Freedom\'s Battle - Mahatma Gandhi
(3) Even if Turkey deserves all that is claimed for her, why should I
land India in an international struggle?
(4) It is no part of the Indian Mahomedans' business to meddle in this
affair. If they cherish any political ambition, they have tried, they
have failed and they should now sit still. If it is a religious matter
with them, it cannot appeal to the Hindu reason in the manner it is put
and in any case Hindus ought not to identify themselves with Mahomedans
in their religious quarrel with Christendom.
(5) In no case should I advocate non-co-operation which in its extreme
sense is nothing but a rebellion, no matter how peaceful it may be.
(6) Moreover, my experience of last year must show me that it is beyond
the capacity of any single human being to control the forces of violence
that are lying dormant in the land.
(7) Non-co-operation is futile because people will never respond in
right earnest, and reaction that might afterwards set in will be worse
than the state of hopefulness we are now in.
(8) Non-co-operation will bring about cessation of all other activities,
even working of the Reforms, thus set back the clock of progress. (9)
However pure my motives may be, those of the Mussalmans are obviously
revengeful.
I shall now answer the objections in the order in which they are
stated--
(1) In my opinion the Turkish claim is not only not immoral and unjust,
but it is highly equitable, if only because Turkey wants to retain what
is her own. And the Mahomedan manifesto has definitely declared that
whatever guarantees may be necessary to be taken for the protection of
non-Muslim and non-Turkish races, should be taken so as to give the
Christians theirs and the Arabs their self-government under the Turkish
suzerainty.
(2) I do not believe the Turk to be weak, incapable or cruel. He is
certainly disorganised and probably without good generalship. He has
been obliged to fight against heavy odds. The argument of weakness,
incapacity and cruelty one often hears quoted in connection with those
from whom power is sought to be taken away. About the alleged massacres
a proper commission has been asked for, but never granted. And in any
case security can be taken against oppression.
(3) I have already stated that if I were not interested in the Indian
Mahomedans, I would not interest myself in the welfare of the Turks any
more than I am in that of the Austrians or the Poles. But I am bound as
an Indian to share the sufferings and trial of fellow-Indians. If I deem
the Mahomedan to be my brother. It is my duty to help him in his hour
of peril to the best of my ability, if his cause commends itself to
me as just.
(4) The fourth refers to the extent Hindus should join hands with the
Mahomedans. It is therefore a matter of feeling and opinion. It is
expedient to suffer for my Mahomedan brother to the utmost in a just
cause and I should therefore travel with him along the whole road so
long as the means employed by him are as honourable as his end. I cannot
regulate the Mahomedan feeling. I must accept his statement that the
Khilafat is with him a religious question in the sense that it binds him
to reach the goal even at the cost of his own life.
(5) I do not consider non-co-operation to be a rebellion, because it is
free from violence. In a larger sense all opposition to a Government
measure is a rebellion. In that sense, rebellion in a just cause is a
duty, the extent of opposition being determined by the measure of the
injustice done and felt.
(6) My experience of last year shows me that in spite of aberrations in
some parts of India, the country was entirely under control that the
influence of Satyagraha was profoundly for its good and that where
violence did break out there were local causes that directly contributed
to it. At the same time I admit that even the violence that did take
place on the part of the people and the spirit of lawlessness that was
undoubtedly shown in some parts should have remained under check. I have
made ample acknowledgment of the miscalculation I then made. But all the
painful experience that I then gained did not any way shake my belief in
Satyagraha or in the possibility of that matchless force being utilised
in India. Ample provision is being made this time to avoid the mistakes
of the past. But I must refuse to be deterred from a clear course;
because it may be attended by violence totally unintended and in spite
of extraordinary efforts that are being made to prevent it. At the same
time I must make my position clear. Nothing can possibly prevent a
Satyagrahi from doing his duty because of the frown of the authorities.
