang that I return the Kaisar-i-Hind Gold Medal\ngranted to me by your predecessor for my humanitarian work in South\nAfrica, the Zulu War Medal, granted in South Africa for my services as\nofficer in charge of the Indian Volunteer Ambulance Corps in 1906, and\nthe Boer War Medal for my services as assistant superintendent of the\nIndian Volunteer Stretcher-bearer Corps during the Boer War of\n1899-1900.\n\n\nBut, he adds, after referring to the scenes that took place in the\nPunjab and the events back of the Khilafat movement:\n\n\nI can retain neither respect nor affection for a Government which has\nbeen moving from wrong to wrong in order to defend its immorality....\nThe Government must be moved to repentance.\n\nI have therefore ventured to suggest non-co\u00f6peration which enables\nthose who wish to disassociate themselves from the Government and which,\nif unattended by violence, must compel the Government co retrace its\nsteps and undo its wrongs.\n\n\nAnd Gandhi expresses the hope that the viceroy will see his way to do\njustice, and that he will call a conference of the recognized leaders of\nthe people, and consult with them.\n\nGandhi's example was immediately followed. Hundreds of magistrates sent\nin their resignations, thousands of students left the colleges, the\ncourts were abandoned, the schools were emptied. The All-India Congress,\nmeeting in special session in Calcutta in the beginning of September,\napproved Gandhi's decisions by an overwhelming majority. Gandhi and his\nfriend Maulana Shaukat Ali toured the country and met with tremendous\novations everywhere.\n\nNever did Gandhi show himself a greater leader than during the first\nyear of his action. He had to hold back the violence that lay\nsmoldering, ready to leap into flame at the slightest provocation.\nGandhi fears and abhors mob violence more than anything else. He\nconsiders \"mobocracy\" the greatest danger that menaces India. He hates\nwar, but would rather have it than the insane violence of _Caliban._ \"If\nIndia has to achieve her freedom by violence, let it be by the\ndisciplined violence named war,\" not by mob revolts. Gandhi looks with\ndisfavor upon all demonstrations and mass-meetings, even in celebration\nof some joyous event, for out of a large crowd filled with noise and\nconfusion frenzied violence may burst for no apparent reason. And he\ninsists on the necessity of maintaining strict discipline. \"We must\nevolve order out of chaos,\" he says, \"introduce people's law instead of\nmob law.\" And the mystic with the clear, firm eyes, whose sound\npractical sense equals that of the great European mystics who founded\nreligious orders and dominated the souls of men, gives precise, detailed\nrules as to how to canalize the torrents of popular meetings and\ndemonstrations.\n\n\"One great stumbling-block,\" he says, speaking of the organization of\nmass-meetings, \"is that we have neglected music. Music means rhythm,\norder. Unfortunately, in India, music has been the prerogative of the\nfew. It has never become nationalized.... I would make compulsory a\nproper singing, in company, of national songs. And to that end I would\nhave great musicians attending every congress or conference and teaching\nmass music. Nothing is so easy as to train mobs, for the simple reason\nthat they have no mind, no meditation.\"\n\nGandhi makes a list of suggestions. No raw volunteers should be accepted\nto assist in the organization of the big demonstrations. None but the\nmost experienced should be at the head. Volunteers should always have a\ngeneral instruction-book on their persons. They should be dispersed\namong the crowd and should learn flag and whistle signaling to pass\ninstructions. National cries should be fixed and raised at the right\nmoment. Crowds should be prevented from entering the railroad stations;\nthey should be taught to stand back and leave a clear passage in the\nstreets for people and carriages. Little children should never be\nbrought out in the crowds, etc.\n\nIn other words, Gandhi makes himself the orchestra leader of his oceans\nof men.[68]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2\n\n\nBut while the mob may break out into violence, unconsciously, blindly,\nmoved by a sudden unreasonable impulse, there is a political faction\nwhich advocates violence deliberately and consciously. Many of the best\nmen in India believe that national independence can be reached only by\nviolent methods. This faction does not understand Gandhi's doctrine and\ndoes not believe in its political efficacy. It demands action, direct\naction. Gandhi receives anonymous letters urging him to stop advocating\nnon-violence, and, worse, others implying cynically that his doctrine of\nnon-violence is merely a mask and that the time has now come to throw it\naside and give the signal for battle. Gandhi replies vehemently. He\ndiscusses the arguments passionately.[69] In a series of beautiful\narticles he censures the \"doctrine of the sword.\" He denies that Hindu\nscriptures and the Koran approve violence. Violence is not part of the\ndoctrine of any religion. Jesus is the prince of passive resistance. The\nBhagavad Git\u00e2 does not preach violence, but the fulfilment of duty even\nat the cost of one's life.[70] As man has not been given the power to\ncreate, he has not the right to destroy the smallest creature that\nlives. There must be no hatred for any one, not even for the evil-doer;\nbut this does not mean that one should tolerate evil. Gandhi would nurse\nGeneral Dyer if he were ill, but if his own son lived a life of shame,\nhe would not help him by continuing to support him. On the contrary, \"my\nlove for him would require me to withdraw all support from him, although\nthis might even mean his death.\" No one has the right to compel another\nby physical force to become good. \"But one is under the obligation to\nresist him by leaving him, no matter what may happen, and by welcoming\nhim to one's bosom if he repents.\"[71]\n\nWhile Gandhi curbs the violent elements, he stimulates the hesitating.\nHe reassures those who are afraid of taking a decisive step:\n\n\nNever has anything been done on this earth without direct action. I\nrejected the word \"passive resistance\" because of its insufficiency....\nIt was, however, direct action in South Africa which told, and told so\neffectively that it converted General Smuts to sanity. What was the\nlarger \"symbiosis\" that Buddha and Christ preached? Gentleness and love.\nBuddha fearlessly carried the war into the enemy's camp and brought down\non its knees an arrogant priesthood. Christ drove out the money-changers\nfrom the temple of Jerusalem and drew down curses from heaven upon the\nhypocrites and the Pharisees. Both were for intensely direct action. But\neven as Buddha and Christ chastened, they showed unmistakable gentleness\nand love behind every act of theirs.[72]\n\n\nGandhi also appeals to the generosity and the common sense of the\nEnglish.[73] He calls the English his \"dear friends\" and points out that\nhe has been their faithful companion for more than thirty years. He asks\nthem to make up for the Government's perfidy, which by its treachery has\ncompletely shattered his faith in its good intentions. But he still\nbelieves in English bravery and in English respect for other people's\nbravery. \"Bravery on the battle-field is impossible for India, but\nbravery of the soul remains open to us. Non-co\u00f6peration means nothing\nless than training in self-sacrifice. I expect to conquer you by my\nsuffering.\"\n\nIn the first four or five months' preliminary campaign Gandhi was not\ntrying to paralyze the Government through non-co\u00f6peration; his idea was\nrather to lay the foundation for the building up of a new India which\nwould be independent mentally, morally, and economically. Gandhi\nexpresses the idea of India's economic independence by the term\n_Swadeshi_, and he takes the word in its narrow and physical sense.\n\nIndia must learn to go without many comforts and to accept hardships\nwithout a murmur. A salutary discipline, this; necessary moral hygiene.\nThe nation's health as well as its character will benefit thereby.\nGandhi's first move is to free India from the curse of drink. Groups\nmust be formed to advocate temperance. European wines must be boycotted;\nliquor-dealers must be induced to surrender their licenses.[74] All\nIndia responded to the Mahatma's appeal. Such a strong wave of\ntemperance swept over India that Gandhi had to interfere to prevent the\ncrowds from sacking and looting the wine-shops and closing them by\nforce. \"You must not try to compel another by physical force to become\ngood,\" he explained to the masses.\n\nBut if it was a relatively easy matter to rid India of the curse of\ndrink, it was much more difficult to provide her with means of\nsubsistence. If cooperation with England ceased, what would India live\non? What would she clothe herself in if European products were tabooed?\nGandhi's solution is one of utmost simplicity and reveals the medieval\nturn of his mind: he undertakes to reestablish the old Indian industry\nof home spinning, introduce the spinning-wheels.\n\nThis patriarchal solution of the social problem has naturally met with\nridicule.[75] But conditions in India and Gandhi's interpretation of the\nterm _charka_ must, be taken into consideration. Gandhi has never\nclaimed that spinning alone would constitute a means of livelihood\nexcept for the very poor; but he does claim that it could supplement\nagriculture during the months when work in the fields is at a\nstandstill. India's problem is not theoretical, but real and pressing.\nEighty per cent of the population of India is agricultural, and is\ntherefore without employment virtually four months of the year. One\ntenth of the population is normally exposed to famine. The middle class\nis underfed. What has England done to remedy these conditions? Nothing.\nOn the contrary, she has aggravated them, for English manufactures have\nruined local industries, pumped the resources of India, bleeding the\ncountry for more than sixty million rupees a year. India, who grows all\nthe cotton she requires, is forced to export millions of bales to Japan\nand Lancashire, whence it is returned to her in the form of manufactured\ncalico, which she must buy at exorbitant prices. The first thing for\nIndia to do, therefore, is to learn to do without ruinous foreign goods,\nand in order to do this she must organize workshops of her own to give\nemployment and food to her people. There is no time to lose. Now,\nnothing can be organized more rapidly and economically than the industry\nof spinning and weaving at home. The idea is not to induce well paid\nagricultural laborers to give up their work and to spin, but to urge the\nunemployed, and all those who do not have to work for a living, such as\nwomen and children, as well as all Hindus who may have some spare time\nduring the day, to spin in their leisure hours. Gandhi orders,\ntherefore, (1) the boycotting of foreign goods, (2) the teaching of\nspinning and weaving, (3) the buying of hand-woven cloth only.\n\nGandhi gives himself up tirelessly to this idea. He says spinning is a\nduty for all India.[76] He wants poor children to pay for their tuition\nat school by a certain number of hours of spinning; he wants every one,\nman and woman, to contribute at least one hour a day, as charity, to\nspinning. He gives the most precise directions as to the choice of\ncotton, spinning-wheels, etc., and information on all sorts of technical\ndetails of spinning and weaving; he gives practical advice to those who\nwish to buy hand-woven cloth, to the fathers of large families, as well\nas to pupils in the schools. He explains, for instance, how one may\nstart a _Swadeshi_ shop--a shop dealing in the products of Hindu\nindustry--with but little capital, make ten per cent profits, etc. He\nbecomes lyrical when he describes the \"music of the spinning-wheel,\"[77]\nthe oldest music in India, which delighted Kahir, the poet-weaver, and\nAureng-Zeb, the great emperor, who wove his own caps.\n\nGandhi was able to fire public enthusiasm. The great ladies of Bombay\ntook up spinning. Hindu and Moslem women agreed to wear only national\ncloth, which became all the fashion. Tagore, too, praised this _khaddar_\nor _khadi_, as the hand-woven cloth was called, which he said was in\nexcellent taste. Orders poured in. Some came from as far as Aden and\nBaluchistan.\n\nBut the disciples of _Swadeshi_ went a little too far when they began\nboycotting foreign materials, and even Gandhi, usually sane and well\nbalanced, was carried away. In August, 1921, he ordered the binning of\nall foreign goods in Bombay, and as in the days of Savonarola in\nFlorence, _Christo regnante_, magnificent family heirlooms, priceless\nstuffs and materials, were piled into huge heaps and devoured by the\nflames in the midst of riotous cheers and enthusiasm. In this connection\none of the most broad-minded Englishmen in India, C. F. Andrews, a great\nfriend of Rabindranath Tagore, wrote a letter to Gandhi. While\nexpressing his great admiration for the Mahatma, he deplored that such\nvaluable materials should have been burned instead of having been given\nto the poor. He added that he believed the process of destruction called\nforth the worst instincts of the masses, and he protested against the\noutbursts of a nationalism which virtually set destruction up as a\nreligious dogma. He could not help feeling that it was sinful to destroy\nthe fruits of human toil. Andrews had approved Gandhi's campaign and had\neven begun wearing _khaddar_ but now he wondered whether it was right to\ncontinue to do so. The burning cloth in Bombay had shaken his faith in\nthe Mahatma.\n\nIn publishing Andrews's letter in \"Young India\" Gandhi said he regrets\nnothing. He does not bear ill will to any race whatsoever, nor does he\ndemand the destruction of _all_ foreign goods. He merely wants to\ndestroy the goods which harm India. Millions of Indians have been ruined\nby English factories, which, by taking work away from India, have turned\nthousands upon thousands of Indians into pariahs and mercenaries and\ntheir women into prostitutes. India is already inclined to hate her\nBritish dominators. Gandhi does not wish to strengthen this hatred. On\nthe contrary, he wants to side-track it, to turn it away from people to\n_things._ The Indians who bought the materials are as guilty as the\nBritish who sold them. The materials were not burned as an expression of\nhatred for England, but as a sign of India's determination to break with\nthe past. It was a necessary surgical operation. And it would have been\nwrong to give these \"poisonous\" materials to the poor, for the poor too,\nhave a sense of honor.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3\n\n\nIndia's economic life must first be freed from foreign domination. But\nthe next step is to liberate the mind, create a real, independent Indian\nspirit. Gandhi wants his people to shake off the yoke of European\nculture, and one of his proudest achievements is the laying of the\ngroundwork of a truly Indian education.\n\nUnder English rule the smoldering embers of Asiatic culture had lain\ndormant in various colleges and universities. For more than forty-five\nyears Aligarh had remained a Hindu-Mussulman university, a center of\nIslamic culture in India. Khalsa College was the center of Sikh culture,\nwhile the Hindus had the University of Benares. But these institutions,\nmore or less antiquated, were dependent on the Government, which\nsubventioned them, and Gandhi longed to see them replaced by purer\nhearths of Asiatic culture. In November, 1920, he founded the national\nUniversity of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. Its ideal was that of a united\nIndia. The _Dharma_ of the Hindus and the Islam of the Mohammedans were\nits two religious pillars. Its object was to preserve the dialects of\nIndia and to use them as sources of national regeneration.[78] Gandhi\nfelt, with full justice, that a \"systematic study of Asiatic culture is\nno less essential than the study of Western sciences. The vast treasures\nof Sanskrit and Arabic, Persian and Pali and Magadhi, have to be\nransacked to discover wherein lies the source of strength for the\nnation. The ideal is not merely to feed on or repeat the ancient\ncultures, but to build a new culture based on the traditions of the past\nand enriched by the experiences of later times. The ideal is a synthesis\nof the different cultures that have to come to stay in India, that have\ninfluenced Indian life, and that, in their turn, have themselves been\ninfluenced by the spirit of the soil. This synthesis will naturally be\nof the _Swadeshi_ type, where each culture is assured its legitimate\nplace, and not of the American pattern, where one dominant culture\nabsorbs the rest and where the aim is not toward harmony, but toward an\nartificial and forced unity.\" All Indian religions were to be taught.\nThe Hindus were to have an opportunity of studying the Koran and the\nMussulmans the Shastras. The national university excludes nothing except\na spirit of exclusion. It believes that there is nothing \"untouchable\"\nin humanity. Hindustani is made compulsory, because it is the national\nblend of Sanskrit, Hindi, and Persianized Urdu.[79] A spirit of\nindependence was to be fostered, not only by the methods of study, but\nby a careful vocational training.\n\nGandhi hopes to organize, gradually, higher schools that will spread\neducation broadcast throughout the towns and \"filter it down to the\nmasses, so that ... ere long the suicidal cleavage between the educated\nand the uneducated will be bridged. And as an effect of giving an\nindustrial education to the genteel folks and a literary education to\nthe industrial classes, the unequal distribution of wealth and social\ndiscontent will be considerably checked.