[Transcriber's Note: The inconsistent spelling of the original has beenpreserved in this etext. ] FREEDOM'S BATTLE BEING A COMPREHENSIVE COLLECTION OF WRITINGS AND SPEECHES ON THE PRESENTSITUATION BY MAHATMA GANDHI Second Edition 1922 The Publishers express their indebtedness to the Editor and Publisherof the "Young India" for allowing the free use of the articlesappeared in that journal under the name of Mahatma Gandhi, and also toMr. C. Rajagopalachar for the valuable introduction and help rendered inbringing out the book. CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION II. THE KHILAFAT Why I have joined the Khilafat Movement The Turkish Treaty Turkish Peace Terms The Suzerainty over Arabia Further Questions Answered Mr. Candler's Open Letter In process of keeping Appeal to the Viceroy The Premier's reply The Muslim Representation Criticism of the Manifesto The Mahomedan Decision Mr. Andrew's Difficulty The Khilafat Agitation Hijarat and its Meaning III. THE PUNJAB WRONGS Political Freemasonry The Duty of the Punjabec General Dyer The Punjab Sentences IV. SWARAJ Swaraj in one year British Rule an evil A movement of purification Why was India lost Swaraj my ideal On the wrong track The Congress Constitution Swaraj in nine months The Attainment of Swaraj V. HINDU MOSLEM UNITY The Hindus and the Mahomedans Hindu Mahomedan unity Hindu Muslim unity VI. TREATMENT OF THE DEPRESSED CLASSES Depressed Classes Amelioration of the depressed classes The Sin of Untouchability VII. TREATMENT OF INDIANS ABROAD Indians abroad Indians overseas Pariahs of the Empire VIII. NON-CO-OPERATION Non-co-operation Mr. Montagu on the Khilafat Agitation At the call of the country Non-co-operation explained Religious Authority for non-co-operation The inwardness of non-co-operation A missionary on non-co-operation How to work non-co-operation Speech at Madras " Trichinopoly " Calicut " Mangalore " Bexwada The Congress Who is disloyal Crusade against non-co-operation Speech at Muxafarbail Ridicule replacing Repression The Viceregal pronouncement From Ridicule to--? To every Englishman In India One step enough for me The need for humility Some Questions Answered Pledges broken More Objections answered Mr. Pennington's Objections Answered Some doubts Rejoinder Two Englishmen Reply Letter to the Viceroy--Renunciation of Medals Letter to H. R. H. The Duke of Connaught The Greatest thing Mahatma Gandhi's Statement IX. WRITTEN STATEMENT Index I. INTRODUCTION After the great war it is difficult, to point out a single nation thatis happy; but this has come out of the war, that there is not a singlenation outside India, that is not either free or striving to be free. It is said that we, too, are on the road to freedom, that it is betterto be on the certain though slow course of gradual unfoldment of freedomthan to take the troubled and dangerous path of revolution whetherpeaceful or violent, and that the new Reforms are a half-way houseto freedom. The new constitution granted to India keeps all the military forces, both in the direction and in the financial control, entirely outside thescope of responsibility to the people of India. What does this mean? Itmeans that the revenues of India are spent away on what the nation doesnot want. But after the mid-Eastern complications and the fresh Asiaticadditions to British Imperial spheres of action. This Indian militaryservitude is a clear danger to national interests. The new constitution gives no scope for retrenchment and therefore noscope for measures of social reform except by fresh taxation, the heavyburden of which on the poor will outweigh all the advantages of anyreforms. It maintains all the existing foreign services, and the cost ofthe administrative machinery high as it already is, is furtherincreased. The reformed constitution keeps all the fundamental liberties of person, property, press, and association completely under bureaucratic control. All those laws which give to the irresponsible officers of the ExecutiveGovernment of India absolute powers to override the popular will, arestill unrepealed. In spite of the tragic price paid in the Punjab fordemonstrating the danger of unrestrained power in the hands of a foreignbureaucracy and the inhumanity of spirit by which tyranny in a panicwill seek to save itself, we stand just where we were before, at themercy of the Executive in respect of all our fundamental liberties. Not only is Despotism intact in the Law, but unparalleled crimes andcruelties against the people have been encouraged and even afterboastful admissions and clearest proofs, left unpunished. The spirit ofunrepentant cruelty has thus been allowed to permeate the wholeadministration. THE MUSSALMAN AGONY To understand our present condition it in not enough to realise thegeneral political servitude. We should add to it the reality and theextent of the injury inflicted by Britain on Islam, and thereby on theMussalmans of India. The articles of Islamic faith which it is necessaryto understand in order to realise why Mussalman India, which was once soloyal is now so strongly moved to the contrary are easily set out andunderstood. Every religion should be interpreted by the professors ofthat religion. The sentiments and religious ideas of Muslims founded onthe traditions of long generations cannot be altered now by logic orcosmopolitanism, as others understand it. Such an attempt is the moreunreasonable when it is made not even as a bonafide and independenteffort of proselytising logic or reason, but only to justify a treatyentered into for political and worldly purposes. The Khalifa is the authority that is entrusted with the duty ofdefending Islam. He is the successor to Muhammad and the agent of God onearth. According to Islamic tradition he must possess sufficienttemporal power effectively to protect Islam against non-Islamic powersand he should be one elected or accepted by the Mussalman world. The Jazirat-ul-Arab is the area bounded by the Red Sea, the Arabian Sea, the Persian Gulf, and the waters of the Tigris and the Euphrates. It isthe sacred Home of Islam and the centre towards which Islam throughoutthe world turns in prayer. According to the religious injunctions of theMussalmans, this entire area should always be under Muslim control, itsscientific border being believed to be a protection for the integrity ofIslamic life and faith. Every Mussalman throughout the world is enjoinedto sacrifice his all, if necessary, for preserving the Jazirat-ul-Arabunder complete Muslim control. The sacred places of Islam should be in the possession of the Khalifa. They should not merely be free for the entry of the Mussalmans of theworld by the grace or the license of non-Muslim powers, but should bethe possession and property of Islam in the fullest degree. It is a religions obligation, on every Mussalman to go forth and helpthe Khalifa in every possible way where his unaided efforts in thedefence of the Khilifat have failed. The grievance of the Indian Mussalmans is that a government thatpretends to protect and spread peace and happiness among them has noright to ignore or set aside these articles of their cherished faith. According to the Peace Treaty imposed on the nominal Government atConstantinople, the Khalifa far from having the temporal authority orpower needed to protect Islam, is a prisoner in his own city. He is tohave no real fighting force, army or navy, and the financial controlover his own territories is vested in other Governments. His capital iscut off from the rest of his possessions by an intervening permanentmilitary occupation. It is needless to say that under these conditionshe is absolutely incapable of protecting Islam as the Mussulmans of theworld understand it. The Jazirat-ul-Arab is split up; a great part of it given to powerfulnon-Muslim Powers, the remnant left with petty chiefs dominated allround by non-Muslim Governments. The Holy places of Islam are all taken out of the Khalifa's kingdom, some left in the possession of minor Muslim chiefs of Arabia entirelydependent on European control, and some relegated to newly-formednon-Muslim states. In a word, the Mussalman's free choice of a Khalifa such as Islamictradition defines is made an unreality. THE HINDU DHARMA The age of misunderstanding and mutual warfare among religions is gone. If India has a mission of its own to the world, it is to establish theunity and the truth of all religions. This unity is established bymutual help and understanding between the various religions. It has comeas a rare privilege to the Hindus in the fulfilment of this mission ofIndia to stand up in defence of Islam against the onslaught of theearth-greed of the military powers of the west. The Dharma of Hinduism in this respect is placed beyond all doubt by theBhagavat Gita. Those who are the votaries of other Gods and worship them withfaith--even they, O Kaunteya, worship me alone, though not as theShastra requires--IX, 23. Whoever being devoted wishes in perfect faith to worship a particularform, of such a one I maintain the same faith unshaken, --VII 21. Hinduism will realise its fullest beauty when in the fulfilment of thiscardinal tenet, its followers offer themselves as sacrifice for theprotection of the faith of their brothers, the Mussalmans. If Hindus and Mussalmans attain the height of courage and sacrifice thatis needed for this battle on behalf of Islam against the greed of theWest, a victory will be won not alone for Islam, but for Christianityitself. Militarism has robbed the crucified God of his name and his verycross and the World has been mistaking it to be Christianity. After thebattle of Islam is won, Islam and Hinduism together can emancipateChristianity itself from the lust for power and wealth which havestrangled it now and the true Christianity of the Gospels will beestablished. This battle of non-cooperation with its suffering andpeaceful withdrawal of service will once for all establish itssuperiority over the power of brute force and unlimited slaughter. What a glorious privilege it is to play our part in this history of theworld, when Hinduism and Christianity will unite on behalf of Islam, andin that strife of mutual love and support each religion will attain itsown truest shape and beauty. AN ENDURING TREATY Swaraj for India has two great problems, one internal and the otherexternal. How can Hindus and Mussalmans so different from each otherform a strong and united nation governing themselves peacefully? Thiswas the question for years, and no one could believe that the twocommunities could suffer for each other till the miracle was actuallyworked. The Khilafat has solved the problem. By the magic of suffering, each has truly touched and captured the other's heart, and the Nationnow is strong and united. Not internal strength and unity alone has the Khilafat brought to India. The great block in the way of Indian aspiration for full freedom wasthe problem of external defence. How is India, left to herself defendher frontiers against her Mussalman neighbours? None but emasculatednations would accept such difficulties and responsibilities as an answerto the demand for freedom. It is only a people whose mentality has beenperverted that can soothe itself with the domination by one race from adistant country, as a preventative against the aggression of another, apermanent and natural neighbour. Instead of developing strength toprotect ourselves against those near whom we are permanently placed, afeeling of incurable impotence has been generated. Two strong and bravenations can live side by side, strengthening each other throughenforcing constant vigilance, and maintain in full vigour each its ownnational strength, unity, patriotism and resources. If a nation wishesto be respected by its neighbours it has to develop and enter intohonourable treaties. These are the only natural conditions of nationalliberty; but not a surrender to distant military powers to save oneselffrom one's neighbours. The Khilafat has solved the problem of distrust of Asiatic neighboursout of our future. The Indian struggle for the freedom of Islam hasbrought about a more lasting _entente_ and a more binding treaty betweenthe people of India and the people of the Mussalman states around itthan all the ententes and treaties among the Governments of Europe. Nowars of aggression are possible where the common people on the two sideshave become grateful friends. The faith of the Mussulman is a bettersanction than the seal of the European Diplomats and plenipotentiaries. Not only has this great friendship between India and the MussulmanStates around it removed for all time the fear of Mussulman aggressionfrom outside, but it has erected round India, a solid wall of defenceagainst all aggression from beyond against all greed from Europe, Russiaor elsewhere. No secret diplomacy could establish a better _entente_ ora stronger federation than what this open and non-governmental treatybetween Islam and India has established. The Indian support of theKhilafat has, as if by a magic wand, converted what Was once thePan-Islamic terror for Europe into a solid wall of friendship anddefence for India. THE BRITISH CONNECTION Every nation like every individual is born free. Absolute freedom is thebirthright of every people. The only limitations are those which apeople may place over themselves. The British connection is invaluableas long as it is a defence against any worse connection sought to beimposed by violence. But it is only a means to an end, not a mandate ofProvidence of Nature. The alliance of neighbours, born of suffering foreach other's sake, for ends that purify those that suffer, isnecessarily a more natural and more enduring bond than one that hasresulted from pure greed on the one side and weakness on the other. Where such a natural and enduring alliance has been accomplished amongAsiatic peoples and not only between the respective governments, it maytruly be felt to be more valuable than the British connection itself, after that connection has denied freedom or equality, and even justice. THE ALTERNATIVE Is violence or total surrender the only choice open to any people towhom Freedom or Justice is denied? Violence at a time when the wholeworld has learnt from bitter experience the futility of violence isunworthy of a country whose ancient people's privilege, it was, to seethis truth long ago. Violence may rid a nation of its foreign masters but will only enslaveit from inside. No nation can really be free which is at the mercy ofits army and its military heroes. If a people rely for freedom on itssoldiers, the soldiers will rule the country, not the people. Till therecent awakening of the workers of Europe, this was the only freedomwhich the powers of Europe really enjoyed. True freedom can exist onlywhen those who produce, not those who destroy or know only to live onother's labour, are the masters. Even were violence the true road to freedom, is violence possible to anation which has been emasculated and deprived of all weapons, and thewhole world is hopelessly in advance of all our possibilities in themanufacture and the wielding of weapons of destruction. Submission or withdrawal of co-operation is the real and onlyalternative before India. Submission to injustice puts on the temptinggarb of peace and, gradual progress, but there is no surer way to deaththan submission to wrong. THE FIFTH UPAYA Our ancients classified the arts of conquest into four well-known_Upayas_. Sama, Dana, Uheda, and Danda. A fifth Upuya was recognisedsometimes by our ancients, which they called _Upeshka_. It is this_Punchamopaya_ that is placed by Mahatma Gandhi before the people ofIndia in the form of Non-cooperation as an alternative, besidesviolence, to surrender. Where in any case negotiations have failed and the enemy is neithercorruptible nor incapable of being divided, and a resort to violence hasfailed or would certainly be futile the method of _Upeshka_ remains tobe applied to the case. Indeed, when the very existence of the power weseek to defeat really depends on our continuous co-operation with it, and where our _Upeskha_ its very life, our _Upeskha_ or non-co-operationis the most natural and most effective expedient that we can employ tobend it to our will. No Englishman believes that his nation can rule or keep India for a dayunless the people of India actively co-operate to maintain that rule. Whether the co-operation be given willingly or through ignorance, cupidity, habit or fear, the withdrawal of that co-operation meansimpossibility of foreign rule in India. Some of us may not realise this, but those who govern us have long ago known and are now keenly alive tothis truth. The active assistance of the people of this country in thesupply of the money, men, and knowledge of the languages, customs andlaws of the land, is the main-spring of the continuous life of theforeign administration. Indeed the circumstances of British rule in thiscountry are such that but for a double supply of co-operation on thepart of the governed, it must have broken down long ago. Any system ofrace domination is unnatural, and can be kept up only by activecoercion through a foreign-recruited public, service invested with largepowers, however much it may he helped by the perversion of mentalityshaping the education of the youth of the country. The foreign recruitedservice must necessarily be very highly paid. This creates a wrongstandard for the Indian recruited officials also. Military expenditurehas to cover not only the needs of defence against foreign aggression, but also the possibilities of internal unrest and rebellion. Policecharges have to go beyond the prevention and deletion of ordinary crime, for though this would be the only expenditure over the police of aself-governing people where any nation governs another, a large chapter ofartificial crime has to be added to the penal code, and the work of thepolice extended accordingly. The military and public organisations mustalso be such as not only to result in outside efficiency, but also atthe same time guarantee internal impotency. This is to be achieved bythe adjustment and careful admixture of officers and units fromdifferent races. All this can be and is maintained only by extra costand extra-active co-operation on the part of the people. The slightestwithdrawal of assistance must put such machinery out of gear. This isthe basis of the programme of progressive non violent non-co-operationthat has been adopted by the National Congress. SOME OBJECTIONS The powerful character of the measure, however, leads some to object tonon-co-operation because of that very reason. Striking as it does at thevery root of Government in India, they fear that non-co-operation mustlead to anarchy, and that the remedy is worse than the disease. This isan objection arising out of insufficient allowance for human nature. Itis assumed that the British people will allow their connection withIndia to cease rather than remedy the wrongs for which we seek justice. If this assumption be correct, no doubt it must lead to separation andpossibly also anarchy for a time. If the operatives in a factory havegrievances, negotiations having failed, a strike would on a similarargument be never admissible. Unyielding obstinacy being presumed, itmust end in the closing down of the factory and break up of the men. Butif in ninety-nine out of a hundred cases it is not the case that strikesend in this manner, it is more unlikely that, instead of righting themanifest wrongs that India complains about, the British people willvalue their Indian Dominion so low as to prefer to allow us tonon-co-operate up to the point of separation. It would be a totallyfalse reading of British character and British history. But if suchwicked obstinacy be ultimately shown by a government, far be it from usto prefer peace at the price of abject surrender to wrong. There is noanarchy greater than the moral anarchy of surrender to unrepentantwrong. We may, however, be certain that if we show the strength andunity necessary for non-co-operation, long before we progress with itfar, we shall have developed true order and true self-government whereinthere is no place for anarchy. Another fear sometimes expressed that, if non-co-operation were tosucceed, the British would have to go, leaving us unable to defendourselves against foreign aggression. If we have the self-respect, thepatriotism, the tenacious purpose, and the power of organisation that arenecessary to drive the British out from their entrenched position, nolesser foreign power will dare after that, undertake the futile task ofconquering or enslaving us. It is sometimes said that non-co-operation is negative and destructiveof the advantages which a stable government has conferred on us. Thatnon-co-operation is negative is merely a half-truth. Non-co-operationwith the government means greater co-operation among ourselves, greatermutual dependence among the many different castes and classes of ourcountry. Non-co-operation is not mere negation. It will lead to therecovery of the lost art of co-operation among ourselves. Longdependence on an outside government which by its interferencesuppressed or prevented the consequences of our differences has made usforget the duty of mutual trust and the art of friendly adjustment. Having allowed Government to do everything for us, we have graduallybecome incapable of doing anything for ourselves. Even if we had nogrievance against this Government, non-co-operation with it for a timewould be desirable so far as it would perforce lead us to trusting andworking with one another and thereby strengthen the bonds ofnational unity. The most tragic consequence of dependence on the complex machinery of aforeign government is the atrophy of the communal sense. The directtouch with administrative cause and effect is lost. An outside protectorperforms all the necessary functions of the community in a mysteriousmanner, and communal duties are not realised by the people. The onereason addressed by those who deny to us the capacity for self-rule isthe insufficient appreciation by the people of communal duties anddiscipline. It is only by actually refraining for a time from dependenceon Government that we can regain self-reliance, learn first-hand thevalue of communal duties and build up true national co-operation. Non-co-operation is a practical and positive training in Swadharma, andSwadharma alone can lead up to Swaraj. The negative is the best and most impressive method of enforcing thevalue of the positive. Few outside government circles realise in thepresent police anything but tyranny and corruption. But if the units ofthe present police were withdrawn we would soon perforce set aboutorganising a substitute, and most people would realise the true socialvalue of a police force. Few realise in the present taxes anything butcoercion and waste, but most people would soon see that a share of everyman's income is due for common purposes and that there are manylimitations to the economical management of public institutions; wewould begin once again to contribute directly, build up and maintainnational institutions in the place of those that now mysteriously springup and live under Government orders. EMANCIPATION Freedom is a priceless thing. But it is a stable possession only when itis acquired by a nation's strenuous effort. What is not by chance oroutward circumstance, or given by the generous impulse of a tyrantprince or people is not a reality. A nation will truly enjoy freedomonly when in the process of winning or defending its freedom, it hasbeen purified and consolidated through and through, until liberty hasbecome a part of its very soul. Otherwise it would be but a change ofthe form of government, which might please the fancy of politicians, orsatisfy the classes in power, but could never emancipate a people. AnAct of Parliament can never create citizens in Hindustan. The strength, spirit, and happiness of a people who have fought and won their libertycannot be got by Reform Acts. Effort and sacrifice are the necessaryconditions of real stable emancipation. Liberty unacquired, merely found, will on the test fail like the Dead-Sea-apple or the magician's plenty. The war that the people of India have declared and which will purify andconsolidate India, and forge for her a true and stable liberty is a warwith the latest and most effective weapon. In this war, what hashitherto been in the world an undesirable but necessary incident infreedom's battles, the killing of innocent men, has been eliminated; andthat which is the true essential for forging liberty, theself-purification and self-strengthening of men and women has been keptpure and unalloyed. It is for men, women and youth, every one of themthat lives in and loves India, to do his bit in this battle, not waitingfor others, not calculating the chances of his surviving the battle toenjoy the fruits of his sacrifice. Soldiers in the old-world wars didnot insure their lives before going to the front. The privilege of youthin special is for country's sake to exercise their comparative freedomand give up the yearning for lives and careers built on the slavery ofthe people. That on which a foreign government truly rests whatever may be theillusions on their or our part is not the strength of its armed forces, but our own co-operation. Actual service on the part of one generation, and educational preparation for future service on the part of the nextgeneration are the two main branches of this co-operation of slaves inthe perpetuation of slavery. The boycott of government service and thelaw-courts is aimed at the first, the boycott of government controlledschools is to stop the second. If either the one or the other of thesetwo branches of co-operation is withdrawn in sufficient measure, therewill be an automatic and perfectly peaceful change from slaveryto liberty. The beat preparation for any one who desires to take part in the greatbattle now going on is a silent study of the writings and speechescollected herein, and proposed to be completed in a supplementary volumeto be soon issued. C. RAJAGOPALACHAR II. THE KHILAFAT WHY I HAVE JOINED THE KHILAFAT MOVEMENT An esteemed South African friend who is at present living in England haswritten to me a letter from which I make the following excerpts:-- "You will doubtless remember having met me in South Africa at the time when the Rev. J. J. Doke was assisting you in your campaign there and I subsequently returned to England deeply impressed with the rightness of your attitude in that country. During the months before war I wrote and lectured and spoke on your behalf in several places which I do not regret. Since returning from military service, however, I have noticed from the papers that you appear to be adopting a more militant attitude. .. I notice a report in "The Times" that you are assisting and countenancing a union between the Hindus and Moslems with a view of embarrassing England and the Allied Powers in the matter of the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire or the ejection of the Turkish Government from Constantinople. Knowing as I do your sense of justice and your humane instincts I feel that I am entitled, in view of the humble part that I have taken to promote your interests on this side, to ask you whether this latter report is correct. I cannot believe that you have wrongly countenanced a movement to place the cruel and unjust despotism of the Stamboul Government above the interests of humanity, for if any country has crippled these interests in the East it has surely been Turkey. I am personally familiar with the conditions in Syria and Armenia and I can only suppose that if the report, which "The Times" has published is correct, you have thrown to one side, your moral responsibilities and allied yourself with one of the prevailing anarchies. However, until I hear that this is not your attitude I cannot prejudice my mind. Perhaps you will do me the favour of sending me a reply. " I have sent a reply to the writer. But as the views expressed in thequotation are likely to be shared by many of my English friends and as Ido not wish, if I can possibly help it, to forfeit their friendship ortheir esteem I shall endeavour to state my position as clearly as I canon the Khilafat question. The letter shows what risk public men runthrough irresponsible journalism. I have not seen _The Times_ report, referred to by my friend. But it is evident that the report has made thewriter to suspect my alliance with "the prevailing anarchies" and tothink that I have "thrown to one side" my "moral responsibilities. " It is just my sense of moral responsibilities which has made me take upthe Khilafat question and to identify myself entirely with theMahomedans. It is perfectly true that I am assisting and countenancingthe union between Hindus and Muslims, but certainly not with "a view ofembarrassing England and the Allied Powers in the matter of thedismemberment of the Ottoman Empire, " it is contrary to my creed toembarrass governments or anybody else. This does not how ever mean thatcertain acts of mine may not result in embarrassment. But I should nothold myself responsible for having caused embarrassment when I resistthe wrong of a wrong-doer by refusing assistance in his wrong-doing. Onthe Khilafat question I refuse to be party to a broken pledge. Mr. LloydGeorge's solemn declaration is practically the whole of the case forIndian Mahomedans and when that case is fortified by scripturalauthority it becomes unanswerable. Moreover, it is incorrect to say thatI have "allied myself to one of the prevailing anarchies" or that I havewrongly countenanced the movement to place the cruel and unjustdespotism of the Stamboul Government above the interests of humanity. In the whole of the Mahomedan demand there is no insistance on theretention of the so-called unjust despotism of the Stamboul Government;on the contrary the Mahomedans have accepted the principle of takingfull guarantees from that Government for the protection of non-Muslimminorities. I do not know how far the condition of Armenia and Syria maybe considered an 'anarchy' and how far the Turkish Government may beheld responsible for it. I much suspect that the reports from thesequarters are much exaggerated and that the European powers arethemselves in a measure responsible for what misrule there may be inArmenia and Syria. But I am in no way interested in supporting Turkishor any other anarchy. The Allied Powers can easily prevent it by meansother than that of ending Turkish rule or dismembering and weakening theOttoman Empire. The Allied Powers are not dealing with a new situation. If Turkey was to be partitioned, the position should have been madeclear at the commencement of the war. There would then have been noquestion of a broken pledge. As it is, no Indian Mahomedan has anyregard for the promises of British Ministers. In his opinion, the cryagainst Turkey is that of Christianity _vs. _ Islam with England as thelouder in the cry. The latest cablegram from Mr. Mahomed Ali strengthensthe impression, for he says that unlike as in England his deputation isreceiving much support from the French Government and the people. Thus, if it is true, as I hold it is true that the Indian Mussalmanshave a cause that is just and is supported by scriptural authority, thenfor the Hindus not to support them to the utmost would be a cowardlybreach of brotherhood and they would forfeit all claim to considerationfrom their Mahomedan countrymen. As a public-server therefore, I wouldbe unworthy of the position I claim, if I did not support IndianMussalmans in their struggle to maintain the Khilafat in accordance withtheir religious belief. I believe that in supporting them I am renderinga service to the Empire, because by assisting my Mahomedan countrymen togive a disciplined expression to their sentiment it becomes possible tomake the agitation thoroughly, orderly and even successful. THE TURKISH TREATY The Turkish treaty will be out on the 10th of May. It is stated toprovide for the internationalisation of the Straits, the occupation ofGallipoli by the Allies, the maintenance of Allied contingents inConstantinople and the appointment of a Commission of Control overTurkish finances. The San Remo Conference has entrusted Britain withMandates for Mesopotamia and Palestine and France with the Mandate forSyria. As regards Smyrna the accounts so far received inform thatTurkish suzerainty over Smyrna will be indicated by the fact that thepopulation will not be entitled to send delegates to the GreekParliament but at the end of five years local Smyrna Parliament willhave the right of voting in favour of union with Greece and in such anevent Turkish suzerainty will cease. Turkish suzerainty will be confinedto the area within the Chatalja lines. With regard to Emir Foisul'sposition there is no news except that the Mandates of Britain and Francetransform his military title into a civil title. * * * * * We have given above the terms of the Turkish treaty as indicated inRouter's messages. These reports are incomplete and all of them are notequally authenticated. But if these terms are true, they are a challengeto the Muslim demands. Turkish Sovereignty is confined to the Chataljalines. This means that the Big Three of the Supreme Council have cut offThrace from Turkish dominions. This is a distinct breach of the pledgegiven by one of these Three, _viz. _, the Premier of the British Empire. To remain within the Chatalja lines and, we are afraid, as a dependentof the Allies, is for the Sultan a humiliating position inconsistentwith the Koranic injunctions. Such a restricted position of the Turks isvirtually a success of the bag and baggage school. It is not yet known how the Supreme Council disposed of the rich andrenowned lands of Asia Minor. If Mr. Lloyd George's views recentlyexpressed in this respect have received the Allies' sanction--it isprobable--nothing less than a common control is expected. The decisionin the case of Smyrna will be satisfying to none, though the Allies seemto have made by their arrangement a skillful attempt to please all theparties concerned. Mr. Lloyd George, in his reply to the KhilafatDeputation, had talked about the careful investigations by an impartialcommittee and had added; "The great majority of the populationundoubtedly prefer Greek rule to Turkish rule, so I understand" But thedecision postpones to carry out his understanding till a period offive years. * * * * * When we come to the question of mandates, the Allied Powers' motivescome out more distinctly. The Arabs' claim of independence was used as adifficulty against keeping Turkish Sovereignty. This was defended in theof self-determination and by pointing out parallels of Transylvania andother provinces. When the final moment came, the Allies have ventured todivide the spoils amongst themselves. Britain is given the mandate overMesopotamia and Palestine and France has the mandate over Syria. TheArab delegation complains in their note lately issued expressing theirdisappointment at the Supreme Council's decision with regard to theArab liberated countries, which, it declares, is contrary to theprinciple of self-determination. * * * * * So what little news has arrived about the Turkish treaty, is uniformlydisquieting. The Moslems have found sufficient ground to honour Russia, more than the Allies. Russia has recognised the freedom of Khiva andBokhara. The Moslem world, as H. M. The Amir of Afghanistan said in hisspeech, will feel grateful towards Russia in spite of all the rumoursabroad about its anarchy and disorder, whereas the whole Moslem worldwill resent the action of the other European nations who have alliedwith each other to carry out a joint coercion and extinction of Turkeyin the name of self-determination and partly in the guise of theinterest of civilization. * * * * * The terms of the Turkish treaty are not only a breach of the Premier'spledge, not only a sin against the principle of self-determination, butthey also show a reckless indifference of the Allied Powers towards theKoranic injunctions. The terms point out that Mr. Lloyd George'smisinformed ideas of Khilafat have prevailed in the Council. Like Mr. Lloyd George other statesmen also at San Remo have compared Caliphatewith Popedom and ignored the Koronic idea of associating spiritualpower with temporal power. These misguided statesmen were too muchpossessed by haughtiness and so they refused to receive anyenlightenment on the question of Khilafat from the Deputation. Theycould have corrected themselves had they heard Mr. Mahomed Ali on thispoint. Speaking at the Essex Hall meeting Mr. Mahomed Ali distinguishedbetween Popedom and Caliphate and clearly explained what Caliphatemeans. He said: "Islam is supernational and not national, the basis of Islamic sympathy is a common outlook on life and common culture. .. . And it has two centres. The personal centre is the island of Arabia. The Khalifa is the Commander of the Faithful and his orders must be obeyed by all Muslims so long and so long only, as they are not at variance with the Commandments of God and the Traditions of the Prophet. But since there is no lacerating distinction between things temporal and things spiritual, the Khalifa is something more than a Pope and cannot be "Vaticanised. " But he is also less than a Pope for he is not infallible. If he persists in un-Islamic conduct we can depose him. And we have deposed him more than once. But so long as he orders only that which Islam demands we must support him. He and no other ruler is the Defender of _our_ faith. " These few words could have removed the mis-undertakings rooted in theminds of those that at San Remo, if they were in earnest for a justsolution. But Mr. Mahomed Ali's deputation was not given any hearing bythe Peace Conference. They were told that the Peace Conference hadalready heard the official delegation of India on this question. But thewrong notions the Allies still entertain about Caliphate are asufficient indication of the effects of the work of this officialdelegation. The result of these wrong notions is the present settlementand this unjust settlement will unsettle the world. They know notwhat they do. TURKISH PEACE TERMS The question of question to-day is the Khilafat question, otherwiseknown as that of the Turkish peace terms. His Excellency the Viceroydeserves our thanks for receiving the joint deputation even at this latehour, especially when he was busy preparing to receive the head of thedifferent provinces. His Excellency must be thanked for the unfailingcourtesy with which he received the deputation and the courteouslanguage in which his reply was couched. But mere courtesy, valuable asit is at all times, never so valuable as at this, is not enough at thiscritical moment. 'Sweet words butter no parsnips' is a proverb moreapplicable to-day than ever before. Behind the courtesy there was thedetermination to punish Turkey. Punishment of Turkey is a thing whichMuslim sentiment cannot tolerate for a moment. Muslim soldiers are asresponsible for the result of the war as any others. It was to appeasethem that Mr. Asquith said when Turkey decided to join the CentralPowers that the British Government had no designs on Turkey and that HisMajesty's Government would never think of punishing the Sultan for themisdeeds of the Turkish Committee. Examined by that standard theViceregal reply is not only disappointing but it is a fall from truthand justice. What is this British Empire? It is as much Mahomedan and Hindu as it isChristian. Its religious neutrality is not a virtue, or if it is, it isa virtue of necessity. Such a mighty Empire could not be held togetheron any other terms. British ministers are therefore bound to protectMahomedan interests as any other. Indeed as the Muslim rejoinder says, they are bound to make the cause their own. What is the use of HisExcellency having presented the Muslim claim before the Conference? Ifthe cause is lost the Mahomedans will be entitled to think that Britaindid not do her duty by them. And the Viceregal reply confirms the view. When His Excellency says that Turkey must suffer for her having joinedthe Central Powers he but expresses the opinion of British ministers. We hope, therefore, with the framers of the Muslim rejoinder that HisMajesty's ministers will mend the mistakes if any have been committedand secure a settlement that would satisfy Mahomedan sentiment. What does the sentiment demand? The preservation of the Khilafat withsuch guarantee as may be necessary for the protection of the interestsof the non-Muslim races living under Turkish rule and the Khalif'scontrol over Arabia and the Holy Places with such arrangement as may berequired for guaranteeing Arab self-rule, should the Arabs desire it. Itis hardly possible to state the claim more fairly than has been done. Itis a claim backed by justice, by the declarations of British ministersand by the unanimous Hindu and Muslim opinion. It would be midsummermadness to reject or whittle down a claim so backed. THE SUZERAINTY OVER ARABIA "As I told you in my last letter I think Mr. Gandhi has made a serious mistake in the Kailafat business. The Indian Mahomedans base their demand on the assertion that their religion requires the Turkish rule over Arabia: but when they have against them in this matter, the Arabs themselves, it is impossible to regard the theory of the Indian Mahomedans as essential to Islam. After all if the Arabs do not represent Islam, who does? It is as if the German Roman Catholics made a demand in the name of Roman Catholicism with Rome and the Italians making a contrary demand. But even if the religion of the Indian Mahomedans did require that Turkish rule should be imposed upon the Arabs against their will, one could not, now-a-days, recognise as a really religious demand, one which required the continued oppression of one people by another. When an assurance was given at the beginning of the war to the Indian Mahomedans that the Mahomedan religion would be respected, that could never have meant that a temporal sovereignty which violated the principles of self-determination would be upheld. We could not now stand by and see the Turks re-conquer the Arabs (for the Arabs would certainly fight against them) without grossly betraying the Arabs to whom we have given pledges. It is not true that the Arab hostility to the Turks was due simply to European suggestion. No doubt, during the war we availed ourselves of the Arab hostility to the Turks to get another ally, but the hostility had existed long before the war. The Non-Turkish Mahomedan subjects of the Sultan in general wanted to get rid of his rule. It is the Indian Mahomedans who have no experience of that rule who want to impose it on others. As a matter of fact the idea of any restoration of Turkish rule in Syria or Arabia, seems so remote from all possibilities that to discuss it seems like discussing a restoration of the Holy Roman Empire. I cannot conceive what series of events could bring it about. The Indian Mahomedans certainly could not march into Arabia themselves and conquer the Arabs for the Sultan. And no amount of agitation and trouble in India would ever induce England to put back Turkish rule in Arabia. In this matter it is not English Imperialism which the Indian Mahomedans are up against, but the mass of English Liberal and Humanitarian opinion, the mass of the better opinion of England, which wants self-determination to go forward in India. Supposing the Indian Mahomedans could stir up an agitation so violent in India as to sever the connection between India and the British Crown, still they would not be any nearer to their purpose. For to-day they do have considerable influence on British world-policy. Even if in this matter of the Turkish question their influence has not been sufficient to turn the scale against the very heavy weights on the other side, it has weighed in the scale. But apart from the British connection, Indian Mahomedans would have no influence at all outside India. They would not count for more in world politics than the Mahomedans of China. I think it is likely (apart from the pressure of America on the other side. I should say certain) that the influence of the Indian Mahomedans may at any rate avail to keep the Sultan in Constantinople. But I doubt whether they will gain any advantage by doing so. For a Turkey cut down to the Turkish parts of Asia-Minor, Constantinople would be a very inconvenient capital. I think its inconvenience would more than outweigh the sentimental gratification of keeping up a phantom of the old Ottoman Empire. But if the Indian Mahomedans want the Sultan to retain his place in Constantinople I think the assurances given officially by the Viceroy in India now binds us to insist on his remaining there and I think he will remain there in spite of America. " This is an extract, from the letter of an Englishman enjoying a positionin Great Britain, to a friend in India. It is a typical letter, sober, honest, to the point and put in such graceful language that whilst itchallenges you, it commands your respect by its very gracefulness. Butit is just this attitude based upon insufficient or false informationwhich has ruined many a cause in the British Isles. The superficiality, the one-sidedness the inaccuracy and often even dishonesty that havecrept into modern journalism, continuously mislead honest men who wantto see nothing but justice done. Then there are always interestedgroups whose business it is to serve their ends by means of faul orfood. And the honest Englishman wishing to vote for justice but swayedby conflicting opinions and dominated by distorted versions, often endsby becoming an instrument of injustice. The writer of the letter quoted above has built up convincing argumenton imaginary data. He has successfully shown that the Mahomedan case, asit has been presented to him, is a rotten case. In India, where it isnot quite easy to distort facts about the Khilafat. English friendsadmit the utter justice of the Indian-Mahomedan claim. But they pleadhelplessness and tell us that the Government of India and Mr. Montaguhave done all it was humanly possible for them to do. And if now thejudgment goes against Islam, Indian Mahomedans should resign themselvesto it. This extraordinary state of things would not be possible exceptunder this modern rush and preoccupations of all responsible people. Let us for a moment examine the case as it has been imagined by thewriter. He suggests that Indian Mahomedans want Turkish rule in Arabiain spite of the opposition of the Arabs themselves, and that, if theArabs do not want Turkish rule, the writer argues, no false religionssentiment can be permitted to interfere with self-determination of theArabs when India herself has been pleading for that very status. Now thefact is