I would risk, if necessary, a million lives so long as they are
voluntary sufferers and are innocent, spotless victims. It is the
mistakes of the people that matter in a Satyagraha campaign. Mistakes,
even insanity must be expected from the strong and the powerful, and the
moment of victory has come when there is no retort to the mad fury of
the powerful, but a voluntary, dignified and quiet submission but not
submission to the will of the authority that has put itself in the
wrong. The secret of success lies therefore in holding every English
life and the life of every officer serving the Government as sacred as
those of our own dear ones. All the wonderful experience I have gained
now during nearly 40 years of conscious existence, has convinced me that
there is no gift so precious as that of life. I make bold to say that
the moment the Englishmen feel that although they are in India in a
hopeless minority, their lives are protected against harm not because of
the matchless weapons of destruction which are at their disposal, but
because Indians refuse to take the lives even of those whom they may
consider to be utterly in the wrong that moment will see a
transformation in the English nature in its relation to India and that
moment will also be the moment when all the destructive cutlery that is
to be had in India will begin to rust. I know that this is a far-off
vision. That cannot matter to me. It is enough for me to see the light
and to act up to it, and it is more than enough when I gain companions
in the onward march. I have claimed in private conversations with
English friends that it is because of my incessant preaching of the
gospel of non-violence and my having successfully demonstrated its
practical utility that so far the forces of violence, which are
undoubtedly in existence in connection with the Khilafat movement, have
remained under complete control.
(7) From a religious standpoint the seventh objection is hardly worth
considering. If people do not respond to the movement of
non-co-operation, it would be a pity, but that can be no reason for a
reformer not to try. It would be to me a demonstration that the present
position of hopefulness is not dependent on any inward strength or
knowledge, but it is hope born of ignorance and superstition.
(8) If non-co-operation is taken up in earnest, it must bring about a
cessation of all other activities including the Reforms, but I decline
to draw therefore the corollary that it will set back the clock of
progress. On the contrary, I consider non-co-operation to be such a
powerful and pure instrument, that if it is enforced in an earnest
spirit, it will be like seeking first the Kingdom of God and everything
else following as a matter of course. People will have then realised
their true power. They would have learnt the value of discipline,
self-control, joint action, non-violence, organisation and everything
else that goes to make a nation great and good, and not merely great.
(9) I do not know that I have a right to arrogate greater purity for
myself than for our Mussalman brethren. But I do admit that they do not
believe in my doctrine of non-violence to the full extent. For them it
is a weapon of the weak, an expedient. They consider non-co-operation
without violence to be the only thing open to them in the war of direct
action. I know that if some of them could offer successful violence,
they would do to-day. But they are convinced that humanly speaking it is
an impossibility. For them, therefore, non-co-operation is a matter not
merely of duty but also of revenge. Whereas I take up non-co-operation
against the Government as I have actually taken it up in practice
against members of my own family. I entertain very high regard for the
British constitution, I have not only no enmity against Englishmen but I
regard much in English character as worthy of my emulation. I count many
as my friends. It is against my religion to regard any one as an enemy.
I entertain similar sentiments with respect to Mahomedans. I find their
cause to be just and pure. Although therefore their viewpoint is
different from mine I do not hesitate to associate with them and invite
them to give my method a trial, for, I believe that the use of a pure
weapon even from a mistaken motive does not fail to produce some good,
even as the telling of truth if only because for the time being it is
the best policy, is at least so much to the good.
MR. CANDLER'S OPEN LETTER
Mr. Candler has favoured me with an open letter on this question of
questions. The letter has already appeared in the Press. I can
appreciate Mr. Candler's position as I would like him and other
Englishmen to appreciate mine and that of hundreds of Hindus who feel as
I do. Mr. Candler's letter is an attempt to show that Mr. Lloyd George's
pledge is not in any way broken by the peace terms. I quite agree with
him that Mr. Lloyd George's words ought not to be torn from their
context to support the Mahomedan claim. These are Mr. Lloyd George's
words as quoted in the recent Viceregal message: "Nor are we fighting to
destroy Austria-Hungary or to deprive Turkey of its capital or of the
rich and renowned lands of Asia Minor and Thrace which are predominantly
Turkish in race." Mr. Candler seems to read 'which', as if it meant 'if
they,' whereas I give the pronoun its natural meaning, namely, that the
Prime Minister knew in 1918, that the lands referred to by him were
"predominantly Turkish in race." And if this is the meaning I venture to
suggest that the pledge has been broken in a most barefaced manner, for
there is practically nothing left to the Turk of 'the rich and renowned
lands of Asia Minor and Thrace.'