\"\n\nIn opposition to European educational methods, which neglect manual\nproficiency and develop the brain only, Gandhi wants manual work to he\npart of the curriculum of all the schools from the lowest grades up. He\nbelieves it would be excellent for children to pay for their tuition by\na certain amount of spinning. In this way they would learn to earn their\nliving and become independent. As for education of the heart, which\nEurope neglects absolutely, Gandhi would have stress laid upon it from\nthe very first. But before the pupils can be properly trained, the right\nsort of teachers must be provided.\n\nThe object of the higher institutions which Gandhi seems to look upon as\nthe keystones of the new education is to train teachers. These\ninstitutions will be more than schools or colleges; they might rather be\ncalled convents, where the sacred fire of India will be concentrated in\norder afterward to radiate throughout the world, just as in former days\ngreat religious pioneers radiated from the Benedictine monasteries in\nthe West, conquering souls and territory.\n\nThe rules which Gandhi prescribes for the school of _Satyagrah\nAshram_,[80] or place of discipline, at Ahmedabad, his model\ninstitution, concern the teachers more than the pupils, and bind the\nformer by monastic vows. Whereas these vows in ordinary religious orders\nhave a purely negative character, here they throb with an active spirit\nof sacrifice and with the pure love that inspires the saints. The\nteachers are bound by the following vows:\n\n1. The vow of truth. It is not enough not to resort ordinarily to\nuntruth. No deception may be practised even for the good of the country.\nTruth may require opposition to parents and elders.\n\n2. The vow of _Ahimsa_ (non-killing). It is not enough not to take the\nlife of any living being. One may not even hurt those whom he believes\nto be unjust; he may not be angry with them, he must love them. Oppose\ntyranny but never hurt the tyrant. Conquer him by love. Suffer\npunishment even unto death for disobeying his will.\n\n3. The vow of celibacy. Without it the two foregoing are almost\nimpossible to observe. It is not enough not to look upon woman with a\nlustful eye. Animal passions must be controlled, so that they will not\nbe moved even in thought. If a man is married, he will consider his wife\na lifelong friend and establish with her the relationship of perfect\npurity.\n\n4. The control of the palate. Regulate and purify the diet. Leave off\nsuch foods as may tend to stimulate animal passions or are otherwise\nunnecessary.\n\n5. The vow of non-stealing. It is not enough not to steal what is\ncommonly considered other men's property. It is theft if we use articles\nwhich we do not really need. Nature provides us from day to day just\nenough and no more for our daily needs.\n\n6. The vow of non-possession. It is not enough not to possess and not to\nkeep much, but it is necessary not to keep anything which may not be\nabsolutely necessary for our bodily wants. Think constantly of\nsimplifying life.\n\nTo these main vows are added a few secondary rules:\n\n1. _Swadeshi._ Use no articles about which there is a possibility of\ndeception. Do not use manufactured articles. Laborers suffer much in\nmills, and manufactured articles are products of misery exploited.\nForeign goods and goods made by complicated machinery should be tabooed\nby a votary of _Ahimsa._ Use simple clothes, made simply in India.\n\n2. Fearlessness. He who is acted upon by fear cannot follow truth or\n_Ahimsa._ He must be free from the fear of kings, people, caste,\nfamilies, thieves, robbers, ferocious animals, and death. A truly\nfearless man will defend himself against others by truth-force or\nsoul-force.\n\nOnce established the main points of this iron foundation, Gandhi refers\nrapidly to the other requirements, of which the two most remarkable are\nthat the teachers must set the example of performing bodily labor,\npreferably agricultural work, and that they must know the principal\nIndian tongues.\n\nAs for the pupils, who can enter the _Ashram_ from the age of four up\n(students will be admitted at any age), they must remain in the _Ashram_\nfor the whole course of studies, which lasts about ten years. The\nchildren are separated from their parents and families. The parents\nrenounce all authority over them. The children never visit their\nparents. The pupils wear simple clothes, eat simple food of a strictly\nvegetarian nature, have no holidays in the ordinary sense of the word,\nthough once a week they are allowed a day and a half in which to do\nindividual creative work. Three months of the year are spent in\ntraveling on foot through India. All pupils must study the Hindi and\nDravidian dialects. As a second language, they must learn English, and\nthey must also familiarize themselves with the characters of the five\nIndian languages (Urdu, Bengali, Tamil, Telugu, and Davanagri). They are\ntaught, in their own dialect, history, geography, mathematics,\neconomics, and Sanskrit. At the same time they are taught agriculture\nand spinning and weaving. It goes without saying that a religious\natmosphere pervades the whole education. When they have completed their\nstudies, the pupils are allowed to choose between taking the vows, like\ntheir teachers, or leaving the school. The tuition is entirely free.\n\nI have described Gandhi's educational system rather fully because it\nshows the high spirituality of his action, and because he considers this\nsystem the mainspring of the whole movement. To build a New India, a new\nsoul, strong and pure, must be wrought out of Indian elements. And this\nsoul can only be developed by a sacred legion of apostles who, like\nthose of Christ, will be as the salt of the earth. Gandhi, unlike our\nEuropean revolutionaries, is not a maker of laws and ordinances. He is a\nbuilder of a new humanity.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a74\n\n\nLike all governments under similar conditions, the English Government\nhad no realization of what was going on. At first its attitude was one\nof ironical disdain. The viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, characterized the\nmovement in August, 1920, as \"the most foolish of all foolish schemes.\"\nBut these heights of comfortable condescension had to be abandoned\nbefore long. In November, 1920, the Government published a surprised and\nslightly alarmed proclamation, where threats and paternal advice\ncommingled, warning the people that while the leaders of the movement\nhad not been molested so far because they had not preached violence,\norders had now been given to arrest any one who overstepped the bounds\nand whose words might stir up revolt or in other ways incite to\nviolence.\n\nThe bounds were soon overstepped, but by the Government. The\nnon-co\u00f6peration movement had been growing and gathering momentum, and\nthe Government was beginning to be seriously alarmed. In December\naffairs took a decidedly dangerous turn. Until then non-violent\nnon-co\u00f6peration had been looked upon as an experiment of a more or less\ntemporary nature, and the Government had flattered itself that when the\nNational Indian Congress met at Nagpur for its December session,\nnon-co\u00f6peration would be vetoed. But far from disapproving of\nnon-co\u00f6peration, the congress incorporated the idea in the constitution\nby making the first paragraph read:\n\n\nThe object of the Indian National Congress is the attainment of\n_Swaraj_--Home Rule--by the people of India by all legitimate and\npeaceful means.\n\n\nThe congress thereupon confirmed the non-co\u00f6peration resolution passed\nin the special session in September, and enlarged upon it. While the\nprinciple of non-violence was upheld absolutely, the general feeling was\nthat every effort must be made to unite all the elements in India in\nview of a common, sustained action, and the congress not only called\nupon Hindus and Mussulmans to collaborate loyally, but urged a\n_rapprochement_ between the privileged and \"suppressed\" classes. In\naddition to this the congress made fundamental changes in the\nconstitution, which virtually amounted to the organization of a\nrepresentative system for all India.[81]\n\nThe congress did not try to conceal the fact that it regarded\nnon-co\u00f6peration in its present form as a preliminary step only, to be\nfollowed, at a time to be determined later, by complete\nnon-co\u00f6peration, including a refusal to pay taxes. Until then, however,\nand in order to pave the way, it urged that the boycott be sharpened,\nspinning and weaving be encouraged, while an appeal was sent out to\nstudents, parents, and magistrates inviting them to practise\nnon-co\u00f6peration with greater zeal. Those who did not live up to the\ndecisions of the congress were to be barred from public life.\n\nThe resolutions of the congress implied the virtual establishment of a\nstate within a state, the setting up of real Indian rule in opposition\nto the British Government. England could not countenance this. She had\nto do something. The Government had to fight or negotiate. A compromise\ncould easily have been reached by negotiation if the Government had been\nwilling to go half-way. The congress had declared that it hoped to reach\nits goal \"with England, if possible,\" but otherwise \"without her.\" But\nas is always the case when European politics involve foreign races, no\nattempt was made to negotiate. Force was resorted to. Pretexts for armed\noppression were sought. There was no lack of them.\n\nDespite the principle of non-violence established by Gandhi and the\ncongress, a few riots occurred in various parts of India. It is true\nthat they bore little or no relation to the non-co\u00f6perative movement,\nbut, still, there had been and were troubles. In the United Provinces\n(Allahabad) there were agrarian uprisings, revolts of the tenants\nagainst the landowners, and the police had to interfere, and there was\nsome bloodshed. Soon afterward the Akali movement of the Sikhs, although\nof a purely religious character, adopted non-co\u00f6perative methods, and\nas a result of the agitation some two hundred Sikhs were massacred in\nFebruary, 1921. No one in good faith could have held Gandhi or his\ndisciples responsible for this drama of fanaticism, but the Government\nconsidered it a good opportunity. In March, 1921, the repression began,\nand it became more and more oppressive as the months passed. The\nGovernment justified its intervention by the necessity of protecting the\nliquor dealers from the fury of the mobs. This was not the first time\nfor European civilization and alcohol to march hand in hand. The\nvolunteer non-co\u00f6peration organizations were dissolved. A law was made\nprohibiting seditious meetings. In certain provinces the police had\ngiven _carte blanche_ in suppressing the movement, which was called\n\"revolutionary and anarchistic.\" Thousands of Indians were arrested, and\nsome of India's most respected citizens were summarily jailed and\nbrutalized. Naturally, this procedure stirred up bad blood, and here and\nthere the people and the constables clashed. Some houses were burned and\npeople pounded. This was the situation in India when the committee of\nthe All-Indian congress met at Bezwada in the end of March to discuss\ncivil disobedience. With rare moderation and foresight it voted against\nit, on the ground that the country was not yet prepared to wield this\ndouble-edged sword. Civil disobedience would be urged later. For the\npresent there could only be a sort of civil and financial mobilization.\n\nMeanwhile Gandhi continued more and more actively his campaign for the\nunity of India. He tried to unite all religions, races, parties, and\ncastes. He called upon the Parsees,[82] the rich, prosperous merchant\nclass, more or less tainted, as he expressed it, with the spirit of\nRockefeller, and he called upon Hindus and Mussulmans to form a solid\nalliance. The relations between Hindus and Mussulmans were continually\nembittered by prejudices, mutual fear, and suspicion. Gandhi devoted\nhimself to bringing the two races into harmonious collaboration,[83] and\nwithout advocating or desiring an impossible fusion between the two\npeoples, he tried to unite them in friendship.[84]\n\nHis keenest efforts, however, were given to the regeneration of the\n\"suppressed\" classes, the pariahs. His passionate appeals for the\npariahs, his cries of sorrow and indignation at the monstrous social\niniquity which oppressed them, would, alone, immortalize his name. His\nfeeling for the outcasts dates back to his boyhood. He tells how, when\nhe was a boy,[85] a pariah used to come to the house to do all the\ncoarse work. As a boy Gandhi was told never to touch the pariah without\npurifying himself afterward by ablutions. He could not understand why,\nand often asked his parents about it. At school he frequently touched\nthe untouchables, and his mother told him that he could escape the\nconsequences of this unholy touch only by touching a Mohammedan. To\nGandhi it all seemed absurdly unfair, cruelly unjustified. At the age of\ntwelve he made up his mind to wipe this stain off India's conscience. He\nplanned to come to the rescue of his degraded brothers. And never has\nGandhi's mind revealed itself clearer and more unbiased than when he\npleads their cause. What their cause means to him may be gathered from\nthe fact that he says he would give up his religion (he to whom religion\nis everything!) if any one can prove to him that untouchability is one\nof its dogmas. The unjust pariah system justified, in his eyes,\neverything that has been inflicted on India by other nations.\n\n\nIf the Indians have become the pariahs of the empire, it is retributive\njustice, meted out to us by a just God.... Should we Hindus not wash our\nblood-stained hands before we ask the English to wash theirs?\nUntouchability has degraded us, made us pariahs in South Africa, East\nAfrica, Canada. So long as Hindus willfully regard untouchability as\npart of their religion, so long _Swaraj_ is impossible of attainment.\nIndia is guilty, England has done nothing blacker. The first duty is to\nprotect the weak and helpless and never injure the feelings of any\nindividual. We are no better than brutes until we have purged ourselves\nof the sins we have committed against our weaker brethren.\n\n\nGandhi wanted the national congress to better the condition of the\npariah brothers by giving them schools and wells, for pariahs were not\nallowed to use the public wells. But until then? Unable to wait with\nfolded hands for the privileged classes to condescend to make good their\ncruelty, Gandhi went over to the pariahs. He placed himself at their\nhead and tried to organize them. He discussed their problems with them.\nWhat ought they to do? Appeal to the English Government? Place\nthemselves at its disposal? This would only mean a change of slavery.\nAbandon Hinduism? (Note the broad-minded audacity of a Hindu believer!)\nBecome Christians or Mohammedans? Gandhi would almost advise them to do\nso if Hinduism really stood for untouchability. But it doesn't.\nUntouchability is only a morbid excrescence of Hinduism, which must be\nextirpated. The pariahs must organize themselves in self-defense. They\nmight, of course, adopt the principles of non-co\u00f6peration in regard to\nHinduism by refusing to have any relations with the Hindus (singularly\naudacious advice of social revolt on the lips of a patriot like\nGandhi!). But the difficulty is that the pariahs have no leaders and\ncannot organize themselves. The best thing, therefore, is for them to\njoin the general non-co\u00f6peration movement, since its object is harmony\namong all classes. Real non-co\u00f6peration is a religious act of\npurification, and no one can take part in it who believes in\nuntouchability. Gandhi in this way combines religion, humanity, and\npatriotism.[86]\n\nA certain solemnity attended the first efforts to group the pariahs. A\n\"suppressed-classes conference\" took place at Ahmedabad on April 13 and\n14, 1921. Gandhi presided at the conference and made one of his most\nbeautiful speeches. He not only demanded the suppression of the pariah\nsystem but urged the untouchables to rise to the occasion and show the\nbest that was in them. He expects great things from the pariahs, he\nsays, in the social life of regenerated India. He tries to instill\nself-confidence in them and fill them with his own burning ideal. In the\n\"suppressed classes,\" he says, he sees tremendous latent possibilities.\nHe believes that within five months the untouchable class will be able\nto win, by its own merits, the place it deserves within the great Indian\nfamily.\n\nGandhi had the joy of seeing his appeal find echo in the hearts of the\npeople. In many parts of India the pariahs were emancipated.[87] The day\nbefore his arrest Gandhi made a speech recording the progress of the\npariah cause. The Brahmans were helping. The privileged classes were\ngiving touching examples of remorse and fraternal love. Gandhi cites the\ncase of a young Brahman who at nineteen became a street-sweeper, to live\namong the untouchables.[88]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5\n\n\nWith equal generosity Gandhi took up another great cause, that of women.\n\nThe sexual problem is a peculiarly difficult one in India, throbbing\nwith an all-pervading, oppressive, and badly directed sensuality. Child\nmarriages weaken the physical and moral resources of the nation. The\nobsession of the flesh weighs on men's minds and is an insult to woman's\ndignity. Gandhi publishes the complaints of Hindu women at the degrading\nattitude of Hindu nationalists.