Freedom\'s Battle - Mahatma Gandhi
It is, then, because I believe in the British constitution that I have
advised my Mussalman friends to withdraw their support from your
Excellency's Government and the Hindus to join them, should the peace
terms not be revised in accordance with the solemn pledges of Ministers
and the Muslim sentiment.
Three courses were open to the Mahomedans in order to mark their
emphatic disapproval of the utter injustice to which His Majesty's
Ministers have become party, if they have not actually been the prime
perpetrators of it. They are:--
(1) To resort to violence,
(2) To advise emigration on a wholesale scale,
(3) Not to be party to the injustice by ceasing to co-operate with the
Government.
Your Excellency must be aware that there was a time when the boldest,
though the most thoughtless among the Mussulmans favoured violence, and
the "Hijrat" (emigration) has not yet ceased to be the battle-cry. I
venture to claim that I have succeeded by patient reasoning in weaning
the party of violence from its ways. I confess that I did not--I did not
attempt to succeed in weaning them from violence on moral grounds, but
purely on utilitarian grounds. The result, for the time being at any
has, however, been to stop violence. The School of "Hijrat" has received
a check, if it has not stopped its activity entirely. I hold that no
repression could have prevented a violent eruption, if the people had
not had presented to them a form of direct action involving considerable
sacrifice and ensuring success if such direct action was largely taken
up by the public. Non-co-operation was the only dignified and
constitutional form of such direct action. For it is the right
recognised from times immemorial of the subject to refuse to assist a
ruler who misrules.
At the same time I admit that non-co-operation practised by the mass of
people is attended with grave risks. But, in a crisis such as has
overtaken the Mussalmans of India, no step that is unattended with large
risks, can possibly bring about the desired change. Not to run some
risks now will be to court much greater risks if not virtual destruction
of Law and Order.
But there is yet an escape from non-co-operation. The Mussalman
representation has requested your Excellency to lead the agitation
yourself, as did your distinguished predecessor at the time of the South
African trouble. But if you cannot see your way to do so, and
non-co-operation becomes a dire necessity, I hope that your Excellency
will give those who have accepted my advice and myself the credit for
being actuated by nothing less than a stern sense of duty.
I have the honour to remain,
Your Excellency's faithful servant,
(Sd.) M.K. GANDHI.
Laburnam Road, Gamdevi, Bombay
22nd June 1920
THE PREMIER'S REPLY
The English mail has brought us a full and official report of the
Premier's speech which he recently made when he received the Khilafat
deputation. Mr. Lloyd George's speech is more definite and therefore
more disappointing than H.E. the Viceroy's reply to the deputation here.
He draws quite unwarranted deductions from the same high principles on
which he had based his own pledge only two years ago. He declares that
Turkey must pay the penalty of defeat. This determination to punish
Turkey does not become one whose immediate predecessor had, in order to
appease Muslim soldiers, promised that the British Government had no
designs on Turkey and that His Majesty's Government would never think of
punishing the Sultan for the misdeeds of the Turkish Committee. Mr.
Lloyd George has expressed his belief that the majority of the
population of Turkey did not really want to quarrel with Great Britain
and that their rulers misled the country. In spite of this conviction
and in spite of Mr. Asquith's promise, he is out to punish Turkey and
punish it in the name of justice.
He expounds the principle of self-determination and justifies the scheme
of depriving Turkey of its territories one after another. While
justifying this scheme he does not exclude even Thrace and this strikes
the reader most, because this very Thrace he had mentioned in his pledge
as predominantly Turkish. Now we are told by him that both the Turkish
census and the Greek census agree in pointing out the Mussulman
population in Thrace is in a considerable minority! Mr. Yakub Hussain
speaking at the Madras Khilafat conference has challenged the truth of
this statement. The Prime Minister cites among others also the example
of Smyrna where, he says, we had a most careful investigation by a very
impartial committee in the whole of the question of Smyrna and it was
found that considerable majority was non-Turkish.' Who will believe the
one-sided "impartial committee's" investigations until it is disproved
that thousands of Musselmans have been murdered and hundreds of
thousands have been driven away from their hearths and homes? Strangely
enough Mr. Lloyd George, believes in the necessity of fresh
investigations by a purposely appointed committee in Smyrna as the most
authenticated and up-to-date report, whereas he would not accept Mr.