that the Mahomedans, as is known to everybody who has at allstudied the case, have never asked for Turkish rule in Arabia inopposition to the Arabs. On the contrary, they have said that they haveno intention of resisting Arabian self-government. All they ask for isTurkish suzerainty over Arabia which would guarantee complete self-rulefor the Arabs. They want Khalif's control of the Holy Places of Islam. In other words they ask for nothing more than what was guaranteed by Mr. Lloyd George and on the strength of which guarantee Mahomedan soldierssplit their blood on behalf of the Allied Powers. All the elaborateargument therefore and the cogent reasoning of the above extract fall topieces based as they are upon a case that has never existed. I havethrown myself heart and soul into this question because British pledgesabstract justice, and religious sentiment coincide. I can conceive thepossibility of a blind and fanatical religious sentiment existing inopposition to pure justice. I should then resist the former and fightfor the latter. Nor would I insist upon pledges given dishonestly tosupport an unjust cause as has happened with England in the case of thesecret treaties. Resistance there becomes not only lawful but obligatoryon the part of a nation that prides itself on its righteousness. It is unnecessary for me to examine the position imagined by the Englishfriend, viz. , how India would have fared had she been an independentpower. It is unnecessary because Indian Mahomedans, and for that matterIndia, are fighting for a cause that is admittedly just; a cause in aidof which they are invoking the whole-hearted support of the Britishpeople. I would however venture to suggest that this is a cause in whichmere sympathy will not suffice. It is a cause which demands support thatis strong enough to bring about substantial justice. FURTHER QUESTIONS ANSWERED I have been overwhelmed with public criticism and private advice andeven anonymous letters telling me exactly what I should do. Some areimpatient that I do not advise immediate and extensive non-co-operation;others tell me what harm I am doing the country by throwing it knowinglyin a tempest of violence on either side. It is difficult for me to dealwith the whole of the criticism, but I would summarize some of theobjections and endeavour to answer them to the best of my ability. Theseare in addition to those I have already answered:-- (1) Turkish claim is immoral or unjust and how can I, a lover of truthand justice, support it? (2) Even if the claim be just in theory, theTurk is hopelessly incapable, weak and cruel. He does not deserve anyassistance. (3) Even if Turkey deserves all that is claimed for her, why should Iland India in an international struggle? (4) It is no part of the Indian Mahomedans' business to meddle in thisaffair. If they cherish any political ambition, they have tried, theyhave failed and they should now sit still. If it is a religious matterwith them, it cannot appeal to the Hindu reason in the manner it is putand in any case Hindus ought not to identify themselves with Mahomedansin their religious quarrel with Christendom. (5) In no case should I advocate non-co-operation which in its extremesense 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 beyondthe capacity of any single human being to control the forces of violencethat are lying dormant in the land. (7) Non-co-operation is futile because people will never respond inright earnest, and reaction that might afterwards set in will be worsethan 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 obviouslyrevengeful. I shall now answer the objections in the order in which they arestated-- (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 whatis her own. And the Mahomedan manifesto has definitely declared thatwhatever guarantees may be necessary to be taken for the protection ofnon-Muslim and non-Turkish races, should be taken so as to give theChristians theirs and the Arabs their self-government under the Turkishsuzerainty. (2) I do not believe the Turk to be weak, incapable or cruel. He iscertainly disorganised and probably without good generalship. He hasbeen obliged to fight against heavy odds. The argument of weakness, incapacity and cruelty one often hears quoted in connection with thosefrom whom power is sought to be taken away. About the alleged massacresa proper commission has been asked for, but never granted. And in anycase security can be taken against oppression. (3) I have already stated that if I were not interested in the IndianMahomedans, I would not interest myself in the welfare of the Turks anymore than I am in that of the Austrians or the Poles. But I am bound asan Indian to share the sufferings and trial of fellow-Indians. If I deemthe Mahomedan to be my brother. It is my duty to help him in his hourof peril to the best of my ability, if his cause commends itself tome as just. (4) The fourth refers to the extent Hindus should join hands with theMahomedans. It is therefore a matter of feeling and opinion. It isexpedient to suffer for my Mahomedan brother to the utmost in a justcause and I should therefore travel with him along the whole road solong as the means employed by him are as honourable as his end. I cannotregulate the Mahomedan feeling. I must accept his statement that theKhilafat is with him a religious question in the sense that it binds himto 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 isfree from violence. In a larger sense all opposition to a Governmentmeasure is a rebellion. In that sense, rebellion in a just cause is aduty, the extent of opposition being determined by the measure of theinjustice done and felt. (6) My experience of last year shows me that in spite of aberrations insome parts of India, the country was entirely under control that theinfluence of Satyagraha was profoundly for its good and that whereviolence did break out there were local causes that directly contributedto it. At the same time I admit that even the violence that did takeplace on the part of the people and the spirit of lawlessness that wasundoubtedly shown in some parts should have remained under check. I havemade ample acknowledgment of the miscalculation I then made. But all thepainful experience that I then gained did not any way shake my belief inSatyagraha or in the possibility of that matchless force being utilisedin India. Ample provision is being made this time to avoid the mistakesof the past. But I must refuse to be deterred from a clear course;because it may be attended by violence totally unintended and in spiteof extraordinary efforts that are being made to prevent it. At the sametime I must make my position clear. Nothing can possibly prevent aSatyagrahi from doing his duty because of the frown of the authorities. I would risk, if necessary, a million lives so long as they arevoluntary sufferers and are innocent, spotless victims. It is themistakes of the people that matter in a Satyagraha campaign. Mistakes, even insanity must be expected from the strong and the powerful, and themoment of victory has come when there is no retort to the mad fury ofthe powerful, but a voluntary, dignified and quiet submission but notsubmission to the will of the authority that has put itself in thewrong. The secret of success lies therefore in holding every Englishlife and the life of every officer serving the Government as sacred asthose of our own dear ones. All the wonderful experience I have gainednow during nearly 40 years of conscious existence, has convinced me thatthere is no gift so precious as that of life. I make bold to say thatthe moment the Englishmen feel that although they are in India in ahopeless minority, their lives are protected against harm not because ofthe matchless weapons of destruction which are at their disposal, butbecause Indians refuse to take the lives even of those whom they mayconsider to be utterly in the wrong that moment will see atransformation in the English nature in its relation to India and thatmoment will also be the moment when all the destructive cutlery that isto be had in India will begin to rust. I know that this is a far-offvision. That cannot matter to me. It is enough for me to see the lightand to act up to it, and it is more than enough when I gain companionsin the onward march. I have claimed in private conversations withEnglish friends that it is because of my incessant preaching of thegospel of non-violence and my having successfully demonstrated itspractical utility that so far the forces of violence, which areundoubtedly in existence in connection with the Khilafat movement, haveremained under complete control. (7) From a religious standpoint the seventh objection is hardly worthconsidering. If people do not respond to the movement ofnon-co-operation, it would be a pity, but that can be no reason for areformer not to try. It would be to me a demonstration that the presentposition of hopefulness is not dependent on any inward strength orknowledge, but it is hope born of ignorance and superstition. (8) If non-co-operation is taken up in earnest, it must bring about acessation of all other activities including the Reforms, but I declineto draw therefore the corollary that it will set back the clock ofprogress. On the contrary, I consider non-co-operation to be such apowerful and pure instrument, that if it is enforced in an earnestspirit, it will be like seeking first the Kingdom of God and everythingelse following as a matter of course. People will have then realisedtheir true power. They would have learnt the value of discipline, self-control, joint action, non-violence, organisation and everythingelse 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 formyself than for our Mussalman brethren. But I do admit that they do notbelieve in my doctrine of non-violence to the full extent. For them itis a weapon of the weak, an expedient. They consider non-co-operationwithout violence to be the only thing open to them in the war of directaction. I know that if some of them could offer successful violence, they would do to-day. But they are convinced that humanly speaking it isan impossibility. For them, therefore, non-co-operation is a matter notmerely of duty but also of revenge. Whereas I take up non-co-operationagainst the Government as I have actually taken it up in practiceagainst members of my own family. I entertain very high regard for theBritish constitution, I have not only no enmity against Englishmen but Iregard much in English character as worthy of my emulation. I count manyas my friends. It is against my religion to regard any one as an enemy. I entertain similar sentiments with respect to Mahomedans. I find theircause to be just and pure. Although therefore their viewpoint isdifferent from mine I do not hesitate to associate with them and invitethem to give my method a trial, for, I believe that the use of a pureweapon 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 isthe 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 ofquestions. The letter has already appeared in the Press. I canappreciate Mr. Candler's position as I would like him and otherEnglishmen to appreciate mine and that of hundreds of Hindus who feel asI do. Mr. Candler's letter is an attempt to show that Mr. Lloyd George'spledge is not in any way broken by the peace terms. I quite agree withhim that Mr. Lloyd George's words ought not to be torn from theircontext to support the Mahomedan claim. These are Mr. Lloyd George'swords as quoted in the recent Viceregal message: "Nor are we fighting todestroy Austria-Hungary or to deprive Turkey of its capital or of therich and renowned lands of Asia Minor and Thrace which are predominantlyTurkish in race. " Mr. Candler seems to read 'which', as if it meant 'ifthey, ' whereas I give the pronoun its natural meaning, namely, that thePrime Minister knew in 1918, that the lands referred to by him were"predominantly Turkish in race. " And if this is the meaning I venture tosuggest that the pledge has been broken in a most barefaced manner, forthere is practically nothing left to the Turk of 'the rich and renownedlands 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 'themaintenance of the Turkish Empire in the homeland of the Turkish racewith its capital at Constantinople has been left unimpaired by the termsof 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 Turkishsuzerainty and the introduction of European-Christian influence underthe guise of Mandates? Have the Moslems of Arabia, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine been committed, or is the new arrangement beingsuperimposed upon them by Powers conscious of their own brute-strengthrather than of justice of their action? I for one would nurse by everylegitimate means the spirit of independence in the brave Arabs, but Ishudder to think what will happen to them under the schemes ofexploitation of their country by the greedy capitalists protected asthey will be by the mandatory Powers. If the pledge is to be fulfilled, let these places have full self-government with suzerainty to beretained with Turkey as has been suggested by the _Times of India_. Letthere be all the necessary guarantees taken from Turkey about theinternal independence of the Arabs. But to remove that suzerainty, todeprive the Khalif of the wardenship of the Holy Places is to renderKhilafat a mockery which no Mahomedan can possibly look upon withequanimity, I am not alone in my interpretation of the pledge. The RightHon'ble Ameer Ali calls the peace terms a breach of faith. Mr. CharlesRoberts reminds the British public that the Indian Mussalman sentimentregarding 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 bindingonly regarding Constantinople but also binding as regards Thrace andAsia Minor. He describes the pledge as binding upon the nation as awhole and its breach in any part as a gross breach of faith on the partof the British Empire. He demands that if there is an unanswerable replyto the charge of breach of faith it ought to be given and adds the PrimeMinister may regard his own word lightly if he chooses, but he has noright to break a pledge given on behalf of the nation. He concludes thatit is incredible that such pledge should not have been kept in theletter and in the spirit. " He adds: "I have reason to believe that theseviews 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 enquiryinto the whole question of the Armenian massacres has been instituted inthe ample time which has elapsed since the conclusion of armistice withTurkey. The Turkish Government has asked for such enquiry. But theArmenian organisations and the Armenian partisans refuse to hear of sucha thing, declaring that the Bryce and Lepssens reports are quitesufficient to condemn the Turks. In other words the judgment should begiven on the case for prosecution alone. The inter-allied commissionwhich investigated the unfortunate events in Smyrna last year, made areport unfavourable to Greek claims. Therefore, that report has not beenpublished here in England, though in other countries it has long beenpublic property. " He then goes on to show how money is being scatteredby Armenian and Greek emissaries in order to popularise their cause andadds: "This conjunction of dense ignorance and cunning falsehood isfraught with instant danger to the British realm, " and concludes: "AGovernment and people which prefer propaganda to fact as the ground ofpolicy--and foreign policy at that--is self-condemned. " I have reproduced the above extract in order to show that the presentBritish policy has been affected by propaganda of an unscrupulousnature. Turkey which was dominant over two million square miles ofAsia, Africa and Europe in the 17th century, under the terms of thetreaty, says the _London Chronicle_, has dwindled down to little morethan 1, 000 square miles. It says, "All European Turkey could now beaccommodated comfortably between the Landsend and the Tamar, Cornawalalone exceeding its total area and but for its alliance with Germany, Turkey could have been assured of retaining at least sixty thousandsquare miles of the Eastern Balkans. " I do not know whether the_Chronicle_ view is generally shared. Is it by way of punishment thatTurkey is to undergo such shrinkage, or is it because justice demandsit? If Turkey had not made the mistake of joining Germany, would theprinciple 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 wasnot made by Mr. Lloyd George to the people of India in anticipation ofthe 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 Indiaitself interpret it? Did it or did it not energetically support theclaim 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-Arabcould he taken away consistently with that pledge from the sphere ofinfluence of the Khalif, and given over to the Allies as mandatoryPowers? Why does the Government of India sympathise with the IndianMussalmans 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 orfall absolutely by Mr. Lloyd George's declaration. I have advisedly usedthe adverb 'practically' in connection with it. It is an importantqualification. ' Mr. Candler seems to suggest that my goal is something more than merelyattaining justice on the Khilafat. If so, he is right. Attainment ofjustice is undoubtedly the corner-stone, and if I found that I was wrongin my conception of justice on this question, I hope I shall have thecourage immediately to retrace my steps. But by helping the Mahomedansof India at a critical moment in their history, I want to buy theirfriendship. Moreover, if I can carry the Mahomedans with me I hope towean Great Britain from the downward path along which the Prime Ministerseems to me to be taking her. I hope also to show to India and theEmpire at large that given a certain amount of capacity forself-sacrifice, justice can be secured by peacefullest and cleanestmeans without sowing or increasing bitterness between English andIndians. For, whatever may be the temporary effect of my methods, I knowenough of them to feel certain that they alone are immune from lastingbitterness. They are untainted with hatred, expedience or untruth. IN PROCESS OF KEEPING The writer of 'Current Topics' in the "Times of India" has attempted tochallenge the statement made in my Khilafat article regardingministerial pledges, and in doing so cites Mr. Asquith's Guild-Hallspeech of November 10, 1914. When I wrote the articles, I had in mindMr. Asquith's speech. I am sorry that he ever made that speech. For, inmy humble opinion, it betrayed to say the least, a confusion of thought. Could he think of the Turkish people as apart from the OttomanGovernment? And what is the meaning of the death-knell of OttomanDominion in Europe and Asia if it be not the death knell of Turkishpeople as a free and governing race? Is it, again, true historicallythat the Turkish rule has always been a blight that 'has withered someof the fairest regions of the earth?' And what is the meaning of hisstatement that followed, viz. , "Nothing is further from our thoughtsthan to imitate or encourage a crusade against their belief?" If wordshave any meaning, the qualifications that Mr. Asquith introduced in hisspeech should have meant a scrupulous regard for Indian Muslim feeling. And if that be the meaning of his speech, without anything further tosupport me I would claim that even Mr. Asquith's assurance is in dangerof being set at nought if the resolutions of the San Remo Conference areto be crystallised into action. But I base remarks on a consideredspeech made by Mr. Asquith's successor two years later when things hadassumed a more threatening shape than in 1914 and when the need forIndian help was much greater than in 1914. His pledge would bearrepetition till it is fulfilled. He said: "Nor are we fighting todeprive Turkey of its capital or of the rich and renowned lands of AsiaMinor and Thrace which are predominantly Turkish in race. We do notchallenge the maintenance of the Turkish Empire in the homelands of theTurkish race with its capital at Constantinople. " If only every word ofthis pledge is fulfilled both in letter and in spirit, there would belittle left for quarrelling about. In so far as Mr. Asquith'sdeclaration can be considered hostile to the Indian Muslim claim, it itssuperseded by the later and more considered declaration of Mr. LloydGeorge--a declaration made irrevocable by fulfilment of theconsideration it expected, viz. The enlistment of the brave Mahomedansoldiery which fought in the very place which is now being partitionedin 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 isright. But what has already happened gives little ground for any suchhope. For, imprisonment or internment of the Khalif in his own capitalwill be not only a mockery of fulfilment but it would he adding injuryto insult. Either the Turkish Empire is to be maintained in thehomelands of the Turkish race with its capital at Constantinople or itis not. If it is, let the Indian Mahomedans feel the full glow of it orif the Empire is to be broken up, let the mask of hypocrisy be liftedand India see the truth in its nakedness. To join the Khilafat movementthen means to join a movement to keep inviolate the pledge of a Britishminister. Surely, such a movement is worth much greater sacrifice thanmay be involved in non-co-operation. APPEAL TO THE VICEROY Your Excellency. As one who has enjoyed a certain measure of your Excellency'sconfidence, and as one who claims to be a devoted well-wisher of theBritish Empire, I owe it to your Excellency, and through your Excellencyto His Majesty's Ministers, to explain my connection with and my conductin the Khilafat question. At the very earliest stages of the war, even whilst I was in Londonorganising the Indian Volunteer Ambulance Corps, I began to interestmyself in the Khilafat question. I perceived how deeply moved the littleMussalman World in London was when Turkey decided to throw in her lotwith Germany. On my arrival in India in the January of 1915, I found thesame anxiousness and earnestness among the Mussalmans with whom I camein contact. Their anxiety became intense when the information about theSecret Treaties leaked out. Distrust of British intentions filled theirminds, and despair took possession of them. Even at that moment Iadvised my Mussalman friends not to give way to despair, but to expresstheir fear and their hopes in a disciplined manner. It will be admittedthat the whole of Mussalman India has behaved in a singularly restrainedmanner during the past five years and that the leaders have been able tokeep the turbulent sections of their community under complete control. The peace terms and your Excellency's defence of them have given theMussalmans of India a shock from which it will be difficult for them torecover. The terms violate ministerial pledges and utterly disregardMussalman sentiment. I consider that as a staunch Hindu wishing to liveon terms of the closest friendship with my Mussalman countrymen. Ishould be an unworthy son of India if I did not stand by them in theirhour of trial. In my humble opinion their cause is just. They claim thatTurkey must be _punished_ if their sentiment is to be respected. Muslimsoldiers did fight to inflict punishment on their own Khalifa or todeprive him of his territories. The Mussalman attitude has beenconsistent, throughout these five years. My duty to the Empire to which I owe my loyalty requires me to resistthe cruel violence that has been done to the Mussalman sentiment. So faras I am aware, Mussulmans and Hindus have as a whole lost faith inBritish justice and honour. The report of the majority of the HunterCommittee, Your Excellency's despatch thereon and Mr. Montagu's replyhave only aggravated the distrust. In these circumstances the only course open to one like me is either indespair to sever all connection with British rule, or, if I stillretained faith in the inherent superiority of the British constitutionto all others at present in vogue to adopt such means as will rectifythe wrong done, and thus restore confidence. I have not lost faith insuch superiority and I am not without hope that somehow or other justicewill yet be rendered if we show the requisite capacity for suffering. Indeed, my conception of that constitution is that it helps only thosewho are ready to help themselves. I do not believe that it protects theweak. It gives free scope to the strong to maintain their strength anddevelop it. The weak under it go to the wall. It is, then, because I believe in the British constitution that I haveadvised my Mussalman friends to withdraw their support from yourExcellency's Government and the Hindus to join them, should the peaceterms not be revised in accordance with the solemn pledges of Ministersand the Muslim sentiment. Three courses were open to the Mahomedans in order to mark theiremphatic disapproval of the utter injustice to which His Majesty'sMinisters have become party, if they have not actually been the primeperpetrators 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 theGovernment. Your Excellency must be aware that there was a time when the boldest, though the most thoughtless among the Mussulmans favoured violence, andthe "Hijrat" (emigration) has not yet ceased to be the battle-cry. Iventure to claim that I have succeeded by patient reasoning in weaningthe party of violence from its ways. I confess that I did not--I did notattempt to succeed in weaning them from violence on moral grounds, butpurely on utilitarian grounds. The result, for the time being at anyhas, however, been to stop violence. The School of "Hijrat" has receiveda check, if it has not stopped its activity entirely. I hold that norepression could have prevented a violent eruption, if the people hadnot had presented to them a form of direct action involving considerablesacrifice and ensuring success if such direct action was largely takenup by the public. Non-co-operation was the only dignified andconstitutional form of such direct action. For it is the rightrecognised from times immemorial of the subject to refuse to assist aruler who misrules. At the same time I admit that non-co-operation practised by the mass ofpeople is attended with grave risks. But, in a crisis such as hasovertaken the Mussalmans of India, no step that is unattended with largerisks, can possibly bring about the desired change. Not to run somerisks now will be to court much greater risks if not virtual destructionof Law and Order. But there is yet an escape from non-co-operation. The Mussalmanrepresentation has requested your Excellency to lead the agitationyourself, as did your distinguished predecessor at the time of the SouthAfrican trouble. But if you cannot see your way to do so, andnon-co-operation becomes a dire necessity, I hope that your Excellencywill give those who have accepted my advice and myself the credit forbeing 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 thePremier's speech which he recently made when he received the Khilafatdeputation. Mr. Lloyd George's speech is more definite and thereforemore disappointing than H. E. The Viceroy's reply to the deputation here. He draws quite unwarranted deductions from the same high principles onwhich he had based his own pledge only two years ago. He declares thatTurkey must pay the penalty of defeat. This determination to punishTurkey does not become one whose immediate predecessor had, in order toappease Muslim soldiers, promised that the British Government had nodesigns on Turkey and that His Majesty's Government would never think ofpunishing the Sultan for the misdeeds of the Turkish Committee. Mr. Lloyd George has expressed his belief that the majority of thepopulation of Turkey did not really want to quarrel with Great Britainand that their rulers misled the country. In spite of this convictionand in spite of Mr. Asquith's promise, he is out to punish Turkey andpunish it in the name of justice. He expounds the principle of self-determination and justifies the schemeof depriving Turkey of its territories one after another. Whilejustifying this scheme he does not exclude even Thrace and this strikesthe reader most, because this very Thrace he had mentioned in his pledgeas predominantly Turkish. Now we are told by him that both the Turkishcensus and the Greek census agree in pointing out the Mussulmanpopulation in Thrace is in a considerable minority! Mr. Yakub Hussainspeaking at the Madras Khilafat conference has challenged the truth ofthis statement. The Prime Minister cites among others also the exampleof Smyrna where, he says, we had a most careful investigation by a veryimpartial committee in the whole of the question of Smyrna and it wasfound that considerable majority was non-Turkish. ' Who will believe theone-sided "impartial committee's" investigations until it is disprovedthat thousands of Musselmans have been murdered and hundreds ofthousands have been driven away from their hearths and homes? Strangelyenough Mr. Lloyd George, believes in the necessity of freshinvestigations by a purposely appointed committee in Smyrna as the mostauthenticated and up-to-date report, whereas he would not accept Mr. Mahomed Ali's proposal for an impartial commission in regard to Armenianmassacre! Doubtful and one-sided facts and figures suffice for him evento conclude that the Turkish Government is incapable of protecting itssubjects. And he proceeds to suggest foreign interference in ruling overAsia Minor in the interests of civilization. Here he cuts at the root ofthe Sultan's independence. This proposal of appropriating supervision isdistinctly unlike the treatment meted out to other enemy powers. This detraction of the Sultan's suzerainty is only a corollary of thePremier's indifference towards the Muslim idea of the Caliphate. Thepremier's injustice in treating the Turkish question becomes graver whenhe thus lightly handles the Khilafat question. There had been occasionswhen the British have used to their advantage the Muslim idea ofassociating the Caliph's spiritual power with temporal power. Now thisvery association is treated as a controversial question by the greatstatesman. Will this raise the reputation of Great Britain or stain it? Can this betolerated by those who fought against Turkey with full faith in Britishhonesty? Mere receipts of gratitude cannot console the woundedMussalmans. There lies the alternative for England to choose between twomandates--a mandate over some Turkish territories which is sure to leadto chaos all over the world and a mandate over the hearts of theMuhomedans which will redeem the pledged honour of Britain. The primeminister has an unwise choice. This narrow view registers the latesttemperature of British diplomacy. THE MUSSULMAN REPRESENTATION Slowly but surely the Mussulmans are preparing for the battle beforethem. They have to fight against odds that are undoubtedly heavy butnot half as heavy as the prophet had against him. How often did he notput his life in danger? But his faith in God was unquenchable. He wentforward with a light heart, for God was on his side, for he representedtruth. If his followers have half the prophet's faith and half hisspirit of sacrifice, the odds will be presently even and will in littlewhile turn against the despoilers of Turkey. Already the rapacity of theAllies is telling against themselves. France finds her task difficult. Greece cannot stomach her ill-gotten gains. And England findsMesopotamia a tough job. The oil of Mosul may feed the fire she has sowantonly lighted and burn her fingers badly. The newspapers say theArabs do not like the presence of the Indian soldiery in their midst. Ido not wonder. They are a fierce and a brave people and do notunderstand why Indian soldiers should find themselves in Mesopotamia. Whatever the fate of non-co-operation, I wish that not a single Indianwill offer his services for Mesopotamia whether for the civil or themilitary department. We must learn to think for ourselves and beforeentering upon any employment find out whether thereby we may not makeourselves instruments of injustice. Apart from the question of Khilafatand from the point of abstract justice the English have no right to holdMesopotamia. It is no part of our loyalty to help the ImperialGovernment in what is in plain language daylight robbery. If thereforewe seek civil or military employment in Mesopotamia we do so for thesake of earning a livelihood. It is our duty to see that the source isnot tainted. It surprises me to find so many people shirking over the mention ofnon-co-operation. There is no instrument so clean, so harmless and yetso effective as non-co-operation. Judiciously hauled it need not produceany evil consequences. And its intensity will depend purely on thecapacity of the people for sacrifice. The chief thing is to prepare the atmosphere of non-co-operation. "Weare not going to co-operate with you in your injustice, " is surely theright and the duty of every intelligent subject to say. Were it not forour utter servility, helplessness and want of confidence in ourselves, we would certainly grasp this clean weapon and make the most effectiveuse of it. Even the most despotic government cannot stand except for theconsent of the governed which consent is often forcibly procured by thedespot. Immediately the subject ceases to fear the despotic force hispower is gone. But the British government is never and nowhere entirelyor laid upon force. It does make an honest attempt to secure thegoodwill of the governed. But it does not hesitate to adopt unscrupulousmeans to compel the consent of the governed. It has not gone beyond the'Honesty is the best policy' idea. It therefore bribes you intoconsenting its will by awarding titles, medals and ribbons, by givingyou employment, by its superior financial ability to open for itsemployees avenues for enriching themselves and finally when these fail, it resorts to force. That is what Sir Michael O'Dwyer did and that isalmost every British administrator will certainly do if he thought itnecessary. If then we would not be greedy, if we would not run aftertitles and medals and honorary posts which do the country no good, halfthe battle is won. My advisers are never tired of telling me that even if the Turkish peaceterms are revised it will not be due to non-co-operation. I venture tosuggest to them that non-co-operation has a higher purpose than mererevision of the terms. If I cannot compel revision I must at least ceaseto support a government that becomes party to the usurpation. And if Isucceed in pushing non-co-operation to the extreme limit, I do compelthe Government to choose between India and the usurpation. I have faithenough in England to know that at that moment England will expel herpresent jaded ministers and put in others who will make a clean sweep ofthe terms in consultation with an awakened India, draft terms that willbe honourable to her, to Turkey and acceptable to India. But I hear mycritics say "India has not the strength of purpose and the capacity forthe sacrifice to achieve such a noble end. They are partly right. Indiahas not these qualities now, because we have not--shall we not evolvethem 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 onthe same subject have been severely criticised by the Anglo-Indianpress. _The Times of India_ which generally adopts an impartial attitudehas taken strong exception to certain statements made in the Muslimmanifesto and has devoted a paragraph of its article to an advancecriticism of my suggestion that His Excellency should resign if thepeace terms are not revised. _The Times of India_ excepts to the submission that the British Empiremay not treat Turkey like a departed enemy. The signatories have, Ithink, supplied the best of reasons. They say "We respectfully submitthat in the treatment of Turkey the British Government are bound torespect Indian Muslim sentiment in so far as it is neither unjust norunreasonable. " If the seven crore Mussulmans are partners in the Empire, I submit that their wish must be held to be all sufficient forrefraining from punishing Turkey. It is beside the point to quote whatTurkey did during the war. It has suffered for it. _The Times_ inquireswherein Turkey has been treated worse than the other Powers. I thoughtthat the fact was self-evident. Neither Germany nor Austria and Hungaryhas been treated in the same way that Turkey has been. The whole of theEmpire has been reduced to the retention of a portion of its capital, asit were, to mock the Sultan and that too has been done under terms sohumiliating that no self-respecting person much less a reigningsovereign can possibly accept. _The Times_ has endeavoured to make capital out of the fact that therepresentation does not examine the reason for Turkey not joining theAllies. Well there was no mystery about it. The fact of Russia being oneof the Allies was enough to warn Turkey against joining them. WithRussia knocking at the gate at the time of the war it was not an easymatter for Turkey to join the Allies. But Turkey had cause to suspectGreat Britain herself. She knew that England had done no friendly turnto her during the Bulgarian War. She was hardly well served at the timeof the war with Italy. It was still no doubt a bad choice. With theMusssalmans of India awakened and ready to support her, her statesmenmight have relied upon Britain not being allowed to damage Turkey if shehad remained with the Allies. But this is all wisdom after event. Turkeymade a bad choice and she was punished for it. To humiliate her now isto ignore the Indian Mussulman sentiment. Britain may not do it andretain the loyalty of the awakened Mussulmans of India. For "The Times" to say that the peace terms strictly follow theprinciple of self-determination is to throw dust in the eyes of itsreaders. Is it the principle of self-determination that has caused thecessation of Adrianople and Thrace to Greece? By what principle ofself-determination has Smyrna been handed to Greece? Have theinhabitants of Thrace and Smyrna asked for Grecian tutelege? I decline to believe that the Arabs like the disposition that has beenmade of them. Who is the King of Hedjaj and who is Emir Feisul? Have theArabs elected these kings and chiefs? Do the Arabs like the Mandatebeing taken by England? By the time the whole thing is finished, thevery name self-determination will stink in one's nostrils. Already signsare not wanting to show that the Arabs, the Thracians and the Smyrnansare resenting their disposal. They may not like Turkish rule but theylike the present arrangement less. They could have made their ownhonourable terms with Turkey but these self-determining people will nowbe held down by the 'matchless might' of the allied _i. E. _, Britishforces. Britain had the straight course open to her of keeping theTurkish Empire intact and taking sufficient guarantees for goodgovernment. But her Prime Minister chose the crooked course of secrettreaties, duplicity and hypocritical subterfuges. There is still a way out. Let her treat India as a real partner. Let hercall the true representatives of the Mussalmans. Let them go to Arabiaand the other parts of the Turkish Empire and let her devise a schemethat would not humiliate Turkey, that would satisfy the just Muslimsentiment and that will secure honest self-determination for the racescomposing that Empire. If it was Canada, Australia or South Africa thathad to be placated, Mr. Lloyd George would not have dared to ignorethem. They have the power to secede. India has not. Let him no moreinsult India by calling her a partner, if her feelings count for naught. I invite _The Times of India_ to reconsider its position and join anhonourable agitation in which a high-souled people are seeking nothingbut justice. I do with all deference still suggest that the least that LordChelmsford can do is to resign if the sacred feelings of India's sonsare not to be consulted and respected by the Ministers. _The Times_ isover-taxing the constitution when it suggests that as a constitutionalViceroy it is not open to Lord Chelmsford to go against the decision ofhis Majesty's Ministers. It is certainly not open to a Viceroy to retainoffice and oppose ministerial decisions. But the constitution does allowa Viceroy to resign his high office when he is called upon to carry outdecisions that are immoral as the peace terms are or like these termsare calculated to stir to their very depth the feelings of those whoseaffair he is administering for the time being. THE MAHOMEDAN DECISION The Khilafat meeting at Allahabad has unanimously reaffirmed theprinciple of non-co-operation and appointed an executive committee tolay down and enforce a detailed programme. This meeting was preceded bya joint Hindu-Mahomedan meeting at which Hindu leaders were invited togive their views. Mrs. Beasant, the Hon'ble Pandit Malaviyuji, theHon'ble Dr. Sapru Motilal Nehru Chintamani and others were present atthe meeting. It was a wise step on the part of the Khilafat Committee toinvite Hindus representing all shades of thought to give them thebenefit of their advice. Mrs. Besant and Dr. Sapru strongly dissuadedthe Mahomedans present from the policy of non-co-operation. The otherHindu speakers made non-committal speeches. Whilst the other Hinduspeakers approved of the principle of non-co-operation in theory, theysaw many practical difficulties and they feared also complicationsarising from Mahomedans welcoming an Afghan invasion of India. TheMahomedan speakers gave the fullest and frankest assurances that theywould fight to a man any invader who wanted to conquer India, but wereequally frank in asserting that any invasion from without undertakenwith a view to uphold the prestige of Islam and to vindicate justicewould have their full sympathy if not their actual support. It is easyenough to understand and justify the Hindu caution. It is difficult toresist Mahomedan position. In my opinion, the best way to prevent Indiafrom becoming the battle ground between the forces of Islam and those ofthe English is for Hindus to make non-co-operation a complete andimmediate success, and I have little doubt that if the Mahomedans remaintrue to their declared intention and are able to exerciseself-restraint, and make sacrifices the Hindus will "play the game" andjoin them in the campaign of non-co-operation. I feel equally certainthat the Hindus will not assist Mahomedans in promoting or bringingabout an armed conflict between the British Government and their allies, and Afghanistan. British forces are too well organised to admit of anysuccessful invasion of the Indian frontier. The only way, therefore, theMahomedans can carry on an effective struggle on behalf of the honour ofIslam is to take up non-co-operation in real earnest. It will not onlybe completely effective if it is adopted by the people on an extensivescale, but it will also provide full scope for individual conscience. IfI cannot bear an injustice done by an individual or a corporation, andif I am directly or indirectly instrumental in upholding that individualor corporation, I must answer for it before my Maker, but I have doneall it is humanly possible for me to do consistently with the moral codethat refuses to injure even the wrong-doer, if I cease to support theinjustice in the manner described above. In applying therefore such agreat force there should be no haste, there should be no temper shown. Non-co-operation must be and remain absolutely a voluntary effort. Thewhole thing then depends upon Mahomedans themselves. If they will buthelp themselves Hindu help will come and the Government, great andmighty though it is, will have to bend before this irresistible force. No Government can possibly withstand the bloodless opposition of a wholenation. MR. ANDREWS' DIFFICULTY Mr. Andrews whose love for India is equalled only by his love forEngland and whose mission in life is to serve God, i. E. , humanitythrough India, has contributed remarkable articles to the 'BombayChronicle' on the Khilafat movement. He has not spared England, Franceor Italy. He has shown how Turkey has been most unjustly dealt with andhow the Prime Minister's pledge has been broken. He has devoted the lastarticle to an examination of Mr. Mahomed Ali's letter to the Sultan andhas come to the conclusion that Mr. Mahomed Ali's statement of claim isat variance with the claim set forth in the latest Khilafatrepresentation to the Viceroy which he wholly approves. Mr. Andrews and I have discussed the question as fully as it waspossible. He asked me publicly to define my own position more fully thanI have done. His sole object in inviting discussion is to give strengthto a cause which he holds as intrinsically just, and to gather round itthe best opinion of Europe so that the allied powers and especiallyEngland may for very shame be obliged to revise the terms. I gladly respond to Mr. Andrew's invitation. I should clear the groundby stating that I reject any religious doctrine that does not appeal toreason and is in conflict with morality. I tolerate unreasonablereligious sentiment when it is not immoral. I hold the Khilafat claim tobe both just and reasonable and therefore it derives greater forcebecause it has behind it the religious sentiment of the Mussalman world. In my opinion Mr. Mahomed Ali's statement is unexceptionable. It is nodoubt clothed in diplomatic language. But I am not prepared to quarrelwith the language so long as it is sound in substance. Mr. Andrews considers that Mr. Mahomed Ali's language goes to show thathe would resist Armenian independence against the Armenians and theArabian against the Arabs. I attach no such meaning to it. What he, thewhole of Mussalmans and therefore I think also the Hindus resist is theshameless attempt of England and the other Powers under cover ofself-determination to emasculate and dismember Turkey. If I understandthe spirit of Islam properly, it is essentially republican in the truestsense of the term. Therefore if Armenia or Arabia desired independenceof Turkey they should have it. In the case of Arabia, complete Arabianindependence would mean transference of the Khilafat to an Arabchieftain. Arabia in that sense is a Mussulman trust, not purelyArabian. And the Arabs without ceasing to be Mussulman, could not holdArabia against Muslim opinion. The Khalifa must be the custodian of theHoly places and therefore also the routes to them. He must be able todefend them against the whole world. And if an Arab chief arose whocould better satisfy that test than the Sultan of Turkey, I have nodoubt that he would be recognised as the Khalifa. I have thus discussed the question academically. The fact is thatneither the Mussulmans nor the Hindus believe in the English Ministerialword. They do not believe that the Arabs or the Armenians want completeindependence of Turkey. That they want self-government is beyond doubt. Nobody disputes that claim. But nobody has ever ascertained that eitherthe Arabs or the Armenians