[89] Gandhi takes the women's side. Their\nprotest, he says, proves that there is another sore in India as bad as\nthat of untouchability. But the woman question is not a purely Indian\nproblem. The whole world suffers from it. As with the pariahs, he\nexpects more from the oppressed than from the oppressors. He calls upon\nwomen to demand and inspire respect by ceasing to think of themselves as\nthe objects of masculine desire only. Let them forget their bodies and\nenter into public life, assume the risks, and suffer the consequences of\ntheir convictions. Women should not only renounce luxury and throw away\nor burn foreign goods, but they should share men's problems and\nprivations. Many distinguished women have faced arrest and imprisonment\nin Calcutta. This shows the proper spirit. Instead of asking for mercy,\nwomen should vie with men in suffering for the cause. When it comes to\nsuffering, women will always surpass men. Let women have no fear. The\nweakest will be able to preserve her honor. \"One who knows how to die\nneed never fear.\"\n\nNor does Gandhi forget the fallen sisters.[90] He tells of conversations\nwith them in the provinces of Andhra and Barisal, where they met in\nconference. He spoke to them nobly and simply, and they replied,\nconfided in him, and asked his advice. He tried to suggest some way in\nwhich they might make an honest living, and proposed spinning. They\nagreed to begin the very next day if assured of encouragement and\nassistance. And then Gandhi turned to the men of India; called upon them\nto respect women:\n\n\nGambling in vice has no place in our revolution. _Swaraj_, home rule,\nmeans that we must regard every inhabitant of India as our own brother\nor sister. Woman is not the weaker sex, but the better half of humanity,\nthe nobler of the two; for even to-day it is the embodiment of\nsacrifice, silent suffering, humility, faith, and knowledge. Woman's\nintuition has often proved truer than man's arrogant assumption of\nknowledge.\n\n\nIn the women of India, beginning with his own wife, Gandhi always found\nintelligent aid and understanding, and among them he recruited some of\nhis best disciples.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6\n\n\nIn 1921 Gandhi's power was at its apogee. His authority as a moral\nleader was vast, and without having sought it, almost ilimited political\nauthority had been placed in his hand. The people looked upon him as a\nsaint. Pictures were painted representing him as Sri-Krishna.[91] And at\nthe end of the year, in December, the All-India National Congress\ndelegated its powers to him and authorized him to appoint his successor.\nHe was the undisputed master of India's policy. It was up to him to\nstart a political revolution, if he saw fit, or even to reform religion.\n\nHe did not do so. He did not wish to do so. Moral grandeur? Moral\nhesitancy? Both, perhaps. It is very difficult for one human being\nreally to understand another, particularly if they belong to different\nraces and civilizations. And how much more difficult when a spirit so\ndeep and subtle as Gandhi's is to be considered! In the maze of events\nwhich took place in India, in this tumultuous year, it is hard to\nascertain whether the pilot's hand did not tremble, but, always firm and\nsure, steered the colossal ship along the chosen course. I will try,\nhowever, to explain my feeling in regard to the living enigma, and I\nwill do so with the religious respect which I have for this great man\nand the sincerity which I owe to his sincerity.\n\nIf Gandhi's power was great, the danger of abusing it was equally great.\nAs the effect of his campaign, by the slightest ripple, affected\nhundreds of millions of men, it became more and more difficult to direct\nthe movement and at the same time remain firm in the midst of the\nturbulent ocean. A superhuman problem indeed, to conciliate moderation\nand high-mindedness with surging, unbridled mob passions! The pilot,\ngentle and pious, prays and relies on God; but the voice that comes to\nhim is almost lost in the roar of the tempest. Will it ever reach the\nothers?\n\nThere is no danger of his being swept off his feet by pride. No amount\nof adoration can turn his head. On the contrary, it wounds not only his\nsense of fitness of things, but his spirit of humility. Gandhi is an\nexception among prophets and mystics, for he sees no visions, has no\nrevelations; he does not try to persuade himself that he is guided\nsupernaturally, nor does he try to make others believe it. Radiant\nsincerity is his. His forehead remains calm and clear, his heart devoid\nof vanity. He is a man, like all other men. He is _not_ a saint. He will\nnot have the people call him one. (Yet his very attitude proves that he\nis one.)\n\nThe word \"saint,\" he says, should be ruled out of present life.\n\n\nI pray like every good Hindu. I believe we can all be messengers of God.\nI have no special revelations of God's will. My firm belief is that He\nreveals himself daily to every human being, but that we shut our cars to\nthe \"still small voice.\" ... I claim to be nothing but a humble servant\nof India and humanity. I have no desire to found a sect. I am really too\nambitious to be satisfied with a sect for a following, for I represent\nno new truths. I endeavor to follow and represent truth as I know it. I\ndo claim to throw a new light on many an old truth.[92]\n\n\nPersonally, he is always modest, conscientious in the extreme, incapable\nof narrow-mindedness whether as Indian patriot or apostle of\nnon-co\u00f6peration. He sanctions no tyranny, not even for the good of the\ncause. Government oppression must never be replaced by non-co\u00f6perative\noppression.[93] Gandhi will not set his country up against other\ncountries; his patriotism is not confined to the boundaries of India.\n\"For me, patriotism is the same as humanity. I am patriotic because I am\nhuman and humane. My patriotism is not exclusive. I will not hurt\nEngland or Germany to serve India. Imperialism has no place in my scheme\nof life. A patriot is so much less a patriot if he is a lukewarm\nhumanitarian.\"[94]\n\nBut have his disciples always felt this way? And, on their lips, what\nbecomes of Gandhi's doctrine? And, interpreted by them, how does it\nreach the masses?\n\nWhen Rabindranath Tagore, after traveling several years in Europe,\nreturned to India in August, 1921, he was astounded at the change in the\nmentality of the people. Even before his return he had expressed his\nanxiety in a series of letters sent from Europe to friends in India.\nMany of these letters were published in his \"Modern Review.\"[95] The\ncontroversy between Tagore and Gandhi, between two great minds, both\nmoved by mutual admiration and esteem, but as fatally separated in their\nfeeling as a philosopher can be from an apostle, a St. Paul from a\nPlato, is important. For on the one side we have the spirit of religious\nfaith and charity seeking to found a new humanity. On the other we have\nintelligence, free-born, serene, and broad, seeking to unite aspirations\nof all humanity in sympathy and understanding.\n\nTagore always looked upon Gandhi as a saint, and I have often heard him\nspeak of him with veneration. When, in referring to the Mahatma, I\nmentioned Tolstoi, Tagore pointed out to me, and I realize it now that I\nknow Gandhi better--how much more clothed in light and radiance Gandhi's\nspirit is than Tolstoi's. With Gandhi everything is nature--modest,\nsimple, pure--while all his struggles are hallowed by religious\nserenity, whereas with Tolstoi everything is proud revolt against pride,\nhatred against hatred, passion against passion. Everything in Tolstoi is\nviolence, even his doctrine of non-violence. On April 10, 1921, Tagore\nwrote from London, \"We are grateful to Gandhi for giving India a chance\nto prove that her faith in the divine spirit of man is still living.\"\nDespite the misgivings he had expressed as to Gandhi's campaign, Tagore,\nwhen he left France to return to India, sincerely planned to back Gandhi\nin every way. And even the manifesto of October, 1921, which I will\ndiscuss later--the \"Appeal to Truth,\" which marked the break between the\ntwo men--begins with one of the most beautiful tributes to Gandhi that\nhave ever been written.\n\nGandhi's attitude to Tagore is one of loving regard, and it does not\nchange even when the two disagree. You feel that Gandhi is loath to\nenter into polemics with Tagore, and when certain kind friends try to\nembitter the debate by repeating personal remarks, Gandhi bids them be\nsilent and explains how much he owes Tagore.[96]\n\nYet it was inevitable that the breach between the two men would widen.\nAs far back as in 1920 Tagore had deplored that the overflowing wealth\nof Gandhi's love and faith should be made to serve political ends, as it\nhad since Tilak's death. Of course Gandhi had not entered the political\narena with a light heart. But when Tilak died, India was left without a\npolitical leader, and some one had to take his place.\n\nAs Gandhi says:[97]\n\n\nIf I seem to take part in politics, it is only because politics to-day\nencircle us like the coils of a snake from which one cannot get out no\nmatter how one tries. I wish to wrestle with the snake.... I am trying\nto introduce religion into politics.\n\n\nBut this Tagore deplores. Writing September 7, 1920, he says, \"We need\nall the moral force which Mahatma Gandhi represents, and which he alone\nin the world can represent.\" That such a precious treasure should be\ncast out on the frail bark of politics and subjected to the incessant\nlashing of the waves of conflicting and irritated passions is a serious\nmisfortune for India, whose mission, says Tagore, \"is to awaken the dead\nto life by soul-fire.\" The wasting of spiritual resources in problems\nwhich, when considered in the light of abstract moral truth, are\nunworthy, is to be regretted. \"It is criminal to transform moral force\ninto force.\"\n\nThis is what Tagore felt at the spectacular launching of the\nnon-co\u00f6peration campaign and at the unrest stirred up in the name of\nthe Khilafat cause and the massacres of the Punjab. He feared the\nresults of the campaign on an easily excitable mob subject to attacks of\nhysterical fury. He would have liked to turn people's minds away from\nvengeance and dreams of impossible redress; he would have had them\nforget the irreparable and devote all efforts to constructing and\nfashioning a new soul for India. And although he admired Gandhi's\ndoctrines and the ardent fire of his spirit of self-sacrifice, he hated\nthe element of negation contained in non-co\u00f6peration. Tagore\ninstinctively recoiled from everything that stood for \"No.\"\n\nAnd this conviction leads him to compare the positive ideal of\nBrahmanism, which demands that the joys of life be welcomed but\npurified, to the negative ideal of Buddhism, which demands their\nsuppression.[98] To this Gandhi replies that the art of eliminating is\nas vital as that of accepting.[99] Human progress consists in a\ncombination of the two. The final word in the Upanishads is a negation.\nThe definition of Brahman by the authors of the Upanishads is _neti_,\nnot this! India had lost the power of saying \"No.\" Gandhi has given it\nback to her. Weeding is as essential as sowing.\n\nBut Tagore, apparently, does not believe in weeding. In his poetic\ncontemplation of life he is satisfied with things as they are, and he\nfinds his delight in admiring their harmony. He explains his point of\nview in lines of great beauty, but detached from real life. His words\nare like the dance of Nataraja, a play of illusions. Tagore says he\ntries to tune his spirit up to the great exaltation that is sweeping\nover the country. But he cannot do so, for in his heart, despite\nhimself, is a spirit of resistance. \"In the darkness of my despair,\" he\nsays, \"I see a smile and hear a voice that says, 'Your place is with the\nchildren, playing on the beaches of the world, and there I am with\nyou.'\" Tagore plays with harmonies, invents new rhythms, \"strung out\nthrough the hours, like children dancing in the sun and laughing as they\ndisappear.\" All creation is happy, with Tagore; flowers and leaves are\nmerely rhythms that never cease. God Himself is the supreme juggler, who\nplays with Time, tossing stars and planets out upon the torrent of\nappearances, and dropping paper boats filled with dreams into the river\nof the ages. \"When I beg Him to let me be His disciple and to let me\nplace some of the toys of my invention into one of his merry barks. He\nsmiles, and I follow Him, clutching the hem of his gown.\" Here Tagore\nfeels he is in his place. \"But where am I, in a great crowd, squeezed in\nat all sides? And who can understand the noise I hear? If I hear a song,\nmy sitar can catch the melody, and I can join the chorus, for I am a\nsinger. But in the mad clamor of the crowd, my voice is lost, and I\nbecome dizzy.\" Tagore has tried, in the clamor of non-co\u00f6peration, to\nfind a melody, but to no avail. And he says to himself: \"If you can't\nmarch in step with your compatriots in the greatest crisis of their\nhistory, beware of saying they are in the wrong, and you in the right!\nBut give up your place in the ranks, go back to your poet's corner, and\nbe prepared to meet with ridicule and public disgrace.\"[100]\n\nSo would a Goethe speak, an Indian Goethe, Bacchus. And it would seem as\nif Tagore's mind is made up from now on. The poet bids action farewell,\nsince this action implies a negation, and he withdraws back into the\nspell of creative enchantment he weaves around himself. But Tagore does\nnot only withdraw. As he says, Fate had decided that he should steer his\nbark against the current. At the time he was not only the \"poet\" but the\nspiritual ambassador of Asia to Europe; he had just returned from\nEurope, where he had asked people to co\u00f6perate in creating a world\nuniversity at Santiniketan. What an irony of destiny that he should be\npreaching cooperation between Occident and Orient at one end of the\nworld, when at that very moment non-co\u00f6peration was being preached at\nthe other end![101]\n\nNon-co\u00f6peration wounded him doubly, therefore, in his work as well as\nin his conception of life. \"I believe,\" he says, \"in the real union of\nOrient and Occident.\"\n\nNon-co\u00f6peration clashed with his way of thinking, for his mentality,\nhis rich intelligence, had been nourished on all the cultures of the\nworld. \"All humanity's greatest is mine,\" he says. \"The _infinite\npersonality of man_ (as the Upanishads say) can only come from the\nmagnificent harmony of all human races. My prayer is that India may\nrepresent the co\u00f6peration of all the peoples of the world. For India,\nunity is truth, and division evil. Unity is that which embraces and\nunderstands everything; consequently, it cannot be attained through\nnegation. The present attempt to separate our spirit from that of the\nOccident is an attempt at spiritual suicide.... The present age has been\ndominated by the Occident, because the Occident had a mission to\nfulfill. We of the Orient should learn from the Occident. It is\nregrettable, of course, that we had lost the power of appreciating our\nown culture, and therefore did not know how to assign Western culture to\nits right place. But to say that it is wrong to co\u00f6perate with the West\nis to encourage the worst form of provincialism and can produce nothing\nbut intellectual indigence. The problem is a world problem. No nation\ncan find its own salvation by breaking away from others. We must all be\nsaved or we must all perish together.\"[102]\n\nIn other words, just as Goethe in 1818 refused to reject French\ncivilization and culture, Tagore refuses to banish Western civilization.\nWhile Gandhi's doctrine does not really set a barrier up between the\nEast and West, Tagore knows it will be interpreted as doing so, once\nHindu nationalism is stirred. Tagore fears the development of the spirit\nof exclusion, and he explains his feeling of doubt and anxiety when his\nstudents at the beginning of the non-cooperation movement came to seek\nhis advice. What does the boycotting of schools and colleges mean? asks\nTagore. \"That students shall make a sacrifice--for what? Not for a more\ncomplete education, but for non-education.\" During the first _Swadeshi_\ncampaign[103] a group of young students told him that they would leave\ntheir schools and colleges at once if he ordered them to do so. And when\nhe refused to do so, they left him, in much irritation, doubting his\npatriotism.[104]\n\nIn the spring of 1921, when India began boycotting English schools,\nTagore had seen an aggressive example of intellectual nationalism in\nLondon. During a lecture of one of Tagore's friends. Professor Pearson,\nsome Indian students gave vent to misplaced national manifestations.\nTagore became indignant, and in a letter addressed to the director of\nSantiniketan he condemned this spirit of intolerance and held the\nnon-co\u00f6peration movement responsible for it. And to this accusation\nGandhi replies:\n\n\nI do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be\nstuffed. I want the culture of all lands to be blown about my house as\nfreely as possible.... But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any of\nthem ... Mine is not a religion of the prison-house. It has room for the\nleast among God's creations. But it is proof against insolent pride of\nrace, religion, or color.\n\n\nWhile expressing his doubts as to the merits of an English literary\neducation, which has nothing to do with the building up of character, an\neducation which, he said, has emasculated the youth of India, Gandhi\nregretted the excesses mentioned and claimed that his attitude was not\nnarrow, as Tagore seemed to imply.\n\nThese were frank and noble words, but they did not disarm Tagore's\nmisgivings. Tagore did not doubt Gandhi, but he feared the Gandhists.