Mahomed Ali's proposal for an impartial commission in regard to Armenian
massacre! Doubtful and one-sided facts and figures suffice for him even
to conclude that the Turkish Government is incapable of protecting its
subjects. And he proceeds to suggest foreign interference in ruling over
Asia Minor in the interests of civilization. Here he cuts at the root of
the Sultan's independence. This proposal of appropriating supervision is
distinctly unlike the treatment meted out to other enemy powers.
This detraction of the Sultan's suzerainty is only a corollary of the
Premier's indifference towards the Muslim idea of the Caliphate. The
premier's injustice in treating the Turkish question becomes graver when
he thus lightly handles the Khilafat question. There had been occasions
when the British have used to their advantage the Muslim idea of
associating the Caliph's spiritual power with temporal power. Now this
very association is treated as a controversial question by the great
statesman.
Will this raise the reputation of Great Britain or stain it? Can this be
tolerated by those who fought against Turkey with full faith in British
honesty? Mere receipts of gratitude cannot console the wounded
Mussalmans. There lies the alternative for England to choose between two
mandates--a mandate over some Turkish territories which is sure to lead
to chaos all over the world and a mandate over the hearts of the
Muhomedans which will redeem the pledged honour of Britain. The prime
minister has an unwise choice. This narrow view registers the latest
temperature of British diplomacy.
THE MUSSULMAN REPRESENTATION
Slowly but surely the Mussulmans are preparing for the battle before
them. They have to fight against odds that are undoubtedly heavy but
not half as heavy as the prophet had against him. How often did he not
put his life in danger? But his faith in God was unquenchable. He went
forward with a light heart, for God was on his side, for he represented
truth. If his followers have half the prophet's faith and half his
spirit of sacrifice, the odds will be presently even and will in little
while turn against the despoilers of Turkey. Already the rapacity of the
Allies is telling against themselves. France finds her task difficult.
Greece cannot stomach her ill-gotten gains. And England finds
Mesopotamia a tough job. The oil of Mosul may feed the fire she has so
wantonly lighted and burn her fingers badly. The newspapers say the
Arabs do not like the presence of the Indian soldiery in their midst. I
do not wonder. They are a fierce and a brave people and do not
understand why Indian soldiers should find themselves in Mesopotamia.
Whatever the fate of non-co-operation, I wish that not a single Indian
will offer his services for Mesopotamia whether for the civil or the
military department. We must learn to think for ourselves and before
entering upon any employment find out whether thereby we may not make
ourselves instruments of injustice. Apart from the question of Khilafat
and from the point of abstract justice the English have no right to hold
Mesopotamia. It is no part of our loyalty to help the Imperial
Government in what is in plain language daylight robbery. If therefore
we seek civil or military employment in Mesopotamia we do so for the
sake of earning a livelihood. It is our duty to see that the source is
not tainted.
It surprises me to find so many people shirking over the mention of
non-co-operation. There is no instrument so clean, so harmless and yet
so effective as non-co-operation. Judiciously hauled it need not produce
any evil consequences. And its intensity will depend purely on the
capacity of the people for sacrifice.
The chief thing is to prepare the atmosphere of non-co-operation. "We
are not going to co-operate with you in your injustice," is surely the
right and the duty of every intelligent subject to say. Were it not for
our utter servility, helplessness and want of confidence in ourselves,
we would certainly grasp this clean weapon and make the most effective
use of it. Even the most despotic government cannot stand except for the
consent of the governed which consent is often forcibly procured by the
despot. Immediately the subject ceases to fear the despotic force his
power is gone. But the British government is never and nowhere entirely
or laid upon force. It does make an honest attempt to secure the
goodwill of the governed. But it does not hesitate to adopt unscrupulous
means to compel the consent of the governed. It has not gone beyond the
'Honesty is the best policy' idea. It therefore bribes you into
consenting its will by awarding titles, medals and ribbons, by giving
you employment, by its superior financial ability to open for its
employees avenues for enriching themselves and finally when these fail,
it resorts to force. That is what Sir Michael O'Dwyer did and that is
almost every British administrator will certainly do if he thought it
necessary. If then we would not be greedy, if we would not run after
titles and medals and honorary posts which do the country no good, half
the battle is won.