desire to do away with all connection, evennominal, with Turkey. The solution of the question lies not in our academic discussion of theideal position, it lies in an honest appointment of a mixed commissionof absolutely independent Indian Mussulmans and Hindus and independentEuropeans to investigate the real wish of the Armenians and the Arabsand then to come to a _modus vivendi_ where by the claims of thenationality and those of Islam may be adjusted and satisfied. It is common knowledge that Smyrna and Thrace including Adrianople havebeen dishonestly taken away from Turkey and that mandates have beenunscrupulously established in Syria and Mesopotamia and a Britishnominee has been set up in Hedjaj under the protection of British guns. This is a position that is intolerable and unjust. Apart therefore fromthe questions of Armenia and Arabia, the dishonesty and hypocrisy thatpollute the peace terms require to be instantaneously removed. It pavesthe way to an equitable solution of the question of Armenian and Arabianindependence which in theory no one denies and which in practice may beeasily guaranteed if only the wishes of the people concerned could withany degree of certainty be ascertained. THE KHILAFAT AGITATION A friend who has been listening to my speeches once asked me whether Idid not come under the sedition section of the Indian Penal Code. ThoughI had not fully considered it, I told him that very probably I did andthat I could not plead 'not guilty' if I was charged under it. For Imust admit that I can pretend to no 'affection' for the presentGovernment. And my speeches are intended to create 'dis-affection' such that thepeople might consider it a shame to assist or co-operate with aGovernment that had forfeited all title to confidence, respect orsupport. I draw no distinction between the Imperial and the Indian Government. The latter has accepted, on the Khilafat, the policy imposed upon it bythe former. And in the Punjab case the former has endorsed the policy ofterrorism and emasculation of a brave people initiated by the latter. British ministers have broken their pledged word and wantonly woundedthe feelings of the seventy million Mussulmans of India. Innocent menand women were insulted by the insolent officers of the PunjabGovernment. Their wrongs not only remain unrighted but the very officerswho so cruelly subjected them to barbarous humiliation retain officeunder the Government. When at Amritsar last year I pleaded with all the earnestness I couldcommand for co-operation with the Government and for response to thewishes expressed in the Royal Proclamation. I did so because I honestlybelieved that, a new era was about to begin, and that the old spirit offear, distrust and consequent terrorism was about to give place to thenew spirit of respect, trust and goodwill. I sincerely believed that theMussulman sentiment would be placated and that the officers that hadmisbehaved during the Martial Law regime in the Punjab would be at leastdismissed and the people would be otherwise made to feel that aGovernment that had always been found quick (and mighty) to punishpopular excesses would not fail to punish its agents' misdeeds. But tomy amazement and dismay I have discovered that the presentrepresentatives of the Empire have become dishonest and unscrupulous. They have no real regard for the wishes of the people of India and theycount Indian honour as of little consequence. I can no longer retain affection for a Government so evilly manned as itis now-a-days. And for me, it is humiliating to retain my freedom and bewitness to the continuing wrong. Mr. Montagu however is certainly rightin threatening me with deprivation of my liberty if I persist inendangering the existence of the Government. For that must be the resultif my activity bears fruit. My only regret is that inasmuch as Mr. Montagu admits my past services, he might have perceived that there mustbe something exceptionally bad in the Government if a well-wisher likeme could no longer give his affection to it. It was simpler to insist onjustice being done to the Mussalmans and to the Punjab than to threatenme with punishment so that the injustice might be perpetuated. Indeed Ifully expect it will be found that even in promoting disaffectiontowards an unjust Government I had rendered greater services to theEmpire than I am already credited with. At the present moment, however, the duty of those who approve myactivity is clear. They ought on no account to resent the deprivation ofmy liberty, should the Government of India deem it to be their duty totake it away. A citizen has no right to resist such restriction imposedin accordance with the laws of the State to which he belongs. Much lesshave those who sympathise with him. In my case there can be no questionof sympathy. For I deliberately oppose the Government to the extent oftrying to put its very existence in jeopardy. For my supporters, therefore, it must be a moment of joy when I am imprisoned. It means thebeginning of success if only the supporters continue the policy forwhich I stand. If the Government arrest me, they would do so in order tostop the progress of Non-co-operation which I preach. It follows that ifNon-co-operation continues with unabated vigour, even after my arrest, the Government must imprison others or grant the people's wish in orderto gain their co-operation. Any eruption of violence on the part of thepeople even under provocation would end in disaster. Whether thereforeit is I or any one else who is arrested during the campaign, the firstcondition of success is that there must be no resentment shown againstit. We cannot imperil the very existence of a Government and quarrelwith its attempt to save itself by punishing those who place it indanger. HIJARAT AND ITS MEANING India is a continent. Its articulate thousands know what itsinarticulate millions are doing or thinking. The Government and theeducated Indians may think that the Khilafat movement is merely apassing phase. The millions of Mussalmans think otherwise. The flight ofthe Mussalmans is growing apace. The newspapers contain paragraphs inout of the way corners informing the readers that a special traincontaining a barrister with sixty women, forty children including twentysucklings, all told 765, have left for Afghanistan. They were cheered_en route_. They were presented with cash, edibles and other things, andwere joined by more Muhajarins on the way. No fanatical preaching byShaukatali can make people break up and leave their homes for an unknownland. There must be an abiding faith in them. That it is better for themto leave a State which has no regard for their religious sentiment andface a beggar's life than to remain in it even though it may be in aprincely manner. Nothing but pride of power can blind the Government ofIndia to the scene that is being enacted before it. But there is yet another side to the movement. Here are the facts asstated in the following Government _Communique_ dated 10th July 1920:-- An unfortunate affair in connection with the Mahajarin occurred on the 8th instant at Kacha Garhi between Peshawar and Jamrud. The following are the facts as at present reported. Two members of a party of the Mahajarins proceeding by train to Jamrud were detected by the British military police travelling without tickets. Altercation ensued at Islamia College Station, but the train proceeded to Kacha Garhi. An attempt was made to evict these Mahajarins, whereupon the military police were attacked by a crowd of some forty Mahajarins and the British officer who intervened was seriously wounded with a spade. A detachment of Indian troops at Kacha Garhi thereupon fired two or three shots at the Mahajarin for making murderous assault on the British officer. One Mahajarin was killed and one wounded and three arrested. Both the military and the police were injured. The body of the Mahajarin was despatched to Peshawar and buried on the morning of the 9th. This incident has caused considerable excitement in Peshawar City, and the Khilafat Hijrat Committee are exercising restraining influence. Shops were closed on the morning of the 9th. A full enquiry has been instituted. Now Peshawar to Jamrud is a matter of a few miles. It was clearly theduty of the military not to attempt to pull out the ticketlessMahajarins for the sake of a few annas. But they actually attemptedforce. Intervention by the rest of the party was a foregone conclusion. An altercation ensued. A British officer was attacked with a spade. Firing and a death of a Mahajarin was the result. Has British prestigebeen enhanced by the episode? Why have not the Government put tactfulofficers in charge at the frontier, whilst a great religious emigrationis in progress? The action of the military will pass from tongue totongue throughout India and the Mussalman world around, will not doubtbe unconsciously and even consciously exaggerated in the passage and thefeeling bitter as it already is will grow in bitterness. The_Communique_ says that the Government are making further inquiry. Let ushope that it will be full and that better arrangements will be made toprevent a repetition of what appears to have been a thoughtless act onthe part of the military. And may I draw the attention of those who are opposing non-co-operationthat unless they find out a substitute they should either join thenon-co-operation movement or prepare to face a disorganised subterraneanupheaval whose effect no one can foresee and whose spread it would beimpossible to check or regulate? III. THE PUNJAB WRONGS POLITICAL FREEMASONRY Freemasonry is a secret brotherhood which has more by its secret andiron rules than by its service to humanity obtained a hold upon some ofthe best minds. Similarly there seems to be some secret code of conductgoverning the official class in India before which the flower of thegreat British nation fall prostrate and unconsciously become instrumentsof injustice which as private individuals they would be ashamed ofperpetrating. In no other way is it possible for one to understand themajority report of the Hunter Committee, the despatch of the Governmentof India, and the reply thereto of the Secretary of State for India. Inspite of the energetic protests of a section of the Press to thepersonnel of the committee, it might be said that on the whole thepublic were prepared to trust it especially as it contained three Indianmembers who could fairly be claimed to be independent. The first rudeshock to this confidence was delivered by the refusal of Lord Hunter'sCommittee to accept the very moderate and reasonable demand of theCongress Committee that the imprisoned Punjab leaders might be allowedto appear before it to instruct Counsel. Any doubt that might have beenleft in the mind of any person has been dispelled by the report of themajority of that committee. The result has justified the attitude of theCongress Committee. The evidence collected by it shows what lordHunter's Committee purposely denied itself. The minority report stands out like an oasis in a desert. The Indianmembers deserve the congratulation of their countrymen for having daredto do their duty in the face of heavy odds. I wish that they had refusedto associate themselves even in a modified manner with the condemnationof the civil disobedience form of Satyagraha. The defiant spirit of theDelhi mob on the 30th March 1919 can hardly be used for condemning agreat spiritual movement which is admittedly and manifestly intended torestrain the violent tendencies of mobs and to replace criminallawlessness by civil disobedience of authority, when it has forfeitedall title to respect. On the 30th March civil disobedience had not evenbeen started. Almost every great popular demonstration has been hithertoattended all the world over by a certain amount of lawlessness. Thedemonstration of 30th March and 6th April could have been held under anyother aegis us under that of Satyagrah. I hold that without the adventof the spirit of civility and orderliness the disobedience would havetaken a much more violent form than it did even at Delhi. It was onlythe wonderfully quick acceptance by the people of the principle ofSatyagrah that effectively checked the spread of violence throughout thelength and breadth of India. And even to-day it is not the memory of theblack barbarity of General Dyer that is keeping the undoubtedrestlessness among the people from breaking forth into violence. Thehold that Satyagrah has gained on the people--it may be even againsttheir will--is curbing the forces of disorder and violence. But I mustnot detain the reader on a defence of Satyagrah against unjust attacks. If it has gained a foothold in India, it will survive much fiercerattacks than the one made by the majority of the Hunter Committee andsomewhat supported by the minority. Had the majority report beendefective only in this direction and correct in every other there wouldhave been nothing but praise for it. After all Satyagrah is a newexperiment in political field. And a hasty attributing to it of anypopular disorder would have been pardonable. The universally pronounced adverse judgment upon the report and thedespatches rests upon far more painful revelations. Look at themanifestly laboured defence of every official act of inhumanity exceptwhere condemnation could not be avoided through the impudent admissionsmade by the actors themselves; look at the special pleading introducedto defend General Dyer even against himself; look at the vainglorification of Sir Michael O'Dwyer although it was his spirit thatactuated every act of criminality on the part of the subordinates; lookat the deliberate refusal to examine his wild career before the eventsof April. His acts were an open book of which the committee ought tohave taken judicial notices. Instead of accepting everything that theofficials had to say, the Committee's obvious duty was to tax itself tofind out the real cause of the disorders. It ought to have gone out ofits way to search out the inwardness of the events. Instead of patientlygoing behind the hard crust of official documents, the Committee alloweditself to be guided with criminal laziness by mere official evidence. The report and the despatches, in my humble opinion, constitute anattempt to condone official lawlessness. The cautious and half-heartedcondemnation pronounced upon General Dyer's massacre and the notoriouscrawling order only deepens the disappointment of the reader as he goesthrough page after page of thinly disguised official whitewash. I need, however, scarcely attempt any elaborate examination of the report or thedespatches which have been so justly censured by the whole nationalpress whether of the moderate or the extremist hue. The point toconsider is how to break down this secret--be the secrecy over sounconscious--conspiracy to uphold official iniquity. A scandal of thismagnitude cannot be tolerated by the nation, if it is to preserve itsself-respect and become a free partner in the Empire. The All-IndiaCongress Committee has resolved upon convening a special session of theCongress for the purpose of considering, among other things, thesituation arising from the report. In my opinion the time has arrivedwhen we must cease to rely upon mere petition to Parliament foreffective action. Petitions will have value, when the nation has behindit the power to enforce its will. What power then have we? When we arefirmly of opinion that grave wrong has been done us and when after anappeal to the highest authority we fail to secure redress, there must besome power available to us for undoing the wrong. It is true that in thevast majority of cases it is the duty of a subject to submit to wrongson failure of the usual procedure, so long as they do not affect hisvital being. But every nation and every individual has the right and itis their duty, to rise against an intolerable wrong. I do not believe inarmed risings. They are a remedy worse than the disease sought to becured. They are a token of the spirit of revenge and impatience andanger. The method of violence cannot do good in the long run. Witnessthe effect of the armed rising of the allied powers against Germany. Have they not become even like the Germans, as the latter have beendepicted to us by them? We have a better method. Unlike that of violence it certainly involvesthe exercise of restraint and patience: but it requires alsoresoluteness of will. This method is to refuse to be party to the wrong. No tyrant has ever yet succeeded in his purpose without carrying thevictim with him, it may be, as it often is, by force. Most people chooserather to yield to the will of the tyrant than to suffer for theconsequences of resistance. Hence does terrorism form part of thestock-in-trade of the tyrant. But we have instances in history whereterrorism has failed to impose the terrorist's will upon his victim. India has the choice before her now. If then the acts of the PunjabGovernment be an insufferable wrong, if the report of Lord Hunter'sCommittee and the two despatches be a greater wrong by reason of theirgrievous condonation of those acts, it is clear that we must refuse tosubmit to this official violence. Appeal the Parliament by all means, ifnecessary, but if the Parliament fails us and if we are worthy to callourselves a nation, we must refuse to uphold the Government bywithdrawing co-operation from it. THE DUTY OF THE PUNJABEE The Allahabad _Leader_ deserves to be congratulated for publishing thecorrespondence on Mr. Bosworth Smith who was one of the Martial Lawofficers against whom the complaints about persistent and continuousill-treatment were among the bitterest. It appears from thecorrespondence that Mr. Bosworth Smith has received promotion instead ofdismissal. Sometime before Martial Law Mr. Smith appears to have beendegraded. "He has since been restored, " says the _Leader_ correspondent, "to his position of a Deputy Commissioner of the second grade from whichhe was degraded and also been invested with power under section 30 ofthe Criminal Procedure Code. Since his arrival, the poor Indianpopulation of the town of Amhala Cantonment has been living under aregime of horror and tyranny. " The correspondent adds: "I use both thesewords deliberately for conveying precisely what they mean. " I cull a fewpassage from this illuminating letter to illustrate the meaning ofhorror and tyranny. "In private complaints he never takes the statementof the complainant. It is taken down by the reader when the court risesand got signed by the magistrate the following day. Whether the reportreceived (upon such complaints) is favourable to the complainant orunfavourable to him, it is never ready by the magistrate, andcomplaints are dismissed without proper trial. This is the fate ofprivate complaints. Now as regards police chellans. Pleaders for theaccused are not allowed to interview under trial prisoners in policecustody. They are not allowed to cross-examine prosecution witnesses. .. . Prosecution witnesses are examined with leading questions. .. . Thus awhole prosecution story is put into the mouth of police, witnesses forthe defence though called in are not allowed to be examined by thedefence counsel. .. . The accused is silenced if he picks up courage tosay anything in defence. .. . Any Cantonment servant can write down thename of any citizen of the Cantonment on a chit of paper and ask him toappear the next day in court. This is a summons. .. . If any one does notappear in court who is thus ordered, criminal warrants of arrest areissued against him. " There is much more of this style in the letterwhich is worth producing, but I have given enough to illustrate thewriter's meaning. Let me turn for a while to this official's recordduring Martial Law. He is the official who tried people in batches andconvicted them after a farcical trial. Witnesses have deposed to hishaving assembled people, having asked them to give false evidence, having removed women's veils, called them 'flies, bitches, she-asses'and having spat upon them. He it was who subjected the innocent pleadersof Shokhupura indescribable persecution. Mr. Andrews personallyinvestigated complaints against this official and came to the conclusionthat no official had behaved worse than Mr. Smith. He gathered thepeople of Shokhupura, humiliated them in a variety of ways, called them'suvarlog, ' 'gandi mukkhi. ' His evidence before the Hunter Commissionbetrays his total disregard for truth and this is the officer who, ifthe correspondent in question has given correct facts, has beenpromoted. The question however is why, he is at all in Governmentservice and why he has not been tried for assaulting and abusinginnocent men and women. I notice a desire for the impeachment of General Dyer and Sir MichaelO'Dwyer. I will not stop to examine whether the course is feasible. Iwas sorry to find Mr. Shastriar joining this cry for the prosecution ofGeneral Dyer. If the English people will willingly do so, I wouldwelcome such prosecution as a sign of their strong disapproval of theJallianwalla Bagh atrocity, but I would certainly not spend a singlefarthing in a vain pursuit after the conviction of this man. Surely thepublic has received sufficient experience of the English mind. Practically the whole English Press has joined the conspiracy to screenthese offenders against humanity. I would not be party to make heroes ofthem by joining the cry for prosecution private or public. If I can onlypersuade India to insist upon their complete dismissal, I should besatisfied. But more than the dismissal, of Sir Michael O'Dwyer andGeneral Dyer, is necessary the peremptory dismissal, if not a trial, ofColonel O'Brien, Mr. Bosworth Smith, Rai Shri Ram and others mentionedin the Congress Sub-Committee's Report. Bad as General Dyer is Iconsider Mr. Smith to be infinitely worse and his crimes to be far moreserious than the massacre of Jallianwalla Bugh. General Dyer sincerelybelieved that it was a soldierly act to terrorise people by shootingthem. But Mr. Smith was wantonly cruel, vulgar and debased. If all thefacts that have been deposed to against him are true, there is not aspark of humanity about him. Unlike General Dyer he lacks the courage toconfirm what he has done and he wriggles when challenged. This officerremains free to inflict himself upon people who have done no wrong tohim, and who is permitted to disgrace the rule he represents for thetime being. What is the Punjab doing? Is it not the duty of the Punjabis not to restuntil they have secured the dismissal of Mr. Smith and the like? ThePunjab leaders have been discharged in vain if they will not utilise theliberty they have received, in order to purge the administration ofMessrs. Bosworth Smith and Company. I am sure that if they will onlybegin a determined agitation they will have the whole India by theirside. I venture to suggest to them that the best way to qualify forsending General Dyer to the gallows is to perform the easier and themore urgent duty of arresting the mischief still continued by theofficials against whom they have assisted in collectingoverwhelming evidence. GENERAL DYER The Army Council has found General Dyer guilty of error of judgment andadvised that he should not receive any office under the Crown. Mr. Montagu has been unsparing in his criticism of General Dyer's conduct. And yet somehow or other I cannot help feeling that General Dyer is byno means the worst offender. His brutality is unmistakable. His abjectand unsoldier-like cowardice is apparent in every line of his amazingdefence before the Army Council. He has called an unarmed crowd of menand children--mostly holiday-makers--'a rebel army. ' He believes himselfto be the saviour of the Punjab in that he was able to shoot down likerabbits men who were penned in an inclosure. Such a man is unworthy ofbeing considered a soldier. There was no bravery in his action. He ranno risk. He shot without the slightest opposition and without warning. This is not an 'error of judgement. ' It is paralysis of it in the faceof fancied danger. It is proof of criminal incapacity andheartlessness. But the fury that has been spent upon General Dyer is, Iam sure, largely misdirected. No doubt the shooting was 'frightful, ' theloss of innocent life deplorable. But the slow torture, degradation andemasculation that followed was much worse, more calculated, maliciousand soul-killing, and the actors who performed the deeds deserve greatercondemnation that General Dyer for the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre. Thelatter merely destroyed a few bodies but the others tried to kill thesoul of a nation. Who ever talks of Col. Frank Johnson who was by farthe worst offender? He terrorised guiltless Lahore, and by his mercilessorders set the tone to the whole of the Martial Law officers. But what Iam concerned with is not even Col. Johnson. The first business of thepeople of the Punjab and of India is to rid the service of Col O'Brien, Mr. Bosworth Smith, Rai Shri Ram and Mr. Malik Khan. They are stillretained in the service. Their guilt is as much proved as that ofGeneral Dyer. We shall have failed in our duty if the condemnationpronounced upon General Dyer produces a sense of satisfaction and theobvious duty of purging the administration in the Punjab is neglected. That task will not be performed by platform rhetoric or resolutionsmerely. Stern action is required on out part if we are to make anyheadway with ourselves and make any impression upon the officials thatthey are not to consider themselves as masters of the people but astheir trusties and servants who cannot hold office if they misbehavethemselves and prove unworthy of the trust reposed in them. THE PUNJAB SENTENCES The commissioners appointed by the Congress Punjab Sub Committee have intheir report accused His Excellency the Viceroy of criminal want ofimagination. His Excellency's refusal to commute two death sentences outof five is a fine illustration of the accusation. The rejection of theappeal by the Privy Council no more proves the guilt of the condemnedthan their innocence would have been proved by quashing the proceedingsbefore the Martial Law Tribunal. Moreover, these cases clearly comeunder the Royal Proclamation in accordance with its interpretation bythe Punjab Government. The murders in Amritsar were not due to anyprivate quarrel between the murderers and their victims. The offencegrave, though it was, was purely political and committed underexcitement. More than full reparation has been taken for the murders andarson. In the circumstances commonsense dictates reduction of the deathsentences. The popular belief favours the view that the condemned menare innocent and have not had a fair trial. The execution has been solong delayed that hanging at this stage would give a rude shock toIndian society. Any Viceroy with imagination would have at onceannounced commutation of the death sentences--not so Lord Chelmsford. Inhis estimation, evidently, the demands of justice will not be satisfiedif at least some of the condemned men are not hanged. Public feelingwith him counts for nothing. We shall still hope that, either theViceroy or Mr. Montagu will commute the death sentences. But if the Government will grievously err, if they carry out thesentences, the people will equally err if they give way to anger orgrief over the hanging if it has unfortunately to take plane. Before webecome a nation possessing an effective voice in the councils ofnations, we must be prepared to contemplate with equanimity, not athousand murders of innocent men and women but many thousands before weattain a status in the world that, shall not be surpassed by any nation. We hope therefore that all concerned will take rather than lose heartand treat hanging as an ordinary affair of life. [Since the above was in type, we have received cruel news. At last H. E. The Viceroy has mercilessly given the rude shock to Indian society. Itis now for the latter to take heart in spite of the unkindestcut. --Ed. Y. I. ] IV. SWARAJ SWARAJ IN ONE YEAR Much laughter has been indulged in at my expense for having told theCongress audience at Calcutta that if there was sufficient response tomy programme of non-co-operation Swaraj would be attained in one year. Some have ignored my condition and laughed because of the impossibilityof getting Swaraj anyhow within one year. Others have spelt the 'if' incapitals and suggested that if 'ifs' were permissible in argument, anyabsurdity could be proved to be a possibility. My proposition however isbased on a mathematical calculation. And I venture to say that trueSwaraj is a practical impossibility without due fulfilment of myconditions. Swaraj means a state such that we can maintain our separateexistence without the presence of the English. If it is to be apartnership, it must be partnership at will. There can be no Swarajwithout our feeling and being the equals of Englishmen. To-day we feelthat we are dependent upon them for our internal and external security, for an armed peace between the Hindus and the Mussulmans, for oureducation and for the supply of daily wants, nay, even for thesettlement of our religious squabbles. The Rajahs are dependent upon theBritish for their powers and the millionaires for their millions. TheBritish know our helplessness and Sir Thomas Holland cracks jokes quitelegitimately at the expense of non-co-operationists. To get Swaraj thenis to get rid of our helplessness. The problem is no doubt stupendouseven as it is for the fabled lion who having been brought up in thecompany of goats found it impossible to feel that he was a lion. AsTolstoy used to put it, mankind often laboured under hypnotism. Underits spell continuously we feel the feeling of helplessness. The Britishthemselves cannot be expected to help us out of it. On the contrary, they din into our ears that we shall be fit to govern ourselves only byslow educative processes. The "Times" suggested that if we boycott thecouncils we shall lose the opportunity of a training in Swaraj. I haveno doubt that there are many who believe what the "Times" says. It evenresorts to a falsehood. It audaciously says that Lord Milner's Missionlistened to the Egyptians only when they were ready to lift the boycottof the Egyptian Council. For me the only training in Swaraj we need isthe ability to defend ourselves against the whole world and to live ournatural life in perfect freedom even though it may be full of defects. Good Government is no substitute for self-Government. The Afghans have abad Government but it is self-Government. I envy them. The Japaneselearnt the art through a sea of blood. And if we to-day had the power todrive out the English by superior brute force, we would be counted theirsuperiors, and in spite of our inexperience in debating at the Counciltable or in holding executive offices, we would be held fit to governourselves. For brute force is the only test the west has hithertorecognised. The Germans were defeated not because they were necessarilyin the wrong, but because the allied Powers were found to possessgreater brute strength. In the end therefore India must either learn theart of war which the British will not teach her or, she must follow herown way of discipline and self-sacrifice through non-co-operation. It isas amazing as it is humiliating that less than one hundred-thousandwhite men should be able to rule three hundred and fifteen millionIndians. They do so somewhat undoubtedly by force, but more by securingour co-operation in a thousand ways and making us more and more helplessand dependent on them as time goes forward. Let us not mistake reformedcouncils, more lawcourts and even governorships for real freedom orpower. They are but subtler methods of emasculation. The British cannotrule us by mere force. And so they resort to all means, honourable anddishonourable, in order to retain their hold on India. They want India'sbillions and they want India's man power for their imperialistic greed. If we refuse to supply them with men and money, we achieve our goal, namely, Swaraj, equality, manliness. The cup of our humiliation was filled during the closing scenes in theViceregal Council. Mr. Shustri could not move his resolution on thePunjab. The Indian victims of Jullianwala received Rs. 1, 250, theEnglish victims of mob-frenzy received lakhs. The officials who wereguilty of crimes against those whose servants they were, werereprimanded. And the councillors were satisfied. If India were powerful, India would not have stood this addition of insult, to her injury. I do not blame the British. If we were weak in numbers as they are, wetoo would perhaps have resorted to the same methods as they are nowemploying. Terrorism and deception are weapons not of the strong but ofthe weak. The British are weak in numbers we are weak in spite of ournumbers. The result is that each is dragging the other down. It iscommon experience that Englishmen lose in character after residence inIndia and that Indians lose in courage and manliness by contact withEnglishmen. This process of weakening is good neither for us, twonations, nor for the world. But if we Indians take care of ourselves the English and the rest ofthe world would take care of themselves. Our contributions to theworld's progress must therefore consist in setting our own housein order. Training in arms for the present is out of the question. I go a stepfurther and believe that India has a better mission for the world. It iswithin her to show that she can achieve her destiny by pureself-sacrifice, i. E. , self-purification. This can be done only bynon-co-operation. And non-co-operation is possible only when those whocommenced to co-operate being the process of withdrawal. If we can butfree ourselves from the threefold _maya_ of Government-controlledschools, Government law-courts and legislative councils, and trulycontrol our own education regulate our disputes and be indifferent totheir legislation, we are ready to govern ourselves and we are only thenready to ask the government servants, whether civil or military, toresign, and the tax-payers to suspend payment of taxes. And is it such an impracticable proposition to expect parents towithdraw their children from schools and colleges and establish theirown institutions or to ask lawyers to suspend their practice and devotetheir whole time attention to national service against payment wherenecessary, of their maintenance, or to ask candidates for councils notto enter councils and lend their passive or active assistance to thelegislative machinery through which all control is exercised. Themovement of non-co-operation is nothing but an attempt to isolate thebrute force of the British from all the trappings under which it ishidden and to show that brute force by itself cannot for one singlemoment hold India. But I frankly confess that, until the three conditions mentioned by meare fulfilled, there is no Swaraj. We may not go on taking our collegedegrees, taking thousands of rupees monthly from clients for cases whichcan be finished in five minutes and taking the keenest delight inwasting national time on the council floor and still expect to gainnational self-respect. The last though not the least important part of the Maya still remainsto be considered. That is Swadeshi. Had we not abandoned Swadeshi, weneed not have been in the present fallen state. If we would get rid ofthe economic slavery, we must manufacture our own cloth and at thepresent moment only by hand-spinning and hand weaving. All this means discipline, self-denial, self-sacrifice, organisingability, confidence and courage. If we show this in one year among theclasses that to-day count, and make public opinion, we certainly gainSwaraj within one year. If I am told that even we who lead have notthese qualities in us, there certainly will never be Swaraj for India, but then we shall have no right to blame the English for what they aredoing. Our salvation and its time are solely dependent upon us. BRITISH RULE--AN EVIL The _Interpreter_ is however more to the point in asking, "Does Mr. Gandhi hold without hesitation or reserve that British rule in India isaltogether an evil and that the people of India are to be taught so toregard it? He must hold it to be so evil that the wrongs it doesoutweigh the benefit it confers, for only so is non-co-operation to bejustified at the bar of conscience or of Christ. " My answer isemphatically in the affirmative. So long as I believed that the sumtotal of the energy of the British Empire was good, I clung to itdespite what I used to regard as temporary aberrations. I am not sorryfor having done so. But having my eyes opened, it would be sin for me toassociate myself with the Empire unless it purges itself of its evilcharacter. I write this with sorrow and I should be pleased if Idiscovered that I was in error and that my present attitude was areaction. The continuous financial drain, the emasculation of the Punjaband the betrayal of the Muslim sentiment constitute, in my humbleopinion, a threefold robbery of India. 'The blessings of _paxBritanica_' I reckon, therefore, to be a curse. We would have at leastremained like the other nations brave men and women, instead of feelingas we do so utterly helpless, if we had no British Rule imposing on usan armed peace. 'The blessing' of roads and railways is a return noself-respecting nation would accept for its degradation. 'The blessing'of education is proving one of the greatest obstacles in our progresstowards freedom. A MOVEMENT OF PURIFICATION The fact is that non-co-operation by reason of its non-violence hasbecome a religious and purifying movement. It is daily bringing strengthto the nation, showing it its weak spots and the remedy for removingthem. It is a movement of self-reliance. It is the mightiest force forrevolutionising opinion and stimulating thought. It is a movement ofself-imposed suffering and therefore possesses automatic checks againstextravagance or impatience. The capacity of the nation for sufferingregulates its advance towards freedom. It isolates the force of evil byrefraining from participation in it, in any shape or form. WHY WAS INDIA LOST? [A dialog between the Reader and Editor, --_Indian Home Rule_]. Reader: You have said much about civilisation--enough to make me ponderover it. I do not know what I should adopt and what I should avoid fromthe nations of Europe. But one question comes to my lips immediately. Ifcivilisation is a disease, and if it has attacked England why has shebeen able to take India, and why is she able to retain it? Editor: Your question is not very difficult to answer, and we shallpresently be able to examine the true nature of Swaraj; for I am awarethat I have still to answer that question. I will, however, take up yourprevious question. The English have not taken India; we have given it tothem. They are not in India because of their strength, but because wekeep them. Let us now see whether these positions can be sustained. Theycame to our country originally for the purpose of trade. Recall theCompany Bahadur. Who made it Bahadur? They had not the slightestintention at the time of establishing a kingdom. Who assisted theCompany's officers? Who was tempted at the sight of their silver? Whobought their goods? History testifies that we did all this. In order tobecome rich all at once, we welcomed the Company's officers with openarms. We assisted them. If I am in the habit of drinking Bhang, and aseller thereof sells it to me, am I to blame him or myself? By blamingthe seller shall I be able to avoid the habit? And, if a particularretailer is driven away will not another take his place? A true servantof India will have to go to the root of the matter. If an excess of foodhas caused me indigestion I will certainly not avoid it by blamingwater. He is a true physician who probes the cause of disease and, ifyou pose as a physician for the disease of India, you will have to findout its true cause. Reader: You are right. Now, I think you will not have to argue much withme to drive your conclusions home. I am impatient to know your furtherviews. We are now on a most interesting topic. I shall, therefore, endeavour to follow your thought, and stop you when I am in doubt. Editor: I am afraid that, in spite of your enthusiasm, as we proceedfurther we shall have differences of opinion. Nevertheless, I shallargue only when you will stop me. We have already seen that the Englishmerchants were able to get a footing in India because we encouragedthem. When our princes fought among themselves, they sought theassistance of Company Bahadar. That corporation was versed alike incommerce and war. It was unhampered by questions of morality. Its objectwas to increase its commerce and to make money. It accepted ourassistance, and increased the number of its warehouses. To protect thelatter it employed an army which was utilised by us also. Is it not thenuseless to blame the English for what we did at that time? The Hindusand the Mahomedans were at daggers drawn. This, too, gave the Companyits opportunity, and thus we created the circumstances that gave theCompany its control over India. Hence it is truer to say that we gaveIndia to the English than that India was lost. Reader: Will you now tell me how they are able to retain India? Editor: The causes that gave them India enable them to retain it. SomeEnglishmen state that they took, and they hold, India by the sword. Boththese statements are wrong. The sword is entirely useless for holdingIndia. We alone keep them. Napoleon is said to have described theEnglish as a nation of shop keepers. It is a fitting description. Theyhold whatever dominions they have for the sake of their commerce. Theirarmy and their navy are intended to protect it. When the Transvaaloffered no such attractions, the late Mr. Gladstone discovered that itwas no right for the English to hold it. When it became a payingproposition, resistance led to war. Mr. Chamberlain soon discovered thatEngland enjoyed a suzerainty over the Transvaal. It is related that someone asked the late President Kruger whether there was gold in the moon?He replied that it was highly unlikely, because, if there were, theEnglish would have annexed it. Many problems can be solved byremembering that money is their God. Then it follows that we keep theEnglish in India for our base self-interest. We like their commerce, they please us by their subtle methods, and get what they want from us. To blame them for this is to perpetuate their power. We furtherstrengthen their hold by quarrelling amongst ourselves. If you acceptthe above statements, it is proved that the English entered India forthe purposes of trade. They remain in it for the same purpose, and wehelp them to do so. Their arms and ammunition are perfectly useless. Inthis connection, I remind you that it is the British flag which iswaving in Japan, and not the Japanese. The English have a treaty withJapan for the sake of their commerce and you will see that, if they canmanage it, their commerce will greatly expand in that country. Theywish to convert the whole word into a vast market for their goods. Thatthey cannot do so is true, but the blame will not be theirs. They willleave no stone unturned to reach the goal. SWARAJ MY IDEAL The following is a fairly full report of Mr. Gandhi's important speechat Calcutta on the 13th December 1920:-- The very fact, that so many of you cannot understand Hindi which isbound to be the National medium of expression throughout Hindustan ingatherings of Indians belonging to different parts of the land, showsthe depth of the degradation to which we have sunk, and points to thesupreme necessity of the non-co-operation movement which is intended tolift us out of that condition. This Government has been instrumental indegrading this great nation in various ways, and it is impossible to befree from it without co-operation amongst ourselves which is in turnimpossible without a national medium of expression. But I am not here to day to plead for the medium. I am to plead for theacceptance by the country of the programme of non-violent, progressivenon-co-operation. Now all the words that I have used here are absolutelynecessary and the two adjectives 'progressive' and 'non-violent' areintegral part of a whole. With me non-violence is part of my religion, amatter of creed. But with the great number of Mussalmans non-violence isa policy, with thousand, if not millions of Hindus, it is equally amatter of policy. But whether it is a creed or a policy, it is utterlyimpossible for you to finish the programme for the enfranchisement ofthe millions of India, without recognising the necessity and the valueof non-violence. Violence may for a moment avail to secure a certainmeasure of success but it could not in the long run achieve anyappreciable result. On the other hand all violence would provedestructive to the honour and self-respect of the nation. The blue booksissued by the Government of India show that inasmuch as we have usedviolence, military expenditure has gone up, not proportionately but ingeometrical progression. The bonds of our slavery have been forged allthe stronger for our having offered violence. And the whole history ofBritish rule in India is a demonstration of the fact that we have neverbeen able to offer successful violence. Whilst therefore I say thatrather than have the yoke of a Government that has so emasculated us, Iwould welcome violence. I would urge with all the emphasis that I cancommand that India will never be able to regain her own by methodsof violence. Lord Ronaldshay who has done me the honour of reading my booklet on HomeRule has warned my countrymen against engaging themselves in a strugglefor a Swaraj such as is described in that booklet. Now though I do notwant to withdraw a single word of it, I would say to you on thisoccasion that I do not ask India to follow out to-day the methodsprescribed in my booklet. If they could do that they would have HomeRule not in a year but in a day, and India by realising that ideal wantsto acquire an ascendancy over the rest of the world. But it must remaina day dream more or less for the time being. What I am doing to-day isthat I am giving the country a pardonable programme not the abolition oflaw courts, posts, telegraphs and of railways but for the attainment ofParliamentary Swarja. I am telling you to do that so long as we do notisolate ourselves from this Government, we are co-operating with itthrough schools, law courts and councils, through service civil andmilitary and payment of taxes and foreign trade. The moment this fact is realised and non-co-operation is effected, thisGovernment must totter to pieces. If I know that the masses wereprepared for the whole programme at once, I would not delay in puttingit at once to work. It is not possible at the present moment, to preventthe masses from bursting out into wrath against those