Freedom\'s Battle - Mahatma Gandhi
MR. MONTAGU ON THE KHILAFAT AGITATION
Mr. Montagu does not like the Khilafat agitation that is daily gathering
force. In answer to questions put in the House of Commons, he is
reported to have said that whilst he acknowledged that I had rendered
distinguished services to the country in the past, he could not look
upon my present attitude with equanimity and that it was not to be
expected that I could now be treated as leniently as I was during the
Rowlatt Act agitation. He added that he had every confidence in the
central and the local Governments, that they were carefully watching the
movement and that they had full power to deal with the situation.
This statement of Mr. Montagu has been regarded in some quarters as a
threat. It has even been considered to be a blank cheque for the
Government of India to re-establish the reign of terror if they chose.
It is certainly inconsistent with his desire to base the Government on
the goodwill of the people. At the same time if the Hunter Committee's
finding be true and if I was the cause of the disturbances last year, I
was undoubtedly treated with exceptional leniency, I admit too that my
activity this year is fraught with greater peril to the Empire as it is
being conducted to-day than was last year's activity. Non-co-operation
in itself is more harmless than civil disobedience, but in its effect it
is far more dangerous for the Government than civil disobedience.
Non-co-operation is intended so far to paralyse the Government, as to
compel justice from it. If it is carried to the extreme point, it can
bring the Government to a standstill.
A friend who has been listening to my speeches once asked me whether I
did not come under the sedition section of the Indian Penal Code. Though
I had not fully considered it, I told him that very probably I did and
that I could not plead 'not guilty' if I was charged under it. For I
must admit that I can pretend to no 'affection' for the present
Government. And my speeches are intended to create 'disaffection' such
that the people might consider it a shame to assist or co-operate with a
Government that had forfeited all title to confidence, respect
or support.
I draw no distinction between the Imperial and the Indian Government.
The latter has accepted, on the Khilafat, the policy imposed upon it by
the former. And in the Punjab case the former has endorsed the policy of
terrorism and emasculation of a brave people initiated by the latter.
British ministers have broken their pledged word and wantonly wounded
the feelings of the seventy million Mussulmans of India. Innocent men
and women were insulted by the insolent officers of the Punjab
Government. Their wrongs not only unrighted but the very officers who so
cruelly subjected them to barbarous humiliation retain office under the
Government.
When at Amritsar last year I pleaded with all the earnestness I could
command for co-operation with the Government and for response to the
wishes expressed in the Royal Proclamation; I did so because I honestly
believed that a new era was about to begin, and that the old spirit of
fear, distrust and consequent terrorism was about to give place to the
new spirit of respect, trust and good-will. I sincerely believed that
the Mussalman sentiment would be placated and that the officers that had
misbehaved during the Martial Law regime in the Punjab would be at least
dismissed and the people would be otherwise made to feel that a
Government that had always been found quick (and rightly) to punish
popular excesses would not fail to punish its agents' misdeeds. But to
my amazement and dismay I have discovered that the present
representatives of the Empire have become dishonest and unscrupulous.
They have no real regard for the wishes of the people of India and they
count Indian honour as of little consequence.
I can no longer retain affection for a Government so evilly manned as it
is now-a-days. And for me, it is humiliating to retain my freedom and be
a witness to the continuing wrong. Mr. Montagu however is certainly
right in threatening me with deprivation of my liberty if I persist in
endangering the existence of the Government. For that must be the result
if my activity bears fruit. My only regret is that inasmuch as Mr.
Montagu admits my past services, he might have perceived that there
must be something exceptionally bad in the Government if a well-wisher
like me could no longer give his affection to it. It was simpler to
insist on justice being done to the Mussulmans and to the Punjab than to
threaten me with punishment so that the injustice might be perpetuated.
Indeed I fully expect it will be found that even in promoting
disaffection towards an unjust Government I have rendered greater
services to the Empire than I am already credited with.