\nAnd from the first contact with his people, after his return from\nEurope, he began to fear the blind faith which the people placed in the\nMahatma's words. Tagore saw the danger of mental despotism loom near,\nand in the \"Modern Review\" of October, 1921, he published a real\nmanifesto, \"An Appeal to Truth,\" which was a cry of revolt against this\nblind obedience. The protest was particularly strong because it was\npreceded by a beautiful homage to the Mahatma. After describing the\nfirst Indian independence movement in 1907 and 1908, Tagore explained\nthat in those days the political leaders were inspired by a bookish\nideal, based on the traditions of Burke, Gladstone, Mazzini, and\nGaribaldi, and their message could be understood only by the elite. They\nadvanced, in short, an English-speaking ideal. But then came Mahatma\nGandhi! He stopped at the thresholds of the thousands of disinherited,\ndressed like one of their own. He spoke to them in their own language.\nHere was truth at last, and not only quotations from books! Mahatma, the\nname given by the people of India to Gandhi, is his real name. For who\nelse had felt, like him, in communion with the people? Felt that they\nare of his own flesh and blood? At the Mahatma's call the hidden forces\nof the soul have blossomed forth, for the Mahatma has made the truth\ninto something concrete, visible. In the same way, thousands of years\nago, India blossomed forth to new greatness at Buddha's call, when he\nmade men understand that there must be compassion and fellow-feeling\namong all living creatures. India, stirred to new life, expressed her\nstrength in science and wealth, spreading across oceans and deserts. No\ncommercial or military conquests ever spread so magnificently. For love\nalone is truth.\n\nBut then Tagore's tone changed. The apotheosis stopped. Deception\nfollowed. In Europe, across the seas, Tagore felt the quiver of India's\ngreat revival. Thrilled, filled with joy at the thought of breathing in\nthe fluid breeze of the new freedom, he returned to his home land. But\non his arrival his elation fell. An oppressive atmosphere weighed on the\npeople. \"An outside influence seemed to be bearing down on them,\ngrinding them and making one and all speak in the same tone, follow in\nthe same groove. Everywhere I was told that culture and reasoning power\nshould abdicate, and blind obedience only reign. So simple it is to\ncrush, in the name of some outward liberty, the real freedom of the\nsoul!\"\n\nWe understand Tagore's misgivings and his appeal. They are of all times\nand ages. The last free minds of a crumbling old world voiced them at\nthe dawn of the new Christianity. And whenever we ourselves encounter\nthe rising tide of some blind faith in a social or national ideal we\nfeel the same misgivings stir within us. Tagore's revolt is the revolt\nof the free soul against the ages of faith which it has suscitated, for\nwhile faith to a handful of chosen ones means supreme liberty, it means\nonly another form of slavery for the masses who are led by it.\n\nTagore's criticism is aimed above and beyond the fanaticism of the\ncrowd. Over the blind masses it strikes the Mahatma. No matter how great\nGandhi may be, isn't he taking upon himself more than a single man can\nbear? A cause as great as India's should not be dependent on the will of\na single master. The Mahatma is the master of truth and love, but the\nattainment of _Swaraj_ home rule, is vastly complicated. \"The paths are\nintricate and hard to explore. Emotion and enthusiasm are required, but\nalso science and meditation. All the moral forces of the nation must be\ncalled upon. Economists must find practical solutions, educators must\nteach, statesmen ponder, workers work.... Everywhere the desire to learn\nmust be kept up free and unhampered. No pressure, either open or hidden,\nmust weigh on the intelligence.\" ... \"In older days, in our primeval\nforests,\" says Tagore, \"our sages, _gurus_, in the plenitude of their\nvision, called on _all_ seekers of truth.... Why does not our _guru_,\nwho wants to lead us to action, make the same call?\" But the only\ncommand that _Guru Gandhi_ so far has launched is, \"Spin and weave!\" And\nTagore asks, \"Is this the gospel of a new creative age? If large\nmachinery constitutes a danger for the West, will not small machines\nconstitute a greater danger for us?\" The forces of a nation must\ncooperate, not only with each other, but with other nations. \"The\nawakening of India is bound up in the awakening of the world. Every\nnation that tries to shut itself in violates the spirit of the new age.\"\nAnd Tagore, who has spent several years in Europe, speaks of some of the\nmen he met--men who have freed their hearts from the chains of\nnationalism in order to serve humanity--men who constitute the\npersecuted minority of world citizens, _cives totius orbis_--and he\nclasses them among the _sannyasins_, that is, \"those who in their soul\nhave realized human unity.\"[105]\n\nAnd should India alone, asks Tagore, recite the chapter of negation,\ndwell eternally on the faults of others, and strive for _Swaraj_ on a\nbasis of hatred? When the bird is awakened by the dawn, it does not only\nthink of food. Its wings respond to the call of the sky. Its throat\nfills with joyous songs to greet the coming day. A new humanity has sent\nout its call. Let India reply in her own way! \"Our first duty, at dawn,\nis to remember _Him Who is One, who is indistinguishable through class or\ncolor, and who, by his varied forces, provides, as is necessary, for the\nneeds of each class and of all. Let us pray Him, who gives wisdom, to\nunite us all in understanding._\"[106]\n\n\nTagore's noble words, some of the most beautiful ever addressed to a\nnation, are a poem of sunlight, and plane above all human struggles. And\nthe only criticism one can make of them is that they plane too high.\nTagore is right, from the point of view of eternity. The bird-poet, the\neagle-sized lark, as Heine called a master of our music, sits and sings\non the ruins of time. He lives in eternity. But the demands of the\npresent are imperious. The hour that passes demands immediate, if\nimperfect, relief; but clamors for it. And in this respect Gandhi, who\nlacks Tagore's poetic flight (or who, perhaps, as a _Boddhisattva_ of\npity has given it up in order to live among the disinherited) finds it\nchild's play to reply.\n\nIn his answer to Tagore Gandhi displays more passion than he has so far\nshown in the controversy. On October 13, 1921, in \"Young India,\" his\nstirring rejoinder appears. Gandhi thanks the \"Great Sentinel\"[107] for\nhaving warned India as to the pitfalls ahead. He agrees with Tagore that\nmost essential of all is the maintenance of a free spirit.\n\n\nWe must not surrender our reason into anybody's keeping. Blind surrender\nto love is often more mischievous than forced surrender to the lash of\nthe tyrant. There is hope for the slave of the brute, none for that of\nlove.\n\n\nTagore is the sentinel who warns of the approach of the enemies called\nBigotry, Lethargy, Intolerance, Ignorance, and Inertia. But Gandhi does\nnot feel that Tagore's misgivings are justified. The Mahatma always\nappeals to reason. It is not true that India is moved by blind obedience\nonly. If the country decided to adopt the spinning-wheel, this has been\nonly after considerable reflection. Tagore speaks of patience and is\nsatisfied with beautiful songs. But there is war. Let the poet lay down\nhis lyre! Let him sing when it is over! When a house is on fire, _all_\nmust go out and take up a bucket to quench the fire.\n\n\nWhen all about me are dying for want of food, the only occupation\npermissible for me is to feed the hungry. India is a house on fire. It\nis dying of hunger because it has no work to buy food with. Khulna is\nstarving. The Ceded Districts are passing successively through a fourth\nfamine. Orissa is a land suffering from chronic famine. India is growing\ndaily poorer. The circulation about her feet and legs has almost\nstopped. And if we do not take care she will collapse altogether....\n\nTo a people famishing and idle the only acceptable form in which God can\ndare appear is work and promise of food as wages. God created man to\nwork for his food and said that those who ate without work were thieves.\nWe must think of millions who to-day are less than animals, almost in a\ndying state. Hunger is the argument that is drawing India to the\nspinning-wheel.\n\nThe poet lives for the morrow, and would have us do likewise. He\npresents to our admiring gaze the beautiful picture of the birds in the\nearly morning singing hymns of praise as they soar into the sky. Those\nbirds had their day's food and soared with rested wings in whose veins\nnew blood had flown the previous night. But I have had the pain of\nwatching birds who for want of strength could not be coaxed even into a\nflutter of their wings. The human bird under the Indian sky gets up\nweaker than when he pretended to retire. For millions it is an eternal\nvigil or an eternal trance. I have found it impossible to soothe\nsuffering patients with a song from Kabir....\n\nGive them work that they may eat! \"Why should I, who have no need to\nwork for food, spin?\" may be the question asked. Because I am eating\nwhat does not belong to me. I am living on the spoliation of my\ncountrymen. Trace the course of every coin that finds its way into your\npocket, and you will realize the truth of what I write. Every one must\nspin. Let Tagore spin, like the others. Let him burn his foreign\nclothes; that is the duty to-day. God will take care of the morrow. As\nit says in the Git\u00e2, Do _right!_\n\n\nDark and tragic words these! Here we have the misery of the world rising\nup before the dream of art and crying, \"Dare deny me existence!\" Who\ndoes not sympathize with Gandhi's passionate emotion and share it?\n\nAnd yet, in his reply so proud and so poignant, there is nevertheless\nsomething that justifies Tagore's misgivings: _sileat poeta_, imposing\nsilence on the person who is called upon to obey the imperious\ndiscipline of the cause. Obey without discussion the law of _Swadeshi_,\nthe first command of which is, Spin!\n\nNo doubt, in the human battle, discipline is a duty. But, unfortunately,\nthose who are intrusted with enforcing this discipline, the master's\nlieutenants, may be narrow-minded men. They may mistake the discipline\nchosen to attain the ideal for the ideal itself. Discipline fascinates\nthem by its rigidity, for they are of the kind who feel at ease only on\nthe narrow path. They look upon _Swadeshi_ as essential, not as a means\nto an end, but in itself. In their eyes it acquires an almost sacred\ncharacter. One of Gandhi's disciples, professor at the school that lies\nnearest his heart, the _Satyagraha Ashram_ of Sarbarmati at Ahmedabad,\nMr. D. B. Kalelkar, writes a \"Gospel of Swadeshi,\" which Gandhi, in a\npreface, stamps with his approval.[108] This book, or pamphlet, is\naddressed to the man in the street. Let us examine the creed as it is\ntaught by one of those who drink at the very source of the unpolluted\ndoctrine:\n\n\nNow and then God is incarnated on earth to redeem the world. His\nincarnation need not necessarily be in human form.... He may be manifest\nin an abstract principle or in an ideal which uplifts the world.... His\nlatest incarnation is in the \"Gospel of Swadeshi\"...\n\n\nThe apostle realizes that this statement may cause a smile if _Swadeshi_\nis to be interpreted as meaning the boycott of foreign goods only. This\nis only a partial application of _Swadeshi_, which is a \"vast religious\nprinciple that will rid the world of strife and hatred and liberate\nhumanity.\" Its quintessence may be found in the Indian scriptures:\n\n\nYour own religious _Dharma_--that is to say, your own religious destiny\nor salvation--though imperfect, is the best. The fulfilment of _Dharma_\nfor which you were not intended is always fraught with danger. He alone\nattains happiness who fulfils the task laid out for him.\n\n\nThe fundamental law of _Swadeshi_ springs from faith in God, \"who has\nprovided, in all eternity, for the happiness of the world. This God has\nplaced each human being in the environment best suited for the\nfulfilment of his task. A man's work and his aspirations should be\nsuited to his position in the world. We cannot choose our culture any\nmore than our birth, family, or country. We must accept what God has\ngiven us; we must accept tradition as coming from God and regard it as a\nstrict duty to live up to it. To renounce tradition would be sinful.\"\n\nFrom these premises it follows that the inhabitant of one country should\nnot concern himself with other countries.\n\n\nThe follower of _Swadeshi_ never takes upon himself the vain task of\ntrying to reform the world, for he believes that the world is moved and\nalways will be moved according to rules set by God.... One must not\nexpect the people of one country to provide for the needs of another,\neven for philanthropic reasons, and if it were possible, it would not be\ndesirable.... The true follower of _Swadeshi_ does not forget that every\nhuman being is his brother, but that it is incumbent on him to fulfil\nthe task his particular environment has laid down for him. Just as we\nmust work out our salvation in the century in which we are born, we\nshould serve the country in which we are born. The emancipation of our\nsoul should be sought through religion and our own culture.\n\n\nIs it, however, permissible for a nation to take advantage of all\nopportunities to develop its resources of commerce and industry? Indeed\nnot. An unworthy ambition to wish to develop India's manufactures! It\nwould be asking people to violate their _Dharmas!_ It is as criminal to\nexport one's products as to import those of others. \"For proselytism is\nrepellent to the spirit of _Swadeshi._\" And the logical conclusion of\nthis theory, rather startling to a European, is that it is as sinful to\nexport goods as ideas. If India has been bitterly humiliated in history,\nit is as punishment for the crimes of ancestors who traded with ancient\nEgypt and Rome, a crime deliberately repeated by all succeeding\ngenerations. Every nation, every class, should remain true to its own\nduty, live on its own resources, and be inspired by its own traditions.\n\n\nWe should avoid being intimate with those whose social customs are\ndifferent from ours. We should not mingle in the lives of men or peoples\nwhose ideals are different from ours.... Every man is a brook. Every\nnation is a river. They must follow their course, clear and pure, till\nthey reach the Sea of Salvation, where all will blend.\n\n\nWhat is this but the triumph of nationalism? The narrowest and most\nunpolluted? Stay at home, shut all doors, change nothing, hold on to\neverything, export nothing, buy nothing, uplift and purify body and\nspirit! A gospel, indeed, of medieval monks![109] And Gandhi, of the\nbroad mind, lets his name be associated with it!\n\nTagore's bewilderment, when met with these visionaries of reactionary\nnationalism, is comprehensible. No wonder he was taken back by these\napostles, who would reverse the march of centuries, shut the free soul\nin a cage, and burn all bridges communicating with the West.[110] As a\nmatter of fact, Gandhi's doctrine really implies nothing of the sort. As\nmay be seen from his reply to Tagore, he says, \"_Swadeshi_ is a message\nto the world.\" The world exists; therefore, Gandhi reckons with it, and\ndoes not repudiate \"proselyting. Non-co\u00f6peration,\" he says, \"is not\ndirected against the English or the West. Our non-co\u00f6peration is\ndirected against material civilization and its attendant greed and\nexploitation of the weak.\" In other words, it combats the errors of the\nWest and would therefore be beneficial to the West also. \"Our\nnon-co\u00f6peration is a retirement within ourselves.\" A temporary\nretirement to enable India to gather up her forces before placing them\nat the services of humanity. \"India must learn to live before she can\naspire to die for humanity.\" Gandhi does not forbid co\u00f6peration with\nEurope provided the sound ideal which he sets up for all men is adhered\nto.\n\nGandhi's real doctrine is much broader, much more human, much more\nuniversal[111] than that expressed in the \"Gospel\" which he has\napproved. Why did Gandhi lend his name to this \"Gospel\"? Why does he let\nhis magnificent ideal, a message for the whole world, be imprisoned\nwithin the narrow bonds of an Indian theocracy? Beware of disciples! The\npurer they are, the more pernicious. God preserve a great man from\nfriends who only grasp part of his ideal! In codifying it, they destroy\nthe harmony which is the real blessing of his living soul.\n\nBut this is not all. While the disciples who live near the master are at\nleast tinged by his noble spirituality, what about the disciples of his\ndisciples, and the others, the masses to whom the doctrine comes merely\nas vague and broken echoes? How much and what do they absorb of the\ngospel of spiritual purification and creative renouncement?\nUnfortunately, to them the doctrine appears in its most rudimentary and\nmaterial form, in a sort of Messianic waiting for the advent of\n_Swaraj_, home rule, by the spinning-wheel! This is the negation of all\nprogress. It's the old _fuori Barbari._ Tagore is alarmed, and not\nwithout reason, at the violence of the apostles of non-violence, and\neven Gandhi is not absolutely free from it. Gandhi says that he would\n\"withdraw from the field if he felt hatred for the English,\" for one\nmust love one's enemies while hating their deeds, \"hate Satanism while\nloving Satan.\" The distinction, however, is a little too subtle for the\naverage man to grasp. And when at each session of the congress the\nleaders dwell with fiery eloquence on the crimes and treachery of the\nEnglish, anger and rancor pile up behind the sluices; and beware when\nthe sluices burst! When Gandhi, explaining why he advocates the burning\nof precious stuffs in Bombay in August, 1921, says to Andrews, Tagore's\nfriend, that \"He is transferring ill will from men to things,\"[112] he\ndoes not realize that the fury of the masses is gathering impetus, and\nthat instinctively these masses reason, \"Things first, men next!