who come toexecute the law, it is not possible, that the military would lay downtheir arms without the slightest violence. If that were possible to-day, I would propose all the stages of non-co-operation to be workedsimultaneously. But we have not secured that control over the masses, wehave uselessly frittered away precious years of the nation's life inmastering a language which we need least for winning our liberty; wehave frittered away all those years in learning liberty from Milton andShakespeare, in deriving inspiration from the pages of Mill, whilstliberty could be learnt at our doors. We have thus succeeded inisolating ourselves from the masses: we have been westernised. We havefailed these 35 years to utilise our education in order to permeate themasses. We have sat upon the pedestal and from there delivered haranguesto them in a language they do not understand and we see to-day that weare unable to conduct large gatherings in a disciplined manner. Anddiscipline is the essence of success. Here is therefore one reason why Ihave introduced the word 'progressive' in the non-co-operationResolution. Without any impertinence I may say that I understand themass mind better than any one amongst the educated Indians. I contendthat the masses are not ready for suspension of payment of taxes. Theyhave not yet learnt sufficient self-control. If I was sure ofnon-violence on their part I would ask them to suspend payment to-dayand not waste a single moment of the nations time. With me the libertyof India has become a passion. Liberty of Islam is as dear to me. Iwould not therefore delay a moment if I found that the whole of theprogramme could be enforced at once. It grieves me to miss the faces of dear and revered leaders in thisassembly. We miss here the trumpet voice of Surendranath Banorji, whohas rendered inestimable service to the country. And though we stand aspoles asunder to-day, though we may have sharp differences with him, wemust express them with becoming restraint. I do not ask you to give up asingle iota of principle. I urge non-violence in language and in deed. If non-violence is essential in our dealings with Government, it is moreessential in our dealings with our leaders. And it grieves me deeply tohear of recent instances of violence reported to have been used in EastBongal against our own people. I was pained to hear that the ears of aman who had voted at the recent elections had been cut, and night soilhad been thrown into the bed of a man who had stood as a candidate. Non-co-operation is never going to succeed in this way. It will notsucceed unless we create an atmosphere of perfect freedom, unless weprize our opponents liberty as much as our own. The liberty of faith, conscience, thought and action which we claim for ourselves must beconceded equally to others. Non co-operation is a process ofpurification and we must continually try to touch the hearts of thosewho differ from us, their minds, and their emotions, but never theirbodies. Discipline and restraint are the cardinal principles of ourconduct and I warn you against any sort of tyrannical social ostracism. I was deeply grieved therefore to hear of the insult offered to a deadbody in Delhi and feel that if it was the action of non-co-operatorsthey have disgraced themselves and their creed. I repeat we cannotdeliver our land through violence. It was not a joke when I said on the congress platform that Swaraj couldbe established in one year if there was sufficient response from thenation. Three months of this year are gone. If we are true to our salt, true to our nation, true to the songs we sing, if we are true to theBhagwad Gita and the Koran, we would finish the programme in theremaining nine months and deliver Islam the Punjab and India. I have proposed a limited programme workable within one year, having aspecial regard to the educated classes. We seem to be labouring underthe illusion that we cannot possibly live without Councils, law courtsand schools provided by the Government. The moment we are disillusionedwe have Swaraj. It is demoralising both for Government and the governedthat a hundred thousand pilgrims should dictate terms to a nationcomposed of three hundred millions. And how is it they can thus dictateterms. It is because we have been divided and they have ruled. I havenever forgotten Humes' frank confession that the British Government wassustained by the policy of "Divide and Rule. " Therefore it is that Ihave laid stress upon Hindu Muslim Unity as one of the importantessentials for the success of Non-co-operation. But, it should be no lipunity, nor bunia unity it should be a unity broad based on a recognitionof the heart. If we want to save Hinduism, I say for Gods sake, do notseek to bargain with the Mussalmans. I have been going about withMaulana Shaukat Ali all these months, but I have not so much aswhispered anything about the protection of the cow. My alliance with theAli Brothers is one of honour. I feel that I am on my honour, the wholeof Hinduism is on its honour, and if it will not be found wanting, itwill do its duty towards the Mussalmans of India. Any bargaining wouldbe degrading to us. Light brings light not darkness, and nobility donewith a noble purpose will be twice rewarded. It will be God alone whocan protect the cow. Ask me not to-day--'what about the cow, ' ask meafter Islam is vindicated through India. Ask the Rajas what they do toentertain their English guests. Do they not provide beef and champagnefor their guests. Persuade them first to stop cow killing and then thinkof bargaining with Mussalmans. And how are we Hindus behaving ourselvestowards the cow and her progeny! Do we treat her as our religionrequires us? Not till we have set our own house in order and saved thecow from the Englishmen have we the right to plead on her behalf withthe Mussalmans. And the best way of saving the cow from them is to givethem unconditional help in their hour of trouble. Similarly what do we owe the Punjab? The whole of India was made tocrawl on her belly in as much as a single Punjabi was made to crawl inthat dirty lane in Amritsar, the whole womanhood of India was unveiledin as much as the innocent woman of Manianwalla were unveiled by aninsolent office; and Indian childhood was dishonoured in that, thatschool children of tender age were made to walk four times a day tostated places within the martial area in the Punjab and to salute theUnion Jack, through the effect of which order two children, seven yearsold died of sunstroke having been made to wait in the noonday sun. In myopinion it is a sin to attend the schools and colleges conducted underthe aegis of this Government so long as it has not purged itself ofthese crimes by proper repentance. We may not with any sense ofself-respect plead before the courts of the Government when we rememberthat it was through the Punjab Courts that innocent men were sentencedto be imprisoned and hanged. We become participators in the crime of theGovernment by voluntarily helping it or being helped by it. The women of India have intuitively understood the spiritual nature ofthe struggle. Thousands have attended to listen to the message ofnon-violent non-co-operation and have given me their precious ornamentsfor the purpose of advancing the cause of Swaraj. Is it any wonder if Ibelieve the possibility of gaining Swaraj within a year after all thesewonderful demonstrations? I would be guilty of want of faith in God if Iunder-rated the significance of the response from the women of India. Ihope that the students will do their duty. The country certainly expectsthe lawyers who have hitherto led public agitation to recognise the newawakening. I have used strong language but I have done so with the greatestdeliberation, I am not actuated by any feeling of revenge. I do notconsider Englishmen as my enemy. I recognise the worth of many. I enjoythe privilege of having many English friends, but I am a determinedenemy of the English rule as is conducted at present and if thepower--tapasya--of one man could destroy it, I would certainly destroyit, if it could not be mended. An Empire that stands for injustice andbreach of faith does not deserve to stand if its custodians will notrepent and non-co-operation has been devised in order to enable thenation to compel justice. I hope that Bengal will take her proper place in this movement ofself-purification. Bengal began Swadeshi and national education when therest of India was sleeping. I hope that Bengal will come to the frontin this movement for gaining Swaraj and gaining justice for the Khilafatand the Punjab through purification and self-sacrifice. ON THE WRONG TRACK Lord Ronaldshay has been doing me the favour of reading my booklet onIndian Home Rule which is a translation of Hind Swaraj. His Lordshiptold his audience that if Swaraj meant what I had described it to be inthe booklet, the Bengalis would have none of it. I am sorry that Swarajof the Congress resolution does not mean the Swaraj depicted in thebooklet; Swaraj according to the Congress means Swaraj that the peopleof India want, not what the British Government may condescend to give. In so far as I can see, Swaraj will be a Parliament chosen by the peoplewith the fullest power over the finance, the police, the military, thenavy, the courts, and the educational institutions. I am free to confess that the Swaraj I expect to gain within one year, if India responds will be such Swaraj as will make practicallyimpossible the repetition of the Khilafat and the Punjab wrongs, andwill enable the nation to do good or evil as it chooses, and not he'good' at the dictation of an irresponsible, insolent, and godlessbureaucracy. Under that Swaraj the nation will have the power to imposea heavy protective tariff on such foreign goods as are capable of beingmanufactured in India, as also the power to refuse to send a singlesoldier outside India for the purpose of enslaving the surrounding orremote nationalities. The Swaraj that I dream of will be a possibilityonly, when the nation is free to make its choice both of good and evil. * * * * * I adhere to all I have said in that booklet and I would certainlyrecommend it to the reader. Government over self is the truest Swaraj, it is synonymous with _moksha_ or salvation, and I have seen nothing toalter the view that doctors, lawyers, and railways are no help, and areoften a hindrance, to the one thing worth striving after. But I knowthat association, a satanic activity, such as the Government is engagedin, makes even an effort for such freedom a practical impossibility. Icannot tender allegiance to God and Satan at the same time. * * * * * The surest sign of the satanic nature of the present system is that evena nobleman of the type of Lord Ronaldshay is obliged to put us off thetrack. He will not deal with the one thing needful. Why is he silentabout the Punjab? Why does he evade the Khilafat? Can ointments soothea patient who is suffering from corroding consumption? Does his lordshipnot see that it is not the inadequacy of the reforms that has set Indiaaflame but that it is the infliction of the two wrongs and the wickedattempt to make us forget them? Does he not see that a complete changeof heart is required before reconciliation? * * * * * But it has become the fashion nowadays to ascribe hatred tonon-co-operationism. And I regret to find that even Col. Wedgewood hasfallen into the trap. I make bold to say that the only way to removehatred is to give it disciplined vent. No man can--I cannot--perform theimpossible task of removing hatred so long as contempt and despise forthe feelings of India are sedulously nursed. It is a mockery to askIndia not to hate when in the same breath India's most sacred feelingsare contemptuously brushed aside. India feels weak and helpless and soexpresses her helplessness by hating the tyrant who despises her andmakes her crawl on the belly, lifts the veils of her innocent women andcompels her tender children to acknowledge his power by saluting hisflag four times a day. The gospel of Non-co-operation addresses itselfto the task of making the people strong and self-reliant. It is anattempt to transform hatred into pity. A strong and self-reliant Indiawill cease to hate Bosworth Smiths and Frank Johnsons, for she will havethe power to punish them and therefore the power also to pity andforgive them. To-day she can neither punish nor forgive, and thereforehelplessly nurses hatred. If the Mussalmans were strong, they would nothate the English but would fight and wrest from them the dearestpossessions of Islam. I know that the Ali Brothers who live only for thehonour and the prestige of Islam, and are prepared any moment to die forit, will to-day make friends with the latter Englishmen, if they were todo justice to the Khilafat which it is in their power to do. * * * * * I am positively certain that there is no personal element in this fight. Both the Hindus and the Mahomedans would to-day invoke blessings on theEnglish if they would but give proof positive of their goodness, faithfulness, and loyalty to India. Non-co-operation then is a godsend;it will purify and strengthen India; and a strong India will be astrength to the world as an Indian weak and helpless is a curse tomankind. Indian soldiers have involuntarily helped to destroy Turkey andare now destroying the flower of the Arabian nation. I cannot recall asingle campaign in which the Indian soldier has been employed by theBritish Government for the good of mankind. And yet, (Oh! the shame ofit!) Indian Maharajas are never tired of priding themselves on the loyalhelp they have rendered the English! Could degradation sink any lower? THE CONGRESS CONSTITUTION The belated report of the Congress Constitution Committee has now beenpublished for general information and opinion has been invited from allpublic bodies in order to assist the deliberations of the All IndiaCongress Committee. It is a pity that, small though the ConstitutionCommittee was, all the members never met at any one time in spite ofefforts, to have a meeting of them all. It is perhaps no body's faultthat all the members could not meet. At the same time the draft reporthas passed through the searching examination of all but one member andthe report represents the mature deliberations of four out of the fivemembers. It must be stated at the same time that it does not pretend tobe the unanimous opinion of the members. Rather than present adissenting minute, a workable scheme has been brought out leaving eachmember free to press his own views on the several matters in which theyare not quite unanimous. The most important part of the constitution, however, is the alteration of the creed. So far as I am aware there isno fundamental difference of opinion between the members. In my opinionthe altered creed represents the exact feeling of the country at thepresent moment. I know that the proposed alteration has been subjected to hostilecriticism in several newspapers of note. But the extraordinary situationthat faces the country is that popular opinion is far in advance ofseveral newspapers which have hitherto commanded influence and haveundoubtedly moulded public opinion. The fact is that the formation ofopinion to-day is by no means confined to the educated classes, but themasses have taken it upon themselves not only to formulate opinion butto enforce it. It would be a mistake to belittle or ignore this opinion, or to ascribe it to a temporary upheaval. It would be equally a mistaketo suppose that this awakening amongst the masses is due either to theactivity of the Ali Brothers or myself. For the time being we have theear of the masses because we voice their sentiments. The masses are byno means so foolish or unintelligent as we sometimes imagine. They oftenperceive things with their intuition, which we ourselves fail to seewith our intellect. But whilst the masses know what they want, theyoften do not know how to express their wants and, less often, how to getwhat they want. Herein comes the use of leadership, and disastrousresults can easily follow a bad, hasty, or what is worse, selfish lead. The first part of the proposed creed expresses the present desire ofthe nation, and the second shows the way that desire can be fulfilled. In my humble opinion the Congress creed with the proposed alteration isbut an extension of the original. And so long as no break with theBritish connection is attempted, it is strictly within even the existingarticle that defines the Congress creed. The extension lies in thecontemplated possibility of a break with the British connection. In myhumble opinion, if India is to make unhampered progress, we must make itclear to the British people that whilst we desire to retain the Britishconnection, if we can rise to our full height with it we are determinedto dispense with, and even to get rid of that connection, if that isnecessary for full national development. I hold that it is not onlyderogatory to national dignity but it actually impedes national progresssuperstitiously to believe that our progress towards our goal isimpossible without British connection. It is this superstition whichmakes some of the best of us tolerate the Punjab wrong and the Khilafatinsult. This blind adherence to that connection makes us feel helpless. The proposed alteration in the creed enables us to rid ourselves of ourhelpless condition. I personally hold that it is perfectlyconstitutional openly to strive after independence, but lest there maybe dispute as to the constitutional character of any movement forcomplete independence, the doubtful and highly technical adjective"constitutional" has been removed from the altered creed in the draft. Surely it should be enough to ensure that the methods for achieving ourend are legitimate, honourable, and peaceful, I believe that this wasthe reasoning that guided my colleagues in accepting the proposed creed. In any case, such was certainly my view of the whole alteration. Thereis no desire on my part to adopt any means that are subversive of lawand order. I know, however, that I am treading on delicate ground when Iwrite about law and order for, to some of our distinguished leaders evenmy present methods appear to be lawless and conducive to disorder. Buteven they will perhaps grant that the retention of the word'constitutional' cannot protect the country against methods such as I amemploying. It gives rise, no doubt, to a luminous legal discussion, butany such discussion is fruitless when the nation means business. Theother important alteration refers to the limitation of the number ofdelegates. I believe that the advantages of such a limitation areobvious. We are fast reaching a time when without any such limitationthe Congress will become an unwieldy body. It is difficult even to havean unlimited number of visitors; it is impossible to transact nationalbusiness if we have an unlimited number of delegates. The next important alteration is about the election of the members ofthe All-India Congress Committee, making that committee practically theSubjects Committee, and the redistribution of India for the purposes ofthe Congress on a linguistic basis. It is not necessary to comment onthese alterations, but I wish to add that if the Congress accepts theprinciple of limiting the number of delegates it would be advisable tointroduce the principle of proportional representation. That wouldenable all parties who wish to be represented at the Congress. I observe that _the Servant of India_ sees an inconsistency between myimplied acceptance of the British Committee, so far as the publisheddraft constitution is concerned, and my recent article in _Young India_on that Committee and the newspaper _India_. But it is well known thatfor several years I have held my present views about the existence ofthat body. It would have been irrelevant for me, perhaps, to suggest tomy colleagues the extinction of that committee. It was not our functionto report on the usefulness or otherwise of the Committee. We werecommissioned only for preparing a new constitution. Moreover I knew thatmy colleagues were not averse to the existence of the British Committee. And the drawing up of a new constitution enabled me to show that wherethere was no question of principle I was desirous of agreeing quicklywith my opponents in opinions. But I propose certainly to press forabolition of the committee as it is at present continued, and thestopping of its organ _India_. SWARAJ IN NINE MONTHS Asked by the _Times_ representative as to his impressions formed as aresult of his activities during the last three months, Mr. Gandhisaid:--"My own impression of these three months' extensive experience isthat this movement of non-co-operation has come to stay, and it is mostdecidedly a purifying movement, in spite of isolated instances ofrowdyism, as for instance at Mrs. Besant's meeting in Bombay, at someplaces in Delhi, Bengal, and even in Gujarat. The people areassimilating day after day the spirit of non-violence, not necessarilyas a creed, but as an inevitable policy. I expect most startlingresults, more startling than, say, the discoveries of Sir J. C. Bose, orthe acceptance by the people of non-violence. If the Government could beassured beyond any possibility of doubt that no violence would ever beoffered by us the Government would from that moment alter its character, unconsciously and involuntarily, but nonetheless surely on thataccount. " "Alter its character, --in what, direction?" asked the _Times_representative. "Certainly in the direction which we ask it should move--that being inthe direction of Government becoming responsive to every call ofthe nation. " "Will you kindly explain further?" asked the representative. "By that I mean, " said Mr. Gandhi, "people will be able by assertingthemselves through fixed determination and self-sacrifice to gain theredress of the Khilafat wrong, the Punjab wrong, and attain the Swarajof their choice. " "But what is your Swaraj, and where does the Government come inthere--the Government which, you say will alter its characterunconsciously?" "My Swaraj, " said Mr. Gandhi, "is the Parliamentary Government of Indiain the modern sense of the term for the time being, and that Governmentwould be secured to us either through the friendly offices of theBritish people or without them. " "What do you mean by the phrase, 'without them!'" questioned theinterviewer. "This movement, " continued Mr. Gandhi, "is an endeavour to purge thepresent Government of selfishness and greed which determine almost everyone of their activities. Suppose that we have made it impossible bydisassociation from them to feed their greed. They might not wish toremain in India, as happened in the case of Somaliland, where the momentits administration ceased to be a paying proposition they evacuated it. " "How do you think, " queried the representative, "in practice this willwork out?" "What I have sketched before you, " said Mr. Gandhi, "is the finalpossibility. What I expect is that nothing of that kind will happen. Inso far as I understand the British people I will recognise the force ofpublic opinion when it has become real and patent. Then, and only then, will they realise the hideous injustice which in their name the Imperialministers and their representatives in India have perpetrated. They willtherefore remedy the two wrongs in accordance with the wishes of thepeople, and they will also offer a constitution exactly in accordancewith the wishes of the people of India, as represented by theirchosen leaders. "Supposing that the British Government wish to retire because India isnot a paying concern, what do you think will then be the positionof India?" Mr. Gandhi answered: "At that stage surely it is easy to understand thatIndia will then have evolved either outstanding spiritual height or theability to offer violence, against violence. She will have evolved anorganising ability of a high order, and will therefore be in every wayable to cope with any emergency that might arise. " "In other words, "observed the _Times_ representative, "you expect the moment of theBritish evacuation, if such a contingency arises, will coincide with themoment of India's preparedness and ability and conditions favourable forIndia to take over the Indian administration as a going concern and workit for the benefit and advancement of the Nation?" Mr. Gandhi answered the question with an emphatic affirmative. "Myexperience during the last months fills me with the hope, " continued Mr. Gandhi, "that within the nine months that remain of the year in which Ihave expected Swaraj for India we shall redress the two wrongs and weshall see Swaraj established in accordance with the wishes of the peopleof India. " "Where will the present Government be at the end of the nine months?"Asked the _Times_ representative. Mr. Gandhi, with a significant smile, said: "The lion will then lie withthe lamb. " _Young India, December, 1920. _ THE ATTAINMENT OF SWARAJ Mr. Gandhi in moving his resolution on the creed before the Congress, said, "The resolution which I have the honour to move is as follows: Theobject of the Indian National Congress is the attainment of Swarajya bythe people of India by all legitimate and peaceful means. " There are only two kinds of objections, so far as I understand, thatwill be advanced from this platform. One is that we may not to-day thinkof dissolving the British connection. What I say is that it isderogatory to national dignity to think of permanence of Britishconnection at any cost. We are labouring under a grievous wrong, whichit is the personal duty of every Indian to get redressed. This BritishGovernment not only refused to redress the wrong, but it refuses toacknowledge _its_ mistake and so long as it retains its attitude, it isnot possible for us to say all that we want to be or all that we want toget, retaining British connection. No matter what difficulties be in ourpath, we must make the clearest possible declaration to the world and tothe whole of India, that we may not possibly have British connection, ifthe British people will not do this elementary justice. I do not, forone moment, suggest that we want to end at the British connection at allcosts, unconditionally. If the British connection is for the advancementof India, we do not want to destroy it. But if it is inconsistent withour national self respect, then it is our bounden duty to destroy it. There is room in this resolution for both--those who believe that, byretaining British connection, we can purify ourselves and purify Britishpeople, and those who have no belief. As for instance, take the extremecase of Mr. Andrews. He says all hope for India is gone for keeping theBritish connection. He says there must be complete severance--completeindependence. There is room enough in this creed for a man like Mr. Andrews also. Take another illustration, a man like myself or my brotherShaukat Ali. There is certainly no room for us, if we have eternally tosubscribe to the doctrine, whether these wrongs are redressed or not, weshall have to evolve ourselves within the British Empire; there is noroom for me in that creed. Therefore this creed is elastic enough totake in both shades of opinions and the British people will have tobeware that, if they do not want to do justice, it will be the boundenduty of every Indian to destroy the Empire. I want just now to wind up my remarks with a personal appeal, drawingyour attention to an object lesson that was presented in the Bengalcamp yesterday. If you want Swaraj, you have got a demonstration of howto get Swaraj. There was a little bit of skirmish, a little bit ofsquabble, and a little bit of difference in the Bengal camp, as therewill always be differences so long as the world lasts. I have knowndifferences between husband and wife, because I am still a husband; Ihave noticed differences between parents and children, because I amstill a father of four boys, and they are all strong enough to destroytheir father so far as bodily struggle is concerned; I possess thatvaried experience of husband and parent; I know that we shall alwayshave squabbles, we shall always have differences but the lesson that Iwant to draw your attention to is that I had the honour and privilege ofaddressing both the parties. They gave me their undivided attention andwhat is more they showed their attachment, their affection and theirfellowship for me by accepting the humble advice that I had the honourof tendering to them, and I told them I am not here to distributejustice that can be awarded only through our worthy president. But I askyou not to go to the president, you need not worry him. If you arestrong, if you are brave, if you are intent upon getting Swaraj, and ifyou really want to revise the creed, then you will bottle up your rage, you will bottle up all the feelings of injustice that may rankle inyour hearts and forget these things here under this very roof and I toldthem to forget their differences, to forgot the wrongs. I don't want totell you or go into the history of that incident. Probably most of youknow. I simply want to invite your attention to the fact. I don't saythey have settled up their differences. I hope they have but I do knowthat they undertook to forget the differences. They undertook not toworry the President, they undertook not to make any demonstration hereor in the Subjects Committee. All honour to those who listened tothat advice. I only wanted my Bengali friends and all the other friends who have cometo this great assembly with a fixed determination to seek nothing butthe settlement of their country, to seek nothing but the advancement oftheir respective rights, to seek nothing but the conservation of thenational honour. I appeal to every one of you to copy the example set bythose who felt aggrieved and who felt that their heads were broken. Iknow, before we have done with this great battle on which we haveembarked at the special sessions of the Congress, we have to goprobably, possibly through a sea of blood, but let it not be said of usor any one of us that we are guilty of shedding blood, but let it besaid by generations yet to be born that we suffered, that we shed notsomebody's blood but our own, and so I have no hesitation in saying thatI do not want to show much sympathy for those who had their headsbroken or who were said to be even in danger of losing their lives. Whatdoes it matter? It is much better to die at the hands, at least, of ourown countrymen. What is there to revenge ourselves about or upon. So Iask everyone of you that if at any time there is blood-boiling withinyou against some fellow countrymen of yours, even though he may be inthe employ of Government, though he may be in the Secret Service, youwill take care not to be offended and not to return blow for blow. Understand that the very moment you return the blow from the detective, your cause is lost. This is your non-violent campaign. And so I askeveryone of you not to retaliate but to bottle up all your rage, todismiss your rage from you and you will rise graver men. I am here tocongratulate those who have restrained themselves from going to thePresident and bringing the dispute before him. Therefore I appeal to those who feel aggrieved to feel that they havedone the right thing in forgetting it and if they have not forgotten Iask them to try to forget the thing; and that is the object lesson towhich I wanted to draw your attention if you want to carry thisresolution. Do not carry this resolution only by an acclamation for thisresolution, but I want you to accompany the carrying out of thisresolution with a faith and resolve which nothing on earth can move. That you are intent upon getting Swaraj at the earliest possible momentand that you are intent upon getting Swaraj by means that arelegitimate, that are honourable and by means that are non-violent, thatare peaceful, you have resolved upon, so far you can say to-day. Wecannot give battle to this Government by means of steel, but we can givebattle by exercising, what I have so often called, "soul force" and soulforce is not the prerogative of one man of a Sanyasi or even a so-calledsaint. Soul force is the prerogative of every human being, female ormale and therefore I ask my countrymen, if they want to accept thisresolution, to accept it with that firm determination and to understandthat it is inaugurated under such good and favourable auspices as I havedescribed to you. In my humble opinion, the Congress will have done the rightest thing, ifit unanimously adopts this resolution. May God grant that you will passthis resolution unanimously, may God grant that you will also have thecourage and the ability to carry out the resolution and that within oneyear. V. HINDU MOSLEM UNITY [A dialogue between Editor and reader on the Hindu-Moslem Unity--_IndianHome Rule_. ] THE HINDUS AND THE MAHOMEDANS. EDITOR: Your last question is a serious one, and yet, on carefulconsideration, it will be found to be easy of solution. The questionarises because of the presence of the railways of the lawyers, and ofthe doctors. We shall presently examine the last two. We have alreadyconsidered the railways. I should, however, like to add that man is somade by nature as to require him to restrict his movements as far as hishands and feet will take him. If we did not rush about from place toplace by means of railways such other maddening conveniences, much ofthe confusion that arises would be obviated. Our difficulties are of ourown creation. God set a limit to a man's locomotive ambition in theconstruction of his body. Man immediately proceeded to discover means ofoverriding the limit. God gifted man with intellect that he might knowhis Maker. Man abused it, so that he might forget his Maker. I am soconstructed that I can only serve my immediate neighbours, but, in myconceit, I pretend to have discovered that I must with my body serveevery individual in the Universe. In thus attempting the impossible, mancomes in contact with different natures, different religions, and isutterly confounded. According to this reasoning, it must be apparent toyou that railways are a most dangerous institution. Man has thereforegone further away from his Maker. READER: But I am impatient to hear your answer to my question. Has theintroduction of Mahomedanism not unmade the nation? EDITOR: India cannot cease to be one nation because people belonging todifferent religions live in it. The introduction of foreigners does notnecessarily destroy the nation, they merge in it. A country is onenation only when such a condition obtains in it. That country must havea faculty for assimilation. India has ever been such a country. Inreality, there are as many religions as there are individuals, but thosewho are conscious of the spirit of nationality do not interfere with oneanother's religion. If they do, they are not fit to be considered anation. If the Hindus believe that India should be peopled only byHindus, they are living in dreamland. The Hindus, the Mahomedans, theParsees and the Christians who have made India their country are fellowcountrymen, and they will have to live in unity if only for their owninterest. In no part of the world are one nationality and one religionsynonymous terms: nor has it ever been so in India. READER: But what about the inborn enmity between Hindus and Mahomedans? EDITOR: That phrase has been invented by our mutual enemy. When theHindus and Mahomedans fought against one another, they certainly spokein that strain. They have long since ceased to fight. How, then, canthere be any inborn enmity? Pray remember this, too, that we did notcease to fight only after British occupation. The Hindus flourishedunder Moslem sovereigns, and Moslems under the Hindu. Each partyrecognised that mutual fighting was suicidal, and that neither partywould abandon its religion by force of arms. Both parties, therefore, decided to live in peace. With the English advent the quarrelsrecommenced. The proverbs you have quoted were coined when both were fighting; toquote them now is obviously harmful. Should we not remember that manyHindus and Mahomedans own the same ancestors, and the same blood runsthrough their veins? Do people become enemies because they change theirreligion? Is the God of the Mahomedan different from the God of theHindu? Religions are different roads converging to the same point. Whatdoes it matter that we take different roads, so long as we reach thesame goal? Wherein is the cause for quarrelling? Moreover, there are deadly proverbs as between the followers of Shivaand those of Vishnu, yet nobody suggests that these two do not belong tothe same nation. It is said that the Vedic religion is different fromJainism, but the followers of the respective faiths are not differentnations. The fact is that we have become enslaved, and, therefore, quarrel and like to have our quarrels decided by a third party. Thereare Hindu iconoclasts as there are Mahomedan. The more we advance intrue knowledge, the better we shall understand that we need not be atwar with those whose religion we may not follow. READER: Now I would like to know your views about cow protection. EDITOR: I myself respect the cow, that is, I look upon her withaffectionate reverence. The cow is the protector of India, because, itbeing an agricultural country, is dependent on the cow's progeny. She isa most useful animal in hundreds of ways. Our Mahomedan brethren willadmit this. But, just as I respect the cow so do I respect my fellow-men. A man isjust as useful as a cow, no matter whether he be a Mahomedan or a Hindu. Am I, then to fight with or kill a Mahomedan in order to save a cow? Indoing so, I would become an enemy as well of the cow as of theMahomedan. Therefore, the only method I know of protecting the cow isthat I should approach my Mahomedan brother and urge him for the sake ofthe country to join me in protecting her. If he would not listen to me, I should let the cow go for the simple reason that the matter is beyondmy ability. If I were over full of pity for the cow, I should sacrificemy life to save her, but not take my brother's. This, I hold, is the lawof our religion. When men become obstinate, it is a difficult thing. If I pull one way, my Moslem brother will pull another. If I put on a superior air, he willreturn the compliment. If I bow to him gently, he will do it much, moreso, and if he does not, I shall not be considered to have done wrong inhaving bowed. When the Hindus became insistent, the killing of cowsincreased. In my opinion, cow protection societies may be considered cowkilling societies. It is a disgrace to us that we should need suchsocieties. When we forgot how to protect cows, I suppose we needed suchsocieties. What am I to do when a blood-brother is on the point of killing a cow?Am I to kill him, or to fall down at his feet and implore him? If youadmit that I should adopt the latter course I must do the same to myMoslem brother. Who protects the cow from destruction by Hindus whenthey cruelly ill-treat her? Whoever reasons with the Hindus when theymercilessly belabour the progeny of the cow with their sticks? But thishas not prevented us from remaining one nation. Lastly, if it be true that the Hindus believe in the doctrine ofnon-killing, and the Mahomedans do not, what, I pray, is the duty of theformer? It is not written that a follower of the religion of Ahimsa(non-killing) may kill a fellow-man. For him the way is straight. Inorder to save one being, he may not kill another. He can onlyplead--therein lies his sole duty. But does every Hindu believe in Ahimsa? Going to the root of the matter, not one man really practises such a religion, because we do destroylife. We are said to follow that religion because we want to obtainfreedom from liability to kill any kind of life. Generally speaking, wemay observe that many Hindus partake of meat and are not, therefore, followers of Ahimsa. It is, therefore, preposterous to suggest that thetwo cannot live together amicably because the Hindus believe in Ahimsaand the Mahomedans do not. These thoughts are put into our minds by selfish and false religiousteachers. The English put the finishing touch. They have a habit ofwriting history; they pretend to study the manners and customs of allpeoples, God has given us a limited mental capacity, but they usurp thefunction of the Godhead and indulge in novel experiments. They writeabout their own researches in most laudatory terms and hypnotise us intobelieving them. We in our ignorance, then fall at their feet. Those who do not wish to misunderstand things may read up the Koran, andwill find therein hundreds of passages acceptable to the Hindus; and theBhagavad Gita contains passages to which not a Mahomedan can takeexception. Am I to dislike a Mahomedan because there are passages in theKoran I do not understand or like? It takes two to make a quarrel. If Ido not want to quarrel with a Mahomedan, the latter will be powerless tofoist a quarrel on me, and, similarly, I should be powerless if aMahomedan refuses his assistance to quarrel with me. An arm striking theair will become disjointed. If everyone will try to understand the coreof his own religion and adhere to it, and will not allow false teachersto dictate to him, there will be no room left for quarrelling. READER: But, will the English ever allow the two bodies to join hands? EDITOR: This question arises out of your timidity. It betrays ourshallowness. If two brothers want to live in peace, is it possible for athird party to separate them? If they were to listen to evil counsels, we would consider them to be foolish. Similarly, we Hindus andMahomedans would have to blame our folly rather than the English, if weallowed them to put asunder. A clay pot would break through impact; ifnot with one stone, thou with another. The way to save the pot is not tokeep it away from the danger point, but to bake it so that no stonewould break it. We have then to make our hearts of perfectly baked clay. Then we shall be steeled against all danger. This can be easily done bythe Hindus. They are superior in numbers, they pretend that they aremore educated, they are, therefore, better able to shield themselvesfrom attack on their amicable relations with the Mahomedans. There is a mutual distrust between the two communities. The Mahomedans, therefore, ask for certain concessions from Lord Morley. Why should theHindus oppose this? If the Hindus desisted, the English would notice it, the Mahomedans would gradually begin to trust the Hindus, andbrotherliness would be the outcome. We should be ashamed to take ourquarrels to the English. Everyone can find out for himself that theHindus can lose nothing be desisting. The man who has inspiredconfidence in another has never lost anything in this world. I do not suggest that the Hindus and the Mahomedans will never fight. Two brothers living together often do so. We shall sometimes have ourheads broken. Such a thing ought not to be necessary, but all men arenot equi-minded. When people are in a rage, they do many foolish things. These we have to put up with. But, when we do quarrel, we certainly donot want to engage counsel and to resort to English or any law-courts. Two men fight; both have their heads broken, or one only. How shall athird party distribute justice amongst them? Those who fight may expectto be injured. HINDU-MAHOMEDAN UNITY Mr. Candler some time ago asked me in an imaginary interview whether ifI was sincere in my professions of Hindu-Mahomedan Unity. I would eatand drink with a Mahomedean and give my daughter in marriage to aMahomedan. This question has been asked again by some friends in anotherform. Is it necessary for Hindu Mahomedan Unity that there should heinterdining and intermarrying? The questioners say that if the two arenecessary, real unity can never take place because crores of _Sanatanis_would never reconcile themselves to interdining, much less tointermarriage. I am one of those who do not consider caste to be a harmful institution. In its origin caste was a wholesome custom and promoted nationalwell-being. In my opinion the idea that interdining or intermarrying isnecessary for national growth, is a superstition borrowed from the West. Eating is a process just as vital as the other sanitary necessities oflife. And if mankind had not, much to its harm, made of eating a fetishand indulgence we would have performed the operation of eating inprivate even as one performs the other necessary functions of life inprivate. Indeed the highest culture in Hinduism regards eating in thatlight and there are thousands of Hindus still living who will not eattheir food in the presence of anybody. I can recall the names of severalcultured men and women who ate their food in entire privacy but whonever had any illwill against anybody and who lived on the friendliestterms with all. Intermarriage is a still more difficult question. If brothers andsisters can live on the friendliest footing without ever thinking ofmarrying each other, I can see no difficulty in my daughter regardingevery Mahomedan brother and _vice versa_. I hold strong views onreligion and on marriage. The greater the restraint we exercise withregard to our appetites whether about eating or marrying, the better webecome from a religious standpoint. I should despair of ever cultivatingamicable relations with the world, if I had to recognise the right orthe propriety of any young man offering his hand in marriage to mydaughter or to regard it as necessary for me to dine with anybody andeverybody. I claim that I am living on terms of friendliness with thewhole world. I have never quarrelled with a single Mahomedan orChristian but for years I have taken nothing but fruit in Mahomedan orChristian households. I would most certainly decline to eat food cookedfrom the same plate with my son or to drink water out of a cup which hislips have touched and which has not been washed. But the restraint orthe exclusiveness exercised in these matters by me has never affectedthe closest companionship with the Mahomedan or the Christian friendsor my sons. But interdining and intermarriage have never been a bar to disunion, quarrels and worse. The Pandavas and the Kauravas flew at one another'sthroats without compunction although they interdined and intermarried. The bitterness between the English and the Germans has not yet died out. The fact is that intermarriage and interdining are not necessary factorsin friendship and unity though they are often emblems thereof. Butinsistence on either the one or the other can easily become and isto-day a bar to Hindu-Mahomedan Unity. If we make ourselves believe thatHindus and Mahomedans cannot be one unless they interdine or intermarry, we would be creating an artificial barrier between us which it might bealmost impossible to remove. And it would seriously interfere with theflowing unity between Hindus and Mahomedans