At the present moment, however, the duty of those who approve of my
activity is clear. They ought on no account to resent the deprivation of
my liberty, should the Government of India deem it to be their duty to
take it away. A citizen has no right to resist such restriction imposed
in accordance with the laws of the State to which he belongs. Much less
have those who sympathize with him. In my case there can be no question
of sympathy. For I deliberately oppose the Government to the extent of
trying to put its very existence in jeopardy. For my supporters,
therefore, it must be a moment of joy when I am imprisoned. It means the
beginning of success if only the supporters continue the policy for
which I stand. If the Government arrest me, they would do so in order to
stop the progress of non-co-operation which I preach. It follows that if
non-co-operation continues with unabated vigour, even after my arrest,
the Government must imprison others or grant the people's wish in order
to gain their co-operation. Any eruption of violence on the part of the
people even under provocation would end in disaster. Whether therefore
it is I or any one else who is arrested during the campaign, the first
condition of success is that there must be no resentment shown against
it. We cannot imperil the very existence of a Government and quarrel
with its attempt to save itself by punishing those who place it
in danger.
AT THE CALL OF THE COUNTRY
Dr. Sapru delivered before the Khilafat Conference at Allahabad an
impassioned address sympathising with the Mussulmans in their trouble
but dissuaded them from embarking on non-co-operation. He was frankly
unable to suggest a substitute but was emphatically of opinion that
whether there was a substitute or not non-co-operation was a remedy
worse than the disease. He said further that Mussulmans will be taking
upon their shoulders, a serious responsibility, if whilst they appealed
to the ignorant masses to join them, they could not appeal to the Indian
judges to resign and if they did they would not succeed.
I acknowledge the force of Dr. Sapru's last argument. At the back of
Dr. Sapru's mind is the fear that non-co-operation by the ignorant
people would lead to distress and chaos and would do no good. In my
opinion any non-co-operation is bound to do some good. Even the
Viceragal door-keeper saying, 'Please Sir, I can serve the Government no
longer because it has hurt my national honour' and resigning is a step
mightier and more effective than the mightiest speech declaiming against
the Government for its injustice.
Nevertheless it would be wrong to appeal to the door-keeper until one
has appealed to the highest in the land. And as I propose, if the
necessity arose, to ask the door-keepers of the Government to dissociate
themselves from an unjust Government I propose now to address, an appeal
to the Judges and the Executive Councillors to join the protest that is
rising from all over India against the double wrong done to India, on
the Khilafat and the Punjab question. In both, national honour
is involved.
I take it that these gentlemen have entered upon their high offices not
for the sake of emolument, nor I hope for the sake of fame, but for the
sake of serving their country. It was not for money, for they were
earning more than they do now. It must not be for fame, for they cannot
buy fame at the cost of national honour. The only consideration, that
can at the present moment keep them in office must be service of the
country.
When the people have faith in the government, when it represents the
popular will, the judges and the executive officials possibly serve the
country. But when that government does not represent the will of the
people, when it supports dishonesty and terrorism, the judges and the
executive officials by retaining office become instrument of dishonesty
and terrorism. And the least therefore that these holders of high
offices can do is to cease to become agents of a dishonest and
terrorising government.
For the judges, the objection will be raised that they are above
politics, and so they are and should be. But the doctrine is true only
in so far us the government is on the whole for the benefit of the
people and at least represents the will of the majority. Not to take
part in politics means not to take sides. But when a whole country has
one mind, one will, when a whole country has been denied justice, it is
no longer a question of party politics, it is a matter of life and
death. It then becomes the duty of every citizen to refuse to serve a
government which misbehaves and flouts national wish. The judges are at
that moment bound to follow the nation if they are ultimately
its servants.
There remains another argument to be examined. It applies to both the
judges and the members of the executive. It will be urged that my appeal
could only be meant for the Indians and what good can it do by Indians
renouncing offices which have been won for the nation by hard struggle.
I wish that I could make an effective appeal to the English as well as
the Indians. But I confess that I have written with the mental
reservation that the appeal is addressed only to the Indians. I must
therefore examine the argument just stated. Whilst it is true that these
offices have been secured after a prolonged struggle, they are of use
not because of the struggle, but because they are intended to serve the
nation. The moment they cease to possess that quality, they become
useless and as in the present case harmful, no matter how hard-earned
and therefore valuable they may have been at the outset.