\" He\ndoes not foresee that in this same Bombay, less than three months\nafterward, _men_ will be killing _men._ Gandhi is too much of a saint;\nhe is too pure, top free from the animal passions that lie dormant in\nman. He does not dream that they lie there, crouching within the people,\ndevouring his words and thriving on them. Tagore, more clear-sighted,\nrealizes the danger the non-co\u00f6perators are skirting when they\ninnocently lay bare the crimes of Europe, profess non-violence, and\nsimultaneously plant in people's minds the virus which will inevitably\nbreak in violence! But this they do not realize, these apostles whose\nhearts are free from hatred. But he who would lead men in action must\nknow the heart-beats of the others, not merely his own. Beware the mob!\n_Cave canem!_ The moral precepts of a Gandhi will not be able to curb\nit. The only way, perhaps, to prevent it from running wild, the only\nway, perhaps, of making it yield docilely to the austere discipline of\nthe master, would be for him to pose as an incarnated god, as those who\npaint him as Sri-Krishna secretly hope he will do. But Gandhi's\nsincerity and his humility prevent him from playing the role.\n\nAnd then, planing above the roaring human ocean alone, remains the\nsingle voice of the purest of men, but only a man. How long will it be\nheard? Grandiose and tragic waiting!\n\n\n\n\n[Footnote 67: Etymologically, _swa_, self, oneself; _deshi_, country.\nHence, national independence. The non-co\u00f6perators usually interpret it\nin the narrower sense of economic independence. It will be seen, further\non, the sort of social gospel which Gandhi's followers make out of the\nidea. (\"Gospel of Swadeshi.\")]\n\n[Footnote 68: September 8 and 24, October 20, 1920.]\n\n[Footnote 69: August 11 and 25, 1920.]\n\n[Footnote 70: At least so Gandhi interprets the texts. Dare a European\nventure that he finds in the Bhagavad Git\u00e2 serene indifference to\nviolence perpetrated and suffered?]\n\n[Footnote 71: August 25, 1920.]\n\n[Footnote 72: May 12, 1920.]\n\n[Footnote 73: \"To All the English in India,\" October 27, 1920.]\n\n[Footnote 74: April 28, 1920; June 8, September 1, 1921. In his \"Letter\nto the Parsees,\" the business people, he begs them to stop selling\nalcohol (March 23, 1921). In his \"Letter to the Moderates,\" June 8,\n1921, he asks them to help him carry this point, even if they do not\nagree with the other points of his program. He also wages war on drugs,\nnarcotics, and opium dens.]\n\n[Footnote 75: Gandhi himself realizes that many will jeer. But, he asks,\ndid the sewing-machine do away with the needle? The spinning-wheel's\nutility has not been lost. On the contrary, nothing is more useful at\nthe present moment. Spinning is a national necessity, and constitutes\nthe only possible means of subsistence for millions of starving people.\n(July 21, 1920.)]\n\n[Footnote 76: February 2, 1921.]\n\n[Footnote 77: July 21, 1920.]\n\n[Footnote 78: November 17, 1920.]\n\n[Footnote 79: English is not excluded, nor any other European language,\nbut it is reserved for the higher grades, at the end of the school\nprogram. In all grades, however, Indian dialects are used. Gandhi dreams\nof a higher state of universal existence where all differences will\npersist, not as divisions but as different facets.]\n\n[Footnote 80: _Ashram_, place of discipline, hermitage.]\n\n[Footnote 81: At the Nagpur session of the congress some 4726 delegates\nwere present, and among them were 469 Mohammedans, 65 Sikhs, 5 Parsees,\n2 Untouchables, 4079 Hindus and 106 women.\n\nThe new constitution provided that a delegate should be chosen for every\n5000 inhabitants, which would make a total of 6175 delegates. The\nNational Indian Congress was to meet once a year, round Christmas. The\ncommittee of the congress consisting of 850 members would act as\nexecutive body, enforcing the resolutions of the congress and carrying\nout its policies. Between the sessions of the congress the committee was\nto have the same authority as the congress. Within the committee an\nexecutive board of fifteen members was to bear the same relation to the\ncongress committee that a ministerial cabinet bears to parliament. This\nboard could be dissolved by the congress committee.\n\nThe Congress of Nagpur drew up the plans for a hierarchy of committees\nof provincial congresses, representing twenty-one provinces and twelve\nlanguages, and placed under them local committees in each village or\ngroup of villages. It advised the formation of a band of national\nworkers to be called the Indian National Service to be financed out of\nfunds called the All-India Tilak Memorial Swaraja Fund.\n\nEvery adult, male or female, possessing 4 annas was given the right to\nvote, provided he had signed the credo of the constitution. Whoever has\nattained the age of twenty-one and has sworn adherence to Article I of\nthe Constitution and agreed to uphold the rules and by-laws of the\nconstitution is eligible.]\n\n[Footnote 82: March 23, 1921.]\n\n[Footnote 83: October 6, 1920; May 11 and 18, July 28, October\n20, 1921.]\n\n[Footnote 84: In citing his friendship with the Mussulman Maulana\nMohamed Ali, Gandhi claims that both men remain true to their respective\nfaiths.\n\nGandhi would not give his daughter in marriage to one of Ali's sons, nor\nwould he share the meals of his friend; and the same is true of Maulana\nMohamed Ali. But this does not prevent both men from being fond of each\nother, respecting each other, and relying on each other.\n\nGandhi does not say that intermarriage between Hindus and Mussulmans,\nand the fact of eating together, should necessarily be condemned, but he\nsays they are impossible at the present time. It will take at least a\ncentury for the two peoples to reach such a stage of fusion. A policy\npurported practical should not attempt to carry such a reform. Gandhi\ndoes not object to it but considers it premature. The only important\nthing, for the present, is for the two peoples to respect each other and\nremain loyal to each other. Here, too, Gandhi shows his sense of\nrealities. (October 20, 1921.)]\n\n[Footnote 85: Speech made April 27, 1921.]\n\n[Footnote 86: October 27, 1920.]\n\n[Footnote 87: In the end of April, 1921, untouchability begins to\ndiminish. In many villages the pariahs are allowed to live among other\nHindus and to enjoy the same rights. (April 27, 1921.) In other regions,\nhowever, their condition remains deplorable, particularly in Madras.\n(September 29, 1921.) The question is included in the program of the\nNational Assemblies of India from this time on. The Congress of Nagpur,\nin December, 1920, had already expressed the desire of seeing\nuntouchability wiped out.]\n\n[Footnote 88: April 27, 1921.]\n\n[Footnote 89: July 21, 1921, and October 6, 1920.]\n\n[Footnote 90: July 21, August 11, December 16, 1921.]\n\n[Footnote 91: Gandhi protests against this in \"Young India\"\nof June, 1921.]\n\n[Footnote 92: May 12, 1920; May 25, July 13, August 25, 1921.]\n\n[Footnote 93: December 8, 1920.]\n\n[Footnote 94: March 16, 1921.]\n\n[Footnote 95: \"Letters from Abroad.\" The three letters of March 2, 5,\nand 13 were published in the \"Modern Review\" in May, 1921. The \"Appeal\nto Truth\" was written after Tagore's return to India and published in\nthe \"Modern Review\" October 1, 1921. The two men, however, did not\ndiscuss their views in polemical writings only. They met and had a long\ninterview, but neither has published any comment on their meeting. C. F.\nAndrews, however, who was present, has told us what the talk was about\nand referred to the arguments used by Tagore and Gandhi to back up their\ndifferent points of view.]\n\n[Footnote 96: February 9, 1922. In this article, called \"Too Sacred for\nPublication,\" Gandhi dwells on his long friendship with Tagore. Gandhi\nwas a frequent visitor at Tagore's home at Santiniketan, and considered\nit as a retreat. While he was in England his children had their home\nthere.]\n\n[Footnote 97: May 12, 1920.]\n\n[Footnote 98: March 5, 1921.]\n\n[Footnote 99: June 1, 1921.]\n\n[Footnote 100: March 5, 1921.]\n\n[Footnote 101: March 6, 1921.]\n\n[Footnote 102: March 13, 1921. Developed in article in the \"Modern\nReview\" of November, 1921.]\n\n[Footnote 103: The first Indian home rule campaign, in Bengal,\nin 1907-08.]\n\n[Footnote 104: March 5, 1921.]\n\n[Footnote 105: Those who have renounced their personal life in\norder to bring a unity to mankind.]\n\n[Footnote 106: Paraphrase of the first stanza of the Upanishads.]\n\n[Footnote 107: Title of the article of October 13, 1921.]\n\n[Footnote 108: \"The Gospel of Swadeshi,\" Madras, 1922.]\n\n[Footnote 109: In this \"Gospel,\" however, are words of great moral force\nand beauty. Exert no vengeance. \"That which is passed is passed. The\npast cannot be called back; it is part of eternity and man has no\nrecourse against it. Do not try to exert reprisals as punishment for\npast injustice and offence! Let the dead past bury its dead. Act in the\nliving present, heart within and God o'erhead.\"\n\nThe cold purity of the glaciers blows through the book, from one end\nto the other.]\n\n[Footnote 110: Tagore was particularly sensitive to such writings since\nthere had sprung up a sort of rivalry between Gandhi's _Ashram_ (where\nthis \"Gospel\" was written) and Tagore's _Santiniketan_, a rivalry which\nboth men tried to smooth out. In an article published February 9, 1922,\nGandhi, in \"Young India,\" complains that a journalist misquoted him,\nmaking him say things about his _Ashram_ which might be construed as\ncriticisms of Tagore's _Santiniketan._ Gandhi expresses his respect for\nTagore's school and adds, rather humorously, that if he had to determine\nthe superiority of one school over the other, he would vote for\n_Santiniketan_, in spite of the discipline of _Ashram. Santiniketan_ is\nthe older brother, older in age as well as in wisdom, but, says Gandhi,\n\"Let the disciples of _Santiniketan_ beware the growth of little\n_Ashram!_\"]\n\n[Footnote 111: To my mind Gandhi is as universal as Tagore, but in a\ndifferent way. Gandhi is a universalist through his religious feeling;\nTagore is intellectually universal. Gandhi does not exclude any one from\nthe communion of prayer and daily duties, just as the first apostles did\nnot differentiate between Jews and Gentiles but imposed the same moral\ndiscipline on both. This is what Gandhi aspires to do, and herein lies\nhis narrowness; not in his heart, which is as large as that of a Christ,\nbut in his spirit of intellectual asceticism and renunciation. (And\nthis, too, is of a Christ!) Gandhi is a universalist of the Middle Ages.\nWhile venerating him, we understand and approve Tagore.]\n\n[Footnote 112: September 1, 1921.]\n\n\n\n\nPART THREE\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1\n\n\nIn 1921 the non-co\u00f6peration movement evolved rapidly. The whole year\nwas one of uncertainty, expectancy, and violent outbreaks. Gandhi\ninevitably reflected its oscillations.\n\nFor a long time hostility had been growing, and it broke out in open\nrevolt at the Government's brutally oppressive measures. There were\nriots at Malegaon, in the district of Nasik, and at Giridih, in Behar.\nIn the beginning of May, 1921, there were serious clashes in Assam.\nTwelve thousand coolies stopped work in the tea-gardens, and were\nattacked by Gurkhas drafted by the Government, and in eastern Bengal the\nrailroad and steamship workers organized a two months' strike in\nprotest. Gandhi did all in his power to calm the effervescence. In May\nhe had a long conversation with the viceroy, Lord Reading, and he also\nused his influence with the Ali brothers, who were said to be stirring\nup violence by their inflammatory speeches. Gandhi was able to persuade\nhis Moslem friends to \"refrain from directly or indirectly advocating\nviolence.\"\n\nThe non-co\u00f6peration movement, however, grew more and more powerful as\ntime went on. The Moslem element in particular became audacious. At\nKarachi, July 8, for instance, the All-India Khilafat Conference, after\nreiterating the Moslem claims, declared that no Mussulman should serve\nin the English Army or assist in recruiting. In fact, the conference\neven went so far as to threaten to proclaim a republic in India and\nadvocate civil disobedience at the December session of the National\nCongress if the Government did not change its hostile attitude to the\nAngora leaders. A little later, on July 28, the committee of the\nNational Congress (the first congress committee elected according to the\nnew constitution) sitting at Bombay decided to boycott the Prince of\nWales, whose visit was announced, and declared a boycott on all foreign\nmaterials, to become effective before September 30. It also took steps\nto intensify and regulate national spinning and weaving, and urged the\norganization of a more vigorous campaign against the drink evil, despite\nthe Government's support of the dealers. Less audacious than the\nMussulmans of the Khilafat Conference, however, the congress committee\ndisavowed revolutionary tendencies and disapproved civil disobedience,\napproving a more; strenuous propaganda in favor of non-violence.\n\nIn August a brutal revolt of the Moplahs took place, and lasted several\nmonths. With Maulana Mohamed Ali, Gandhi decided to go from Calcutta to\nMalabar to try to quiet it. But the Government arrested Maulana Mohamed\nand his brother Maulana Shaukat Ali as well as several other Moslem\nnotables, accusing them of having voted for civil disobedience at the\nKhilafat Conference. At the news of the Ali brothers' arrest, the\nCentral Khilafat Committee, sitting at Delhi, ratified unanimously the\nresolutions of the Khilafat Conference. Hundreds of demonstrations, held\nall over India, confirmed the people's approval of them. On October 4,\nGandhi announced that he considered his cause hound up with that of the\nMussulmans. In a manifesto approved by fifty prominent members of the\nAll-India Congress Gandhi declared that every citizen was entitled to\nexpress his views on non-co\u00f6peration, adding that no Indian, whether\ncivil functionary or soldier, should serve a Government which has\nbrought about the moral, political, and economical degradation of India.\nHe set up non-co\u00f6peration with such a Government as an imperative duty.\nThe Ali brothers' trial took place at Karachi. With their\nfellow-accused, they were sentenced to two years' imprisonment.\n\nTo this sentence India replied with redoubled vigor. Gandhi's manifesto\nwas ratified by the Committee of the All-India Congress on November 4 at\nDelhi. And casting the die, the committee authorized every province, on\nits own responsibility, to proclaim civil disobedience, beginning with a\nrefusal to pay taxes. \"Resisters,\" however, were first to swear complete\nobedience to the _Swadeshi_ program, including hand spinning, and take\nthe vow of non-violence. In other words, under Gandhi's direction the\ncommittee tried to combine resistance against the Government with\ndiscipline and self-sacrifice. To make the disinterested character of\nthe movement clear. Resisters were informed that neither they nor their\nfamilies would receive any pecuniary aid from the committee.\n\nThe great disobedience was about to become effective when, on November\n17, the Prince of Wales landed at Bombay. The boycott was carried out by\nthe lower and the middle classes; but the rich, the Parsees and official\npersonages, ignored the order completely. Their attitude created such\nfury among the populace that the masses stormed the houses of the rich,\nlooting and sacking homes and property, sparing no one, not even the\nwomen. Many were killed and wounded. This was the only case of violence,\nhowever. Everywhere else, all over India, the prescribed _hartal_ took\nplace in the midst of almost religious quiet and order. There were no\ndisturbances of any kind. But the news of the Bombay riots wounded\nGandhi \"like an arrow shot in his heart.\" As soon as he heard of them he\nrushed to the spot, and when the rioters cheered him his mortification\nknew no bounds. He called the crowd angrily to order and commanded it to\ndisperse. He declared that the Parsees were justified in celebrating the\nprince's arrival if they wished, and, in any event, nothing justified\nviolence. The crowd listened to Gandhi in silence, but farther off the\ntumult broke out again. The worst elements seemed to have suddenly\nemerged from the earth, and twenty thousand men, towering in rage and\nhatred, cannot be brought back to reason all at once. Still, the rioters\nremained localized in certain districts, and the destruction was not\nhalf so great as that caused by the most insignificant revolutionary\noutbreak in Europe. Gandhi, however, issued anguished appeals to the\ncitizens of Bombay and to the non-co\u00f6perators, and declared that such\nincidents proved that the masses were not yet ripe for civil\ndisobedience. Therefore he suspended the order proclaiming it. To punish\nhimself for the violence of his followers, he imposed upon himself a\nreligious fast of twenty-four hours every week.\n\nThe European residents in India were less alarmed by the Bombay riots\nthan by the striking unanimousness of the silent _hartal_ throughout the\ncountry. They urged the viceroy and the Government to act, and a series\nof oppressive measures were imposed in the various provinces. An old\nlaw, aimed at anarchists and secret societies, dating from the uprisings\nof 1908, was unearthed, and made to serve against the volunteer\nassociations of the Congress and of the Khilafat. Arrests were made by\nthe thousand, which only resulted in bringing thousands of new recruits\nto register as volunteers, who were then trained by the provincial\ncommittees. In the meantime a _hartal_ was set for December 24, the date\nof the Prince of Wales's visit to Calcutta. That day the prince passed\nthrough a silent, absolutely deserted city.