My advisers are never tired of telling me that even if the Turkish peace
terms are revised it will not be due to non-co-operation. I venture to
suggest to them that non-co-operation has a higher purpose than mere
revision of the terms. If I cannot compel revision I must at least cease
to support a government that becomes party to the usurpation. And if I
succeed in pushing non-co-operation to the extreme limit, I do compel
the Government to choose between India and the usurpation. I have faith
enough in England to know that at that moment England will expel her
present jaded ministers and put in others who will make a clean sweep of
the terms in consultation with an awakened India, draft terms that will
be honourable to her, to Turkey and acceptable to India. But I hear my
critics say "India has not the strength of purpose and the capacity for
the sacrifice to achieve such a noble end. They are partly right. India
has not these qualities now, because we have not--shall we not evolve
them and infect the nation with them? Is not the attempt worth making?
Is my sacrifice too great to gain such a great purpose?"
CRITICISM OF THE MUSLIM MANIFESTO
The Khilafat representation addressed to the Viceroy and my letter on
the same subject have been severely criticised by the Anglo-Indian
press. _The Times of India_ which generally adopts an impartial attitude
has taken strong exception to certain statements made in the Muslim
manifesto and has devoted a paragraph of its article to an advance
criticism of my suggestion that His Excellency should resign if the
peace terms are not revised.
_The Times of India_ excepts to the submission that the British Empire
may not treat Turkey like a departed enemy. The signatories have, I
think, supplied the best of reasons. They say "We respectfully submit
that in the treatment of Turkey the British Government are bound to
respect Indian Muslim sentiment in so far as it is neither unjust nor
unreasonable." If the seven crore Mussulmans are partners in the Empire,
I submit that their wish must be held to be all sufficient for
refraining from punishing Turkey. It is beside the point to quote what
Turkey did during the war. It has suffered for it. _The Times_ inquires
wherein Turkey has been treated worse than the other Powers. I thought
that the fact was self-evident. Neither Germany nor Austria and Hungary
has been treated in the same way that Turkey has been. The whole of the
Empire has been reduced to the retention of a portion of its capital, as
it were, to mock the Sultan and that too has been done under terms so
humiliating that no self-respecting person much less a reigning
sovereign can possibly accept.
_The Times_ has endeavoured to make capital out of the fact that the
representation does not examine the reason for Turkey not joining the
Allies. Well there was no mystery about it. The fact of Russia being one
of the Allies was enough to warn Turkey against joining them. With
Russia knocking at the gate at the time of the war it was not an easy
matter for Turkey to join the Allies. But Turkey had cause to suspect
Great Britain herself. She knew that England had done no friendly turn
to her during the Bulgarian War. She was hardly well served at the time
of the war with Italy. It was still no doubt a bad choice. With the
Musssalmans of India awakened and ready to support her, her statesmen
might have relied upon Britain not being allowed to damage Turkey if she
had remained with the Allies. But this is all wisdom after event. Turkey
made a bad choice and she was punished for it. To humiliate her now is
to ignore the Indian Mussulman sentiment. Britain may not do it and
retain the loyalty of the awakened Mussulmans of India.
For "The Times" to say that the peace terms strictly follow the
principle of self-determination is to throw dust in the eyes of its
readers. Is it the principle of self-determination that has caused the
cessation of Adrianople and Thrace to Greece? By what principle of
self-determination has Smyrna been handed to Greece? Have the
inhabitants of Thrace and Smyrna asked for Grecian tutelege?
I decline to believe that the Arabs like the disposition that has been
made of them. Who is the King of Hedjaj and who is Emir Feisul? Have the
Arabs elected these kings and chiefs? Do the Arabs like the Mandate
being taken by England? By the time the whole thing is finished, the
very name self-determination will stink in one's nostrils. Already signs
are not wanting to show that the Arabs, the Thracians and the Smyrnans
are resenting their disposal. They may not like Turkish rule but they
like the present arrangement less. They could have made their own
honourable terms with Turkey but these self-determining people will now
be held down by the 'matchless might' of the allied _i.e._, British
forces. Britain had the straight course open to her of keeping the
Turkish Empire intact and taking sufficient guarantees for good
government. But her Prime Minister chose the crooked course of secret
treaties, duplicity and hypocritical subterfuges.