I would submit too to our distinguished countrymen who occupy high
offices that their giving up will bring the struggle to a speedy end and
would probably obviate the danger attendant upon the masses being called
upon to signify their disapproval by withdrawing co-operation. If the
titleholders gave up their titles, if the holders of honorary offices
gave up their appointment and if the high officials gave up their posts,
and the would-be councillors boycotted the councils, the Government
would quickly come to its senses and give effect to the people's will.
For the alternative before the Government then would be nothing but
despotic rule pure and simple. That would probably mean military
dictatorship. The world's opinion has advanced so far that Britain dare
not contemplate such dictatorship with equanimity. The taking of the
steps suggested by me will constitute the peacefullest revolution the
world has ever seen. Once the infallibility of non-co-operation is
realised, there is an end to all bloodshed and violence in any shape
or form.
Undoubtedly a cause must be grave to warrant the drastic method of
national non-co-operation. I do say that the affront such as has been
put upon Islam cannot be repeated for a century. Islam must rise now or
'be fallen' if not for ever, certainly for a century. And I cannot
imagine a graver wrong than the massacre of Jallianwalla and the
barbarity that followed it, the whitewash by the Hunter Committee, the
dispatch of the Government of India, Mr. Montagu's letter upholding the
Viceroy and the then Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab, the refusal to
remove officials who made of the lives of the Punjabis 'a hell' during
the Martial Law period. These act constitute a complete series of
continuing wrongs against India which if India has any sense of honour,
she must right at the sacrifice of all the material wealth she
possesses. If she does not, she will have bartered her soul for a 'mess
of pottage.'
NON-CO-OPERATION EXPLAINED
A representative of Madras Mail called on Mr. M.K. Gandhi at his
temporary residence in the Pursewalkam High road for an interview on
the subject of non-co-operation. Mr. Gandhi, who has come to Madras
on a tour to some of the principal Muslim centres in Southern India,
was busy with a number of workers discussing his programme; but he
expressed his readiness to answer questions on the chief topic which
is agitating Muslims and Hindus.
"After your experience of the Satyagraha agitation last year, Mr.
Gandhi, are you still hopeful and convinced of the wisdom of advising
non-co-operation?"--"Certainly."
"How do you consider conditions have altered since the Satyagraha
movement of last year?"--"I consider that people are better disciplined
now than they were before. In this I include even the masses who I have
had opportunities of seeing in large numbers in various parts of
the country."
"And you are satisfied that the masses understand the spirit of
Satyagraha?"--"Yes."
"And that is why you are pressing on with the programme of
non-co-operation?"--"Yes. Moreover, the danger that attended the civil
disobedience part of Satyagraha does not apply to non-co-operation,
because in non-co-operation we are not taking up civil disobedience of
laws as a mass movement. The result hitherto has been most encouraging.
For instance, people in Sindh and Delhi in spite of the irritating
restrictions upon their liberty by the authorities have carried out the
Committee's instructions in regard to the Seditious Meetings
Proclamation and to the prohibition of posting placards on the walls
which we hold to be inoffensive but which the authorities consider to be
offensive."
"What is the pressure which you expect to bring to bear on the
authorities if co-operation is withdrawn?"--"I believe, and everybody
must grant, that no Government can exist for a single moment without the
co-operation of the people, willing or forced, and if people suddenly
withdraw their co-operation in every detail, the Government will come to
a stand-still."
"But is there not a big 'If' in it?"--"Certainly there is."
"And how do you propose to succeed against the big 'If'?"--"In my plan
of campaign expediency has no room. If the Khilafat movement has really
permeated the masses and the classes, there must be adequate response
from the people."
"But are you not begging the question?"--"I am not begging the question,
because so far as the data before me go, I believe that the Muslims
keenly feel the Khilafat grievance. It remains to be seen whether their
feeling is intense enough to evoke in them the measure of sacrifice
adequate for successful non-co-operation."
"That is, your survey of the conditions, you think, justifies your
advising non-co-operation in the full conviction that you have behind
you the support of the vast masses of the Mussalman population?"--"Yes."