\n\nThe revolution seemed to be smoldering everywhere, ready to burst into\nflame when the Indian National Congress met at Ahmedabad. There was\nabout it the impressive solemnity of the \u00c9tats-G\u00e9n\u00e9raux on the eve of\nthe French Revolution in 1789. The president of the congress had just\nbeen imprisoned. The discussions were brief. The congress again\nproclaimed its faith in non-co\u00f6peration and invited all citizens to\nregister as volunteers and to be prepared to face arrest. It also urged\nthe people to organize mass-meetings everywhere; and after expressing\nthe opinion that civil disobedience is a weapon equally effective and\nmore humane than armed rebellion, it moved that civil disobedience be\nadopted as soon as the masses had grasped the real spirit of\nnon-violence. Realizing that many of the members would be arrested at\nthe close of the session, the congress delegated its powers to Gandhi,\ninvesting him with a dictature _de facto_ and authorizing him to appoint\nhis successor. This made Gandhi sole master of India's policy. The\ncongress limited his authority on one point only, and this was that he\nshould agree to no change in the national _creed_ nor make peace with\nthe Government without the consent of the congress committee. A fraction\nof the assembly tried to pass a resolution approving violence, if\nnecessary to bring about India's independence, but this resolution was\nrejected by the majority, which believed in Gandhi's principles.\n\nThe ensuing weeks revealed the religious enthusiasm which swept over\nIndia. Twenty-five thousand men and women joyfully surrendered\nthemselves to prison guards. And back of them, thousands of others stood\nready to give themselves up to prove their faith in the cause of India.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2\n\n\nAgain Gandhi believed the country was ripe for civil disobedience _en\nmasse._ The signal was to be given in a model district, at Bardoli, in\nthe province of Bombay.[113] Here Gandhi's ideas had always been\nunderstood and followed. In an open letter to the viceroy, dated\nFebruary 9, 1922, Gandhi set forth his program. The letter is a\ncourteous, but clear, declaration of war. Gandhi says he is the leader\nof the non-co\u00f6peration movement, and he claims responsibility for it.\nBardoli will be the first unit of non-violent mass revolt against a\ngovernment which has brutally infringed upon freedom of the press, of\nassociation, and of speech. Gandhi gives Lord Reading seven days in\nwhich to announce a change of policy. If the \"viceroy will not or cannot\nsee such an incredibly simple issue,\" civil disobedience will be\nproclaimed.[114]\n\nScarcely had the letter, to the viceroy been despatched when there\noccurred an outbreak more violent than any of the others. During a\nprocession at Chauri-Chaura, in the district of Gorakhpur, or, rather,\nafter the procession had passed, some stragglers were \"interfered with\nand abused by the constables.\" Attacked by the mob, the constables\nopened fire, and when they exhausted their ammunition they retired to\nthe _thana_ (the police barracks) for safety. The mob set fire to the\n_thana._ In vain the besieged begged for mercy. They were pitilessly\nmassacred and burned. As the provocation had come from them, however,\nand as no non-co\u00f6peration volunteer had had a hand in the attack,\nGandhi would have been justified in disclaiming all responsibility for\nthe outrage. But he had really become the conscience of India. The crime\nof a single one of his people cut him to the quick. He took upon himself\nall the sins of his people. His horror was such that on the spur of the\nmoment, and for the second time, he stopped the civil-disobedience\nmovement that he had just launched. The situation was vastly more\ncomplicated than after the Bombay riots, and only a few days before he\nhad sent his ultimatum to the viceroy. How could he retract it without\nmaking his program seem illogical and even ridiculous? \"Satan,\" as\nGandhi says, \"forbade it.\" Realizing that \"Satan's\" voice was the voice\nof _pride_, he decided to retract the manifesto.\n\nAnd on February 16,1922, there appeared in \"Young India\" one of the most\nextraordinary human documents ever written. It is Gandhi's _mea culpa_,\nhis public confession. From the depths of his mortification words of\nthanks swell to his lips, of thanks to God for having humbled him:\n\n\nGod has been abundantly kind to me. He has warned me for the third time\nthat there is not as yet in India that truthful and non-violent\natmosphere which, and which alone, can justify mass disobedience, which\ncan be at all described as \"civil,\" which means gentle, truthful,\nhumble, knowing, wilful, yet loving, never criminal and hateful. He\nwarned me in 1919 when the Rowlatt Act agitation was started. Ahmedabad,\nViramvrag, and Kheda erred. I retraced my steps, called it a Himalayan\nmiscalculation, humbled myself before God and man, and stopped not\nmerely mass civil disobedience, but even my own.... The next time it was\nthrough the events of Bombay that God gave me a terrific warning. He\nmade me eyewitness.... I announced my intention to stop the mass civil\ndisobedience which was to be immediately started in Bardoli. The\nhumiliation was greater than that in 1919. But it did me good and I am\nsure that the nations gained by the stopping. India stood for truth and\nnon-violence by the suspension.\n\nBut the bitterest humiliation was still to come.... God spoke clearly\nthrough Chauri-Chaura.... And when India claims to be non-violent and\nhopes to mount the throne of liberty through non-violent means, mob\nviolence even in answer to grave provocation is a bad augury....\nNon-violent attainment of self-government presupposes a non-violent\ncontrol over the violent elements in the country. Non-violent\nnon-co\u00f6perators can only succeed when they have succeeded in attaining\ncontrol over the hooligan of India....\n\n\nTherefore, on February 11, at Bardoli, he \"put his doubts and troubles\"\nbefore the working committee of the congress. They did not all agree\nwith him. \"But never,\" he said, \"has a man been 'blessed,' perhaps, with\ncolleagues and associates so considerate and forgiving.\"\n\nThey sympathized with his scruples and consented, at his request, to\nsuspend the order of civil disobedience, urging at the same time that\nall organizations strive to create an atmosphere of non-violence.\n\n\nI know that the drastic reversal of practically the whole of the\naggressive program may be politically unsound and unwise, but there is\nno doubt that it is religiously sound. The country will have gained by\nmy humiliation and confession of error. The only virtue I want to claim\nis truth and non-violence. I lay no claim to superhuman powers. I want\nnone. I wear the same corruptible flesh that the weakest of my\nfellow-beings wear, and am therefore as liable to err as any. My\nservices have many limitations, but God has up to now blessed them in\nspite of the imperfections.\n\nFor confession of error is like a broom that sweeps away dirt and leaves\nthe surface cleaner and brighter. I feel stronger for my confession. And\nthe cause must prosper for the retracing. Never has a man reached his\ndestination by persistence in deviation from the straight path. It has\nbeen urged that Chauri-Chaura cannot affect Bardoli. ... I have no doubt\nwhatsoever on that account. The people of Bardoli are, in my opinion,\nthe most peaceful in India. But Bardoli is but a speck on the map of\nIndia. Its effort cannot succeed unless there is perfect co\u00f6peration\nfrom the other parts.... Just as the addition of a grain of arsenic to a\npot of milk renders it unfit as food so will the civility of Bardoli\nprove unacceptable by the addition of the deadly poison from\nChauri-Chaura.... The latter represents India as much as Bardoli.\nChauri-Chaura is, after all, an aggravated symptom. _In civil\ndisobedience there should be no excitement. Civil disobedience is a\npreparation for mute suffering._ Its effect is marvelous, though\nunperceived and gentle.... The tragedy of Chauri-Chaura is really the\nindex-finger. It shows the way India may easily go if drastic\nprecautions be not taken. If we are not to evolve violence out of\nnon-violence, it is quite clear that we must hastily retrace our steps\nand reestablish an atmosphere of peace, and not think of starting mass\ncivil disobedience until we are sure of peace being retained in spite of\nmass civil disobedience being started and in spite of government\nprovocation.... Let the opponent glory in our humiliation and so-called\ndefeat. It is better to be charged with cowardice than to be guilty of\ndenial of our oath and sin against God....\n\n\nAnd the apostle wants to redeem the blood shed by others:\n\n\nI must undergo personal cleansing. I must become a fitter instrument\nable to register the slightest variation in the moral atmosphere about\nme. My prayers must have deeper truth and humility. For me there is\nnothing so cleansing as a fast. A fast undertaken for fuller\nself-expression, for attainment of the spirit's supremacy over the\nflesh, is a most powerful factor in one's evolution....[115]\n\n\nAnd he imposes on himself a continuous five days' fast. He does not want\nhis co-workers to follow his example. He must punish himself. \"I am in\nthe unhappy position of a surgeon proved skill-less to deal with an\nadmittedly dangerous case. I must either abdicate or acquire greater\nskill.\" His fast is penance and punishment for him and for the rioters\nof Chauri-Chaura who sinned with his name on their lips. Gandhi would\nlike to suffer for them alone, but he advises them to hand themselves\nvoluntarily to the Government and to make a clean confession, for they\nhave injured the cause they meant to serve.\n\n\nI would suffer humiliation, every torture, absolute ostracism, and death\nitself to prevent the movement from becoming violent or a precursor of\nviolence.\n\n\nThe history of humanity's spiritual progress can point to few pages as\nnoble as these. The moral value of such an action is incomparable, but\nas a political move it was disconcerting. Gandhi himself admits it might\nbe called \"politically unsound and unwise.\" It is dangerous to assemble\nall the forces of a nation and to hold the nation, panting, before a\nprescribed movement, to lift one's arm to give the final command, and\nthen, at the last moment, let one's arm drop and thrice call a halt just\nas the formidable machinery has been set in motion. One risks ruining\nthe brakes and paralyzing the impetus.\n\nTherefore, when the congress committee held its session at Delhi,\nFebruary 24, 1922, Gandhi met with great opposition. The resolutions of\nthe working committee of Bardoli, approved on the eleventh, were not\nratified without discussion. The non-co\u00f6perators split into two camps.\nGandhi claimed that before civil disobedience could be launched the\npeople must be better prepared, and he submitted a constructive program.\nBut many members were irritated at the slow progress of the independence\nmovement, and they protested against the suspension of civil\ndisobedience. Gandhi's methods, they claimed, were stifling the nation's\nardor. A vote of censure against the working committee was proposed, and\nit was suggested that its resolutions be annulled. In the end, however,\nGandhi triumphed. But he suffered keenly, for he realized that the\nmajority was not backing him sincerely; he knew that more than one of\nthose who voted for him called him \"dictator\" behind his back. He knew\nthat, at bottom, he no longer reflected the sentiment of the country.\nAnd with his undaunted sincerity he admits this, March 2, 1922:\n\n\nThere is so much undercurrent of violence, both conscious and\nunconscious, that I was actually and literally praying for a disastrous\ndefeat. I have always been in a minority. In South Africa I started with\npractical unanimity, reached a minority of sixty-four and even sixteen,\nand went up again to a huge majority. The best and the most solid work\nwas done in the wilderness of minority.... I know that the only thing\nthat the Government dreads is this huge majority I seem to command. They\nlittle know that I dread it even more than they. I have become literally\nsick of the adoration of the unthinking multitude. I would feel certain\nof my ground if I was spat upon by them. A friend warned me against\nexploiting my \"dictatorship.\" I have begun to wonder if I am not\nunconsciously allowing myself to be \"exploited\"! I confess that I have a\ndread of it as I never had before. My only safety lies in my\nshamelessness. I have warned my friends of the committee that I am\nincorrigible. I shall continue to confess blunders each time the people\ncommit them. The only tyrant I accept in this world is the \"still small\nvoice\" within. And even though I have to face the prospect of a minority\nof one, I humbly believe I have the courage to be in such a hopeless\nminority. That to me is the only truthful position. But I am a sadder\nand, I hope, a wiser man to-day. I see that our non-violence is\nskin-deep. We are burning with indignation. The Government is feeding it\nby its insensate acts. It seems almost as if the Government wants to see\nthis land covered with murder, arson, and rapine in order to be able\nonce more to claim exclusive ability to put them down.\n\nThis non-violence, therefore, seems to be due merely to our\nhelplessness. It almost appears as if we are nursing in our bosoms the\ndesire to take revenge the first time we get the opportunity. Can true\nvoluntary non-violence come out of this seeming forced non-violence of\nthe weak? Is it not a futile experiment I am conducting? What if, when\nthe fury bursts, not a man, woman, or child is safe and every man's hand\nis raised against his fellow-being? Of what avail is it, then, if I fast\nmyself to death in the event of such a catastrophe coming to pass? Let\nus be truthful. If it is by force that we wish to gain _Swaraj_, let us\ndrop non-violence and offer such violence as we may. It would be a\nmanly, honest, and sober attitude, and no one can then accuse us of the\nterrible charge of hypocrisy.[116] If, in spite of all my warnings...\nthe majority did not believe in our goal, although they accepted it\nwithout a single material change, I would ask them to realize their\nresponsibility. They are not bound to rush to civil disobedience, but to\nsettle down to the quiet work of construction. If we do not take care,\nwe are likely to be drowned in the waters whose depth we do not know....\n\nThose who do not believe in the creed should surely retire from\nthe congress.\n\n\nAnd, turning to the minority, Gandhi adds:\n\n\nThe patriotic spirit demands loyal and strict adherence to non-violence\nand truth. Those who do not believe in them should retire from the\ncongress organization.\n\n\nThere is bitter sadness, but a proud manliness, in these forceful words.\nIt was the night in Gethsemane. Gandhi's arrest was imminent. Who knows\nwhether, in his heart, he did not look upon imprisonment as a delivery?\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3\n\n\nGandhi had for a long time been expecting to be arrested. Ever since\nNovember 10, 1920, all his affairs had been in order and he himself\nprepared. He had dictated his instructions to the people in his article,\n\"If I Am Arrested.\" He referred to this possibility again in an article\ndated March 9, 1922, when the rumor of his arrest again cropped up. He\nsays he does not fear the Government. \"Rivers of blood shed by the\nGovernment cannot frighten me.\" The only thing he fears is that the\npeople may be carried away at the news of his arrest. This would be a\ndisgrace to him. \"I desire that the people should maintain perfect\nself-control and consider the day of my arrest a day of rejoicing. The\nGovernment believes that I am the soul of all this agitation and that if\nI am removed it will be left in peace. The only thing that remains is\nfor it to measure the strength of the people. Let the people preserve\nperfect peace and calmness. It is a matter of no pride or pleasure to\nme, but of humiliation, that the Government refrain from arresting me\nfor fear of an outbreak of universal violence.\" Let the people carry out\nthe whole constructive program. Let there be no _hartals_ or\ndemonstrations, no cooperation with the Government. Let courts and\nschools be boycotted. Let, in short, the program of non-co\u00f6peration be\npursued in absolute order and discipline. If the people can live up to\nthis program, they will win. Otherwise they will face disaster.\n\nWhen everything was in readiness, Gandhi went to his cherished retreat\nat the _Ashram_ of Sarbarmati, near Ahmedabad, to await, in quiet\nmeditation and surrounded by his beloved disciples, the coming of the\nconstables. He longed for imprisonment. In his absence India would\naffirm her purpose with greater strength. And, as he says, imprisonment\nwould give him \"a quiet and physical rest,\" which he perhaps\ndeserved.[117]\n\nThe constables arrived on the night of March 10. News had reached the\n_Ashram_ of their coming. The Mahatma was ready, and placed himself at\ntheir disposal. On the way to prison he met Maulana Hasrat Mohani, a\nMohammedan friend who had come from far to give him a last embrace.\nBanker, the editor of \"Young India,\" was sent to jail along with the\nmaster. Gandhi's wife was allowed to accompany her husband as far as the\nprison gates.\n\nAt noon of Saturday, March 18, Gandhi's \"Great Trial\"[118] began before\nMr. C. N. Broomsfield, district and session judge of Ahmedabad. It was a\nmanifestation of rare nobility and high-mindedness. Judge and accused\nvied with each other in chivalrous courtesy. Never in the struggle did\nEngland rise to more magnanimous impartiality. Judge Broomsfield that\nday made up for many faults of the Government. Since much has been\nwritten about the trial, I will only summarize the main points.