if, for example, Mahomedanyouths consider it lawful to court Hindu girls. The Hindu parents willnot, even if they suspected any such thing, freely admit Mahomedans totheir homes as they have begun to do now. In my opinion it is necessaryfor Hindu and Mahomedan young men to recognise this limitation. I hold it to be utterly impossible for Hindus and Mahomedans tointermarry and yet retain intact each other's religion. And the truebeauty of Hindu-Mahomedan Unity lies in each remaining true to his ownreligion and yet being true to each other. For, we are thinking ofHindus and Mahomedans even of the most orthodox type being able toregard one another as natural friends instead of regarding one anotheras natural enemies as they have done hitherto. What then does the Hindu-Mahomedan Unity consist in and how can it bebest promoted? The answer is simple. It consists in our having a commonpurpose, a common goal and common sorrows. It is best promoted byco-operating to reach the common goal, by sharing one another's sorrowand by mutual toleration. A common goal we have. We wish this greatcountry of ours to be greater and self-governing. [4] We have enoughsorrows to share and to-day seeing that the Mahomedans are deeplytouched on the question of Khilafat and their case is just, nothing canbe so powerful for winning Mahomedans friendship for the Hindu as togive his whole-hearted support to the Mahomedan claim. No amount ofdrinking out of the same cup or dining out of the same bowl can bind thetwo as this help in the Khilafat question. And mutual toleration is a necessity for all time and for all races. Wecannot live in peace if the Hindu will not tolerate the Mahomedan formof worship of God and his manners and customs or if the mahomedans willbe impatient of Hindu idolatory, cow-worship. It is not necessary fortoleration that I must approve of what I tolerate. I heartily dislikedrinking, meat eating and smoking, but I tolerate all these in Hindus, Mahomedans and Christians even as I expect them to tolerate myabstinence from all these, although they may dislike it. All thequarrels between the Hindus and the Mahomedans have arisen from eachwanting to _force_ the other his view. HINDU-MUSLIM UNITY There can be no doubt that successful non-co-operation depends as muchon Hindu-Muslim Unity as on non-violence. Greatest strain will be putupon both in the course of the struggle and if it survives that strain, victory is a certainty. A severe strain was put upon it in Agra and it has been stated that wheneither party went to the authorities they were referred to MaulanaShaukat Ali and me. Fortunately there was a far better man at hand. Hakimji Ajmal khan is a devout Muslim who commands the confidence andthe respect of both the parties. He with his band of workers hastened toAgra, settled the dispute and the parties became friends as they werenever before. An incident occurred nearer Delhi and the same influenceworked successfully to avoid what might have become an explosion. But Hakimji Ajmal khan cannot be everywhere appearing at the exact houras an angel of peace. Nor can Maulana Shankat Ali or I go everywhere. And yet perfect peace must be observed between the two communities inspite of attempts to divide them. Why was there any appeal made to the authorities at all at Agra? If weare to work out non-co-operation with any degree of success we must beable to dispense with the protection of the Government when we quarrelamong ourselves. The whole scheme of non-co-operation must break topieces, if our final reliance is to be upon British intervention for theadjustment of our quarrels or the punishment of the guilty ones. Inevery village and hamlet there must be at least one Hindu and oneMuslim, whose primary business must be to prevent quarrels between thetwo. Some times however, even blood-brothers come to blows. In theinitial stages we are bound to do so here and there. Unfortunately wewho are public workers have made little attempt to understand andinfluence the masses and least of all the most turbulent among them. During the process of insinuating ourselves in the estimation of themasses and until we have gained control over the unruly, there are boundto be exhibitions of hasty temper now and then. We must learn at suchtimes to do without an appeal to the Government. Hakimji Ajmal Khan hasshown us how to do it. The union that we want is not a patched up thing but a union of heartsbased upon a definite recognition of the indubitable proposition thatSwaraj for India must be an impossible dream without an indissolubleunion between the Hindus and the Muslims of India. It must not be a meretruce. It cannot be based upon mutual fear. It must be a partnershipbetween equals each respecting the religion of the other. I would frankly despair of reaching such union if there was anything inthe holy Quran enjoining upon the followers of Islam to treat Hindus astheir natural enemies or if there was anything in Hinduism to warrant abelief in the eternal enmity between the two. We would ill learn our history if we conclude that because we havequarrelled in the past, we are destined so to continue unless some suchstrong power like the British keep us by force of arms from flying ateach other's throats. But I am convinced that there is no warrant inIslam or Hinduism for any such belief. True it is that interestedfanatical priests in both religions have set the one against the other. It is equally true that Muslim rulers like Christian rulers have usedthe sword for the propagation of their respective faiths. But in spiteof many dark things of the modern times, the world's opinion to-day willas little tolerate forcible conversions as it will tolerate forcibleslavery. That probably is the most effective contribution of thescientific spirit of the age. That spirit has revolutionised many afalse notion about Christianity as it has about Islam. I do not know asingle writer on Islam who defends the use of force in the proselytisingprocess. The influences exerted in our times are far more subtle thanthat of the sword. I believe that in the midst of all the bloodshed, chicane and fraudbeing resorted to on a colossal scale in the west, the whole humanity issilently but surely making progress towards a better age. And India byfinding true independence and self-expression through an imperishableHindu-Muslim unity and through non-violent means, i. E. , unadulteratedself sacrifice can point a way out of the prevailing darkness. VI. TREATMENT OF THE DEPRESSED CLASSES DEPRESSED CLASSES Vivekanand used to call the Panchamas 'suppressed classes. ' There is nodoubt that Vivekanand's is a more accurate adjective. We have suppressedthem and have consequently become ourselves depressed. That we havebecome the 'Pariahs of the Empire' is, in Gokhale's language, theretributive justice meted out to us by a just God. A correspondentindignantly asks me in a pathetic letter reproduced elsewhere, what I amdoing for them. I have given the letter with the correspondent's ownheading. Should not we the Hindus wash our bloodstained hands before weask the English to wash theirs? This is a proper question reasonablyput. And if a member of a slave nation could deliver the suppressedclasses from their slavery without freeing myself from my own, I woulddo so to day. But it is an impossible task. A slave has not the freedomeven to do the right thing. It is a right for me to prohibit theimportation of foreign goods, but I have no power to bring it about. Itwas right for Maulana Mahomed Ali to go to Turkey and to tell the Turkspersonally that India was with them in their righteous struggle. He wasnot free to do so. If I had a truly national legislative I would answerHindu insolence by creating special and better wells for the exclusiveuse of suppressed classes and by erecting better and more numerousschools for them, so that there would be not a single member of thesuppressed classes left without a school to teach their children. But Imust wait for that better day. Meanwhile are the depressed classes to be loft to their own resources?Nothing of the sort. In my own humble manner I have done and am doingall I can for my Panchama brother. There are three courses open to those downtrodden members of the nation. For their impatience they may call in the assistance of the slave owningGovernment. They will get it but they will fall from the frying pan intothe fire. To-day they are slaves of slaves. By seeking Government aid, they will be used for suppressing their kith and kin. Instead of beingsinned against, they will themselves be the sinners. The Mussalmanstried it and failed. They found that they were worse off than before. The Sikhs did it unwittingly and failed. To-day there is no morediscontented community in India than the Sikhs. Government aid istherefore no solution. The second is rejection of Hinduism and wholesale conversion to Islam orChristianity. And if a change of religion could be justified for worldlybetterment, I would advise it without hesitation. But religion is amatter of the heart. No physical inconvenience can warrant abandonmentof one's own religion. If the inhuman treatment of the Panchamas were apart of Hinduism, its rejection would be a paramount duty both for themand for those like me who would not make a fetish even of religion andcondone every evil in its sacred name. But, I believe thatuntouchability is no part of Hinduism. It is rather its excrescence tobe removed by every effort. And there is quite an army of Hindureformers who have set their heart upon ridding Hinduism of this blot. Conversion, therefore, I hold, is no remedy whatsoever. Then there remains, finally, self-help and self-dependence, with suchaid as the non-Panchama Hindus will render of their own motion, not as amatter of patronage but as a matter of duty. And herein comes the use ofnon-co-operation. My correspondent was correctly informed by Mr. Rajagopaluchari and Mr. Hanumantarao that I would favour well-regulatednon-co-operation for this acknowledged evil. But non-co-operation meansindependence of outside help, it means effort from within. It would notbe non-co-operation to insist on visiting prohibited areas. That may becivil disobedience if it is peacefully carried out. But I have found tomy cost that civil disobedience requires far greater preliminarytraining and self-control. All can non-co-operate, but few only canoffer civil disobedience. Therefore, by way of protest against Hinduism, the Panchamas can certainly stop all contact and connection with theother Hindus so long as special grievances are maintained. But thismeans organised intelligent effort. And so far as I can see, there is noleader among the Panchamas who can lead them to victory throughnon-co-operation. The better way, therefore, perhaps, is for the Panchamas heartily tojoin the great national movement that is now going on for throwing offthe slavery of the present Government. It is easy enough for thePanchama friends to see that non-co-operation against this evilgovernment presupposes co-operation between the different sectionsforming the Indian nation. The Hindus must realise that if they wish tooffer successful non-co-operation against the Government, they must makecommon cause with the Panchamas, even as they have made common causewith the Mussalmans. Non-co-operation with it is free from violence, isessentially a movement of intensive self-purification. That process hascommenced and whether the Panchamas deliberately take part in it ornot, the rest of the Hindus dare not neglect them without hamperingtheir own progress. Hence though the Panchama problem is as dear to meas life itself, I rest satisfied with the exclusive attention tonational non-co-operation. I feel sure that the greater includesthe less. Closely allied to this question is the non-Brahmin question. I wish Ihad studied it more closely than I have been able to. A quotation frommy speech delivered at a private meeting in Madras has been torn fromits context and misused to further the antagonism between the so-calledBrahmins and the so-called non-Brahmins. I do not wish to retract a wordof what I said at that meeting, I was appealing to those who areaccepted as Brahmins. I told them that in my opinion the treatment ofnon-Brahmins by the Brahmins was as satanic as the treatment of us bythe British. I added that the non-Brahmins should be placated withoutany ado or bargaining. But my remarks were never intended to encouragethe powerful non-Brahmins of Maharashira or Madras, or the mischievouselement among them, to overawe the so-called Brahmins. I use the word'so-called' advisedly. For the Brahmins who have freed themselves fromthe thraldom of superstitious orthodoxy have not only no quarrel withnon-Brahmins as such, but are in every way eager to advancenon-Brahmins wherever they are weak. No lover of his country canpossibly achieve its general advance if he dared to neglect the least ofhis countrymen. Those non-Brahmins therefore who are coqueting with theGovernment are selling themselves and the nation to which they belong. By all means let those who have faith in the Government help to sustainit, but let no Indian worthy of his birth cut off his nose to spitethe face. AMELIORATION OF THE DEPRESSED CLASSES The resolution of the Senate of the Gujarat National University inregard to Mr. Andrews' question about the admission of children of the'depressed' classes to the schools affiliated to that University isreported to have raised a flutter in Ahmedabad. Not only has the fluttergiven satisfaction to a 'Times of India' correspondent, but the occasionhas led to the discovery by him of another defect in the constitution ofthe Senate in that it does not contain a single Muslim member. Thediscovery, however, I may inform the reader, is no proof of the want ofnational character of the University. The Hindu-Muslim unity is no merelip expression. It requires no artificial proofs. The simple reason whythere is no Mussalman representative on the Senate is that no highereducated Mussalman, able to give his time, has been found to takesufficient interest in the national education movement. I merely referto this matter to show that we must reckon with attempts to discreditthe movement even misinterpretation of motives. That is a difficultyfrom without and easier to deal with. The 'depressed' classes difficulty is internal and therefore far moreserious because it may give rise to a split and weaken the cause--nocause can survive internal difficulties if they are indefinitelymultiplied. Yet there can be no surrender in the matter of principlesfor the avoidance of splits. You cannot promote a cause when you areundermining it by surrendering its vital parts. The depressed classesproblem is a vital part of the cause. _Swaraj_ is as inconceivablewithout full reparation to the 'depressed' classes as it is impossiblewithout real Hindu-Muslim unity. In my opinion we have become 'pariahsof the Empire' because we have created 'pariahs' in our midst. The slaveowner is always more hurt than the slave. We shall be unfit to gainSwaraj so long as we would keep in bondage a fifth of the population ofHindustan. Have we not made the 'pariah' crawl on his belly? Have we notsegregated him? And if it is religion so to treat the 'pariah. ' It isthe religion of the white race to segregate us. And if it is no argumentfor the white races to say that we are satisfied with the badge of ourinferiority, it is less for us to say that the 'pariah' is satisfiedwith his. Our slavery is complete when we begin to hug it. The Gujarat Senate therefore counted the cost when it refused to bendbefore the storm. This non-co-operation is a process ofself-purification. We may not cling to putrid customs and claim the pureboon of _Swaraj_. Untouchability I hold is a custom, not an integralpart of Hinduism. The world advanced in thought, though it is stillbarbarous in action. And no religion can stand that which is not basedon fundamental truths. Any glorification of error will destroy areligion as surely as disregard of a disease is bound to destroy a body. This government of ours is an unscrupulous corporation. It has ruled bydividing Mussalmans from Hindus. It is quite capable of taking advantageof the internal weaknesses of Hinduism. It will set the 'depressed'classes against the rest of the Hindus, non-Brahmins against Brahmins. The Gujarat Senate resolution does not end the trouble. It merely pointsout the difficulty. The trouble will end only when the masses andclasses of Hindus have rid themselves of the sin of untouchability. AHindu lover of Swaraj will as assiduously work for the amelioration ofthe lot of the 'depressed' classes as he works for Hindu-Muslim unity. We must treat them as our brothers and give them the same rights that weclaim for ourselves. THE SIN OF UNTOUCHABILITY It is worthy of note that the subjects Committee accepted without anyopposition the clause regarding the sin of untouchability. It is wellthat the National assembly passed the resolution stating that theremoval of this blot on Hinduism was necessary for the attainment ofSwaraj. The Devil succeeds only by receiving help from his fellows. Healways takes advantage of the weakest spots in our natures in order togain mastery over us. Even so does the Government retain its controlover us through our weaknesses or vices. And if we would renderourselves proof against its machination, we must remove our weaknesses. It is for that reason that I have called non-co-operation a process ofpurification. As soon as that process is completed, this government mustfall to pieces for want of the necessary environment, just as mosquitoscease to haunt a place whose cess-pools are filled up and dried. Has not a just Nemesis overtaken us for the crime of untouchability?Have we not reaped as we have sown? Have we not practised Dwyerism andO'Dwyerism on our own kith and kin? We have segregated the 'pariah' andwe are in turn segregated in the British Colonies. We deny him the useof public wells; we throw the leavings of our plates at him. His veryshadow pollutes us. Indeed there is no charge that the 'pariah' cannotfling in our faces and which we do not fling in the faces of Englishmen. How is this blot on Hinduism to be removed? 'Do unto others as you wouldthat others should do unto you. ' I have often told English officialsthat, if they are friends and servants of India, they should come downfrom their pedestal, cease to be patrons, demonstrate by their lovingdeeds that they are in every respect our friends, and believe us to beequals in the same sense they believe fellow Englishmen to be theirequals. After the experiences of the Punjab and the Khilafat, I havegone a step further and asked them to repent and to change their hearts. Even so is it necessary for us Hindus to repent of the wrong we havedone, to alter our behaviour towards those whom we have 'suppressed' bya system as devilish as we believe the English system of the Governmentof India to be. We must not throw a few miserable schools at them; wemust not adopt the air of superiority towards them. We must treat themas our blood brothers as they are in fact. We must return to them theinheritance of which we have robbed them. And this must not be the actof a few English-knowing reformers merely, but it must be a consciousvoluntary effort on the part of the masses. We may not wait tilleternity for this much belated reformation. We must aim at bringing itabout within this year of grace, probation, preparation and _tapasya_. It is a reform not to follow _Swaraj_ but to precede it. Untouchability is not a sanction of religion, it is a devise of Satan. The devil has always quoted scriptures. But scriptures cannot transcendreason and truth. They are intended to purify reason and illuminatetruth. I am not going to burn a spotless horse because the Vedas arereported to have advised, tolerated, or sanctioned the sacrifice. For methe Vedas are divine and unwritten. 'The letter killeth. ' It is thespirit that giveth the light. And the spirit of the Vedas is purity, truth, innocence, chastity, humility, simplicity, forgiveness, godliness, and all that makes a man or woman noble and brave. There isneither nobility nor bravery in treating the great and uncomplainingscavengers of the nation as worse than dogs to be despised and spatupon. Would that God gave us the strength and the wisdom to becomevoluntary scavengers of the nation as the 'suppressed' classes areforced to be. There are Augean stables enough and to spare for us toclean. VII. TREATMENT OF INDIANS ABROAD INDIANS ABROAD The prejudice against Indian settlers outside India is showing itself ina variety of ways: Under the impudent suggestion of sedition the FijiGovernment has deported Mr. Manilal Doctor who with his brave andcultured wife has been rendering assistance to the poor indenturedIndians of Fiji in a variety of ways. The whole trouble has arisen overthe strike of the labourers in Fiji. Indentures have been canceled, butthe spirit of slavery is by no means dead. We do not know the genesis ofthe strike; we do not know that the strikers have done no wrong. But wedo know what is behind when a charge of sedition is brought against thestrikers and their friends. The readers must remember that theGovernment that has scented sedition in the recent upheaval in Fiji isthe Government that had the hardihood to libel Mr. Andrew's character. What can be the meaning of sedition in connection with the Fiji strikersand Mr. Manilal Doctor? Did they and he want to seize the reins ofGovernment? Did they want any power in that country? They struck forelementary freedom. And it is a prostitution of terms to use the wordsedition in such connection. The strikers may have been overhasty. Mr. Manilal Doctor may have misled them. If his advice bordered on thecriminal he should have been tried. The information in our possessiongoes to show that he has been strictly constitutional. Our point, however, is that it is an abuse of power for the Fiji Government to havedeported Mr. Manilal Doctor without a trial. It is wrong in principle todeprive a person of his liberty on mere suspicion and without giving himan opportunity of clearing his character. Mr. Manilal Doctor, be itremembered, has for years past made Fiji his home. He has, we believe, bought property there. He has children born in Fiji. Have the childrenno rights? Has the wife none? May a promising career be ruined at thebidding of a lawless Government? Has Mr. Manilal Doctor been compensatedfor the losses he must sustain? We trust that the Government of Indiawhich has endeavoured to protect the rights of Indian settlers abroadwill take up the question of Mr. Doctor's deportation. Nor is Fiji the only place where the spirit of lawlessness among thepowerful has come to the surface. Indians of (the late) German EastAfrica find themselves in a worse position than heretofore. They statethat even their property is not safe. They have to pay all kinds of dueson passports. They are hampered in their trade. They are not able evento send money orders. In British East Africa the cloud is perhaps the thickest. The Europeansettlers there are doing their utmost to deprive the Indian settlers ofpractically every right they have hitherto possessed. An attempt isbeing made to compass their ruin both by legislative enactment andadministrative action. In South Africa every Indian who has anything to do with that part ofthe British Dominions is watching with bated breath the progress ofcommission that is now sitting. The Government of India have no easy job in protecting the interests ofIndian settlers in these various parts of His Majesty's dominions. Theywill be able to do so only by following the firmest and the mostconsistent policy. Justice is admittedly on the side of the Indiansettlers. But they are the weak party. A strong agitation in Indiafollowed by strong action by the Government of India can alone save thesituation. INDIANS OVERSEAS The meeting held at the Excelsior Theatre in Bombay to pass resolutionsregarding East Africa and Fiji, and presided over by Sir NarayanChandavarkar, was an impressive gathering. The Theatre was filled tooverflowing. Mr. Andrews' speech made clear what is needed. Both thepolitical and the civil rights of Indians of East Africa are at stake. Mr. Anantani, himself an East African settler, showed in a forcefulspeech that the Indians were the pioneer settlers. An Indian sailornamed Kano directed the celebrated Vasco De Gama to India. He added amidapplause that Stanley's expedition for the search and relief of Dr. Livingstone was also fitted out by Indians. Indian workmen had built theUganda Railway at much peril to their lives. An Indian contractor hadtaken the contract. Indian artisans had supplied the skill. And nowtheir countrymen were in danger of being debarred from its use. The uplands of East Africa have been declared a Colony and the lowlandsa Protectorate. There is a sinister significance attached to thedeclaration. The Colonial system gives the Europeans larger powers. Itwill tax all the resources of the Government of India to prevent thehealthy uplands from becoming a whiteman's preserve and the Indiansfrom being relegated to the swampy lowlands. The question of franchise will soon become a burning one. It will besuicidal to divide the electorate or to appoint Indians by nomination. There must be one general electoral roll applying the samequalifications to all the voters. This principle, as Mr. Andrewsreminded the meeting, had worked well at the Cape. The second part of the East African resolution shows the condition ofour countrymen in the late German East Africa. Indian soldiers foughtthere and now the position of Indians is worse than under German rule. H. H. The Agakhan suggested that German East Africa should beadministered from India. Sir Theodore Morison would have couped up allIndians in German East Africa. The result was that both the proposalswent by the board and the expected has happened. The greed of theEnglish speculator has prevailed and he is trying to squeeze out theIndian. What will the Government of India protect? Has it the will to doso? Is not India itself being exploited? Mr. Jehangir Petit recalled thelate Mr. Gokhale's views that we were not to expect a full satisfactionregarding the status of our countrymen across the seas until we had putour own house in order. Helots in our own country, how could we dobetter outside? Mr. Petit wants systematic and severe retaliation. Inmy opinion, retaliation is a double-edged weapon. It does not fail tohurt the user if it also hurts the party against whom it is used. Andwho is to give effect to retaliation? It is too much to expect anEnglish Government to adopt effective retaliation against their ownpeople. They will expostulate, they will remonstrate, but they will notgo to war with their own Colonies. For the logical outcome ofretaliation must mean war, if retaliation will not answer. Let us face the facts frankly. The problem is difficult alike forEnglishmen and for us. The Englishmen and Indians do not agree in theColonies. The Englishmen do not want us where they can live. Theircivilisation is different from ours. The two cannot coalesce until thereis mutual respect. The Englishman considers himself to belong to theruling race. The Indian struggles to think that he does not belong tothe subject race and in the very act of thinking admits his subjection. We must then attain equality at home before we can make any realimpression abroad. This is not to say that we must not strive to do better abroad whilst weare ill at ease in our own home. We must preserve, we must help ourcountrymen who have settled outside India. Only if we recognise the truesituation, we and our countrymen abroad will learn to be patient andknow that our chief energy must be concentrated on a betterment of ourposition at home. If we can raise our status here to that of equalpartners not in name but in reality so that every Indian might feel it, all else must follow as a matter of course. PARIAHS OF THE EMPIRE The memorable Conference at Gujrat in its resolution on the status ofIndians abroad has given it as its opinion that even this question maybecome one more reason for non-co-operation. And so it may. Nowhere hasthere been such open defiance of every canon of justice and propriety asin the shameless decision of confiscation of Indian rights in the KeniaColony announced by its Governor. This decision has been supported byLord Milnor and Mr. Montagu. And his Indian colleagues are satisfiedwith the decision. Indians, who have made East Africa, who out-numberthe English, are deprived practically of the right of representation onthe Council. They are to be segregated in parts not habitable by theEnglish. They are to have neither the political nor the materialcomfort. They are to become 'Pariahs' in a country made by their ownlabour, wealth and intelligence. The Viceroy is pleased to say that hedoes not like the outlook and is considering the steps to be taken tovindicate the justice. He is not met with a new situation. The Indiansof East Africa had warned him of the impending doom. And if HisExcellency has not yet found the means of ensuring redress, he is notlikely to do it in future. I would respectfully ask his Indiancolleagues whether they can stand this robbery of theircountrymen rights. In South Africa the situation is not less disquieting. My misgivingsseem to be proving true, and repatriation is more likely to provecompulsory than voluntary. It is a response to the anti-Asiaticagitation, not a measure of relief for indigent Indians. It looks verylike a trap laid for the unwary Indian. The Union Government appears tobe taking an unlawful advantage of a section of a relieving law designedfor a purpose totally different from the one now intended. As for Fiji, the crime against humanity is evidently to be hushed up. Ido hope that unless an inquiry is to be made into the Fiji Martial Lawdoings, no Indian member will undertake to go to Fiji. The Government ofIndia appear to have given an undertaking to send Indian labour to Fijiprovided the commission that was to proceed there in order toinvestigate the condition on the spot returns with a favourable report. For British Guiana I observe from the papers received from thatquarter, that the mission that came here is already declaring thatIndian labour will be forthcoming from India. There seems to me to be noreal prospect for Indian enterprise in that part of the world. We arenot wanted in any part of the British Dominion except as Pariahs to dothe scavenging for the European settlers. The situation is clear. We are Pariahs in our own home. We get only whatGovernment intend to give, not what we demand and have a right to. Wemay get the crumbs, never the loaf. I have seen large and temptingcrumbs from a lavish table. And I have seen the eyes of our Pariahs--theshame of Hinduism--brightening to see those heavy crumbs filling theirbaskets. But the superior Hindu, who is filling the basket from a safedistance, knows that they are unfit for his own consumption. And so wein our turn may receive even Governorships which the real rulers nolonger require or which they cannot retain with safety for theirmaterial interest--the political and material hold on India. It is timewe realised our true status. VIII. NON-CO-OPERATION A writer in the "Times of India, " the Editor of that wonderful daily andMrs. Besant have all in their own manner condemned non-co-operationconceived in connection with the Khilafat movement. All the threewritings naturally discuss many side issues which I shall omit for thetime being. I propose to answer two serious objections raised by thewriters. The sobriety with which they are stated entitles them to agreater consideration than if they had been given in violent language. In non-co-operation, the writers think, it would be difficult if notimpossible to avoid violence. Indeed violence, the "Times of India"editorial says, has already commenced in that ostracism has beenresorted to in Calcutta and Delhi. Now I fear that ostracism to acertain extent is impossible to avoid. I remember in South Africa in theinitial stages of the passive resistance campaign those who had fallenaway were ostracised. Ostracism is violent or peaceful in according tothe manner in which it is practised. A congregation may well refuse torecite prayers after a priest who prizes his title above his honour. Butthe ostracism will become violent if the individual life of a person ismade unbearable by insults innuendoes or abuse. The real danger ofviolence lies in the people resorting to non-co-operation becomingimpatient and revengeful. This may happen, if, for instance, payment oftaxes is suddenly withdrawn or if pressure is put upon soldiers to laydown their arms. I however do not fear any evil consequences, for thesimple reason that every responsible Mahomedan understands thatnon-co-operation to be successful must be totally unattended withviolence. The other objection raised is that those who may give up theirservice may have to starve. That is just a possibility but a remote one, for the committee will certainly make due provision for those who maysuddenly find themselves out of employment. I propose however to examinethe whole of the difficult question much more fully in a future issueand hope to show that if Indian-Mahomedan feeling is to be respected, there is nothing left but non-co-operation if the decision arrived atis adverse. MR. MONTAGU ON THE KHILAFAT AGITATION Mr. Montagu does not like the Khilafat agitation that is daily gatheringforce. In answer to questions put in the House of Commons, he isreported to have said that whilst he acknowledged that I had rendereddistinguished services to the country in the past, he could not lookupon my present attitude with equanimity and that it was not to beexpected that I could now be treated as leniently as I was during theRowlatt Act agitation. He added that he had every confidence in thecentral and the local Governments, that they were carefully watching themovement and that they had full power to deal with the situation. This statement of Mr. Montagu has been regarded in some quarters as athreat. It has even been considered to be a blank cheque for theGovernment of India to re-establish the reign of terror if they chose. It is certainly inconsistent with his desire to base the Government onthe goodwill of the people. At the same time if the Hunter Committee'sfinding be true and if I was the cause of the disturbances last year, Iwas undoubtedly treated with exceptional leniency, I admit too that myactivity this year is fraught with greater peril to the Empire as it isbeing conducted to-day than was last year's activity. Non-co-operationin itself is more harmless than civil disobedience, but in its effect itis far more dangerous for the Government than civil disobedience. Non-co-operation is intended so far to paralyse the Government, as tocompel justice from it. If it is carried to the extreme point, it canbring the Government to a standstill. A friend who has been listening to my speeches once asked me whether Idid not come under the sedition section of the Indian Penal Code. ThoughI had not fully considered it, I told him that very probably I did andthat I could not plead 'not guilty' if I was charged under it. For Imust admit that I can pretend to no 'affection' for the presentGovernment. And my speeches are intended to create 'disaffection' suchthat the people might consider it a shame to assist or co-operate with aGovernment that had forfeited all title to confidence, respector support. I draw no distinction between the Imperial and the Indian Government. The latter has accepted, on the Khilafat, the policy imposed upon it bythe former. And in the Punjab case the former has endorsed the policy ofterrorism and emasculation of a brave people initiated by the latter. British ministers have broken their pledged word and wantonly woundedthe feelings of the seventy million Mussulmans of India. Innocent menand women were insulted by the insolent officers of the PunjabGovernment. Their wrongs not only unrighted but the very officers who socruelly subjected them to barbarous humiliation retain office under theGovernment. When at Amritsar last year I pleaded with all the earnestness I couldcommand for co-operation with the Government and for response to thewishes expressed in the Royal Proclamation; I did so because I honestlybelieved that a new era was about to begin, and that the old spirit offear, distrust and consequent terrorism was about to give place to thenew spirit of respect, trust and good-will. I sincerely believed thatthe Mussalman sentiment would be placated and that the officers that hadmisbehaved during the Martial Law regime in the Punjab would be at leastdismissed and the people would be otherwise made to feel that aGovernment that had always been found quick (and rightly) to punishpopular excesses would not fail to punish its agents' misdeeds. But tomy amazement and dismay I have discovered that the presentrepresentatives of the Empire have become dishonest and unscrupulous. They have no real regard for the wishes of the people of India and theycount Indian honour as of little consequence. I can no longer retain affection for a Government so evilly manned as itis now-a-days. And for me, it is humiliating to retain my freedom and bea witness to the continuing wrong. Mr. Montagu however is certainlyright in threatening me with deprivation of my liberty if I persist inendangering the existence of the Government. For that must be the resultif my activity bears fruit. My only regret is that inasmuch as Mr. Montagu admits my past services, he might have perceived that theremust be something exceptionally bad in the Government if a well-wisherlike me could no longer give his affection to it. It was simpler toinsist on justice being done to the Mussulmans and to the Punjab than tothreaten me with punishment so that the injustice might be perpetuated. Indeed I fully expect it will be found that even in promotingdisaffection towards an unjust Government I have rendered greaterservices to the Empire than I am already credited with. At the present moment, however, the duty of those who approve of myactivity is clear. They ought on no account to resent the deprivation ofmy liberty, should the Government of India deem it to be their duty totake it away. A citizen has no right to resist such restriction imposedin accordance with the laws of the State to which he belongs. Much lesshave those who sympathize with him. In my case there can be no questionof sympathy. For I deliberately oppose the Government to the extent oftrying to put its very existence in jeopardy. For my supporters, therefore, it must be a moment of joy when I am imprisoned. It means thebeginning of success if only the supporters continue the policy forwhich I stand. If the Government arrest me, they would do so in order tostop the progress of non-co-operation which I preach. It follows that ifnon-co-operation continues with unabated vigour, even after my arrest, the Government must imprison others or grant the people's wish in orderto gain their co-operation. Any eruption of violence on the part of thepeople even under provocation would end in disaster. Whether thereforeit is I or any one else who is arrested during the campaign, the firstcondition of success is that there must be no resentment shown againstit. We cannot imperil the very existence of a Government and quarrelwith its attempt to save itself by punishing those who place itin danger. AT THE CALL OF THE COUNTRY Dr. Sapru delivered before the Khilafat Conference at Allahabad animpassioned address sympathising with the Mussulmans in their troublebut dissuaded them from embarking on non-co-operation. He was franklyunable to suggest a substitute but was emphatically of opinion thatwhether there was a substitute or not non-co-operation was a remedyworse than the disease. He said further that Mussulmans will be takingupon their shoulders, a serious responsibility, if whilst they appealedto the ignorant masses to join them, they could not appeal to the Indianjudges to resign and if they did they would not succeed. I acknowledge the force of Dr. Sapru's last argument. At the back ofDr. Sapru's mind is the fear that non-co-operation by the ignorantpeople would lead to distress and chaos and would do no good. In myopinion any non-co-operation is bound to do some good. Even theViceragal door-keeper saying, 'Please Sir, I can serve the Government nolonger because it has hurt my national honour' and resigning is a stepmightier and more effective than the mightiest speech declaiming againstthe Government for its injustice. Nevertheless it would be wrong to appeal to the door-keeper until onehas appealed to the highest in the land. And as I propose, if thenecessity arose, to ask the door-keepers of the Government to dissociatethemselves from an unjust Government I propose now to address, an appealto the Judges and the Executive Councillors to join the protest that isrising from all over India against the double wrong done to India, onthe Khilafat and the Punjab question. In both, national honouris involved. I take it that these gentlemen have entered upon their high offices notfor the sake of emolument, nor I hope for the sake of fame, but for thesake of serving their country. It was not for money, for they wereearning more than they do now. It must not be for fame, for they cannotbuy fame at the cost of national honour. The only consideration, thatcan at the present moment keep them in office must be service of thecountry. When the people have faith in the government, when it represents thepopular will, the judges and the executive officials possibly serve thecountry. But when that government does not represent the will of thepeople, when it supports dishonesty and terrorism, the judges and theexecutive officials by retaining office become instrument of dishonestyand terrorism. And the least therefore that these holders of highoffices can do is to cease to become agents of a dishonest andterrorising government. For the judges, the objection will be raised that they are abovepolitics, and so they are and should be. But the doctrine is true onlyin so far us the government is on the whole for the benefit of thepeople and at least represents the will of the majority. Not to takepart in politics means not to take sides. But when a whole country hasone mind, one will, when a whole country has been denied justice, it isno longer a question of party politics, it is a matter of life anddeath. It then becomes the duty of every citizen to refuse to serve agovernment which misbehaves and flouts national wish. The judges are atthat moment bound to follow the nation if they are ultimatelyits servants. There remains another argument to be examined. It applies to both thejudges and the members of the executive. It will be urged that my appealcould only be meant for the Indians and what good can it do by Indiansrenouncing 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 asthe Indians. But I confess that I have written with the mentalreservation that the appeal is addressed only to the Indians. I musttherefore examine the argument just stated. Whilst it is true that theseoffices have been secured after a prolonged struggle, they are of usenot because of the struggle, but because they are intended to serve thenation. The moment they cease to possess that quality, they becomeuseless and as in the present case harmful, no matter how hard-earnedand therefore valuable they may have been at the outset. I would submit too to our distinguished countrymen who occupy highoffices that their giving up will bring the struggle to a speedy end andwould probably obviate the danger attendant upon the masses being calledupon to signify their disapproval by withdrawing co-operation. If thetitleholders gave up their titles, if the holders of honorary officesgave up their appointment and if the high officials gave up their posts, and the would-be councillors boycotted the councils, the Governmentwould quickly come to its senses and give effect to the people's will. For the alternative before the Government then would be nothing butdespotic rule pure and simple. That would probably mean militarydictatorship. The world's opinion has advanced so far that Britain darenot contemplate such dictatorship with equanimity. The taking of thesteps suggested by me will constitute the peacefullest revolution theworld has ever seen. Once the infallibility of non-co-operation isrealised, there is an end to all bloodshed and violence in any shapeor form. Undoubtedly a cause must be grave to warrant the drastic method ofnational non-co-operation. I do say that the affront such as has beenput 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 cannotimagine a graver wrong than the massacre of Jallianwalla and thebarbarity that followed it, the whitewash by the Hunter Committee, thedispatch of the Government of India, Mr. Montagu's letter upholding theViceroy and the then Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab, the refusal toremove officials who made of the lives of the Punjabis 'a hell' duringthe Martial Law period. These act constitute a complete series ofcontinuing wrongs against India which if India has any sense of honour, she must right at the sacrifice of all the material wealth shepossesses. If she does not, she will have bartered her soul for a 'messof 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 advisingnon-co-operation?"--"Certainly. " "How do you consider conditions have altered since the Satyagrahamovement of last year?"--"I consider that people are better disciplinednow than they were before. In this I include even the masses who I havehad opportunities of seeing in large numbers in various parts ofthe country. " "And you are satisfied that the masses understand the spirit ofSatyagraha?"--"Yes. " "And that is why you are pressing on with the programme ofnon-co-operation?"--"Yes. Moreover, the danger that attended the civildisobedience part of Satyagraha does not apply to non-co-operation, because in non-co-operation we are not taking up civil disobedience oflaws as a mass movement. The result hitherto has been most encouraging. For instance, people in Sindh and Delhi in spite of the irritatingrestrictions upon their liberty by the authorities have carried out theCommittee's instructions in regard to the Seditious MeetingsProclamation and to the prohibition of posting placards on the wallswhich we hold to be inoffensive but which the authorities consider to beoffensive. " "What is the pressure which you expect to bring to bear on theauthorities if co-operation is withdrawn?"