"This non-co-operation, you are satisfied, will extend to complete
severance of co-operation with the Government?"--No; nor is it at the
present moment my desire that it should. I am simply practising
non-co-operation to the extent that is necessary to make the Government
realise the depth of popular feeling in the matter and the
dissatisfaction with the Government that all that could be done has not
been done either by the Government of India or by the Imperial
Government, whether on the Khilafat question or on the "Punjab
question."
"Do you Mr. Gandhi, realise that even amongst Mahomedans there are
sections of people who are not enthusiastic over non-co-operation
however much they may feel the wrong that has been done to their
community?"--"Yes. But their number is smaller than those who are
prepared to adopt non-co-operation."
"And yet does not the fact that there has not been an adequate response
to your appeal for resignation of titles and offices and for boycott of
elections of the Councils indicate that you may be placing more faith
in their strength of conviction than is warranted?"--"I think not; for
the reason that the stage has only just come into operation and our
people are always most cautious and slow to move. Moreover, the first
stage largely affects the uppermost strata of society, who represent a
microscopic minority though they are undoubtedly an influential body
of people."
"This upper class, you think, has sufficiently responded to your
appeal?"--"I am unable to say either one way or the other at present. I
shall be able to give a definite answer at the end of this month."...
"Do you think that without one's loyalty to the King and the Royal
Family being questioned, one can advocate non-co-operation in connection
with the Royal visit?" "Most decidedly; for the simple reason that if
there is any disloyalty about the proposed boycott of the Prince's
visit, it is disloyalty to the Government of the day and not to the
person of His Royal highness."
"What do you think is to be gained by promoting this boycott in
connection with the Royal visit?"--"Because I want to show that the
people of India are not in sympathy with the Government of the day and
that they strongly disapprove of the policy of the Government in regard
to the Punjab and Khilafat, and even in respect of other important
administrative measures. I consider that the visit of the Prince of
Wales is a singularly good opportunity to the people to show their
disapproval of the present Government. After all, the visit is
calculated to have tremendous political results. It is not to be a
non-political event, and seeing that the Government of India and the
Imperial Government want to make the visit a political event of first
class importance, namely, for the purpose of strengthening their hold
upon India, I for one, consider that it is the bounden duty of the
people to boycott the visit which is being engineered by the two
Governments in their own interest which at the present moment is totally
antagonistic to the people."
"Do you mean that you want this boycott promoted because you feel that
the strengthening of the hold upon India is not desirable in the best
interests of the country?"--"Yes. The strengthening of the hold of a
Government so wicked us the present one is not desirable for the best
interests of the people. Not that I want the bond between England and
India to become loosened for the sake of loosening it but I want that
bond to become strengthened only in so far as it adds to the welfare
of India."
"Do you think that non-co-operation and the non-boycott of the
Legislative Councils consistent?"--"No; because a person who takes up
the programme of non-co-operation cannot consistently stand for
Councils."
"Is non-co-operation, in your opinion, an end in itself or a means to an
end, and if so, what is the end?" "It is a means to an end, the end
being to make the present Government just, whereas it has become mostly
unjust. Co-operation with a just Government is a duty; non-co-operation
with an unjust Government is equally a duty."
"Will you look with favour upon the proposal to enter the Councils and
to carry on either obstructive tactics or to decline to take the oath of
allegiance consistent with your non-co-operation?"--"No; as an accurate
student of non-co-operation, I consider that such a proposal is
inconsistent with the true spirit of non-co-operation. I have often said
that a Government really thrives on obstruction and so far as the
proposal not to take the oath of allegiance is concerned, I can really
see no meaning in it; it amounts to a useless waste of valuable time
and money."
"In other words, obstruction is no stage in non-co-operation?"
--"No,"....