I have already my view of the retention of the Sultan in Constantinople.
It is an insult to the intelligence of man to suggest that 'the
maintenance of the Turkish Empire in the homeland of the Turkish race
with its capital at Constantinople has been left unimpaired by the terms
of peace. This is the other passage from the speech which I presume Mr.
Candler wants me to read together with the one already quoted:--
"While we do not challenge the maintenance of the Turkish Empire in
the home-land of the Turkish race with its capital at Constantinople,
the passage between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea being
inter-nationalised, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine are in
our judgment entitled to a recognition of their separate national
condition."
Did that mean entire removal of Turkish influence, extinction of Turkish
suzerainty and the introduction of European-Christian influence under
the guise of Mandates? Have the Moslems of Arabia, Armenia, Mesopotamia,
Syria and Palestine been committed, or is the new arrangement being
superimposed upon them by Powers conscious of their own brute-strength
rather than of justice of their action? I for one would nurse by every
legitimate means the spirit of independence in the brave Arabs, but I
shudder to think what will happen to them under the schemes of
exploitation of their country by the greedy capitalists protected as
they will be by the mandatory Powers. If the pledge is to be fulfilled,
let these places have full self-government with suzerainty to be
retained with Turkey as has been suggested by the _Times of India_. Let
there be all the necessary guarantees taken from Turkey about the
internal independence of the Arabs. But to remove that suzerainty, to
deprive the Khalif of the wardenship of the Holy Places is to render
Khilafat a mockery which no Mahomedan can possibly look upon with
equanimity, I am not alone in my interpretation of the pledge. The Right
Hon'ble Ameer Ali calls the peace terms a breach of faith. Mr. Charles
Roberts reminds the British public that the Indian Mussalman sentiment
regarding the Turkish Treaty is based upon the Prime Minister's pledge
"regarding Thrace, Constantinople and Turkish lands in Asia Minor,
repeated on February 26 last with deliberation by Mr. Lloyd George. Mr.
Roberts holds that the pledge must be treated as a whole, not as binding
only regarding Constantinople but also binding as regards Thrace and
Asia Minor. He describes the pledge as binding upon the nation as a
whole and its breach in any part as a gross breach of faith on the part
of the British Empire. He demands that if there is an unanswerable reply
to the charge of breach of faith it ought to be given and adds the Prime
Minister may regard his own word lightly if he chooses, but he has no
right to break a pledge given on behalf of the nation. He concludes that
it is incredible that such pledge should not have been kept in the
letter and in the spirit." He adds: "I have reason to believe that these
views are fully shared by prominent members of the Cabinet."
I wonder if Mr. Candler knows what is going on to-day in England. Mr.
Pickthall writing in _New Age_ says: "No impartial international enquiry
into the whole question of the Armenian massacres has been instituted in
the ample time which has elapsed since the conclusion of armistice with
Turkey. The Turkish Government has asked for such enquiry. But the
Armenian organisations and the Armenian partisans refuse to hear of such
a thing, declaring that the Bryce and Lepssens reports are quite
sufficient to condemn the Turks. In other words the judgment should be
given on the case for prosecution alone. The inter-allied commission
which investigated the unfortunate events in Smyrna last year, made a
report unfavourable to Greek claims. Therefore, that report has not been
published here in England, though in other countries it has long been
public property." He then goes on to show how money is being scattered
by Armenian and Greek emissaries in order to popularise their cause and
adds: "This conjunction of dense ignorance and cunning falsehood is
fraught with instant danger to the British realm," and concludes: "A
Government and people which prefer propaganda to fact as the ground of
policy--and foreign policy at that--is self-condemned."