--"I believe, and everybodymust grant, that no Government can exist for a single moment without theco-operation of the people, willing or forced, and if people suddenlywithdraw their co-operation in every detail, the Government will come toa 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 planof campaign expediency has no room. If the Khilafat movement has reallypermeated the masses and the classes, there must be adequate responsefrom 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 Muslimskeenly feel the Khilafat grievance. It remains to be seen whether theirfeeling is intense enough to evoke in them the measure of sacrificeadequate for successful non-co-operation. " "That is, your survey of the conditions, you think, justifies youradvising non-co-operation in the full conviction that you have behindyou the support of the vast masses of the Mussalman population?"--"Yes. " "This non-co-operation, you are satisfied, will extend to completeseverance of co-operation with the Government?"--No; nor is it at thepresent moment my desire that it should. I am simply practisingnon-co-operation to the extent that is necessary to make the Governmentrealise the depth of popular feeling in the matter and thedissatisfaction with the Government that all that could be done has notbeen done either by the Government of India or by the ImperialGovernment, whether on the Khilafat question or on the "Punjabquestion. " "Do you Mr. Gandhi, realise that even amongst Mahomedans there aresections of people who are not enthusiastic over non-co-operationhowever much they may feel the wrong that has been done to theircommunity?"--"Yes. But their number is smaller than those who areprepared to adopt non-co-operation. " "And yet does not the fact that there has not been an adequate responseto your appeal for resignation of titles and offices and for boycott ofelections of the Councils indicate that you may be placing more faithin their strength of conviction than is warranted?"--"I think not; forthe reason that the stage has only just come into operation and ourpeople are always most cautious and slow to move. Moreover, the firststage largely affects the uppermost strata of society, who represent amicroscopic minority though they are undoubtedly an influential bodyof people. " "This upper class, you think, has sufficiently responded to yourappeal?"--"I am unable to say either one way or the other at present. Ishall 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 RoyalFamily being questioned, one can advocate non-co-operation in connectionwith the Royal visit?" "Most decidedly; for the simple reason that ifthere is any disloyalty about the proposed boycott of the Prince'svisit, it is disloyalty to the Government of the day and not to theperson of His Royal highness. " "What do you think is to be gained by promoting this boycott inconnection with the Royal visit?"--"Because I want to show that thepeople of India are not in sympathy with the Government of the day andthat they strongly disapprove of the policy of the Government in regardto the Punjab and Khilafat, and even in respect of other importantadministrative measures. I consider that the visit of the Prince ofWales is a singularly good opportunity to the people to show theirdisapproval of the present Government. After all, the visit iscalculated to have tremendous political results. It is not to be anon-political event, and seeing that the Government of India and theImperial Government want to make the visit a political event of firstclass importance, namely, for the purpose of strengthening their holdupon India, I for one, consider that it is the bounden duty of thepeople to boycott the visit which is being engineered by the twoGovernments in their own interest which at the present moment is totallyantagonistic to the people. " "Do you mean that you want this boycott promoted because you feel thatthe strengthening of the hold upon India is not desirable in the bestinterests of the country?"--"Yes. The strengthening of the hold of aGovernment so wicked us the present one is not desirable for the bestinterests of the people. Not that I want the bond between England andIndia to become loosened for the sake of loosening it but I want thatbond to become strengthened only in so far as it adds to the welfareof India. " "Do you think that non-co-operation and the non-boycott of theLegislative Councils consistent?"--"No; because a person who takes upthe programme of non-co-operation cannot consistently stand forCouncils. " "Is non-co-operation, in your opinion, an end in itself or a means to anend, and if so, what is the end?" "It is a means to an end, the endbeing to make the present Government just, whereas it has become mostlyunjust. Co-operation with a just Government is a duty; non-co-operationwith an unjust Government is equally a duty. " "Will you look with favour upon the proposal to enter the Councils andto carry on either obstructive tactics or to decline to take the oath ofallegiance consistent with your non-co-operation?"--"No; as an accuratestudent of non-co-operation, I consider that such a proposal isinconsistent with the true spirit of non-co-operation. I have often saidthat a Government really thrives on obstruction and so far as theproposal not to take the oath of allegiance is concerned, I can reallysee no meaning in it; it amounts to a useless waste of valuable timeand money. " "In other words, obstruction is no stage in non-co-operation?"--"No, ". .. . "Are you satisfied that all efforts at constitutional agitation havebeen exhausted and that non-co-operation is the only course left us?" "Ido not consider non-co-operation to be unconstitutional remedies nowleft open to us, non-co-operation is the only one left for us. " "Do youconsider it constitutional to adopt it with a view merely to paralyseGovernment?"--"Certainly, it is not unconstitutional, but a prudent manwill not take all the steps that are constitutional if they areotherwise undesirable, nor do I advise that course. I am resorting tonon-co-operation in progressive stages because I want to evolve trueorder out of untrue order. I am not going to take a single step innon-co-operation unless I am satisfied that the country is ready forthat step, namely, non-co-operation will not be followed by anarchy ordisorder. " "How will you satisfy yourself anarchy will not follow?" "For instance, if I advise the police to lay down their arms, I shallhave satisfied myself that we are able by voluntary assistance toprotect ourselves against thieves and robbers. That was precisely whatwas done in Lahore and Amritsar last year by the citizens by means ofvolunteers when the Military and the police had withdrawn. Even whereGovernment had not taken such measures in a place, for want of adequateforce, I know people have successfully protected themselves. " "You have advised lawyers to non-co-operate by suspending theirpractice. What is your experience? Has the lawyers' response to yourappeal encouraged you to hope that you will be able to carry throughall 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 istoo early to say how many will respond. But I may say that I do not relymerely upon the lawyer class or highly educated men to enable theCommittee to carry out all the stages of non-co-operation. My hope liesmore with the masses so far as the later stages of non-co-operation areconcerned. " _August 1920_. RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY FOR NON-CO-OPERATION It is not without the greatest reluctance that I engage in a controversywith so learned a leader like Sir Narayan Chandavarkar. But in view ofthe fact that I am the author of the movement of non-co-operation, itbecomes my painful duty to state my views even though they are opposedto those of the leaders whom I look upon with respect. I have just readduring my travels in Malabar Sir Narayan's rejoinder to my answer to theBombay manifesto against non-co-operation. I regret to have to say thatthe rejoinder leaves me unconvinced. He and I seem to read the teachingsof the Bible, the Gita and the Koran from different standpoints or weput different interpretations on them. We seem to understand the wordsAhimsa, politics and religion differently. I shall try my best to makeclear my meaning of the common terms and my reading of the differentreligious. At the outset let me assure Sir Narayan that I have not changed my viewson Ahimsa. I still believe that man not having been given the power ofcreation does not possess the right of destroying the meanest creaturethat lives. The prerogative of destruction belongs solely to the creatorof all that lives. I accept the interpretation of Ahimsa, namely, thatit is not merely a negative State of harmlessness, but it is a positivestate of love, of doing good even to the evil-doer. But it does not meanhelping the evil-doer to continue the wrong or tolerating it by passiveacquiescence. On the contrary love, the active state of Ahimsa, requiresyou to resist the wrong-doer by dissociating yourself from him eventhough it may offend him or injure him physically. Thus if my son livesa life of shame, I may not help him to do so by continuing to supporthim; on the contrary, my love for him requires me to withdraw allsupport from him although it may mean even his death. And the same loveimposes on me the obligation of welcoming him to my bosom when herepents. 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 activestate--more active than physical resistance or violence. Passiveresistance is a misnomer. Non-co-operation in the sense used by me mustbe non-violent and therefore neither punitive nor vindictive nor basedon malice ill-will or hatred. It follows therefore that it would be sinfor me to serve General Dyer and co-operate with him to shoot innocentmen. But it will be an exercise of forgiveness or love for me to nursehim back to life, if he was suffering from a physical malady. I cannotuse in this context the word co-operation as Sir Narayan would perhapsuse it. I would co-operate a thousand times with this Government to weanit from its career of crime but I will not for a single momentco-operate with it to continue that career. And I would be guilty ofwrong doing if I retained a title from it or "a service under it orsupported its law-courts or schools. " Better for me a beggar's bowlthan the richest possession from hands stained with the blood of theinnocents of Jallianwala. Better by far a warrant of imprisonment thanhoneyed words from those who have wantonly wounded the religioussentiment of my seventy million brothers. My reading of the Gita is diametrically opposed to Sir Narayan's. I donot believe that the Gita teaches violence for doing good. It ispre-eminently a description of the duel that goes on in our own hearts. The divine author has used a historical incident for inculcating thelesson of doing one's duty even at the peril of one's life. Itinculcates performance of duty irrespective of the consequences, for, wemortals, limited by our physical frames, are incapable of controllingactions save our own. The Gita distinguishes between the powers of lightand darkness and demonstrates their incompatibility. Jesus, in my humble opinion, was a prince among politicians. He didrender unto Caesar that which was Caesar's. He gave the devil his due. He ever shunned him and is reported never once to have yielded to hisincantations. The politics of his time consisted in securing the welfareof the people by teaching them not to be seduced by the trinkets of thepriests and the pharisees. The latter then controlled and moulded thelife of the people. To-day the system of government is so devised as toaffect every department of our life. It threatens our very existence. Iftherefore we want to conserve the welfare of the nation, we mustreligiously interest ourselves in the doing of the governors and exert amoral influence on them by insisting on their obeying the laws ofmorality. General Dyer did produce a 'moral effect' by an act ofbutchery. Those who are engaged in forwarding the movement ofnon-co-operation, hope to produce a moral effect by a process ofself-denial, self-sacrifice and self-purification. It surprises me thatSir Narayan should speak of General Dyer's massacre in the same breathas acts of non-co-operation. I have done my best to understand hismeaning, but I am sorry to confess that I have failed. THE INWARDNESS OF NON-CO-OPERATION I commend to the attention of the readers the thoughtful letter receivedfrom Miss Anne Marie Peterson. Miss Peterson is a lady who has been inIndia for some years and has closely followed Indian affairs. She isabout the sever her connection with her mission for the purpose ofgiving herself to education that is truly national. I have not given the letter in full. I have omitted all personalreferences. But her argument has been left entirely untouched. Theletter was not meant to be printed. It was written just after my Vellorespeech. But it being intrinsically important, I asked the writer for herpermission, which she gladly gave, for printing it. I publish it all the more gladly in that it enables me to show that themovement of non-co-operation is neither anti-Christian nor anti-Englishnor anti-European. It is a struggle between religion and irreligion, powers of light and powers of darkness. It is my firm opinion that Europe to-day represents not the spirit ofGod or Christianity but the spirit of Satan. And Satan's successes arethe greatest when he appears with the name of God on his lips. Europe isto-day only nominally Christian. In reality it is worshipping Mammon. 'It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for arich man to enter the kingdom. ' Thus really spoke Jesus Christ. Hisso-called followers measure their moral progress by their materialpossessions. The very national anthem of England is anti-Christian. Jesus who asked his followers to love their enemies even as themselves, could not have sung of his enemies, 'confound his enemies frustratetheir knavish tricks. ' The last book that Dr. Wallace wrote set forthhis deliberate conviction that the much vaunted advance of science hadadded not an inch to the moral stature of Europe. The last war howeverhas shown, as nothing else has, the Satanic nature of the civilizationthat dominates Europe to day. Every canon of public morality has beenbroken by the victors in the name of virtue. No lie has been consideredtoo foul to be uttered. The motive behind every crime is not religiousor spiritual but grossly material. But the Mussalmans and the Hindus whoare struggling against the Government have religion and honour as theirmotive. Even the cruel assassination which has just shocked the countryis reported to have a religious motive behind it. It is certainlynecessary to purge religion of its excrescences, but it is equallynecessary to expose the hollowness of moral pretensions on the part ofthose who prefer material wealth to moral gain. It is easier to wean anignorant fanatic from his error than a confirmed scoundrel from hisscoundrelism. This however is no indictment against individuals or even nations. Thousands of individual Europeans are rising above their environment. Iwrite of the tendency in Europe as reflected in her present leaders. England through her leaders is insolently crushing Indian religious andnational sentiment under her heels. England under the false plea ofself-determination is trying to exploit the oil fields of Mesopotamiawhich she is almost to leave because she has probably no choice. Francethrough her leaders is lending her name to training Cannibals assoldiers and is shamelessly betraying her trust as a mandatory power bytrying to kill the spirit of the Syrians. President Wilson has thrown onthe scrap heap his precious fourteen points. It is this combination of evil forces which India is really fightingthrough non-violent non-cooperation. And those like Miss Petersonwhether Christian or European, who feel that this error must bedethroned can exercise the privilege of doing so by joining thenon-co-operation movement. With the honour of Islam is bound up thesafety of religion itself and with the honour of India is bound up thehonour of every nation known to be weak. A MISSIONARY ON NON-CO-OPERATION The following letter has been received by Mr. Gandhi from Miss Anne Marie Peterson of the Danish Mission in Madras:-- Dear Mr. Gandhi, I cannot thank you enough for your kindness and the way in which youreceived me and I feel that meeting more or less decided my future. Ihave thrown myself at the feet of India. At the same time I know that inChrist alone is my abode and I have no longing and no desire but to liveHim, my crucified Saviour, and reveal Him for those with whom I come incontact. I just cling to his feet and pray with tears that I may notdisgrace him as we Christians have been doing by our behaviour in India. We go on crucifying Christ while we long to proclaim the Power of Hisresurrection by which He has conquered untruth and unrighteousness. Ifwe who bear His name were true to Him, we would never bow ourselvesbefore the Powers of this world, but we would always be on the side ofthe poor, the suffering and the oppressed. But we are not and thereforeI feel myself under obligation and only to Christ but to India for Hissake at this time of momentous importance for her future. Truly it matters little what I, a lonely and insignificant person, maysay or do. What is my protest against the common current, the race towhich I belong is taking and (what grieves me more), which themissionary societies seem to follow? Even if a respectable numberprotested it would not be of any use. Yet were I alone against the wholeworld, I must follow my conscience and my God. I therefore cannot but smile when I see people saying, you should haveawaited the decision of the National Congress before starting thenon-co-operation movement. You have a message for the country, and theCongress is the voice of the nation--its servant and not its master. Amajority has no right simply because it is a majority. But we must try to win the majority. And it is easy to see that now thatCongress is going to be with you. Would it have done so if you had keptquiet and not lent your voice to the feelings of the people? Would theCongress have known its mind? I think not. I myself was in much doubt before I heard you. But you convinced me. Notthat I can feel much on the question of the Khilafat. I cannot. I cansee what service you are doing to India, if you can prevent theMahomedans from using the sword in order to take revenge and get theirrights. I can see that if you unite the Hindus and the Mahomedans, itwill be a master stroke. How I wish the Christian would also comeforward and unite with you for the sake of their country and the honournot only of their Motherland but of Christ. I may not feel much forTurkey, but I feel for India, and I can see she (India) has no other wayto protest against being trampled down and crushed thannon-co-operation. I also want you to know that many in Denmark and all over the world, yes, I am sure every true Christian, will feel with and be in sympathywith India in the struggle which is now going on. God forbid that in thestruggle between might and right, truth and untruth, the spirit and theflesh, there should be a division of races. There is not. The samestruggle is going on all over the world. What does it matter then thatwe are a few? God is on our side. Brute force often seems to get the upper hand but righteousness alwayshas and always shall conquer, be it even through much suffering, andwhat may even appear to be a defeat. Christ conquered, when the worldcrucified Him. Blessed are the meek; they shall inherit the earth. When I read your speech given at Madras it struck me that it should beprinted as a pamphlet in English, Tamil, Hindustani and all the mostused languages and then spread to every nook and corner of India. The non-co-operation movement once started must be worked so as tobecome successful. If it is not, I dread to think of the consequences. But you cannot expect it to win in a day or two. It must take time andyou will not despair if you do not reach your goal in a hurry. For thosewho have faith there is no haste. Now for the withdrawal of the children and students from Governmentschools, I think, it a most important step. Taking the Government help(even if it be your money they pay you back), we must submit to itsscheme, its rules and regulation. India and we who love her have come tothe conclusion that the education the foreign Government has given youis not healthy for India and can certainly never make for her realgrowth. This movement would lead to a spontaneous rise of nationalschools. Let them be a few but let them spring up throughself-sacrifice. Only by indigenous education can India be trulyuplifted. Why this appeals so much to me is perhaps because I belong tothe part of the Danish people who started their own independent, indigenous national schools. The Danish Free Schools andFolk-High-Schools, of which you may have heard, were started againstthe opposition and persecution of the State. The organisers won andthus have regenerated the nation. With my truly heartfelt thanks andprayers for you. I am, Your sincerely, Anne Marie. HOW TO WORK NON-CO-OPERATION Perhaps the best way of answering the fears and criticism as tonon-co-operation is to elaborate more fully the scheme ofnon-co-operation. The critics seem to imagine that the organiserspropose to give effect to the whole scheme at once. The fact however isthat the organisers have fixed definite, progressive four stages. Thefirst is the giving up of titles and resignation of honorary posts. Ifthere is no response or if the response received is not effective, recourse will be had to the second stage. The second stage involves muchprevious arrangement. Certainly not a single servant will be called outunless he is either capable of supporting himself and his dependents orthe Khilafat Committee is able to bear the burden. All the classes ofservants will not be called out at once and never will any pressure beput upon a single servant to withdraw himself from the Governmentservice. Nor will a single private employee be touched for the simplereason that the movement is not anti-English. It is not evenanti-Government. Co-operation is to be withdrawn because the people mustnot be party to a wrong--a broken pledge--a violation of deep religioussentiment. Naturally, the movement will receive a check, if there is anyundue influence brought to bear upon any Government servant or if anyviolence is used or countenanced by any member of the KhilafatCommittee. The second stage must be entirely successful, if the responseis at all on an adequate scale. For no Government--much less the IndianGovernment--can subsist if the people cease to serve it. The withdrawaltherefore of the police and the military--the third stage--is a distantgoal. The organisers however wanted to be fair, open and abovesuspicion. They did not want to keep back from the Government or thepublic a single step they had in contemplation even as a remotecontingency. The fourth, _i. E. , _ suspension of taxes is still moreremote. The organisers recognise that suspension of general taxation isfraught with the greatest danger. It is likely to bring a sensitiveclass in conflict with the police. They are therefore not likely toembark upon it, unless they can do so with the assurance that there willbe no violence offered by the people. I admit as I have already done that non-co-operation is not unattendedwith risk, but the risk of supineness in the face of a grave issue isinfinitely greater than the danger of violence ensuing form organizingnon-co-operation. To do nothing is to invite violence for a certainty. It is easy enough to pass resolutions or write articles condemningnon-co-operation. But it is no easy task to restrain the fury of apeople incensed by a deep sense of wrong. I urge those who talk or workagainst non-co-operation to descend from their chairs and go down to thepeople, learn their feelings and write, if they have the heart againstnon-co-operation. They will find, as I have found that the only way toavoid violence is to enable them to give such expression to theirfeelings as to compel redress. I have found nothing savenon-co-operation. It is logical and harmless. It is the inherent rightof a subject to refuse to assist a Government that will not listento him. Non-co-operation as a voluntary movement can only succeed, if thefeeling is genuine and strong enough to make people suffer to theutmost. If the religious sentiment of the Mahomedans is deeply hurt andif the Hindus entertain neighbourly regard towards their Muslimbrethren, they will both count no cost too great for achieving the end. Non-co-operation will not only be an effective remedy but will also bean effective test of the sincerity of the Muslim claim and the Hinduprofession of friendship. There is however one formidable argument urged by friends against myjoining the Khilafat movement. They say that it ill-becomes me, a friendof the English and an admirer of the British constitution, to join handswith those who are to-day filled with nothing but ill-will against theEnglish. I am sorry to have to confess that the ordinary Mahomedanentertains to-day no affection for Englishmen. He considers, not withoutsome cause, that they have not played the game. But if I am friendlytowards Englishmen, I am no less so towards my countrymen, theMahomedans. And as such they have a greater claim upon my attention thanEnglishmen. My personal religion however enables me to serve mycountrymen without hurting Englishmen or for that matter anybody else. What I am not prepared to do to my blood-brother I would not do to anEnglishman, I would not injure him to gain a kingdom. But I wouldwithdraw co-operation from him if it becomes necessary as I hadwithdrawn from my own brother (now deceased) when it became necessary. Iserve the Empire by refusing to partake in its wrong. William Steadoffered public prayers for British reverses at the time of the Boer warbecause he considered that the nation to which he belonged was engagedin an unrighteous war. The present Prime Minister risked his life inopposing that war and did everything he could to obstruct his ownGovernment in its prosecution. And to-day if I have thrown in my lotwith the Mahomedans, a large number of whom, bear no friendly feelingstowards the British, I have done so frankly as a friend of the Britishand with the object of gaining justice and of thereby showing thecapacity of the British constitution to respond to every honestdetermination when it is coupled with suffering, I hope by my 'alliance'with the Mahomedans to achieve a threefold end--to obtain justice in theface of odds with the method of Satyagrah and to show its efficacy overall other methods, to secure Mahomedan friendship for the Hindus andthereby internal peace also, and last but not least to transformill-will into affection for the British and their constitution which inspite of the imperfections weathered many a storm. I may fail inachieving any of the ends. I can but attempt. God alone can grantsuccess. It will not be denied that the ends are all worthy. I inviteHindus and Englishman to join me in a full-hearted manner in shoulderingthe burden the Mahomedans of India are carrying. Theirs is admittedly ajust fight. The Viceroy, the Secretary of State, the Maharaja ofBikuner and Lord Sinha have testified to it. Time has arrived to makegood the testimony. People with a just cause are never satisfied with amere protest. They have been known to die for it. Are a high-spiritedpeople like the Mahomedans expected to do less? SPEECH AT MADRAS Addressing a huge concourse of people of the city of Madras Hindus and Mahomedans numbering over 50, 000, assembled on the South Beach opposite to the Presidency College, Madras, on the 12th August 1920, Mahatma Gandhi spoke as follows:-- Mr. Chairman and Friends, --Like last year, I have to ask yourforgiveness that I should have to speak being seated. Whilst my voicehas become stronger than it was last year, my body is still weak; and ifI were to attempt to speak to you standing, I could not hold on for verymany minutes before the whole frame would shake. I hope, therefore, thatyou will grant me permission to speak seated. I have sat here to addressyou on a most important question, probably a question whose importancewe have not measured up to now. LOKAMANYA TILAK But before I approach that question on this dear old beach of Madras, you will expect me--you will want me--to offer my tribute to the greatdeparted, Lokamanya Tilak Maharaj (loud and prolonged cheers). I wouldask this great assembly to listen to me in silence. I have come to makean appeal to your hearts and to your reason and I could not do so unlessyou were prepared to listen to whatever I have to say in absolutesilence. I wish to offer my tribute to the departed patriot and I thinkthat I cannot do better than say that his death, as his life, has pourednew vigour into the country. If you were present as I was present atthat great funeral procession, you would realise with me the meaning ofmy words. Mr. Tilak lived for his country. The inspiration of his lifewas freedom for his country which he called Swaraj the inspiration ofhis death-bed was also freedom for his country. And it was that whichgave him such marvellous hold upon his countrymen; it was that whichcommanded the adoration not of a few chosen Indians belonging to theupper strata of society but of millions of his countrymen. His life wasone long sustained piece of self-sacrifice. He began that life ofdiscipline and self-sacrifice in 1879 and he continued that life up tothe end of his day, and that was the secret of his hold upon hiscountry. He not only knew what he wanted for his country but also how tolive for his country and how to die for his country. I hope then thatwhatever I say this evening to this vast mass of people, will bear fruitin that same sacrifice for which the life of Lokamanya Tilak Maharajstands. His life, if it teaches us anything whatsoever, teaches onesupreme lesson: that if we want to do anything whatsoever for ourcountry we can do so not by speeches, however grand, eloquent andconvincing they may be, but only by sacrifice at the back of every actif our life. I have come to ask everyone of you whether you are readyand willing to give sufficiently for your country's sake for country'shonour and for religion. I have boundless faith in you, the citizens ofMadras, and the people of this great presidency, a faith which I beganto cultivate in the year 1983 when I first made acquaintance with theTamil labourers in South Africa; and I hope that in these hours of ourtrial, this province will not be second to any other in India, and thatit will lead in this spirit of self-sacrifice and will translate everyword into action. NEED FOR NON-CO-OPERATION What is this non-co-operation, about which you have heard so much, andwhy do we want to offer this non-co-operation? I wish to go for the timebeing into the why. Here are two things before this country: the firstand the foremost is the Khilafat question. On this the heart of theMussalmans of India has become lascerated. British pledges given afterthe greatest deliberation by the Prime Minister of England in the nameof the English nation, have been dragged into the mire. The promisesgiven to Moslem India on the strength of which, the consideration thatwas expected by the British nation was exacted, have been broken, andthe great religion of Islam has been placed in danger. The Mussalmanshold--and I venture to think they rightly hold--that so long as Britishpromises remain unfulfilled, so long is it impossible for them to tenderwhole-hearted fealty and loyalty to the British connection; and if it isto be a choice for a devout Mussalman between loyalty to the Britishconnection and loyalty to his Code and Prophet, he will not require asecond to make his choice, --and he has declared his choice. TheMussalmans say frankly openly and honourably to the whole world that ifthe British Ministers and the British nation do not fulfil the pledgesgiven to them and do not wish to regard with respect the sentiments of70 millions of the inhabitants of India who profess the faith of Islam, it will be impossible for them to retain Islamic loyalty. It is aquestion, then for the rest of the Indian population to consider whetherthey want to perform a neighbourly duty by their Mussalman countrymen, and if they do, they have an opportunity of a lifetime which will notoccur for another hundred years, to show their good-will, fellowship andfriendship and to prove what they have been saying for all these longyears that the Mussalman is the brother of the Hindu. If the Hinduregards that before the connection with the British nation comes hisnatural connection with his Moslem brother, then I say to you that ifyou find that the Moslem claim is just, that it is based upon realsentiment, and that at its back ground is this great religious feeling, you cannot do otherwise than help the Mussalman through and through, solong as their cause remains just, and the means for attaining the endremains equally just, honourable and free from harm to India. These arethe plain conditions which the Indian Mussalmans have accepted; and itwas when they saw that they could accept the proferred aid of theHindus, that they could always justify the cause and the means beforethe whole world, that they decided to accept the proferred hand offellowship. It is then for the Hindus and Mahomedans to offer a unitedfront to the whole of the Christian powers of Europe and tell them thatweak as India is, India has still got the capacity of preserving herself-respect, she still knows how to die for her religion and for herself-respect. That is the Khilafat in a nut-shell; but you have also got the Punjab. The Punjab has wounded the heart of India as no other question has forthe past century. I do not exclude from my calculation the Mutiny of1857. Whatever hardships India had to suffer during the Mutiny, theinsult that was attempted to be offered to her during the passage of theRowlatt legislation and that which was offered after its passage wereunparalleled in Indian history. It is because you want justice from theBritish nation in connection with the Punjab atrocities: you have todevise, ways and means as to how you can get this justice. The House ofCommons, the House of Lords, Mr. Montagu, the Viceroy of India, everyoneof them know what the feeling of India is on this Khilafat question andon that of the Punjab; the debates in both the Houses of Parliament, theaction of Mr. Montagu and that of the Viceroy have demonstrated to youcompletely that they are not willing to give the justice which isIndia's due and which she demands. I suggest that our leaders have gotto find a way out of this great difficulty and unless we have madeourselves even with the British rulers in India and unless we havegained a measure of self-respect at the hands of the British rulers inIndia, no connection, and no friendly intercourse is possible betweenthem and ourselves. I, therefore, venture to suggest this beautiful andunanswerable method of non-co-operation. IS IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL? I have been told that non-co-operation is unconstitutional. I venture todeny that it is unconstitutional. On the contrary, I hold thatnon-co-operation is a just and religious doctrine; it is the inherentright of every human being and it is perfectly constitutional. A greatlover of the British Empire has said that under the British constitutioneven a successful rebellion is perfectly constitutional and he quoteshistorical instances, which I cannot deny, in support of his claim. Ido not claim any constitutionality for a rebellion successful orotherwise, so long as that rebellion means in the ordinary sense of theterm, what it does mean namely wresting justice by violent means. On thecontrary, I have said it repeatedly to my countrymen that violencewhatever end it may serve in Europe, will never serve us in India. Mybrother and friend Shaukat Ali believes in methods of violence; and ifit was in his power to draw the sword against the British Empire, I knowthat he has got the courage of a man and he has got also the wisdom tosee that he should offer that battle to the British Empire. But becausehe recognises as a true soldier that means of violence are not open toIndia, he sides with me accepting my humble assistance and pledges hisword that so long as I am with him and so long as he believes in thedoctrine, so long will he not harbour even the idea of violence againstany single Englishman or any single man on earth. I am here to tell youthat he has been as true as his word and has kept it religiously. I amhere to bear witness that he has been following out this plan ofnon-violent Non-co-operation to the very letter and I am asking India tofollow this non-violent non-co-operation. I tell you that there is not abetter soldier living in our ranks in British India than Shaukat Ali. When the time for the drawing of the sword comes, if it ever comes, youwill find him drawing that sword and you will find me retiring to thejungles of Hindustan. As soon as India accepts the doctrine of thesword, my life as an Indian is finished. It is because I believe in amission special to India and it is because I believe that the ancientsof India after centuries of experience have found out that the truething for any human being on earth is not justice based on violence butjustice based on sacrifice of self, justice based on Yagna andKurbani, --I cling to that doctrine and I shall cling to it for ever, --itis for that reason I tell you that whilst my friend believes also in thedoctrine of violence and has adopted the doctrine of non-violence as aweapon of the weak, I believe in the doctrine of non-violence as aweapon of the strongest. I believe that a man is the strongest soldierfor daring to die unarmed with his breast bare before the enemy. So muchfor the non-violent part of non-co-operation. I therefore, venture tosuggest to my learned countrymen that so long as the doctrine ofnon-co-operation remains non-violent, so long there is nothingunconstitutional in that doctrine. I ask further, is it unconstitutional for me to say to the BritishGovernment 'I refuse to serve you?' Is it unconstitutional for ourworthy Chairman to return with every respect all the titles that he hasever held from the Government? Is it unconstitutional for any parent towithdraw his children from a Government or aided school? Is itunconstitutional for a lawyer to say 'I shall no longer support the armof the law so long as that arm of law is used not to raise me but todebase me'? Is it unconstitutional for a civil servant or for a judge tosay, 'I refuse to serve a Government which does not wish to respect thewishes of the whole people?' I ask, is it unconstitutional for apoliceman or for a soldier to tender his resignation when he knows thathe is called to serve a Government which traduces his own countrymen? Isit unconstitutional for me to go to the 'krishan, ' to the agriculturist, and say to him 'it is not wise for you to pay any taxes if these taxesare used by the Government not to raise you but to weaken you?' I holdand I venture to submit, that there is nothing unconstitutional in it. What is more, I have done every one of these things in my life andnobody has questioned the constitutional character of it. I was in Kairaworking in the midst of 7 lakhs of agriculturists. They had allsuspended the payment of taxes and the whole of India was at one withme. Nobody considered that it was unconstitutional. I submit that in thewhole plan of non-co-operation, there is nothing unconstitutional. ButI do venture to suggest that it will be highly unconstitutional in themidst of this unconstitutional Government, --in the midst of a nationwhich has built up its magnificent constitution, --for the people ofIndia to become weak and to crawl on their belly--it will be highlyunconstitutional for the people of India to pocket every insult that isoffered to them; it is highly unconstitutional for the 70 millions ofMohamedans of India to submit to a violent wrong done to their religion;it is highly unconstitutional for the whole of India to sit still andco-operate with an unjust Government which has trodden under its feetthe honour of the Punjab. I say to my countrymen so long as you have asense of honour and so long as you wish to remain the descendants anddefenders of the noble traditions that have been handed to you forgenerations after generations, it is unconstitutional for you not tonon-co-operate and unconstitutional for you to co-operate with aGovernment which has become so unjust as our Government has become. I amnot anti-English; I am not anti-British; I am not anti any Government;but I am anti-untruth--anti-humbug and anti-injustice. So long as theGovernment spells injustice, it may regard me as its enemy, implacableenemy. I had hoped at the Congress at Amritsar--I am speaking God'struth before you--when I pleaded on bended knees before some of you forco-operation with the Government. I had full hope that the Britishministers who are wise, as a rule, would placate the Mussalman sentimentthat they would do full justice in the matter of the Punjab atrocities;and therefore, I said:--let us return good-will to the hand offellowship that has been extended to us, which I then believed wasextended to us through the Royal Proclamation. It was on that accountthat I pleaded for co-operation. But to-day that faith having gone andobliterated by the acts of the British ministers, I am here to plead notfor futile obstruction in the Legislative council but for realsubstantial non-co-operation which would paralyse the mightiestGovernment on earth. That is what I stand for to-day. Until we havewrung justice, and until we have wrung our self-respect from unwillinghands and from unwilling pens there can be no co-operation. Our Shastrassay and I say so with the greatest deference to all the greatestreligious preceptors of India but without fear of contradiction, thatour Shastras teach us that there shall be no co-operation betweeninjustice and justice, between an unjust man and a justice-loving man, between truth and untruth. Co-operation is a duty only so long asGovernment protects your honour, and non-co-operation is an equal dutywhen the Government instead of protecting robs you of your honour. Thatis the doctrine of non-co-operation. NON-CO-OPERATION AND THE SPECIAL CONGRESS I have been told that I should have waited for the declaration of thespecial Congress which is the mouth piece of the whole nation. I knowthat it is the mouthpiece of the whole nation. If it was for me, individual Gandhi, to wait, I would have waited for eternity. But I hadin my hands a sacred trust. I was advising my Mussalman countrymen andfor the time being I hold their honour in my hands. I dare not ask themto wait for any verdict but the verdict of their own Conscience. Do yousuppose that Mussalmans can eat their own words, can withdraw from thehonourable position they have taken up? If perchance--and God forbidthat it should happen--the Special Congress decides against them, Iwould still advise my countrymen the Mussalmans to stand single handedand fight rather than yield to the attempted dishonour to theirreligion. It is therefore given to the Mussalmans to go to the Congresson bended knees and plead for support. But support or no support, it wasnot possible for them to wait for the Congress to give them the lead. They had to choose between futile violence, drawing of the naked swordand peaceful non-violent but effective non-co-operation, and they havemade their choice. I venture further to say to you that if there is anybody of men who feel as I do, the sacred character of non-co-operation, it is for you and me not to wait for the Congress but to act and to makeit impossible for the Congress to give any other verdict. After all whatis the Congress? The Congress is the collected voice of individuals whoform it, and if the individuals go to the Congress with a united voice, that will be the verdict you will gain from the Congress. But if we goto the Congress with no opinion because we have none or because we areafraid to express it, then naturally we wait the verdict of theCongress. To those who are unable to make up their mind I say by allmeans wait. But for those who have seen the clear light as they see thelights in front of them, for them to wait is a sin. The Congress doesnot expect you to wait but it expects you to act so that the Congresscan gauge properly the national feeling. So much for the Congress. BOYCOTT OF THE COUNCILS Among the details of non-co-operation I have placed in the foremost rankthe boycott of the councils. Friends have quarrelled with me for the useof the word boycott, because I have disapproved--as I disapprove evennow--boycott of British goods or any goods for that matter. But there, boycott has its own meaning and here boycott has its own meaning. I notonly do not disapprove but approve of the boycott of the councils thatare going to be formed next year. And why do I do it? The people--themasses, --require from us, the leaders, a clear lead. They do not wantany equivocation from us. The suggestion that we should seek electionand then refuse to take the oath of allegiance, would only make thenation distrust the leaders. It is not a clear lead to the nation. So Isay to you, my countrymen, not to fall into this trap. We shall sell ourcountry by adopting the method of seeking election and then not takingthe oath of allegiance. We may find it difficult, and I frankly confessto you that I have not that trust in so many Indians making thatdeclaration and standing by it. To-day I suggest to those who honestlyhold the view--_viz_. That we should seek election and then refuse totake the oath of allegiance--I suggest to them that they will fall intoa trap which they are preparing for themselves and for the nation. Thatis my view. I hold that if we want to give the nation the clearestpossible lead, and if we want not to play with this great nation we mustmake it clear to this nation that we cannot take any favours, no matterhow great they may be so long as those favours are accompanied by aninjustice a double wrong, done to India not yet redressed. The firstindispensable thing before we can receive any favours from them is thatthey should redress this double wrong. There is a Greek proverb whichused to say "Beware of the Greek but especially beware of them when theybring gifts to you. " To-day from those ministers who are bent uponperpetuating the wrong to Islam and to the Punjab, I say we cannotaccept gifts but we should be doubly careful lest we may not fall intothe trap that they may have devised. I therefore suggest that we mustnot coquet with the council and must not have anything whatsoever to dowith them. I am told that if we, who represent the national sentiment donot