There is still a way out. Let her treat India as a real partner. Let her
call the true representatives of the Mussalmans. Let them go to Arabia
and the other parts of the Turkish Empire and let her devise a scheme
that would not humiliate Turkey, that would satisfy the just Muslim
sentiment and that will secure honest self-determination for the races
composing that Empire. If it was Canada, Australia or South Africa that
had to be placated, Mr. Lloyd George would not have dared to ignore
them. They have the power to secede. India has not. Let him no more
insult India by calling her a partner, if her feelings count for naught.
I invite _The Times of India_ to reconsider its position and join an
honourable agitation in which a high-souled people are seeking nothing
but justice.
I do with all deference still suggest that the least that Lord
Chelmsford can do is to resign if the sacred feelings of India's sons
are not to be consulted and respected by the Ministers. _The Times_ is
over-taxing the constitution when it suggests that as a constitutional
Viceroy it is not open to Lord Chelmsford to go against the decision of
his Majesty's Ministers. It is certainly not open to a Viceroy to retain
office and oppose ministerial decisions. But the constitution does allow
a Viceroy to resign his high office when he is called upon to carry out
decisions that are immoral as the peace terms are or like these terms
are calculated to stir to their very depth the feelings of those whose
affair he is administering for the time being.
THE MAHOMEDAN DECISION
The Khilafat meeting at Allahabad has unanimously reaffirmed the
principle of non-co-operation and appointed an executive committee to
lay down and enforce a detailed programme. This meeting was preceded by
a joint Hindu-Mahomedan meeting at which Hindu leaders were invited to
give their views. Mrs. Beasant, the Hon'ble Pandit Malaviyuji, the
Hon'ble Dr. Sapru Motilal Nehru Chintamani and others were present at
the meeting. It was a wise step on the part of the Khilafat Committee to
invite Hindus representing all shades of thought to give them the
benefit of their advice. Mrs. Besant and Dr. Sapru strongly dissuaded
the Mahomedans present from the policy of non-co-operation. The other
Hindu speakers made non-committal speeches. Whilst the other Hindu
speakers approved of the principle of non-co-operation in theory, they
saw many practical difficulties and they feared also complications
arising from Mahomedans welcoming an Afghan invasion of India. The
Mahomedan speakers gave the fullest and frankest assurances that they
would fight to a man any invader who wanted to conquer India, but were
equally frank in asserting that any invasion from without undertaken
with a view to uphold the prestige of Islam and to vindicate justice
would have their full sympathy if not their actual support. It is easy
enough to understand and justify the Hindu caution. It is difficult to
resist Mahomedan position. In my opinion, the best way to prevent India
from becoming the battle ground between the forces of Islam and those of
the English is for Hindus to make non-co-operation a complete and
immediate success, and I have little doubt that if the Mahomedans remain
true to their declared intention and are able to exercise
self-restraint, and make sacrifices the Hindus will "play the game" and
join them in the campaign of non-co-operation. I feel equally certain
that the Hindus will not assist Mahomedans in promoting or bringing
about an armed conflict between the British Government and their allies,
and Afghanistan. British forces are too well organised to admit of any
successful invasion of the Indian frontier. The only way, therefore, the
Mahomedans can carry on an effective struggle on behalf of the honour of
Islam is to take up non-co-operation in real earnest. It will not only
be completely effective if it is adopted by the people on an extensive
scale, but it will also provide full scope for individual conscience. If
I cannot bear an injustice done by an individual or a corporation, and
if I am directly or indirectly instrumental in upholding that individual
or corporation, I must answer for it before my Maker, but I have done
all it is humanly possible for me to do consistently with the moral code
that refuses to injure even the wrong-doer, if I cease to support the
injustice in the manner described above. In applying therefore such a
great force there should be no haste, there should be no temper shown.