I have reproduced the above extract in order to show that the present
British policy has been affected by propaganda of an unscrupulous
nature. Turkey which was dominant over two million square miles of
Asia, Africa and Europe in the 17th century, under the terms of the
treaty, says the _London Chronicle_, has dwindled down to little more
than 1,000 square miles. It says, "All European Turkey could now be
accommodated comfortably between the Landsend and the Tamar, Cornawal
alone exceeding its total area and but for its alliance with Germany,
Turkey could have been assured of retaining at least sixty thousand
square miles of the Eastern Balkans." I do not know whether the
_Chronicle_ view is generally shared. Is it by way of punishment that
Turkey is to undergo such shrinkage, or is it because justice demands
it? If Turkey had not made the mistake of joining Germany, would the
principle of nationality have been still applied to Armenia, Arabia,
Mesopotamia and Palestine?
Let me now remind those who think with Mr. Candler that the promise was
not made by Mr. Lloyd George to the people of India in anticipation of
the supply of recruits continuing. In defending his own statement Mr.
Lloyd George is reported to have said:
"The effect of the statement in India was that recruiting went up
appreciably from that very moment. They were not all Mahomedans but
there were many Mahomedans amongst them. Now we are told that was an
offer to Turkey. But they rejected it, and therefore we were
absolutely free. It was not. It is too often forgotten that we are
the greatest Mahomedan power in the world and one-fourth of the
population of the British Empire is Mahomedan. There have been no
more loyal adherents to the throne and no more effective and loyal
supporters of the Empire in its hour of trial. _We gave a solemn
pledge and they accepted it_. They are disturbed by the prospect of
our not abiding by it."
Who shall interpret that pledge and how? How did the Government of India
itself interpret it? Did it or did it not energetically support the
claim for the control of the Holy Places of Islam vesting in the Khalif?
Did the Government of India suggest that the whole of Jazirat-ul-Arab
could he taken away consistently with that pledge from the sphere of
influence of the Khalif, and given over to the Allies as mandatory
Powers? Why does the Government of India sympathise with the Indian
Mussalmans if the terms are all they should be? So much for the pledge.
I would like to guard myself against being understood that I stand or
fall absolutely by Mr. Lloyd George's declaration. I have advisedly used
the adverb 'practically' in connection with it. It is an important
qualification.'
Mr. Candler seems to suggest that my goal is something more than merely
attaining justice on the Khilafat. If so, he is right. Attainment of
justice is undoubtedly the corner-stone, and if I found that I was wrong
in my conception of justice on this question, I hope I shall have the
courage immediately to retrace my steps. But by helping the Mahomedans
of India at a critical moment in their history, I want to buy their
friendship. Moreover, if I can carry the Mahomedans with me I hope to
wean Great Britain from the downward path along which the Prime Minister
seems to me to be taking her. I hope also to show to India and the
Empire at large that given a certain amount of capacity for
self-sacrifice, justice can be secured by peacefullest and cleanest
means without sowing or increasing bitterness between English and
Indians. For, whatever may be the temporary effect of my methods, I know
enough of them to feel certain that they alone are immune from lasting
bitterness. They are untainted with hatred, expedience or untruth.
IN PROCESS OF KEEPING
The writer of 'Current Topics' in the "Times of India" has attempted to
challenge the statement made in my Khilafat article regarding
ministerial pledges, and in doing so cites Mr. Asquith's Guild-Hall
speech of November 10, 1914. When I wrote the articles, I had in mind
Mr. Asquith's speech. I am sorry that he ever made that speech. For, in
my humble opinion, it betrayed to say the least, a confusion of thought.
Could he think of the Turkish people as apart from the Ottoman
Government? And what is the meaning of the death-knell of Ottoman
Dominion in Europe and Asia if it be not the death knell of Turkish
people as a free and governing race? Is it, again, true historically
that the Turkish rule has always been a blight that 'has withered some
of the fairest regions of the earth?' And what is the meaning of his
statement that followed, viz., "Nothing is further from our thoughts
than to imitate or encourage a crusade against their belief?" If words
have any meaning, the qualifications that Mr. Asquith introduced in his
speech should have meant a scrupulous regard for Indian Muslim feeling.