seek election, the Moderates who do not represent that sentimentwill. I do not agree. I do not know what the Moderates represent and Ido not know what the Nationalists represent. I know that there are goodsheep and black sheep amongst the Moderates. I know that there are goodsheep and black sheep amongst the Nationalists. I know that manyModerates hold honestly the view that it is a sin to resort tonon-co-operation. I respectfully agree to differ from them. I do say tothem also that they will fall into a trap which they will have devisedif they seek election. But that does not affect my situation. If I feelin my heart of hearts that I ought not to go to the councils I ought atleast to abide by this decision and it does not matter if ninety-nineother countrymen seek election. That is the only way in which publicwork can be done, and public opinion can be built. That is the only wayin which reforms can be achieved and religion can be conserved. If it isa question of religious honour, whether I am one or among many I muststand upon my doctrine. Even if I should die in the attempt, it is worthdying for, than that I should live and deny my own doctrine. I suggestthat it will be wrong on the part of any one to seek election to theseCouncils. If once we feel that we cannot co-operate with thisGovernment, we have to commence from the top. We are the natural leadersof the people and we have acquired the right and the power to go to thenation and speak to it with the voice of non-co-operation. I thereforedo suggest that it is inconsistent with non-co-operation to seekelection to the Councils on any terms whatsoever. LAWYERS AND NON-CO-OPERATION I have suggested another difficult matter, _viz. _, that the lawyersshould suspend their practice. How should I do otherwise knowing so wellhow the Government had always been able to retain this power through theinstrumentality of lawyers. It is perfectly true that it is the lawyersof to-day who are leading us, who are fighting the country's battles, but when it comes to a matter of action against the Government, when itcomes to a matter of paralysing the activity of the Government I knowthat the Government always look to the lawyers, however fine fightersthey may have been to preserve their dignity and their self-respect. Itherefore suggest to my lawyer friends that it is their duty to suspendtheir practice and to show to the Government that they will no longerretain their offices, because lawyers are considered to be honoraryofficers of the courts and therefore subject to their disciplinaryjurisdiction. They must no longer retain these honorary offices if theywant to withdraw on operation from Government. But what will happen tolaw and order? We shall evolve law and order through the instrumentalityof these very lawyers. We shall promote arbitration courts and dispensejustice, pure, simple home-made justice, swadeshi justice to ourcountrymen. That is what suspension of practice means. PARENTS AND NON-CO-OPERATION I have suggested yet another difficulty--to withdraw our children fromthe Government schools and to ask collegiate students to withdraw fromthe College and to empty Government aided schools. How could I dootherwise? I want to gauge the national sentiment. I want to knowwhether the Mahomodans feel deeply. If they feel deeply they willunderstand in the twinkling of an eye, that it is not right for them toreceive schooling from a Government in which they have lost all faith;and which they do not trust at all. How can I, if I do not want to helpthis Government, receive any help from that Government. I think that theschools and colleges are factories for making clerks and Governmentservants. I would not help this great factory for manufacturing clerksand servants if I want to withdraw co-operation from that Government. Look at it from any point of view you like. It is not possible for youto send your children to the schools and still believe in the doctrineof non-co-operation. THE DUTY OF TITLE HOLDERS I have gone further. I have suggested that our title holders should giveup their titles. How can they hold on to the titles and honour bestowedby the Government? They were at one time badges of honours when webelieved that national honour was safe in their hands. But now they areno longer badges of honour but badges of dishonour and disgrace when wereally believe that we cannot get justice from this Government. Everytitle holder holds his titles and honours as trustee for the nation andin this first step in the withdrawal of co-operation from the Governmentthey should surrender their titles without a moment's consideration. Isuggest to my Mahomedan countrymen that if they fail in this primaryduty they will certainly fail in non-co-operation unless the massesthemselves reject the classes and take up non-co-operation in their ownhands and are able to fight that battle even as the men of the FrenchRevolution were able to take the reins of Government in their own handsleaving aside the leaders and marched to the banner of victory. I wantno revolution. I want ordered progress. I want no disordered order. Iwant no chaos. I want real order to be evolved out of this chaos whichis misrepresented to me as order. If it is order established by a tyrantin order to get hold of the tyrannical reins of Government I say that itis no order for me but it is disorder. I want to evolve justice out ofthis injustice. Therefore, I suggest to you the passivenon-co-operation. If we would only realise the secret of this peacefuland infallible doctrine you will know and you will find that you willnot want to use even an angry word when they lift the sword at you andyou will not want even to lift your little finger, let alone a stickor a sword. NON-CO-OPERATION--SERVICE TO THE EMPIRE You may consider that I have spoken these words in anger because I haveconsidered the ways of this Government immoral, unjust, debasing anduntruthful. I use these adjectives with the greatest deliberation. Ihave used them for my own true brother with whom I was engaged in battleof non-co-operation for full 13 years and although the ashes cover theremains of my brother I tell you that I used to tell him that he wasunjust when his plans were based upon immoral foundation. I used to tellhim that he did not stand for truth. There was no anger in me, I toldhim this home truth because I loved him. In the same manner, I tell theBritish people that I love them, and that I want their association but Iwant that association on conditions well defined. I want my self-respectand I want my absolute equality with them. If I cannot gain thatequality from the British people, I do not want that British connection. If I have to let the British people go and import temporary disorder anddislocation of national business, I will favour that disorder anddislocation than that I should have injustice from the hands of a greatnation such as the British nation. You will find that by the time thewhole chapter is closed that the successors of Mr. Montagu will give methe credit for having rendered the most distinguished service that Ihave yet rendered to the Empire, in having offered this non-co-operationand in having suggest the boycott, not of His Royal Highness theprinciple of Wales, but of boycott of a visit engineered by Governmentin order to tighten its hold on the national neck. I will not allow iteven if I stand alone, if I cannot persuade this nation not to welcomethat visit but will boycott that visit with all the power at my command. It is for that reason I stand before you and implore you to offer thisreligious battle, but it is not a battle offered to you by a visionaryor a saint. I deny being a visionary. I do not accept the claim ofsaintliness. I am of the earth, earthy, a common gardener man as much asany one of you, probably much more than you are. I am prone to as manyweaknesses as you are. But I have seen the world. I have lived in theworld with my eyes open. I have gone through the most fiery ordeals thathave fallen to the lot of man. I have gone through this discipline. Ihave understood the secret of my own sacred Hinduism. I have learnt thelesson that non-co-operation is the duty not merely of the saint but itis the duty of every ordinary citizen, who not know much, not caring toknow much but wants to perform his ordinary household functions. Thepeople of Europe touch even their masses, the poor people the doctrineof the sword. But the Rishis of India, those who have held the traditionof India have preached to the masses of India this doctrine, not of thesword, not of violence but of suffering, of self-suffering. And unlessyou and I am prepared to go through this primary lesson we are notready even to offer the sword and that is the lesson my brother ShaukalAli has imbibed to teach and that is why he to-day accepts my advicetendered to him in all prayerfulness and in all humility and says 'longlive non-co-operation. ' Please remember that even in England the littlechildren were withdrawn from the schools; and colleges in Cambridge andOxford were closed. Lawyers had left their desks and were fighting inthe trenches. I do not present to you the trenches but I do ask you togo through the sacrifice that the men, women and the brave lads ofEngland went through. Remember that you are offering battle to a nationwhich is saturated with their spirit of sacrifice whenever the occasionarises. Remember that the little band of Boers offered stubbornresistance to a mighty nation. But their lawyers had left their desks. Their mothers had withdrawn their children from the schools and collegesand the children had become the volunteers of the nation, I have seenthem with these naked eyes of mine. I am asking my countrymen in Indiato follow no other gospel than the gospel of self-sacrifice whichprecedes every battle. Whether you belong to the school of violence ornon-violence you will still have to go through the fire of sacrifice, and of discipline. May God grant you, may God grant our leaders thewisdom, the courage and the true knowledge to lead the nation to itscherished goal. May God grant the people of India the right path, thetrue vision and the ability and the courage to follow this path, difficult and yet easy, of sacrifice. SPEECH AT TRICHINOPOLY Mahatma Gandhi made the following speech at Trichinopoly on the 18th August 1920:-- I think you on behalf of my brother Shaukat Ali and myself for themagnificent reception that the citizens of Trichinopoly have given tous. I thank you also for the many addresses that you have been goodenough to present to us, but I must come to business. It is a great pleasure to me to renew your acquaintance for reasons thatI need not give you. I expect great things from Trichinopoly, Madura anda few places I could name. I take it that you have read my address onthe Madras Beach on non-co-operation. Without taking up your time inthis great assembly, I wish to deal with one or two matters that ariseout of Mr. S. Kasturiranga Iyongar's speech. He says in effect that Ishould have waited for the Congress mandate on Non-co-operation. Thatwas impossible, because the Mussulmans had and still have a duty, irrespective of the Hindus, to perform in reference to their ownreligion. It was impossible for them to wait for any mandate save themandate of their own religion in a matter that vitally concerned thehonour of Islam. It is therefore possible for them only to go to theCongress on bended knees with a clear cut programme of their own and askthe Congress to pronounce its blessings upon that programme and if theyare not so fortunate as to secure the blessings of the National Assemblywithout meaning any disrespect to that assembly, it is their boundenduty to go on with their programme, and so it is the duty of every Hinduwho considers his Mussalman brother as a brother who has a just causewhich he wishes to vindicate, to throw in his lot with his Mussalmanbrother. Our leader does not quarrel with the principle ofnon-co-operation by itself, but he objects to the three principaldetails of non-co-operation. COUNCIL ELECTIONS He considers that it is our duty to seek election to the Councils andfight our battle on the floor of the Council hall. I do not deny thepossibility of a fight and a royal fight on the Council floor. We havedone it for the last 35 years, but I venture to suggest to you and tohim, with all due respect, that it is not non-co-operation and it is nothalf as successful as non-co-operation can be. You cannot go to a classof people with a view to convince them by any fight--call it evenobstruction--who have got a settled conviction and a settled policy tofollow. It is in medical language an incompatible mixture out of whichyou can gain nothing, but if you totally boycott the Council, you createa public opinion in the country with reference to the Khilafat wrong andthe Punjab wrong which will become totally irresistible. The firstadvantage of going to the Councils must be good-will on the part of therulers. It is absolutely lacking. In the place of good-will you have gotnothing but injustice but I must move on. LAWYERS' PRACTICE I come now to the second objection of Mr. Kasturiranga Iyengar withreference to the suspension by lawyers of their practice. Milk is goodin itself but it comes absolutely poisonous immediately a little bit ofarsenic is added to it. Law courts are similarly good when justice isdistilled through them on behalf of a Sovereign power which wants to dojustice to its people. Law courts are one of the greatest symbols ofpower and in the battle of non-co-operation, you may not leave lawcourts untouched and claim to offer non-co-operation, but if you willread that objection carefully, you will find in that objection the greatfear that the lawyers will not respond to the call that the countrymakes upon them, and it is just there that the beauty ofnon-co-operation comes in. If one lawyer alone suspends practice, it isso much to the good of the country and so if we are sure to deprive theGovernment of the power that it possess through its law courts, whetherone lawyer takes it up or many, we must adopt that step. GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS He objects also to the plan of boycotting Government schools. I can onlysay what I have said with reference to lawyers that if we meannon-co-operation, we may not receive any favours from the Government, nomatter how advantageous by themselves they may be. In a great strugglelike this, it is not open to us to count how many schools will respondand how many parents will respond and just as a geometrical problem isdifficult, because it does not admit of easy proof, so also because acertain stage in national evolution is difficult, you may not avoid thatstep without making the whole of the evolution a farce. * * * * * We have had a great lesson in non-co-operation and co-operation. We hada lesson in non-co-operation when some young men began to fight thereand it is a dangerous weapon. I have not the slightest doubt about it. One man with a determined will to non-co-operate can disturb a wholemeeting and we had a physical demonstration of it to night but ours isnon-violent, non-co-operation in which there can be no mistakewhatsoever in the fundamental conditions are observed. Ifnon-co-operation fails, it will not be for want of any inherent strengthin it, but it will fall because there is no response to it, or becausepeople have not sufficiently grasped its simple principles. You had alsoa practical demonstration of co-operation just now; that heavy chairwent over the heads of so many people, because all wanted to lift theirlittle hand to move that chair away from them and so was that heavierdome also removed from our sight by co-operation of man, woman andchild. Everybody believes and knows that this Government of our existsonly by the co-operation of the people and not by the force of arms itcan wield and everyman with a sense of logic will tell you that theconverse of that also is equally true that Government cannot stand ifthis co-operation on which it exists is withdrawn. Difficultiesundoubtedly there are, we have hitherto learned how to sacrifice ourvoice and make speeches. We must also learn to sacrifice ease, money, comfort and that, we may learn form the Englishmen themselves. Every onewho has studied English history knows that we are now engaged in abattle with a nation which is capable of great sacrifice and the threehundred millions of India cannot make their mark upon the world, or gaintheir self-respect without an adequate measure of sacrifice. BOYCOTT OF BRITISH GOODS Our friend has suggested the boycott of British or foreign goods. Boycott of all foreign goods is another name for Swadeshi. He thinksthat there will be a greater response in the boycott of all foreigngoods. With the experience of years behind me and with an intimateknowledge of the mercantile classes, I venture to tell you that boycottof foreign goods, or boycott of merely British goods is moreimpracticable than any of the stops I have suggested. Whereas in all thesteps that I have ventured to suggest there is practically no sacrificeof money involved, in the boycott of British or foreign goods you areinviting your merchant princes to sacrifice their millions. It has gotto be done, but it is an exceedingly low process. The same may be saidof the steps that I have ventured to suggest, I know, but boycott ofgoods in conceived as a punishment and the punishment is only effectivewhen it is inflicted. What I have ventured to suggest is not apunishment, but the performance of a sacred duty, a measure ofself-denial from ourselves, and therefore it is effective from its veryinception when it is undertaken even by one man and a substantial dutyperformed even by one single man lays the foundation of nations liberty. CONCLUSION I am most anxious for my nation, for my Mussalman brethren also, tounderstand that if they want to vindicate national honour or the honourof Islam, it will be vindicated without a shadow of doubt, not beconceiving a punishment or a series of punishments, but by an adequatemeasure of self-sacrifice. I wish to speak of all our leaders in termsof the greatest respect, but whatever respect we wish to pay them maynot stop or arrest the progress of the country, and I am most anxiousthat the country at this very critical period of its history should makeits choice. The choice clearly does not lie before you and me inwresting by force of arms the sceptre form the British nation, but thechoice lies in suffering this double wrong of the Khilafat and thePunjab, in pocketing humiliation and in accepting national emasculationor vindication of India's honour by sacrifice to-day by every man, womanand child and those who feel convinced of the rightness of things, weshould make that choice to-night. So, citizens of Trichinopoly, you maynot wait for the whole of India but you can enforce the first step ofnon-co-operation and begin your operations even from to-morrow, if youhave not done so already. You can surrender all your titles to-morrowall the lawyers may surrender their practice to-morrow; those who cannotsustain body and soul by any other means can be easily supported by theKhilafat Committee, if they will give their whole time and attention tothe work of that Committee and if the layers will kindly do that, youwill find that there is no difficulty in settling your disputes byprivate arbitration. You can nationalise your schools from to-morrow ifyou have got the will and the determination. It is difficult, I know, when only a few of you think these things. It is as easy as we aresitting here when the whole of this vast audience is of one mind and asit was easy for you to carry that chair so is it easy for you to enforcethis programme from to-morrow if you have one will, one determinationand love for your country, love for the honour of your country andreligion. (Loud and prolonged cheers. ) SPEECH AT CALICUT Mr. Chairman and friends. --On behalf of my brother Shaukut Ali andmyself I wish to thank you most sincerely for the warm welcome you haveextended to us. Before I begin to explain the purpose of our mission Ihave to give you the information that Pir Mahboob Shah who was beingtried in Sindh for sedition has been sentenced to two years' simpleimprisonment. I do not know exactly what the offence was with which thePir was charged. I do not know whether the words attributed to him wereever spoken by him. But I do know that the Pirsaheb declined to offerany defence and with perfect resignation he has accepted his penalty. For me it is a matter of sincere pleasure that the Pirsaheb whoexercises great influence over his followers has understood the spiritof the struggle upon which we have embarked. It is not by resisting theauthority of Government that we expect to succeed in the great taskbefore us. But I do expect that we shall succeed if we understand thespirit of non-co-operation. The Lieutenant-Governor of Burma himself hastold us that the British retain their hold on India not by the force ofarms but by the force of co-operation of the people. Thus he has givenus the remedy for any wrong that the Government may do to the people, whether knowingly or unknowingly. And so long as we co-operate with theGovernment, so long as we support that Government, we become to thatextent sharers in the wrong. I admit that in ordinary circumstances awise subject will tolerate the wrongs of a Government, but a wisesubject never tolerates a wrong that a Government imposes on thedeclared will of a people. And I venture to submit to this great meetingthat the Government of India and the Imperial Government have done adouble wrong to India, and if we are a nation of self-respecting peopleconscious of its dignity, conscious of its right, it is not just andproper that we should stand the double humiliation that the Governmenthas heaped upon us. By shaping and by becoming a predominant partner inthe peace terms imposed on the helpless Sultan of Turkey, the ImperialGovernment have intentionally flouted the cherished sentiment of theMussalman subjects of the Empire. The present Prime Minister gave adeliberate pledge after consultation with his colleagues when it wasnecessary for him to conciliate the Mussalmans of India. I claim to havestudied this Khilafat question in a special manner. I claim tounderstand the Mussalman feeling on the Khilafat question and I am hereto declare for the tenth time that on the Khilafat matter the Governmenthas wounded the Mussalman sentiment as they had never done before. And Isay without fear of contradiction that if the Mussalmans of India hadnot exercised great self-restraint and if there was not the gospel ofnon-co-operation preached to them and if they had not accepted it, therewould have been bloodshed in India by this time. I am free to confessthat spilling of blood would not have availed their cause. But a manwho is in a state of rage whose heart has become lacerated does notcount the cost of his action. So much for the Khilafat wrong. I propose to take you for a minute to the Punjab, the northern end ofIndia. And what have both Governments done for the Punjab? I am free toconfess again that the crowds in Amritsar went mad for a moment. Theywere goaded to madness by a wicked administration. But no madness on thepart of a people can justify the shedding of innocent blood, and whathave they paid for it? I venture to submit that no civilised Governmentcould ever have made the people pay the penalty and retribution thatthey have paid. Innocent men were tried through mock-tribunals andimprisoned for life. Amnesty granted to them after; I count of noconsequence. Innocent, unarmed men, who knew nothing of what was tohappen, were butchered in cold blood without the slightest notice. Modesty of women in Manianwalla, women who had done no wrong to anyindividual, was outraged by insolent officers. I want you to understandwhat I mean by outrage of their modesty. Their veils were opened withhis stick by an officer. Men who were declared to be utterly innocent bythe Hunter Committee were made to crawl on their bellies. And all thesewrongs totally undeserved remain unavenged. If it was the duty of theGovernment of India to punish those who were guilty of incendiarism andmurder, as I hold it was their duty, it was doubly their duty to punishofficers who insulted and oppressed innocent people. But in the face ofthese official wrongs we have the debate in the house of lordssupporting official terrorism, it is this double wrong, the affront toIslam and the injury to the manhood of the Punjab, that we feel bound towipe out by non-co-operation. We have prayed, petitioned, agitated, wehave passed resolutions. Mr. Mahomed Ali supported by his friends is nowwaiting on the British public. He has pleaded the cause of Islam in amost manful manner, but his pleading has fallen on deaf ears and we havehis word for it that whilst France and Italy have shown great sympathyfor the cause of Islam, it is the British Ministers who have shown nosympathy. This shows which way the British Ministers and the presentholders of office in India mean to deal by the people. There is nogoodwill, there is no desire to placate the people of India. The peopleof India must therefore have a remedy to redress the double wrong. Themethod of the west is violence. Wherever the people of the west havefelt a wrong either justly or unjustly, they have rebelled and shedblood. As I have said in my letter to the Viceroy of India, half ofIndia does not believe in the remedy of violence. The other half is tooweak to offer it. But the whole of India is deeply hurt and stirred bythis wrong, and it is for that reason that I have suggested to thepeople of India the remedy of non-co-operation. I consider it perfectlyharmless, absolutely constitutional and yet perfectly efficacious. It isa remedy in which, if it is properly adopted, victory is certain, and itis the age-old remedy of self-sacrifice. Are the Mussalmans of India whofeel the great wrong done to Islam ready to make an adequateself-sacrifice? All the scriptures of the world teach us that there canbe no compromise between justice and injustice. Co-operation on the partof a justice-loving man with an unjust man is a crime. And if we desireto compel this great Government to the will of the people, as we must, we must adopt this great remedy of non-co-operation. And if theMussalmans of India offer non-co-operation to Government in order tosecure justice in the Khilafat matter, I believe it is duty of theHindus to help them so long as their moans are just. I consider theeternal friendship between the Hindus and Mussalmans is more importantthan the British connection. I would prefer any day anarchy and chaos inIndia to an armed peace brought about by the bayonet between the Hindusand Mussalmans. I have therefore ventured to suggest to my Hindubrethren that if they wanted to live at peace with Mussalmans, there isan opportunity which is not going to recur for the next hundred years. And I venture to assure you that if the Government of India and theImperial Government come to know that there is a determination on thepart of the people to redress this double wrong they would not hesitateto do what is needed. But in the Mussalmans of India will have to takethe lead in the matter. You will have to commence the first stage ofnon-co-operation in right earnest. And if you may not help thisGovernment, you may not receive help from it. Titles which were theother day titles of honour are to-day in my opinion badges of ourdisgrace. We must therefore surrender all titles of honour, all honoraryoffices. It will constitute an emphatic demonstration of the disapprovalby the leaders of the people of the acts of the Government. Lawyers mustsuspend their practice and must resist the power of the Government whichhas chosen to flout public opinion. Nor may we receive instruction fromschools controlled by Government and aided by it. Emptying of theschools will constitute a demonstration of the will of the middle classof India. It is far better for the nation even to neglect the literaryinstruction of the children than to co-operate with a Government thathas striven to maintain an injustice and untruth on the Khilafat andPunjab matters. Similarly have I ventured to suggest a complete boycottof reformed councils. That will be an emphatic declaration of the partof the representatives of the people that they do not desire toassociate with the Government so long as the two wrongs continue. Wemust equally decline to offer ourselves as recruits for the police orthe military. It is impossible for us to go to Mesopotamia or to offerto police that country or to offer military assistance and to help theGovernment in that blood guiltiness. The last plank in the first stage isSwadeshi. Swadeshi is intended not so much to bring pressure upon theGovernment as to demonstrate the capacity for sacrifice on the part ofthe men and women of India. When one-fourth of India has its religion atstake and when the whole of India has its honour at stake, we can be inno mood to bedeck ourselves with French calico or silks from Japan. Wemust resolve to be satisfied with cloth woven by the humble weavers ofIndia in their own cottages out of yarn spun by their sisters in theirown homes. When a hundred years ago our tastes were not debased and wewere not lured by all the fineries from the foreign countries, we weresatisfied with the cloth produced by the men and women in India, and ifI could but in a moment revolutionize the tastes of India and make itreturn to its original simplicity, I assure you that the Gods woulddescent to rejoice at the great act of renunciation. That is the firststage in non-co-operation. I hope it is as easy for you as it is easyfor me to see that if India is capable of taking the first step inanything like a full measure that step will bring the redress we want. Itherefore do not intend to take you to the other stages ofnon-co-operation. I would like you to rivet your attention upon theplans in the first stage. You will have noticed that but two things arenecessary in going through the first stage: (1) Prefect spirit ofnon-violence is indispensable for non-co-operation, (2) only a littleself-sacrifice, I pray to God that He will give the people of Indiasufficient courage and wisdom and patience to go through this experimentof non-co-operation. I think you for the great reception that you havegiven us. And I also thank you for the great patience and exemplarysilence with which you have listened to my remarks. _August_ 1920. SPEECH AT MANGALORE Mr. Chairman and friends, --To my brother Shaukat Ali and me it was apleasure to go through this beautiful garden of India. The greatreception that you gave us this afternoon, and this great assembly aremost welcome to us, if they are a demonstration of your sympathy withthe cause which you have the honour to represent. I assure you that wehave not undertaken this incessant travelling in order to havereceptions and addresses, no matter how cordial they may be. But we haveundertaken this travelling throughout the length and breadth of thisdear Motherland to place before you the position that faces us to-day. It is our privilege, as it is our duty, to place that position beforethe country and let her make the choice. Throughout our tour we have received many addresses, but in my humbleopinion no address was more truly worded than the address that waspresented to us at Kasargod. It addressed both of us as 'dear reveredbrothers. ' I am unable to accept the second adjective 'revered. ' Theword 'dear' is dear to me I must confess. But dearer than that is theexpression 'brothers. ' The signatories to that address recognized thetrue significance of this travel. No blood brothers can possibly be moreintimately related, can possibly be more united in one purpose, one aimthan my brother Shaukat Ali and I. And I considered it a proud privilegeand honour to be addressed as blood brother to Shaukat Ali. The contentsof that address were as equally significant. It stated that in ourunited work was represented the essence of the unity between theMussalmans and Hindus in India. If we two cannot represent that verydesirable unity, if we two cannot cement the relation between the twocommunities, I do not know who can. Then without any rhetoric andwithout any flowery language the address went on to describe theinwardness of the Punjab and the Khilafat struggle; and then in simpleand beautiful language it described the spiritual significance ofSatyagrah and Non-co-operation. This was followed by a frank and simplepromise. Although the signatories to the address realised the momentousnature of the struggle on which we have embarked, and although theysympathise with the struggle with their whole heart, they wound up bysaying that even if they could not follow non-co-operation in all itsdetails, they would do as much as they could to help the struggle. Andlastly, in eloquent, and true language, they said 'if we cannot riseequal to the occasion it will not be due to want of effort but to wantof ability. ' I can desire no better address, no better promise, and ifyou, the citizens of Mangalore, can come up to the level of thesignatories, and give us just the assurance that you consider thestruggle to be right and that it commands your entire approval, I amcertain you will make all sacrifice that lies in your power. For we areface to face with a peril greater than plagues, greater than influenza, greater than earthquakes and mighty floods, which sometimes overwhelmthis land. These physical calamities can rob us of so many Indianbodies. But the calamity that has at the present moment overtaken Indiatouches the religious honour of a fourth of her children and theself-respect of the whole nation. The Khilafat wrong affects theMussalmans of India, and the Punjab calamity very nearly overwhelms themanhood of India. Shall we in the face of this danger be weak or rise toour full height. The remedy for both the wrongs is the spiritual solventof non-co-operation. I call it a spiritual weapon, because it demandsdiscipline and sacrifice from us. It demands sacrifice from everyindividual irrespective of the rest. And the promise that is behind thisperformance of duty, the promise given by every religion that I havestudied is sure and certain. It is that there is no spotless sacrificethat has been yet offered on earth, which has not carried with it itsabsolute adequate reward. It is a spiritual weapon, because it waits forno mandate from anybody except one's own conscience. It is a spiritualweapon, because it brings out the best in the nation and it absolutelysatisfies individual honour if a single individual takes it, and it willsatisfy national honour if the whole nation takes it up. And thereforeit is that I have called non-co-operation in opposition to the opinionof many of my distinguished countrymen and leaders--a weapon that isinfallible and absolutely practicable. It is infallible and practicable, because it satisfies the demands of individual conscience. God abovecannot, will not expect Maulana Shaukat Ali to do more than he has beendoing, for he has surrendered and placed at the disposal of God whom hebelieves to be the Almighty ruler of everyone, he has delivered all inthe service of God. And we stand before the citizens of Mangalore andask them to make their choice either to accept this precious gift thatwe lay at their feet or to reject it. And after having listened to mymessage if you come to the come to the conclusion that you have no otherremedy than non-co-operation for the conservation of Islam and thehonour of India, you will accept that remedy. I ask you not to beconfused by so many bewildering issues that are placed before you, norto be shaken from your purpose because you see divided counsels amongstyour leaders. This is one of the necessary limitations of any spiritualor any other struggle that has ever been fought on this earth. It isbecause it comes so suddenly that it confuses the mind if the heart isnot tuned properly. And we would be perfect human beings on this earthif in all of us was found absolutely perfect correspondence between themind and the heart. But those of you who have been following thenewspaper controversy, will find that no matter what division of opinionexists amongst our journals and leaders there is unanimity that theremedy is efficacious if it can be kept free from violence, and if it isadopted on a large scale. I admit the difficulty the virtue however liesin surmounting it. We cannot possibly combine violence with a spiritualweapon like non-co-operation. We do not offer spotless sacrifice if wetake the lives of others in offering our own. Absolute freedom fromviolence is therefore it condition precedent to non-co-operation. But Ihave faith in my country to know that when it has assimilated theprinciple of the doctrine In the fullest extent, it will respond to it. And in no case will India make any headway whatsoever until she haslearnt the lesson of self-sacrifice. Even if this country were to takeup the doctrine of the sword, which God forbid, it will have to learnthe lesson of self-sacrifice. The second difficulty suggested is thewant of solidarity of the nation. I accept it too. But that difficulty Ihave already answered by saying that it is a remedy that can be taken upby individuals for individual and by the nation for nationalsatisfaction; and therefore even if the whole nation does not take upnon-co-operation, the individual successes, which may be obtained byindividuals taking up non-co-operation will stand to their own credit asof the nation to which they belong. The first stage in my humble opinion is incredibly easy inasmuch as itdoes not involve any very great sacrifice. If your Khan bahadurs andother title-holders were to renounce their titles I venture to submitthat whilst the renunciation will stand to the credit and honour of thenation it will involve a little or no sacrifice. On the contrary, theywill not only have surrendered no earthly riches but they will havegained the applause of the nation. Let us see what it means, this firststep. The able editor of _Hindu_, Mr. Kastariranga Iyengar, and almostevery journalist in the country are agreed that the renunciation oftitles is a necessary and a desirable step. And if these chosen peopleof the Government were without exception to surrender their titles toGovernment giving notice that the heart of India is doubly wounded inthat the honour of India and of muslim religion is at stake and thattherefore they can no longer retain their titles, I venture to suggest, that this their step which costs not a single penny either to them or tothe nation will be an effective demonstration of the national will. Take the second step or the second item of non-co-operation. I knowthere is strong opposition to the boycott of councils. The oppositionwhen you begin to analyse it means not that the step is faulty or thatit is not likely to succeed, but it is due to the belief that the wholecountry will not respond to it and that the Moderates will steal intothe councils. I ask the citizens of Mangalore to dispel that fear fromyour hearts. United the voters of Mangalore can make it impossible foreither a moderate or an extremist or any other form of leader to enterthe councils as your representative. This step involves no sacrifice ofmoney, no sacrifice of honour but the gaining of prestige for the wholenation. And I venture to suggest to you that this one step alone if itis taken with any degree of unanimity even by the extremists can bringabout the desired relief, but if all do not respond the individual neednot be afraid. He at least will have laid the foundation for true selfprogress, let him have the comfort that he at least has washed his handsclean of the guilt of the Government. Then I come to the members of the profession which one time I used tocarry on. I have ventured to ask the lawyers of India to suspend theirpractice and withdraw their support from a Government which no longerstands for justice, pure and unadulterated, for the nation. And the stepis good for the individual lawyer who takes it and is good for thenation if all the lawyers take it. And so for the Government and the Government aided schools, I mustconfess that I cannot reconcile my conscience to my children going toGovernment schools and to the programme of non-co-operation is intendedto withdraw all support from Government, and to decline all helpfrom it. I will not tax your patience by taking you through the other items ofnon-co-operation important as they are. But I have ventured to placebefore you four very important and forcible steps any one of which iffully taken up contains in it possibilities of success. Swadeshi ispreached as an item of non-co-operation, as a demonstration of thespirit of sacrifice, and it is an item which every man, woman and childcan take up. _August_ 1920. SPEECH AT BEZWADA As I said this morning one essential condition for the progress of Indiais Hindu-Muslim Unity. I understand that there was a little bit ofbickering between Hindus and Mussalmans to-day in Bezwada. My brotherMaulana Shaukat Ali adjusted the dispute between the two communities andhe illustrated in his own person the entire efficacy of one item in thefirst stage of Non-co-operation. He sat without any vakils appearingbefore him for either parties to arbitrate on the dispute between them. He required no postponement for the consideration of the question fromtime to time. His fees consisted in a broken lead pencil. That is whatwe should do, if all the lawyers suspended practice and set uparbitration for the settlement of private disputes. But why was thereany quarrel at all? It is laughable in the extreme when you come tothink of it. Because the Hindus seem to have played music whilst passingthe mosque. I think it was improper for them to do so. Hindu MoslemUnity does not mean that Hindus should cease to respect the prejudicesand sentiments cherished by Mussalmans. And as this question of musichas given rise to many a quarrel between the two communities it behovesthe Hindus, if they want to cultivate true Hindu-Moslem Unity, torefrain from acts which they know injure the sentiments of theirMussalman brethren. We may not take undue advantage of the great spiritof toleration that is developing in Mussalmans and do things likely toirritate them. It is never a matter of principle for a Hindu processionto continue playing music before mosques. And now that we desirevoluntarily to respect Mussalman sentiment, we should be doubly carefulat a time when Hindus are offering assistance to Mussalmans in theirtroubles. That assistance should be given in all humility and withoutany arrogation of rights. To my Mussalman brethren I would say that itwould become their dignity to restrain themselves and not feel irritatedwhen any Hindu had done anything to irritate their religious sentiment. But in any event, you have today presented to you a remedy for thesettlement of any such issue. We must settle our disputes by arbitrationas was done this after-noon. You cannot always get a Moulana ShankatAli, exercising unrivalled influence on the community. But we can alwaysget people enough in our own villages, towns and districts who exerciseinfluence over such villages and towns and command the confidence ofboth the communities. The offended party should consider it its duty toapproach them and not to take the law in its own hands. It gives me much pleasure to announce to you that, Mr. Kaleswar Rao hasconsented to refrain from standing for election to the new LegislativeCouncils. You will be also pleased to know that Mr. Gulam Nohiuddin hasresigned his Honorary Magistrateship, I hope that both these patriotswill not consider that they have done their last duty by their acts ofrenunciation, but I hope they will regard their acts as a prelude toacts of greater purpose and greater energy and I hope they will take inhand the work of educating the electorate in their districts regardingboycott of councils. I have said elsewhere that never for anothercentury will India be faced with a conjunction of events that faces itto-day. The cloud that has descended upon Islam has solidified theMoslem world as nothing else could have. It has awakened the men andwomen of Mussulman India from their deep sleep. Inasmuch as a singlePanjabi was made to crawl on his belly in the famous street of Amitsar, I hold that the whole of was made to crawl on its belly. And if we wantto straighten up ourselves from that crawling position and stand erectbefore the whole world, it requires, a tremendous effort. H. E. TheViceroy in his Viceregal pronouncement at the opening of the Council waspleased to say that he did not desire to make any remarks on the Punjabevents. He treated them as a closed chapter and referred us to thefuture verdict of history. I venture to tell you the citizens of Bezwadathat India will have deserved to crawl in that lane if she accepts thispronouncement as the final answer, and if we want to stand erect beforethe whole world, it is impossible for a single child, man or woman inIndia to rest until fullest reparation has been done for the Punjabwrong. Similarly with reference to the Khilafat grievance the Mussalmansof India in my humble opinion will forfeit all title to considerthemselves the followers of the great Prophet in whose name they recitethe Kalama, day in and day out, they will forfeit their title if they donot put their shoulders to the wheel and lift this cloud that is hangingon them. But we shall make a serious blunder. India will commit suicide, if we do not understand and appreciate the forces that are arrayedagainst us. We have got to face a mighty Government with all its powerranged against us. This composed of men who are able, courageous, capable of making sacrifices. It is a Government which does not scrupleto use means, fair or foul, in order to gain its end. No craft is abovethat Government. It resorts to frightfulness, terrorism. It resorts tobribery, in the shape of titles, honour and high offices. It administersopiates in the shape of Reforms. In essence then it is an autocracydouble distilled in the guise of democracy. The greatest gift of acrafty cunning man are worthless so long as cunning resides in hisheart. It is a Government representing a civilisation which is purelymaterial and godless. I have given to you these qualities of thisgovernment in order not to excite your angry passions, but in order thatyou may appreciate the forces that are matched against you. Anger willserve no purpose. We shall have to meet ungodliness by godliness. Weshall have to meet their untruth by truth; we shall have to meet theircunning and their craft by openness and simplicity; we shall have tomeet their terrorism and frightfulness by bravery. And it is anunbending bravery which is demanded of every man, woman and