Non-co-operation must be and remain absolutely a voluntary effort. The
whole thing then depends upon Mahomedans themselves. If they will but
help themselves Hindu help will come and the Government, great and
mighty though it is, will have to bend before this irresistible force.
No Government can possibly withstand the bloodless opposition of a whole
nation.
MR. ANDREWS' DIFFICULTY
Mr. Andrews whose love for India is equalled only by his love for
England and whose mission in life is to serve God, i.e., humanity
through India, has contributed remarkable articles to the 'Bombay
Chronicle' on the Khilafat movement. He has not spared England, France
or Italy. He has shown how Turkey has been most unjustly dealt with and
how the Prime Minister's pledge has been broken. He has devoted the last
article to an examination of Mr. Mahomed Ali's letter to the Sultan and
has come to the conclusion that Mr. Mahomed Ali's statement of claim is
at variance with the claim set forth in the latest Khilafat
representation to the Viceroy which he wholly approves.
Mr. Andrews and I have discussed the question as fully as it was
possible. He asked me publicly to define my own position more fully than
I have done. His sole object in inviting discussion is to give strength
to a cause which he holds as intrinsically just, and to gather round it
the best opinion of Europe so that the allied powers and especially
England may for very shame be obliged to revise the terms.
I gladly respond to Mr. Andrew's invitation. I should clear the ground
by stating that I reject any religious doctrine that does not appeal to
reason and is in conflict with morality. I tolerate unreasonable
religious sentiment when it is not immoral. I hold the Khilafat claim to
be both just and reasonable and therefore it derives greater force
because it has behind it the religious sentiment of the Mussalman world.
In my opinion Mr. Mahomed Ali's statement is unexceptionable. It is no
doubt clothed in diplomatic language. But I am not prepared to quarrel
with the language so long as it is sound in substance.
Mr. Andrews considers that Mr. Mahomed Ali's language goes to show that
he would resist Armenian independence against the Armenians and the
Arabian against the Arabs. I attach no such meaning to it. What he, the
whole of Mussalmans and therefore I think also the Hindus resist is the
shameless attempt of England and the other Powers under cover of
self-determination to emasculate and dismember Turkey. If I understand
the spirit of Islam properly, it is essentially republican in the truest
sense of the term. Therefore if Armenia or Arabia desired independence
of Turkey they should have it. In the case of Arabia, complete Arabian
independence would mean transference of the Khilafat to an Arab
chieftain. Arabia in that sense is a Mussulman trust, not purely
Arabian. And the Arabs without ceasing to be Mussulman, could not hold
Arabia against Muslim opinion. The Khalifa must be the custodian of the
Holy places and therefore also the routes to them. He must be able to
defend them against the whole world. And if an Arab chief arose who
could better satisfy that test than the Sultan of Turkey, I have no
doubt that he would be recognised as the Khalifa.
I have thus discussed the question academically. The fact is that
neither the Mussulmans nor the Hindus believe in the English Ministerial
word. They do not believe that the Arabs or the Armenians want complete
independence of Turkey. That they want self-government is beyond doubt.
Nobody disputes that claim. But nobody has ever ascertained that either
the Arabs or the Armenians desire to do away with all connection, even
nominal, with Turkey.
The solution of the question lies not in our academic discussion of the
ideal position, it lies in an honest appointment of a mixed commission
of absolutely independent Indian Mussulmans and Hindus and independent
Europeans to investigate the real wish of the Armenians and the Arabs
and then to come to a _modus vivendi_ where by the claims of the
nationality and those of Islam may be adjusted and satisfied.
It is common knowledge that Smyrna and Thrace including Adrianople have
been dishonestly taken away from Turkey and that mandates have been
unscrupulously established in Syria and Mesopotamia and a British
nominee has been set up in Hedjaj under the protection of British guns.
This is a position that is intolerable and unjust. Apart therefore from
the questions of Armenia and Arabia, the dishonesty and hypocrisy that
pollute the peace terms require to be instantaneously removed. It paves
the way to an equitable solution of the question of Armenian and Arabian
independence which in theory no one denies and which in practice may be
easily guaranteed if only the wishes of the people concerned could with
any degree of certainty be ascertained.
THE KHILAFAT AGITATION
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.