And if that be the meaning of his speech, without anything further to
support me I would claim that even Mr. Asquith's assurance is in danger
of being set at nought if the resolutions of the San Remo Conference are
to be crystallised into action. But I base remarks on a considered
speech made by Mr. Asquith's successor two years later when things had
assumed a more threatening shape than in 1914 and when the need for
Indian help was much greater than in 1914. His pledge would bear
repetition till it is fulfilled. He said: "Nor are we fighting to
deprive Turkey of its capital or of the rich and renowned lands of Asia
Minor and Thrace which are predominantly Turkish in race. We do not
challenge the maintenance of the Turkish Empire in the homelands of the
Turkish race with its capital at Constantinople." If only every word of
this pledge is fulfilled both in letter and in spirit, there would be
little left for quarrelling about. In so far as Mr. Asquith's
declaration can be considered hostile to the Indian Muslim claim, it its
superseded by the later and more considered declaration of Mr. Lloyd
George--a declaration made irrevocable by fulfilment of the
consideration it expected, viz. the enlistment of the brave Mahomedan
soldiery which fought in the very place which is now being partitioned
in spite of the pledge. But the writer of 'Current Topics' says Mr.
Lloyd George "is now in process of keeping his pledge" I hope he is
right. But what has already happened gives little ground for any such
hope. For, imprisonment or internment of the Khalif in his own capital
will be not only a mockery of fulfilment but it would he adding injury
to insult. Either the Turkish Empire is to be maintained in the
homelands of the Turkish race with its capital at Constantinople or it
is not. If it is, let the Indian Mahomedans feel the full glow of it or
if the Empire is to be broken up, let the mask of hypocrisy be lifted
and India see the truth in its nakedness. To join the Khilafat movement
then means to join a movement to keep inviolate the pledge of a British
minister. Surely, such a movement is worth much greater sacrifice than
may be involved in non-co-operation.
APPEAL TO THE VICEROY
Your Excellency.
As one who has enjoyed a certain measure of your Excellency's
confidence, and as one who claims to be a devoted well-wisher of the
British Empire, I owe it to your Excellency, and through your Excellency
to His Majesty's Ministers, to explain my connection with and my conduct
in the Khilafat question.
At the very earliest stages of the war, even whilst I was in London
organising the Indian Volunteer Ambulance Corps, I began to interest
myself in the Khilafat question. I perceived how deeply moved the little
Mussalman World in London was when Turkey decided to throw in her lot
with Germany. On my arrival in India in the January of 1915, I found the
same anxiousness and earnestness among the Mussalmans with whom I came
in contact. Their anxiety became intense when the information about the
Secret Treaties leaked out. Distrust of British intentions filled their
minds, and despair took possession of them. Even at that moment I
advised my Mussalman friends not to give way to despair, but to express
their fear and their hopes in a disciplined manner. It will be admitted
that the whole of Mussalman India has behaved in a singularly restrained
manner during the past five years and that the leaders have been able to
keep the turbulent sections of their community under complete control.
The peace terms and your Excellency's defence of them have given the
Mussalmans of India a shock from which it will be difficult for them to
recover. The terms violate ministerial pledges and utterly disregard
Mussalman sentiment. I consider that as a staunch Hindu wishing to live
on terms of the closest friendship with my Mussalman countrymen. I
should be an unworthy son of India if I did not stand by them in their
hour of trial. In my humble opinion their cause is just. They claim that
Turkey must be _punished_ if their sentiment is to be respected. Muslim
soldiers did fight to inflict punishment on their own Khalifa or to
deprive him of his territories. The Mussalman attitude has been
consistent, throughout these five years.
My duty to the Empire to which I owe my loyalty requires me to resist
the cruel violence that has been done to the Mussalman sentiment. So far
as I am aware, Mussulmans and Hindus have as a whole lost faith in
British justice and honour. The report of the majority of the Hunter
Committee, Your Excellency's despatch thereon and Mr. Montagu's reply
have only aggravated the distrust.
In these circumstances the only course open to one like me is either in
despair to sever all connection with British rule, or, if I still
retained faith in the inherent superiority of the British constitution
to all others at present in vogue to adopt such means as will rectify
the wrong done, and thus restore confidence. I have not lost faith in
such superiority and I am not without hope that somehow or other justice
will yet be rendered if we show the requisite capacity for suffering.
Indeed, my conception of that constitution is that it helps only those
who are ready to help themselves. I do not believe that it protects the
weak. It gives free scope to the strong to maintain their strength and
develop it. The weak under it go to the wall.