\n\nWhy had the Government at last arrested Gandhi? Why, after contemplating\nthis move for more than two years, did it choose the very moment when\nthe Mahatma had quelled the mob movement and when he seemed to stand as\nthe only barrier against violence? Was it acting in aberration? Or did\nit wish to lend confirmation to Gandhi's terrible words: \"It seems\nalmost as if the Government wants to see this land covered with murder,\narson, and rapine in order to be able to claim exclusive ability to put\nthem down\"? The Government was in a very difficult position. It\nrespected and feared Gandhi. It would have liked to treat him gently.\nBut Gandhi did not treat the Government gently. The Mahatma condemned\nviolence, but his non-violence was more revolutionary than any violence.\nThe very same day that he stopped civil disobedience for the mass, or\nrather the day before the session of the congress at Delhi, on February\n23, he wrote one of the most menacing articles to Great Britain's power.\nAn insolent telegram from Lord Birkenhead and Mr. Montagu had struck\nIndia as a blow.[119]\n\nIn a burst of indignation Gandhi took up the challenge:\n\n\nHow can there be any compromise whilst the British lion continues to\nshake his gory claws in our faces? The British Empire, which is based\nupon organized exploitation of physically weaker races and upon a\ncontinuous exhibition of brute force, cannot live if there is a just God\nruling the universe.... It is high time that the British people were\nmade to realize that the fight that was commenced in 1920 is a fight to\nthe finish, whether it lasts one month or one year or many months or\nmany years. I shall only hope and pray that God will give India\nsufficient humility and sufficient strength to remain non-violent to the\nend. Submission to the insolent challenges that are cabled is now an\nutter impossibility.\n\n\nGandhi was indicted on the statements contained in this article and in\ntwo other articles, the one dated September 19, 1921, and the other\nDecember 15, 1921. The first referred to the arrest of the Ali brothers,\nand the second was a reply to a speech of Lord Reading. Both of them\ncontain the same declaration of \"fight to the finish. We want _Swaraj_,\nwe want the Government to yield to popular will. We ask for no quarter\nand expect none.\" The accusation, therefore, charged that Gandhi had\n\"preached disaffection toward the Government and had openly instigated\nothers to overthrow it.\" Gandhi spoke in his own defense. He pleaded\nguilty to all charges.\n\nThe advocate-general, Sir J. T. Strangman of Bombay, claimed that the\nthree articles cited by the accusation were not isolated, but were part\nof a general campaign pursued for two years in view of overthrowing the\nGovernment, and he quoted passages from Gandhi's articles. He paid\ntribute to Gandhi's high character. But this only served to lend\nauthority to the articles and to increase their harmful influence. He\nheld Gandhi responsible for the bloodshed at Bombay and at\nChauri-Chaura. It was true that Gandhi preached non-violence, but he\nalso preached disaffection. He was therefore responsible for the\nviolence committed by the people.\n\nGandhi asked permission to speak. The torment as to what was right and\nwrong, the anguish, the doubts, the mental and spiritual struggle of the\nlast weeks as to which course he should pursue and the effect it would\nhave on the people, had been cleared away. He had recovered the serenity\nof his soul. He accepted everything that had taken place and everything\nthat was to take place as a necessity which he might regret, but which\nhe would have to bear. He agreed with the advocate-general. Yes, he was\nresponsible. He was responsible for everything. He had preached\ndisaffection for a much longer time than the accusation had stated. He\nassumed responsibility for the troubles at Madras, for the \"diabolical\ncrimes\" of Chauri-Chaura, and the \"mad outrages\" of Bombay.\n\n\nThe learned advocate-general is quite right when he says that as a man\nof responsibility, a man having received a fair share of education,\nhaving had a fair share of experience of this world, I should have known\nthe consequences of every one of my acts. _I knew that I was playing\nwith fire, I ran the risk, and if I was set free, I would still do the\nsame._ I felt this morning that I would have failed in my duty if I did\nnot say what I say here just now.\n\nI wanted to avoid violence, I want to avoid violence. Non-violence is\nthe first article of my faith. It is also the last article of my creed.\nBut I had to make my choice. I had either to submit to a system which I\nconsidered had done an irreparable harm to my country or incur the risk\nof the mad fury of my people bursting forth when they understood the\ntruth from my lips. I know that my people have sometimes gone mad. I am\ndeeply sorry for it and I am therefore here to submit not to a light\npenalty, but to the highest penalty. I do not ask for mercy. I do not\nplead any extenuating act. I am here, therefore, to invite and\ncheerfully submit to the highest penalty that can be inflicted upon me\nfor what in law is a deliberate crime and what appears to me to be the\nhighest duty of a citizen. The only course open to you, Judge, is either\nto resign your post or inflict on me the severest penalty.\n\n\nAfter this powerful improvisation, where the scruples of a religious\nspirit are balanced by the heroic firmness of a political leader, Gandhi\nread a written declaration addressed to the public in India and England.\nHe owed it to them, he said, to explain why, \"from a stanch loyalist and\nco\u00f6perator,\" he had become an uncompromising disaffectionist and\nnon-co\u00f6perator. He dwelt on his public life from 1893 on. He pointed\nout all he had to suffer, as an Indian, from the British system, and he\ntold of his ceaseless attempts for twenty-five years to reform it. He\nbelieved obstinately that this could be accomplished without separating\nIndia and England. In spite of all deceptions, he remained a stanch\nco\u00f6perator till 1919. But since then outrages and crimes have surpassed\nall measure. And instead of making up for injustices, the Government, as\nif in defiance to the spirit of India, has honored, pensioned, and\nrewarded its guilty servants. The Government itself has severed all\nties. Gandhi has come to the conclusion that even if the desired reforms\nwere now proposed by the Government, they would be harmful. The\nGovernment in British India is based on the exploitation of the masses.\nLaws are made in view of strengthening this exploitation. The\nadministration of the law is prostituted consciously or unconsciously\nfor the benefit of the exploiter. A subtle, but effective, system of\nterrorization and an organized display of force have emasculated the\npeople and \"induced in them the habit of simulation.\" India is starving,\nruined, degraded; and many claim that before India becomes capable of\nself-government on the dominion plan generations will have to pass.\nEngland has done more harm to India than any previous system.\nNon-co\u00f6peration with evil is a duty. Gandhi' has done his duty. But\nwhereas in the past non-co\u00f6peration has been deliberately expressed in\nthe form of violence inflicted on the evildoer, violence having been the\nsupreme weapon, Gandhi has given his people the new, but indomitable,\narm of non-violence.\n\nAnd then came the chivalrous match between Judge Broomsfield and the\nMahatma.\n\n\nMr. Gandhi, you have made my task easy in one way by pleading guilty to\nthe charges; nevertheless what remains, namely the determination of a\njust sentence, is perhaps as difficult a proposition as a judge in this\ncountry could have to face.... It would be impossible to ignore the fact\nthat in the eyes of millions of your countrymen you are a great patriot\nand a great leader. Even those who differ from you in politics look upon\nyou as a man of high ideals and of noble and even saintly life.... But\nit is my duty to judge you as a man subject to the law.... There are\nprobably few people in India who do not sincerely regret that you should\nhave made it impossible for any Government to leave you at liberty. But\nit is so. I am trying to balance what is due to you against what appears\nto me to be necessary in the interest of the public.\n\n\nWith great courtesy he consulted the accused as to the sentence which\nshould be imposed. \"You will not consider it unreasonable, I think, to\nbe classed with Mr. Tilak,\" sentenced twelve years previously to six\nyears. \"If the course of events in India should make it possible for the\nGovernment to reduce the period and release you, no one will be better\npleased than I.\"\n\nGandhi did not allow the judge to outdo him in courtesy. He claimed it\nwas his proudest privilege and honor to have his name associated with\nthat of Tilak. So far as the sentence itself was concerned, he\nconsidered it as light as any judge could impose on him, and as far as\nthe whole proceedings were concerned, he said that he could not have\nexpected greater courtesy.[120]\n\nThe trial was over. Gandhi's friends fell at his feet, sobbing. The\nMahatma took leave of them, smiling. And the door of the jail of\nSarbamati closed behind him.[121]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4\n\n\nEver since the great apostle's voice has been silent. His body is walled\nin as in a tomb. But never did a tomb act as a barrier to thought, and\nGandhi's invisible soul still animates India's vast body. \"Peace,\nnon-violence, suffering,\"[122] is the only message that has come from\nthe prison. The message has been heard. From one end of the country to\nthe other the watchword has been passed. Three years earlier India would\nhave been swept by bloodshed at Gandhi's arrest. The mere report of its\nhaving taken place caused riots among the population in 1920. But the\nsentence of Ahmedabad was received with religious solemnity. Thousands\nof Indians with serene joyfulness handed themselves over to prison\nguards. Non-violence and suffering--one example more amazing than the\nothers--may serve to show to what depths the divine words have\npenetrated into the spirit of the nation.\n\nAs is well known, the Sikhs have always been looked upon as one of the\nmost warlike races in India. Large numbers of them served in the army\nduring the war. Last year grave dissensions arose among them. To our\nWestern eyes the cause seems insignificant. As the result of a religious\neffervescence, one of the Sikh sects, the Akalis, wished to purify the\nsanctuaries. The latter had fallen into the hands of guardians of ill\nrepute who refused to be put out. For legal reasons the Government took\ntheir defense. And in August, 1922, began the daily martyrdom of\nGuru-Ka-Bagh.[123] The Akalis adopted the doctrine of non-resistance. A\nthousand of them settled near the sanctuary, while four thousand took up\nabode in the Golden Temple at Amritsar, ten miles away. Every day one\nhundred from among the four thousand, most of them men of military age,\nmany of whom served in the war, left the Golden Temple, after taking the\nvow of remaining true to the principles of non-violence in thought as\nwell as action, and of reaching Guru-Ka-Bagh or being brought back\nunconscious. Among the group of the thousand volunteers twenty-five made\nthe same vow every day. Not far from the sanctuary the British\nconstables waited at the bridge with iron-tipped rods to stop the\nmanifestation. And every day a gruesome scene took place. Andrews,\nTagore's friend, describes it unforgettably in his \"Akali\nStruggle.\"[124] With a wreath of small white flowers around their black\nturbans, the Akalis arrived silently before the constables, and at a\ndistance of about a yard they stopped and began to pray, silently,\nmotionlessly. The constables, in order to drive them away, prodded them\nwith the iron-tipped rods, jabbing harder and harder till blood began to\nflow and the Sikhs fell unconscious. Those who could get to their feet\nwould begin to pray again, until they were beaten into unconsciousness\nlike the others. Andrews did not hear a single cry, nor did he see a\ndefiant glance. Near-by, a crowd of spectators, their faces tense with\nanguish, prayed silently. \"I could not help thinking,\" Andrews says, \"of\nthe shadow of the cross.\" The English described the scene in their\npapers and expressed amazement.[125] It seemed incomprehensible to the\nBritish, although they had to admit that the absurd sacrifice proved\nthat the idea of non-co\u00f6peration and non-violence was gaining ground\nand that the people of the Punjab had been won over to the doctrine.\nAndrews, whose generous spirit and pure idealism enabled him to\npenetrate the soul of India, says that here he saw, like Goethe at\nValmy, \"the dawn of a new era. A new heroism, steeled by suffering, has\nrisen, a _war of the spirit._\"\n\nIt would seem as if the people of India have lived up to Mahatma's\nspirit more faithfully than those whose mission it was to guide them. I\nhave already spoken of the opposition to Gandhi at the session of the\ncongress committee at Delhi twenty days before the master was arrested.\nThis opposition still manifested itself when the committee met again, at\nLucknow, June 7, 1922. The program of patient waiting and silent\nreconstruction advocated by Gandhi was bitterly criticized, and a motion\nwas made to proclaim civil disobedience. A commission was appointed to\ninquire into conditions and determine whether the country might be\ncalled ripe for civil disobedience. The commission traveled all over\nIndia, and in the autumn sent in a discouraging report. Not only was\ncivil disobedience called impractical for the present, but half the\nmembers went to such extremes of conservatism as to suggest that\nGandhi's methods of non-co\u00f6peration be abandoned and a new _Swaraj_ or\nhome rule party be formed within the government councils. Gandhi's\ndoctrine was, in other words, attacked by those who believed in\nviolence, as well as by those who believed in prudence.\n\nIndia, however, did not accept the commission's report. In its annual\nmeeting at the end of December, 1922, the National Indian Congress\nenergetically proclaimed its allegiance to the persecuted master and his\ndoctrine of non-co\u00f6peration. By 1740 votes to 890 it rejected all\nparticipation in government councils. As for those who believed in\nviolence, they were few and far between and had little influence. The\nsession closed with a unanimous resolution urging that the political\nstrike ordered by Gandhi be kept up. A resolution boycotting English\nmaterials, however, was turned down, in order not to antagonize European\nworkmen. But the Mussulman conference of the Khilafat, as usual more\naudacious than the congress, voted for the boycott by a large majority.\n\nHere we must stop the record of the Gandhist movement. Despite a few\ninevitable backslides due to the absence of the master and his best\ndisciples, imprisoned like himself (especially the Ali brothers), the\nmovement has successfully passed through the trials of the first\nunguided year. And the English press, at the close of the session of the\ncongress of 1922 at Gaya, expresses surprise and disappointment at the\nprogress of the movement.[126]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5\n\n\nAnd what will now come? Will England, wiser for past experiences, know\nhow to mold the aspirations of the people of India? And will this people\nremain true to its ideal? Nations have short memories, and I should have\nbut slight faith in India's power to remain true to the Mahatma's\nteaching if his doctrines were not an expression of the deepest and most\nancient longings of the race. For if there is such a thing as genius,\ngreat by its own strength whether or not it corresponds to the ideals of\nits surroundings, there can be no genius of action, no leader, who does\nnot incarnate the instincts of his race, satisfy the need of the hour,\nand requite the yearning of the world.\n\nMahatma Gandhi does all this. His principle of _Ahimsa_ (non-violence)\nhas been inscribed in the spirit of India for more than two thousand\nyears. Mahavira, Buddha, and the cult of Vishnu have made it the\nsubstance of millions of souls. Gandhi has merely transfused heroic\nblood into it. He called upon the great shadows, the forces of the past,\nplunged in mortal lethargy, and at the sound of his voice they came to\nlife. In him they found themselves. Gandhi is more than a word; he is an\nexample. He incarnates the spirit of his people. Blessed the man who is\na people, his people, entombed, and then resuscitated in him! But such\nresurrections are never haphazard. If the spirit of India now surges\nforth from temples and forests, it is because it holds the message for\nwhich the world is sighing.\n\nThis message carries far beyond the boundaries of India. India alone\ncould formulate it, but it consecrates the nation's greatness as much as\nits sacrifice. It may become its cross.\n\nFor it would seem as if a people must he sacrificed in order to give new\nlife to the world. The Jews were sacrificed to their Messiah, whom they\nhad borne for centuries in their thoughts, and whom they did not\nrecognize when He finally flowered on the blood-stained cross. More\nfortunate, India has recognized her Messiah, and joyously the people\nmarch to the sacrifice which is to set them free.