"Are you satisfied that all efforts at constitutional agitation have
been exhausted and that non-co-operation is the only course left us?" "I
do not consider non-co-operation to be unconstitutional remedies now
left open to us, non-co-operation is the only one left for us." "Do you
consider it constitutional to adopt it with a view merely to paralyse
Government?"--"Certainly, it is not unconstitutional, but a prudent man
will not take all the steps that are constitutional if they are
otherwise undesirable, nor do I advise that course. I am resorting to
non-co-operation in progressive stages because I want to evolve true
order out of untrue order. I am not going to take a single step in
non-co-operation unless I am satisfied that the country is ready for
that step, namely, non-co-operation will not be followed by anarchy or
disorder."
"How will you satisfy yourself anarchy will not follow?"
"For instance, if I advise the police to lay down their arms, I shall
have satisfied myself that we are able by voluntary assistance to
protect ourselves against thieves and robbers. That was precisely what
was done in Lahore and Amritsar last year by the citizens by means of
volunteers when the Military and the police had withdrawn. Even where
Government had not taken such measures in a place, for want of adequate
force, I know people have successfully protected themselves."
"You have advised lawyers to non-co-operate by suspending their
practice. What is your experience? Has the lawyers' response to your
appeal encouraged you to hope that you will be able to carry through
all stages of non-co-operation with the help of such people?"
"I cannot say that a large number has yet responded to my appeal. It is
too early to say how many will respond. But I may say that I do not rely
merely upon the lawyer class or highly educated men to enable the
Committee to carry out all the stages of non-co-operation. My hope lies
more with the masses so far as the later stages of non-co-operation are
concerned."
_August 1920_.
RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY FOR NON-CO-OPERATION
It is not without the greatest reluctance that I engage in a controversy
with so learned a leader like Sir Narayan Chandavarkar. But in view of
the fact that I am the author of the movement of non-co-operation, it
becomes my painful duty to state my views even though they are opposed
to those of the leaders whom I look upon with respect. I have just read
during my travels in Malabar Sir Narayan's rejoinder to my answer to the
Bombay manifesto against non-co-operation. I regret to have to say that
the rejoinder leaves me unconvinced. He and I seem to read the teachings
of the Bible, the Gita and the Koran from different standpoints or we
put different interpretations on them. We seem to understand the words
Ahimsa, politics and religion differently. I shall try my best to make
clear my meaning of the common terms and my reading of the different
religious.
At the outset let me assure Sir Narayan that I have not changed my views
on Ahimsa. I still believe that man not having been given the power of
creation does not possess the right of destroying the meanest creature
that lives. The prerogative of destruction belongs solely to the creator
of all that lives. I accept the interpretation of Ahimsa, namely, that
it is not merely a negative State of harmlessness, but it is a positive
state of love, of doing good even to the evil-doer. But it does not mean
helping the evil-doer to continue the wrong or tolerating it by passive
acquiescence. On the contrary love, the active state of Ahimsa, requires
you to resist the wrong-doer by dissociating yourself from him even
though it may offend him or injure him physically. Thus if my son lives
a life of shame, I may not help him to do so by continuing to support
him; on the contrary, my love for him requires me to withdraw all
support from him although it may mean even his death. And the same love
imposes on me the obligation of welcoming him to my bosom when he
repents. But I may not by physical force compel my son to become good.
That in my opinion is the moral of the story of the Prodigal Son.
Non-co-operation is not a passive state, it is an intensely active
state--more active than physical resistance or violence. Passive
resistance is a misnomer. Non-co-operation in the sense used by me must
be non-violent and therefore neither punitive nor vindictive nor based
on malice ill-will or hatred. It follows therefore that it would be sin
for me to serve General Dyer and co-operate with him to shoot innocent
men. But it will be an exercise of forgiveness or love for me to nurse
him back to life, if he was suffering from a physical malady. I cannot
use in this context the word co-operation as Sir Narayan would perhaps
use it. I would co-operate a thousand times with this Government to wean
it from its career of crime but I will not for a single moment
co-operate with it to continue that career. And I would be guilty of
wrong doing if I retained a title from it or "a service under it or
supported its law-courts or schools." Better for me a beggar's bowl
than the richest possession from hands stained with the blood of the
innocents of Jallianwala. Better by far a warrant of imprisonment than
honeyed words from those who have wantonly wounded the religious
sentiment of my seventy million brothers.