\n\nBut, like the early Christians, they do not all understand the real\nmeaning of their liberation. For a long time the Christians awaited the\nfulfilment of the _adveniat regnum tuum._ In India there are many who do\nnot see beyond _Swaraj_, home rule. Incidentally, I imagine that this\npolitical goal will soon be reached. Europe, bled by wars and\nrevolutions, impoverished and exhausted, despoiled of her prestige in\nthe eyes of Asia, which she formerly oppressed, cannot long resist on\nAsiatic soil the aspirations of the awakened peoples of Islam, India,\nChina, and Japan. But this would mean little, no matter how rich and new\nmight be the harmonies which a few more nations would bring to the human\nsymphony; this would mean little, if the surging spirit of Asia did not\nbecome the vehicle for a new ideal of life and of death, and, what is\nmore, of action, for all humanity, and if it did not bring a new\nviaticum to prostrate Europe.\n\nThe world is swept by the wind of violence. This storm which ravages the\nharvest of our civilization did not break out from a clear sky.\nCenturies of brutal national pride, whetted by the idolatrous ideology\nof the Revolution, spread by the empty mockery of democracies, and\ncrowned by a century of inhuman industrialism, rapacious plutocracy, and\na materialistic system of economics where the soul perishes, stifled to\ndeath, were bound to culminate in these dark struggles where the\ntreasures of the West succumbed. It is not enough to say all this was\ninevitable. There is a in it. Each people kills the other in the name of\nthe same principles which hid the same covetousness and Cainish\ninstincts. All--be they nationalists, Fascists, Bolshevists, members of\nthe oppressed classes, members of the oppressing classes--claim that\nthey have the right to use force, while refusing this right to others.\nHalf a century ago might dominated right. To-day things are far worse.\nMight _is_ right. Might has devoured right.\n\nIn the old crumbling world, no refuge, no hope, no great light. The\nchurch gives innocuous advice, virtuous and dosed, carefully worded so\nas not to antagonize the mighty. Besides, the church never sets the\nexample--even when giving advice. Weak pacifists bray languishingly, and\nyou feel that they hesitate and fumble, talk about a faith they no\nlonger believe in. Who will prove this faith? And how, in an unbelieving\nworld? Faith is proved by action.\n\nThis is the great message to the world, or, as Gandhi puts it, India's\nmessage--_self-sacrifice._\n\nAnd Tagore has repeated the same inspired words, for on this proud\nprinciple Tagore and Gandhi agree.\n\n\nI hope this spirit of sacrifice will grow, and also the will to\nsuffer.... This is real liberty. Nothing is higher, not even national\nindependence. The West has an unshakable belief in force and material\nwealth; therefore no matter how much it cries for peace and disarmament,\nits ferocity will cry still louder.... We, in India, must show the world\nwhat this truth is which not only makes disarmament possible but\ntransmutes it into strength. The fact that moral force is a stronger\npower than brute force will be proved by an unarmed people. The\nevolution of life shows that it has gradually cast off its formidable\narmature of scales and carapaces and a monstrous quantity of flesh until\nman was evolved who conquered brute force. The day will come when a\nweak, noble man absolutely unarmed will prove that the meek shall\ninherit the earth. It is logical that Mahatma Gandhi, weak of body and\nwithout material resources, should prove the unconquerable strength of\nthe meek and the humble hidden in the heart of the outraged and\ndestitute humanity of India. India's destiny is bound up in _Narayana_\nand not in _Narayani-sena_, in soul force and not muscle. It must uplift\nhuman history, transport it from the confused valley of material\nstruggles to the high plateaux of spiritual battles. Although we may\ndelude ourselves through phrases acquired from the vocabulary of the\nWest, _Swaraj_, home rule, is not really our goal. Our battle is a\nspiritual battle, a fight for humanity. We must emancipate man from the\nmeshes he has woven around him, free him from the organizations of\nnational selfishness. We must persuade the butterfly that the freedom of\nthe sky is better than the shelter of the cocoon. In India we have no\nword for \"nation.\" When we loan the word from other peoples it is not\nsuited to us, for we should ally ourselves with _Narayana_, the Supreme\nBeing, and our victory will be the victory for God's world.... If we can\ndefy the powerful, the rich, the armed, by showing the world the power\nof the immortal spirit, the castle of the giant Flesh will crumble into\nnothingness. And then man will find real _Swaraj._ We, the miserable\noutcasts of the Orient, we must conquer freedom for all humanity....\n\n\n\"Our object,\" Gandhi has said, \"is friendship with the whole world.\nNon-violence has come to men, and it will remain. It is the annunciation\nof peace on earth.\"\n\nThe peace of the world is far off. We have no illusions. We have seen,\nabundantly, during the course of half a century, the hypocrisy, the\ncowardice, and the cruelty of mankind. But this does not prevent us from\nloving mankind. For even among the worst there is a _nescio quid Dei._\nWe know the material ties that weigh on twentieth-century Europe, the\ncrushing determinism of economic conditions which hem it in; we know\nthat centuries of passions and systematized error have built a crust\nabout our souls which the light cannot pierce. But we also know what\nmiracles the spirit can work.\n\nHistorians, we have seen its glory brighten skies even darker than our\nown. We, who live but a day, have caught in India the sound of the\ntambour of \u00c7iva, \"_the Master Dancer who veils his devouring eye and\nguards his steps to save the world from plunging into the abyss._\"[127]\n\nThe _Realpolitiker_ of violence, whether revolutionary or reactionary,\nridicule our faith, and reveal thereby their ignorance of deep reality.\nLet them jeer! I have this faith. I know it is scorned and persecuted in\nEurope, and that in my own land we are but a handful--are we even a\nhandful?--who believe in it. And even if I were the only one to believe\nin it, what would it matter? The true characteristic of faith is not to\ndeny the hostility of the world, but to recognize it and to believe in\nspite of it! Faith is a battle. And our non-violence is the most\ndesperate battle. The way to peace is not through weakness. We do not\nfight violence so much as weakness. Nothing is worth while unless it is\nstrong, neither good nor evil. Absolute evil is better than emasculated\ngoodness. Moaning pacifism is the death-knell of peace; it is cowardice\nand lack of faith. Let those who do not believe, who fear, withdraw! The\nway to peace leads through self-sacrifice.\n\nThis is Gandhi's message. The only thing lacking is the cross.[128]\nEvery one knows that had it not been for the Jews, Rome would not have\ngiven it to Christ. The British Empire is no better than ancient Rome.\nThe impetus has been given. The soul of Oriental peoples has been moved\nin its deepest fibers, and its vibrations are felt the whole world over.\n\nThe great religious apparitions of the Orient are ruled by a rhythm. One\nthing is certain: either Gandhi's spirit will triumph, or it will\nmanifest itself again, as were manifested, centuries before, the Messiah\nand Buddha, till there finally is manifested, in a mortal half-god, the\nperfect incarnation of the principle of life which will lead a new\nhumanity on to a new path.\n\n\n\n\n[Footnote 113: One hundred and forty villages, 87,000 inhabitants.]\n\n[Footnote 114: A note in \"Young India\" of the same date is even more\nexplicit. If the viceroy does not answer, civil obedience will be\nproclaimed even if against the will of the majority.]\n\n[Footnote 115: What light these words throw on the mysterious power of\nthis soul where all the emotions of hit people are inscribed!]\n\n[Footnote 116: Gandhi had come to realize that some of the majority\nmembers who voted for non-violence looked upon it, in their hearts, as a\npolitical expedient paving the way, covertly, to violence. They spoke\nsuavely, he says, \"of delivering non-violent blows.\" Gandhi had not\ngrasped the danger, as Tagore had, long before. But he was\nhorror-struck. And, more harshly than Tagore, he denounced and attacked\nthe majority's attitude.]\n\n[Footnote 117: March 9, 1922.]\n\n[Footnote 118: \"The Great Trial, Young India,\" March 23, 1922.]\n\n[Footnote 119: \"If the existence of our Empire were challenged, the\ndischarge of responsibilities of the British Government to India\nprevented and demands were made in the very mistaken belief that we\ncontemplated retreat from India, then India would not challenge with\nsuccess the most determined people in the world who once again would\nanswer with all the vigor and determination at its command.\"]\n\n[Footnote 120: Mr. Banker, the editor of \"Young India,\" who, during the\ntrial, had followed the master's example and acquiesced in all his\nstatements, was sentenced to a fine and imprisonment for one year.]\n\n[Footnote 121: Mrs. Kasturibai Gandhi informed the people of India of\nthe sentence imposed on Gandhi, in a very beautiful message, urging them\nin peace and quiet to concentrate on carrying out Gandhi's constructive\nprogram.\n\nGandhi did not remain in the prison of Sarbamati, where he was well\ntreated, but was transferred to an unknown jail and then to Yeravda,\nnear Poona. According to a statement made by N. D. Hardiker, \"Gandhi in\nPrison, Unity,\" May 18, 1922, which we are unable to verify, Gandhi has\nbeen placed in a cell like the common-law criminals, and is allowed no\nprivileges of any kind. It is claimed that his delicate health has\nsuffered through this regime.\n\n\"Mr. C. F. Andrews, speaking of Gandhi's imprisonment, told me that the\nMahatma was happy in prison and that he had asked his friends not to\nvisit him. He is purifying himself, he prays and feels convinced that in\nthis way he is working in the most efficacious way for India.\"\n\nIncidentally Mr. Andrews states that the Gandhist party in India has\ngained strength by the Mahatma's imprisonment. India believes in Gandhi\nwith more fervor than ever before. It persists in looking upon him as an\nincarnation of Sri-Krishna, who was also subjected to the trial of\nimprisonment. And Gandhi, in jail, has more effectively prevented the\nexplosion of that violence which he feared than if he had been at\nliberty.]\n\n[Footnote 122: On August 3, 1922, \"Unity\" published a \"Letter from\nPrison\" where Gandhi speaks about the evils of modern civilization. The\nletter seems apocryphal to me. I should imagine it a summary of extracts\nwritten some time ago, particularly in the \"Hind Swaraj.\"]\n\n[Footnote 123: Guru-Ka-Bagh is a sanctuary (Gurdwara) about ten\nmiles from Amritsar.]\n\n[Footnote 124: \"The Akali Struggle,\" by Andrews, professor at\nSantiniketan. Published in the \"Swaraiya\" of Madras and under separate\ncover. September 1, 1922.]\n\n[Footnote 125: \"Manchester Guardian Weekly,\" October 13, 1922.]\n\n[Footnote 126: An article by Blanche Watson, in \"Unity,\" November 16,\n1922, enumerates the advantages which India has won by her fight of\nnon-violent resistance.\n\nThis article claims that the internal revenues of India have decreased\nsome seventy million dollars, and that the boycott of English goods has\ncaused England to lose, in the course of a single year, some twenty\nmillion dollars. She claims that at that time about thirty thousand\nIndians were imprisoned, and that the governmental machinery was\nentirely upset. But Blanche Watson, who is a fervent admirer of\nGandhism, has, perhaps, an unconscious tendency to exaggerate its\nsuccesses. Other testimony would seem to be less encouraging and would\nseem to prove that the spirit of self-sacrifice is balked by the selfish\nattitude of the wealthy and of business people, while many of those who\nresigned from government posts in the first flush of enthusiasm have now\nreturned to work. It would not be human to believe anything else. In\nevery revolution many lag on behind, or retrace their steps. The point\nis to determine whether, or not, on the whole, the movement is on the\nincrease or the decrease. In this connection it is interesting to refer\nto a description published in the \"Manchester Guardian Weekly,\" February\n16, 1928.\n\nThe \"Manchester Guardian,\" whose intelligent liberalism is well known,\nbut which nevertheless represents certain powerful interests directly\nimperiled by the non-co\u00f6peration movement, recently organized an\ninvestigation of conditions in India. The conclusion one draws after\nreading the results of this inquiry, in spite of a very natural tendency\nto discredit the movement, is that the situation is serious and causes\ngrave misgivings. The last article (February 16, 1923) tries to prove\nthat Gandhi's tactics have been proved ineffective and that the\nnon-co\u00f6peration movement must be reorganized. But the article goes on\nto say that the spirit of non-co\u00f6peration is growing. Everywhere there\nare traces of distrust of the foreign Government and ardent hope of\ngetting rid of it. The most cultivated people in India and the\ninhabitants of the large cities agree on this point. The _ryot_, or\npeasant, is only slightly affected by the movement, but conditions are\nsuch in the villages that within a short time he will have to take\nsides. The army still seems immune, but recruits come from the villages,\nand sooner or later they will be contaminated. The non-co\u00f6peration\nmovement is frequently most intense among the best and the most moderate\nelements. These elements disapprove revolutionary methods, but their\ndisapproval is not shared by the rest of the country. The writer claims\nthat it will take about ten years for India really to bring about\neffective civil disobedience. But in the meantime the situation will\ngrow more and more serious. It is impossible to hold the Indians in\ncheck by threatening them with imprisonment. They no longer fear it.\nHarsher coercive measures must be resorted to, and this will stir up\nhatred. There is only one peaceful solution--if it is not already too\nlate--and that is for England to take the initiative of making Indian\nreforms. No half-measures, like those of 1919, and not applied till last\nyear! They are not sufficient, and there is no time to lose. England\nmust call a National Indian Convention where all parties and interests\nin India will be represented--Gandhi and his disciples as well as Indian\nprinces and European capitalists, Mohammedans, Hindus, Parsees,\nEurasians, Christians, pariahs--all must join in a convention and draft\na constitution for an autonomous India within the empire and draw up the\nlines of such a home rule. This is the only way to avoid the breaking up\nof the empire.\n\nI do not know how the Government of India and British bureaucracy look\nupon the \"Manchester Guardian's\" suggestion, and I hardly believe that\nGandhi and his non-co\u00f6perators would agree to sit in a convention with\nEuropean and Indian capitalists. But one thing is sure, and that is that\nno one questions, any more, India's right to home rule. It must come in\none way or another. And nothing is more remarkable than the change of\nEngland's attitude to India since the beginning of the Gandhist\nmovement. The European no longer scorns the Indian but treats him with\nconsideration. Everybody agrees that it is a mistake to employ the\nviolent methods which were the first the Governments resorted to in\nformer days. From a spiritual and mental point of view, India is already\nvictorious.]\n\n[Footnote 127: Fragment of the oldest Invocation of \u00c7iva, in the\nplay \"Mudra-Rakshasha\" (400) by Vishakadatta.]\n\n[Footnote 128: This is the standpoint of the \"conscientious objectors\"\nin England, which is spreading little by little to other countries.]\n\n\n\n\nBIBLIOGRAPHY\n\n\nANDREWS, C. F., \"To the Students,\" 1921, S.\nGanesan, Madras.\n\nDOKE, JOSEPH J., \"M. K. Gandhi, an Indian\nPatriot in South Africa,\" with an introduction\nby Lord Ampthill, 1909, Indian Chronicle,\nLondon.\n\nGANDHI, MAHATMA, \"A Guide to Health,\"\n1921, S. Ganesan, Madras.\n\nGANDHI, MAHATMA, \"Hind Swaraj\" (Indian\nHome Rule), 1921, S. Ganesan, Madras.\n\nGANDHI, MAHATMA, \"Neethi Dharma\" (Ethical\nReligion), with an introduction by J. H.\nHolmes, S. Ganesan, Madras.\n\nGANDHI, MAHATMA, \"Speeches and Writings\"\n(1896-1922), with an introduction by C. F.\nAndrews and a biographical sketch, 1922,\nNatesan, Madras.\n\nGANDHI, MAHATMA, \"Young India\" (1919-22),\nwith an introduction by Babu Rajendra\nPrasad, 1922, S. Ganesan, Madras. A collection\nof articles written by Gandhi for his\npaper, \"Young India.\"\n\nHOLMES, J. H., \"Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi\"\n(introduction to \"Ethical Religion\").\n\nKALELKAR, PROFESSOR, \"The Gospel of Swadeshi,\"\n1922. S. Ganesan, Madras.\n\n\"GANDHI, M. K., A Sketch of His Life and His\nWork\" (in the collection, \"Biographies of\nEminent Indians,\" Natesan, Madras).\n\nPEARSON, W. W., \"The Dawn of a New Age,\"\n1922, S. Ganesan, Madras.\n\nRAY, SATYANDRA, \"Mahatma Gandhi\" (\"in The\nWorld To-Morrow,\" November, 1922).\n\n\"SOUVENIR of the Passive Resistance Movement\nin South Africa\" (1906-14), Golden Number\nof \"Indian Opinion\" published, 1914, at\nPhoenix, Natal. This number, published by\nthe presses of Gandhi's Tolstoian colony at\nNatal, gives the most valuable and complete\nset of documents--articles and photographs--connected\nwith the Passive Resistance movement\nin South Africa.\n\nIt is also useful to consult the files of \"Young\nIndia,\" Gandhi's paper, which is still published\nat Ahmedabad, his son being editor-publisher.\n\n\"The Modern Review,\" published by Ramouna\nChatterjee at Calcutta. Rabindranath Tagore\nuses \"The Modern Review\" to give\nvoice to his opinions.\n\nThe \"Unity\" magazine of Chicago is in close\ntouch with the Gandhist movement and in ardent\nsympathy with it. The editor, John\nHaynes Holmes, has written the preface to\nthe Indian Edition of \"Ethical Religion.\"","title":"Mahatma Gandhi: The Man Who Became One With the Universal Being","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":37238}