child. Wemust meet their organisation by greater organising ability. We must meettheir discipline by grater discipline, and we must meet their sacrificesby infinitely greater sacrifices, and if we are in a position to showthese qualities in a full measure I have not the slightest doubt that weshall win this battle. If really we have fear of God in us, our prayerswill give us the strength to secure victory. God has always come to thehelp of the helpless and we need not go before any earthly power forhelp. You heard this morning of the bravery of the sword, and the bravery ofsuffering. For me personally I have forever rejected the bravery of thesword. But, to-day it is not my purpose to demonstrate to you the finalineffectiveness of the sword. But he who runs may see that before Indiapossesses itself a sword which will be more than a match for the forcesof Europe, it will he generations. India may resort to the destructionof life and property here and there but such destructive cases serve nopurpose. I have therefore presented to you a weapon called the braveryof suffering, otherwise called Non-co-operation. It is a bravery whichis open to the weakest among the weak. It is open to women and children. The power of suffering is the prerogative of nobody, and if only 300millions of Indians could show the power of suffering in order toredress a grievous wrong done to the nation or to its religion, I makebold to say that, India will never require to draw the sword. And unlesswe are able to show an adequate measure of sacrifice we shall lose thisbattle. No one need tell me that India has not got this power ofsuffering. Every father and mother is witness to what I am about to say, viz. , that every father and mother have shown in the domestic affairsmatchless power of suffering. And if we have only developed nationalconsciousness, if we have developed sufficient regard for our religion, we shall have developed power of suffering in the national and religiousfield. Considered in these terms the first stage in Non-co-operation isthe simplest and the easiest state. If the title-holders of Indiaconsider that India is suffering from a grievous wrong both as regardsthe Punjab and the Khilafat is it any suffering on their part torenounce their titles to-day? What is the measure of the sufferingawaiting the lawyers who are called upon to suspend practice whencompared to the great benefit which is in store for the nation? And ifthy parents of India will summon up courage to sacrifice seculareducation, they will have given their children the real education of alife-time. For they will have learnt the value of religion and nationalhonour. And I ask you, the citizens of Bezwada, to think well before youaccept the loaves and fishes in the form of Government offices set themon one side and set national honour on the other and make your service. What sacrifice is there involved in the individual renouncing hiscandidature for legislative councils. The councils are a tempting bait. All kinds of arguments are being advanced in favour of joining thecouncils. India will sacrifice the opportunity of gaining her liberty ifshe touches them. It passes comprehension how we, who have known thisGovernment, who have read the Viceregal pronouncement, how we who haveknown their determination not to give justice in the Punjab and theKhilafat matters, can gain any benefit by co-operation, constructive orobstructive, with this Government? But the Nationalists, belonging to agreat popular party, tell us that if they do not contest these scats, the moderates will get in. Surely, it is nothing but an exhibition ofwant of courage and faith in our own cause to feel that we must enterthe councils lest moderates should get in. Moderates believe in thepossibility of obtaining justice at the hands of the Government. Nationalists have on the other hand filled the platforms withdenunciations of the Government and its measures. How can theNationalists ever hope to gain anything by entering the councils, holding the belief that they do? They will better represent the popularwill if they wring justice from the Government by means ofNon-co-operation. A calculating spirit at the present moment in thehistory of India will prove its ruin. I, therefore, tender my heartycongratulation to those who have announced their resignations ofcandidature or honorary offices, and I hope that their example willprove infectious. I have been told, and I believe it myself from what Ihave seen, that the Andhrus are a brave, courageous andspiritually-inclined people. I venture therefore to ask my Andhrabrethren whether they have understood the spirituality of this beautifuldoctrine of Non-co-operation. If they have, I hope they will not waitfor a single moment for a mandate from the Congress or the MoslemLeague. They will understand that a spiritual weapon is god whether itis wielded by one or many. I, therefore, invite you to go to Calcuttawith a united will and a united purpose, sanctified by a spirit ofsacrifice, with a will of your own to convert those who are stillundecided about the spirituality or the practicability of the weapon. I thank you for the attention and patience with which you have listenedto me. I pray to the Almighty that He may give you wisdom and couragethat are so necessary at the present moment. -- _August 1920_. THE CONGRESS The largest and the most important Congress ever held has come and gone, It was the biggest demonstration ever held against the present system ofGovernment. The President uttered the whole truth when he said that itwas a Congress in which, instead of the President and the leadersdriving the people, the people drove him and the latter. It was clear toevery one on the platform that the people had taken the reins in theirown hands. The platform would gladly have moved at a slower pace. The Congress gave one day to a full discussion of the creed and votedsolidly for it with but two dissentients after two nights' sleep overthe discussion. It gave one day to a discussion of non-co-operationresolution and voted for it with unparalleled enthusiasm. It gave thelast day to listening to the whole of the remaining thirty-two Articlesof the Constitution which were read and translated word for word byMaulana Mahomed Ali in a loud and clear voice. It showed that it wasintelligently following the reading of it, for there was dissent whenArticle Eight was reached. It referred to non-interference by theCongress in the internal affairs of the Native States. The Congresswould not have passed the proviso if it had meant that it could evenvoice the feelings of the people residing in the territories ruled bythe princes. Happily it resolution suggesting the advisability ofestablishing Responsible Government in their territories enabled me toillustrate to the audience that the proviso did not preclude theCongress from ventilating the grievances and aspirations of the subjectsof these states, whilst it clearly prevented the Congress from takingany executive action in connection with them; as for instance holding ahostile demonstration in the Native States against any action of theirs. The Congress claims to dictate to the Government but it cannot do so bythe very nature of its constitution in respect of the Native States. Thus the Congress has taken three important steps after the greatestdeliberation. It has expressed its determination in the clearestpossible terms to attain complete null-government, if possible still inassociation with the British people, but even without, if necessary. Itproposes to do so only by means that are honourable and non-violent. Ithas introduced fundamental changes in the constitution regulating itsactivities and has performed an act of self-denial in voluntarilyrestricting the number of delegates to one for every fifty thousand ofthe population of India and has insisted upon the delegates being thereal representatives of those who want to take any part in the politicallife of the country. And with a view to ensuring the representation ofall political parties it has accepted the principle of "singletransferable vote. " It has reaffirmed the non-co-operation resolution ofthe Special Session and amplified it in every respect. It has emphasisedthe necessity of non-violence and laid down that the attainment ofSwaraj is conditional upon the complete harmony between the componentparts of India, and has therefore inculcated Hindu-Muslim unity. TheHindu delegates have called upon their leaders to settle disputesbetween Brahmins and non-Brahmins and have urged upon the religiousheads the necessity of getting rid of the poison of untouchability. TheCongress has told the parents of school-going children, and the lawyersthat they have not responded sufficiently to the call of the nation andand that they must make greater effort in doing so. It therefore followsthat the lawyers who do not respond quickly to the call for suspensionand the parents who persist in keeping their children in Government andaided institutions must find themselves dropping out from the publiclife of the country. The country calls upon every man and woman in Indiato do their full share. But of the details of the non-co-operationresolution I must write later. WHO IS DISLOYAL? Mr. Montagu has discovered a new definition of disloyalty. He considersmy suggestion to boycott the visit of the Prince of Wales to be disloyaland some newspapers taking the cue from him have called persons who havemade the suggestion 'unmannerly'. They have even attributed to these'unmannerly' persons the suggestion of boycotting the Prince. I draw asharp and fundamental distinction between boycotting the Prince andboycotting any welcome arranged for him. Personally I would extend theheartiest welcome to His Royal Highness if he came or could come withoutofficial patronage and the protecting wings of the Government of theday. Being the heir to a constitutional monarch, the Prince's movementsare regulated and dictated by the ministers, no matter how much thedictation may be concealed beneath diplomatically polite language. Insuggesting the boycott therefore the promoters have suggested boycott ofan insolent bureaucracy and dishonest ministers of his Majesty. You cannot have it both ways. It is true that under a constitutionalmonarchy, the royalty is above politics. But you cannot send the Princeon a political visit for the purpose of making political capital out ofhim, and then complain that those who will not play your game and inorder to checkmate you, proclaim boycott of the Royal visit do not knowconstitutional usage. For the Prince's visit is not for pleasure. HisRoyal Highness is to come in Mr. Lloyd George's words, as the"ambassador of the British nation, " in other words, his own ambassadorin order to issue a certificate of merit to him and possibly to give theministers a new lease of life. The wish is designed to consolidate andstrengthen a power that spells mischief for India. Even us it is, Mr. Montagu has foreseen, that the welcome will probably be excelled by anyhitherto extended to Royalty, meaning that the people are not really anddeeply affected and stirred by the official atrocities in the Punjab andthe manifestly dishonest breach of official declarations on theKhilafat. With the knowledge that India was bleeding at heart, theGovernment of India should have told His Majesty's ministers that themoment was inopportune for sending the Prince. I venture to submit thatit is adding insult to injury to bring the Prince and through his visitto steal honours and further prestige for a Government that deserves tobe dismissed with disgrace. I claim that I prove my loyalty by sayingthat India is in no mood, is too deeply in mourning, to take part in andto welcome His Royal Highness, and that the ministers and the IndianGovernment show their disloyalty by making the Prince a catspaw of theirdeep political game. If they persist, it is the clear duty of India tohave nothing to do with the visit. CRUSADE AGAINST NON-CO-OPERATION I have most carefully read the manifesto addressed by Sir NarayanChandavarkar and others dissuading the people from joining the nonco-operation movement. I had expected to find some solid argumentagainst non-co-operation, but to my great regret I have found in itnothing but distortion (no doubt unconscious) of the great religions andhistory. The manifesto says that 'non-co-operation is deprecated by thereligious tenets and traditions of our motherland, nay, of all thereligions that have saved and elevated the human race. ' I venture tosubmit that the Bhagwad Gita is a gospel of non-co-operation betweenforces of darkness and those of light. If it is to be literallyinterpreted Arjun representing a just cause was enjoined to engage inbloody warfare with the unjust Kauravas. Tulsidas advises the Sant (thegood) to shun the Asant (the evil-doers). The Zendavesta represents aperpetual dual between Ormuzd and Ahriman, between whom there is nocompromise. To say of the Bible that it taboos non-co-operation is notto know Jesus, a Prince among passive resisters, who uncompromisinglychallenged the might of the Sadducees and the Pharisees and for the sakeof truth did not hesitate to divide sons from their parents. And whatdid the Prophet of Islam do? He non-co-operated in Mecca in a mostactive manner so long as his life was not in danger and wiped the dustof Mecca off his feet when he found that he and his followers might haveuselessly to perish, and fled to Medina and returned when he was strongenough to give battle to his opponents. The duty of non-co-operationwith unjust men and kings is as strictly enjoined by all the religionsas is the duty of co-operation with just men and kings. Indeed most ofthe scriptures of the world seem even to go beyond non-co-operation andprefer a violence to effeminate submission to a wrong. The Hindureligious tradition of which the manifesto speaks, clearly proves theduty of non-co-operation. Prahlad dissociated himself from his father, Meerabai from her husband, Bibhishan from his brutal brother. The manifesto speaking of the secular aspect says, 'The history ofnations affords no instance to show that it (meaning non-co-operation)has, when employed, succeeded and done good, ' One most recent instanceof brilliant success of non-co-operation is that of General Botha whoboycotted Lord Milner's reformed councils and thereby procured a perfectconstitution for his country. The Dukhobours of Russia offerednon-co-operation, and a handful though they were, their grievances sodeeply moved the civilized world that Canada offered them a home wherethey form a prosperous community. In India instances can be given by thedozen, in which in little principalities the raiyats when deeply grievedby their chiefs have cut off all connection with them and bent them totheir will. I know of no instance in history where well-managednon-co-operation has failed. Hitherto I have given historical instances of bloodlessnon-co-operation, I will not insult the intelligence of the reader byciting historical instances of non-co-operation combined with, violence, but I am free to confess that there are on record as manysuccesses as failures in violent non-co-operation. And it is because Iknow this fact that I have placed before the country a non-violentscheme in which, if at all worked satisfactorily, success is a certaintyand in which non-response means no harm. For if even one mannon-co-operates, say, by resigning some office, he has gained, not lost. That is its ethical or religious aspect. For its political resultnaturally it requires polymerous support. I fear therefore no disastrousresult from non-co-operation save for an outbreak of violence on thepart of the people whether under provocation or otherwise. I would riskviolence a thousand times than risk the emasculation of a whole race. SPEECH AT MUZAFFARABAD Before a crowded meeting of Mussalmans in the Muzaffarabad, Bombay, heldon the 29th July 1920, speaking on the impending non-co-operation whichcommenced on the 1st of August, Mr. Gandhi said: The time for speecheson non-co-operation was past and the time for practice had arrived. Buttwo things were needful for complete success. An environment free fromany violence on the part of the people and a spirit of self-sacrifice. Non-co-operation, as the speaker had conceived it, was an impossibilityin an atmosphere surcharged with the spirit of violence. Violence was anexhibition of anger and any such exhibition was dissipation of valuableenergy. Subduing of one's anger was a storing up of national energy, which, when set free in an ordered manner, would produce astoundingresults. His conception of non-co-operation did not involve rapine, plunder, incendiarism and all the concomitants of mass madness. Hisscheme presupposed ability on their part to control all the forces ofevil. If, therefore, any disorderliness was found on the part of thepeople which they could not control, he for one would certainly help theGovernment to control them. In the presence of disorder it would be forhim a choice of evil, and evil through he considered the presentGovernment to be, he would not hesitate for the time being to help theGovernment to control disorder. But he had faith in the people. Hebelieved that they knew that the cause could only be won by non-violentmethods. To put it at the lowest, the people had not the power, even ifthey had the will, to resist with brute strength the unjust Governmentsof Europe who had, in the intoxication of their success disregardingevery canon of justice dealt so cruelly by the only Islamic Powerin Europe. In non-co-operation they had a matchless and powerful weapon. It was asign of religious atrophy to sustain an unjust Government that supportedan injustice by resorting to untruth and camouflage. So long thereforeas the Government did not purge itself of the canker of injustice anduntruth, it was their duty to withdraw all help from it consistentlywith their ability to preserve order in the social structure. The firststage of non-co-operation was therefore arranged so as to involveminimum of danger to public peace and minimum of sacrifice on the partof those who participated in the movement. And if they might not help anevil Government nor receive any favours from it, it followed that theymust give up all titles of honour which were no longer a proudpossession. Lawyers, who were in reality honorary officers of the Court, should cease to support Courts that uphold the prestige of an unjustGovernment and the people must be able to settle their disputes andquarrels by private arbitration. Similarly parents should withdraw theirchildren from the public schools and they must evolve a system ofnational education or private education totally independent of theGovernment. An insolent Government conscious of its brute strength, might laugh at such withdrawals by the people especially as the Lawcourts and schools were supposed to help the people, but he had not ashadow of doubt that the moral effect of such a step could not possiblybe lost even upon a Government whose conscience had become stifled bythe intoxication of power. He had hesitation in accepting Swadeshi as a plank in non-co-operation. To him Swadeshi was as dear as life itself. But he had no desire tosmuggle in Swadeshi through the Khilafat movement, if it could notlegitimately help that movement, but conceived as non-co-operation was, in a spirit of self-sacrifice, Swadeshi had a legitimate place in themovement. Pure Swadeshi meant sacrifice of the liking for fineries. Heasked the nation to sacrifice its liking for the fineries of Europe andJapan and be satisfied with the coarse but beautiful fabrics woven ontheir handlooms out of yarns spun by millions of their sisters. If thenation had become really awakened to a sense of the danger to itsreligions and its self-respect, it could not but perceive the absoluteand immediate necessity of the adoption of Swadeshi in its intense formand if the people of India adopted Swadeshi with the religious zeal hebegged to assure them that its adoption would arm them with a new powerand would produce an unmistakable impression throughout the whole world. He, therefore, expected the Mussalmans to give the lead by giving up allthe fineries they were so fond of and adopt the simple cloth that couldbe produced by the manual labour of their sisters and brethren in theirown cottages. And he hoped that the Hindus would follow suit. It was asacrifice in which the whole nation, every man, woman and child couldtake part. RIDICULE REPLACING REPRESSION Had His Excellency the Viceroy not made it impossible by his defiantattitude on the Punjab and the Khilafat, I would have tendered himhearty congratulations for substituting ridicule for repression in orderto kill a movement distasteful to him. For, torn from its context andread by itself His Excellency's discourse on non-co-operation isunexceptionable. It is a symptom of translation from savagery tocivilization. Pouring ridicule on one's opponent is an approved methodin civilised politics. And if the method is consistently continued, itwill mark an important improvement upon the official barbarity of thePunjab. His interpretation of Mr. Montagu's statement about the movementis also not open to any objection whatsoever. Without doubt a governmenthas the right to use sufficient force to put down an actual outbreakof violence. But I regret to have to confess that this attempt to pour ridicule onthe movement, read in conjunction with the sentiments on the Punjab andthe Khilafat, preceding the ridicule, seems to show that His Excellencyhas made it a virtue of necessity. He has not finally abandoned themethod of terrorism and frightfulness, but he finds the movement beingconducted in such an open and truthful manner that any attempt to killit by violent repression would not expose him not only to ridicule butcontempt of all right-thinking men. Let us however examine the adjectives used by His Excellency to kill themovement by laughing at it. It is 'futile, ' 'ill-advised, ''intrinsically insane, ' 'unpractical, ' 'visionary. ' He has rounded offthe adjectives by describing the movement as 'most foolish of allfoolish schemes. ' His Excellency has become so impatient of it that hehas used all his vocabulary for showing the magnitude of the ridiculousnature of non-co-operation. Unfortunately for His Excellency the movement is likely to grow withridicule as it is certain to flourish on repression. No vital movementcan be killed except by the impatience, ignorance or laziness of itsauthors. A movement cannot be 'insane' that is conducted by men ofaction as I claim the members of the Non-co-operation Committee are. Itis hardly 'unpractical, ' seeing that if the people respond, every oneadmits that it will achieve the end. At the same time it is perfectlytrue that if there is no response from the people, the movement will bepopularly described as 'visionary. ' It is for the nation to return aneffective answer by organised non-co-operation and change ridicule intorespect. Ridicule is like repression. Both give place to respect whenthey fail to produce the intended effect. THE VICEREGAL PRONOUNCEMENT It may be that having lost faith in His Excellency's probity andcapacity to hold the high office of Viceroy of India, I now read hisspeeches with a biased mind, but the speech His Excellency delivered atthe time of opening of the council shows to me a mental attitude whichmakes association with him or his Government impossible forself-respecting men. The remarks on the Punjab mean a flat refusal to grant redress. He wouldhave us to 'concentrate on the problems of the immediate future!' Theimmediate future is to compel repentance on the part of the Governmenton the Punjab matter. Of this there is no sign. On the contrary, HisExcellency resists the temptation to reply to his critics, meaningthereby that he has not changed his opinion on the many vital mattersaffecting the honour of India. He is 'content to leave the issues to theverdict of history. ' Now this kind of language, in my opinion, iscalculated further to inflame the Indian mind. Of what use can afavourable verdict of history be to men who have been wronged and whoare still under the heels of officers who have shown themselves utterlyunfit to hold offices of trust and responsibility? The plea forco-operation is, to say the least, hypocritical in the face of thedetermination to refuse justice to the Punjab. Can a patient who issuffering from an intolerable ache be soothed by the most temptingdishes placed before him? Will he not consider it mockery on the part ofthe physician who so tempted him without curing him of his pain? His Excellency is, if possible, even less happy on the Khilafat. "So faras any Government could, " says this trustee for the nation, "we pressedupon the Peace Conference the views of Indian Moslems. Butnotwithstanding our efforts on their behalf we are threatened with acampaign of non-co-operation because, forsooth, the allied Powers foundthemselves unable to accept the contentions advanced by Indian Moslems. "This is most misleading if not untruthful. His Excellency knows that thepeace terms are not the work of the allied Powers. He knows that Mr. Lloyd George is the prime author of terms and that the latter has neverrepudiated his responsibility for them. He has with amazing audacityjustified them in spite of his considered pledge to the Moslems of Indiaregarding Constantinople, Thrace and the rich and renowned lands of Asiaminor. It is not truthful to saddle responsibility for the terms on theallied Powers when Great Britain alone has promoted them. The offence ofthe Viceroy becomes greater when we remember that he admits the justnessof the Muslim claim. He could not have 'pressed' it if he did not admitits justice. I venture to think that His Excellency by his pronouncement on thePunjab has strengthened the nation in its efforts to seek a remedy tocompel redress of the two wrongs before it can make anything of theso-called Reforms. FROM RIDICULE, TO--? It will be admitted that non-co-operation has passed the stage ridicule. Whether it will now be met by repression or respect remains to be seen. Opinion has already been expressed in these columns that ridicule is anapproved and civilized method of opposition. The viceregal ridiculethough expressed in unnecessarily impolite terms was not open toexception. But the testing time has now arrived. In a civilized country whenridicule fails to kill a movement it begins to command respect. Opponents meet it by respectful and cogent argument and the mutualbehaviour of rival parties never becomes violent. Each party seeks toconvert the other or draw the uncertain element towards its side by pureargument and reasoning. There is little doubt now that the boycott of the councils will beextensive if it is not complete. The students have become disturbed. Important institutions may any day become truly national. Pandit MotilalNehru's great renunciation of a legal practice which was probably secondto nobody's is by itself an event calculated to change ridicule intorespect. It ought to set people thinking seriously about their ownattitude. There must be something very wrong about our Government--towarrant the step Pundit Motilal Nehru has taken. Post graduate studentshave given up their fellowships. Medical students have refused to appearfor their final examination. Non-co-operation in these circumstancescannot be called an inane movement. Either the Government must bend to the will of the people which is beingexpressed in no unmistakable terms through non-co-operation, or it mustattempt to crush the movement by repression. Any force used by a government under any circumstance is not repression. An open trial of a person accused of having advocated methods ofviolence is not repression. Every State has the right to put down orprevent violence by force. But the trial of Mr. Zafar Ali Khan and twoMoulvis of Panipat shows that the Government is seeking not to put downor prevent violence but to suppress expression of opinion, to preventthe spread of disaffection. This is repression. The trials are thebeginning of it. It has not still assumed a virulent form but if thesetrials do not result in stilling the propaganda, it is highly likelythat severe repression will be resorted to by the Government. The only other way to prevent the spread of disaffection is to removethe causes thereof. And that would be to respect the growing response ofthe country to the programme of non-co-operation. It is too much toexpect repentance and humility from a government intoxicated withsuccess and power. We must therefore assume that the second stage in the Governmentprogramme will be repression growing in violence in the same ratio asthe progress of non-co-operation. And if the movement survivesrepression, the day of victory of truth is near. We must then beprepared for prosecutions, punishments even up to deportations. We mustevolve the capacity for going on with our programme without the leaders. That means capacity for self-government. And as no government in theworld can possibly put a whole nation in prison, it must yield to itsdemand or abdication in favour of a government suited to that nation. It is clear that abstention from violence and persistence in theprogramme are our only and surest chance of attaining our end. The government has its choice, either to respect the movement or to tryto repress it by barbarous methods. Our choice is either to succumb torepression or to continue in spite of repression. TO EVERY ENGLISHMAN IN INDIA Dear Friend, I wish that every Englishman will see this appeal and give thoughtfulattention to it. Let me introduce myself to you. In my humble opinion no Indian hasco-operated with the British Government more than I have for an unbrokenperiod of twenty-nine years of public life in the face of circumstancesthat might well have turned any other man into a rebel. I ask you tobelieve me when I tell you that my co-operation was not based on thefear of the punishments provided by your laws or any other selfishmotives. It was free and voluntary co-operation based on the belief thatthe sum total of the activity of the British Government was for thebenefit of India. I put my life in peril four times for the sake of theEmpire, --at the time of the Boer war when I was in charge of theAmbulance corps whose work was mentioned in General Buller's dispatches, at the time of the Zulu revolt in Natal when I was in charge of asimilar corps at the time of the commencement of the late war when Iraised an Ambulance corps and as a result of the strenuous training hada severe attack of pleurisy, and lastly, in fulfilment of my promise toLord Chelmsford at the War Conference in Delhi. I threw myself in suchan active recruiting campaign in Kuira District involving long andtrying marches that I had an attack of dysentry which proved almostfatal. I did all this in the full belief that acts such as mine mustgain for my country an equal status in the Empire. So late as lastDecember I pleaded hard for a trustful co-operation, I fully believedthat Mr. Lloyd George would redeem his promise to the Mussalmans andthat the revelations of the official atrocities in the Punjab wouldsecure full reparation for the Punjabis. But the treachery of Mr. LloydGeorge and its appreciation by you, and the condonation of the Punjabatrocities have completely shattered my faith in the good intentions ofthe Government and the nation which is supporting it. But though, my faith in your good intentions is gone, I recognise yourbravery and I know that what you will not yield to justice and reason, you will gladly yield to bravery. _See what this Empire means to India_ Exploitation of India's resources for the benefit of Great Britain. An ever-increasing military expenditure, and a civil service the mostexpensive in the world. Extravagant working of every department in utter disregard of India'spoverty. Disarmament and consequent emasculation of a whole nation lest an armednation might imperil the lives of a handful of you in our midst. Traffic in intoxicating liquors and drugs for the purposes ofsustaining a top heavy administration. Progressively representative legislation in order to suppress anevergrowing agitation seeking to give expression to a nation's agony. Degrading treatment of Indians residing in your dominions, and You have shown total disregard of our feelings by glorifying the Punjabadministration and flouting the Mosulman sentiment. I know you would not mind if we could fight and wrest the sceptre formyour hands. You know that we are powerless to do that, for you haveensured our incapacity to fight in open and honourable battle. Braveryon the battlefield is thus impossible for us. Bravery of the soul stillremains open to us. I know you will respond to that also. I am engagedin evoking that bravery. Non-co-operation means nothing less thantraining in self-sacrifice. Why should we co-operate with you when weknow that by your administration of this great country we are liftingdaily enslaved in an increasing degree. This response of the people tomy appeal is not due to my personality. I would like you to dismiss me, and for that matter the Ali Brothers too, from your consideration. Mypersonality will fail to evoke any response to anti-Muslim cry if I werefoolish enough to rise it, as the magic name of the Ali Brothers wouldfail to inspire the Mussalmans with enthusiasm if they were madly toraise in anti-Hindu cry. People flock in their thousands to listen to usbecause we to-day represent the voice of a nation groaning under ironheels. The Ali Brothers were your friends as I was, and still am. Myreligion forbids me to bear any ill-will towards you. I would not raisemy hand against you even if I had the power. I expect to conquer youonly by my suffering. The Ali Brothers will certainly draw the sword, ifthey could, in defence of their religion and their country. But they andI have made common cause with the people of India in their attempt tovoice their feelings and to find a remedy for their distress. You are in search of a remedy to suppress this rising ebullition ofnational feeling. I venture to suggest to you that the only way tosuppress it is to remove the causes. You have yet the power. You canrepent of the wrongs done to Indians. You can compel Mr. Lloyd George toredeem his promises. I assure you he has kept many escape doors. You cancompel the Viceroy to retire in favour of a better one, you can reviseyour ideas about Sir Michael O'Dwyer and General Dyer. You can compelthe Government to summon a conference of the recognised lenders of thepeople, duly elected by them and representing all shades of opinion soas to devise means for granting _Swaraj_ in accordance with the wishesof the people of India. But this you cannot do unless you considerevery Indian to be in reality your equal and brother. I ask for nopatronage, I merely point out to you, as a friend, as honourablesolution of a grave problem. The other solution, namely repression isopen to YOU. I prophesy that it will fail. It has begun already. TheGovernment has already imprisoned two brave men of Panipat for holdingand expressing their opinions freely. Another is on his trial in Lahorefor having expressed similar opinion. One in the Oudh District isalready imprisoned. Another awaits judgment. You should know what isgoing on in your midst. Our propaganda is being carried on inanticipation of repression. I invite you respectfully to choose thebetter way and make common cause with the people of India whose salt youare eating. To seek to thwart their inspirations is disloyalty tothe country. I am, Your faithful friend, M. K. GANDHI ONE STEP ENOUGH FOR ME Mr. Stokes is a Christian, who wants to follow the light that God giveshim. He has adopted India as his home. He is watching thenon-co-operation movement from the Kotgarh hills where he is living inisolation from the India of the plains and serving the hillmen. He hascontributed three articles on non-co-operation to the columns of theServant of Calcutta and other papers. I had the pleasure of reading themduring my Bengal tour. Mr. Stokes approves of non-co-operation butdreads the consequences that may follow complete success _i. E. , _evacuation of India by the British. He conjures up before his mind apicture of India invaded by the Afghans from the North-West, plunderedby the Gurkhas from the Hills. For me I say with Cardinal Newman: 'I donot ask to see the distant scene; one step enough for me. ' The movementis essentially religious. The business of every god-fearing man is todissociate himself from evil in total disregard of consequences. He musthave faith in a good deed producing only a good result: that in myopinion is the Gita doctrine of work without attachment. God does notpermit him to peep into the future. He follows truth although thefollowing of it may endanger his very life. He knows that it is betterto die in the way of God than to live in the way of Satan. Therefore whoever is satisfied that this Government represents the activity of Satanhas no choice left to him but to dissociate himself from it. However, let us consider the worst that can happen to India on a suddenevacuation of India by the British. What does it matter that the Gurkhasand the Pathans attack us? Surely we would be better able to deal withtheir violence than we are with the continued violence, moral andphysical, perpetrated by the present Government. Mr. Stokes does notseem to eschew the use of physical force. Surely the combined labour ofthe Rajput, the Sikh and the Mussalman warriors in a united India may betrusted to deal with plunderers from any or all the sides. Imaginehowever the worst: Japan overwhelming us from the Bay of Bengal, theGurkhas from the Hills, and the Pathans from the North-West. If we notsucceed in driving them out we make terms with them and drive them atthe first opportunity. This will be a more manly course than a hopelesssubmission to an admittedly wrongful State. But I refuse to contemplate the dismal out-look. If the movementsucceeds through non-violent non-co-operation, and that is thesupposition Mr. Stokes has started with, the English whether they remainor retire, they will do so as friends and under a well-ordered agreementas between partners. I still believe in the goodness of human nature, whether it is English or any other. I therefore do not believe that theEnglish will leave in a night. And do I consider the Gurkha and the Afghan being incorrigible thievesand robbers without ability to respond to purifying influences? I donot. If India returns to her spirituality, it will react upon theneighbouring tribes, she will interest herself in the welfare of thesehardy but poor people, and even support them if necessary, not out offear but as a matter of neighbourly duty. She will have dealt with Japansimultaneously with the British. Japan will not want to invade India, ifIndia has learnt to consider it a sin to use a single foreign articlethat she can manufacture within her own borders. She produces enough toeat and her men and women can without difficulty manufacture enough toclothe to cover their nakedness and protect themselves from heat andcold. We become prey to invasion if we excite the greed of foreignnation, by dealing with them under a feeling dependence on them. We mustlearn to be independent of every one of them. Whether therefore we finally succeed through violence or non-violence inmy opinion, the prospect is by no means so gloomy as Mr. Stokes hasimagined. Any conceivable prospect is, in my opinion, less black thanthe present unmanly and helpless condition. And we cannot do better thanfollowing out fearlessly and with confidence the open and honourableprogramme of non-violence and sacrifice that we have mapped forourselves. THE NEED FOR HUMILITY The spirit of non-violence necessarily leads to humility. Non-violencemeans reliance on God, the Rocks of ages. If we would seek His aid, wemust approach Him with a humble and a contrite heart. Non-co-operationists may not trade upon their amazing success at theCongress. We must act, even as the mango tree which drops as it bearsfruit. Its grandeur lies in its majestic lowliness. But one hears ofnon-co-operationists being insolent and intolerant in their behaviourtowards those who differ from them. I know that they will lose all theirmajesty and glory, if they betray any inflation. Whilst we may not bedissatisfied with the progress made so far, we have little to ourcredit to make us feel proud. We have to sacrifice much more than wehave done to justify pride, much less elation. Thousands, who flocked tothe Congress pandal, have undoubtedly given their intellectual assent tothe doctrine but few have followed it out in practice. Leaving aside thepleaders, how many parents have withdrawn their children from schools?How many of those who registered their vote in favour ofnon-co-operation have taken to hand-spinning or discarded the use of allforeign cloth? Non-co-operation is not a movement of brag, bluster, or bluff. It is atest of our sincerity. It requires solid and silent self-sacrifice. Itchallenges our honesty and our capacity for national work. It is amovement that aims at translating ideas into action. And the more we do, the more we find that much more must be done than we have expected. Andthis thought of our imperfection must make us humble. A non-co-operationist strives to compel attention and to set an examplenot by his violence but by his unobtrusive humility. He allows his solidaction to speak for his creed. His strength lies in his reliance uponthe correctness of his position. And the conviction of it grows most inhis opponent when he least interposes his speech between his action andhis opponent. Speech, especially when it is haughty, betrays want ofconfidence and it makes one's opponent sceptical about the reality ofthe act itself. Humility therefore is the key to quick success. I hopethat every non-co-operationist will recognise the necessity of beinghumble and self-restrained. It is because so little is really requiredto be done because all of that little depends entirely upon ourselvesthat I have ventured the belief that Swaraj is attainable in lessthan one year. SOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED "I write to thank you for yours of the 7th instant and especially foryour request that I should after reading your writings in "Young India"on non-co-operation, give a full and frank criticism of them. I knowthat your sole desire is to find out the truth and to act accordingly, and hence I venture to make the following remarks. In the issue of May5th you say that non-co-operation is "not even anti-Government. " Butsurely to refuse to have anything to do with the Government to theextent of not serving it and of not paying its taxes is actually, if nottheoretically anti-Government; and such a course must ultimately makeall Government impossible. Again, you say, "It is the inherent right ofa subject to refuse to assist a government that will not listen to him. "Leaving aside the question of the ethical soundness of thisproposition, may I ask which Government, in the present case? Has notthe Indian Government done all it possibly can in the matter? Then ifits attempts to voice the request of India should fail, would it be fairand just to do anything against it? Would not the proper course benon-co-operation with the Supreme Council of the Allies, including GreatBritain, if it be found that the latter has failed properly to supportthe demand of the Indian Government and people? It seems to me that inall your writings and speeches you forget that in the present questionboth Government and people are as one, and if they fail to get what theyjustly want, how does the question of non-co-operation arise? Hindusand Englishmen and the Government are all at present "shouldering in afull-hearted manner the burden that Muhomedans of India are carryingetc. Etc. " But supposing we fail of our object--what then? Are we all torefuse to co-operate and with whom? Might I recommend the consideration of the following course of conduct? (1) "Wait and see" what the actual terms of the Treaty with Turkey are? (2) If they are not in accordance with the aspirations andrecommendations of the Government and the people of India, the everylegitimate effort should be made to have the terms revised. (3) To the bitter end, co-operate with a Government that co-operateswith us, and only when it refuses co-operation, go in fornon-co-operation. So far I personally see no reason whatsoever for non-co-operation withthe Indian Government, and till it fails to voice the needs and demandsof India as a whole there can be no reason. The Indian Government doessome times make mistakes, but in the Khilafat matter it is sound andtherefore deserves or ought to have the sympathetic and whole-heartedco-operation of every one in India. I hope that you will kindly considerthe above and perhaps you will be able to find time for a reply in_Young India_. " I gladly make room for the above letter and respond to the suggestionto give a public reply as no doubt the difficulty experienced by theEnglish friend is experienced by many. Causes are generally lost, notowing to the determined opposition of men who will not see the truth asthey want to perpetuate an injustice but because they are able to enlistin their favour the allegiance of those who are anxious to understand aparticular cause and take sides after mature judgment. It is only bypatient argument with such honest men that one is able to check oneself, correct one's own errors of judgment and at times to wean them fromtheir error and bring them over to one's side. This Khilafat question isspecially difficult because there are so many side-issues. It istherefore no wonder that many have more or less difficulty in making uptheir minds. It is further complicated because the painful necessity forsome direct action has arisen in connection with it. But whatever thedifficulty, I am convinced that there is no question so important asthis one if we want harmony and peace in India. My friend objects to my statement that non-co-operation is notanti-Government, because he considers that refusal to serve it and payits taxes is actually anti-Government. I respectfully dissent from theview. If a brother has fundamental differences with his brother, andassociation with the latter involves his partaking of what in hisopinion is an injustice. I hold that it is brotherly duty to refrainfrom serving his brother and sharing his earnings with him. This happensin everyday life. Prahalad did not act against his father, when hedeclined to associate himself with the latter's blasphemies. Nor wasJesus anti-Jewish when he declaimed against the Pharisees and thehypocrites, and would have none of them. In such matters, is it notintention that determines the character of a particular act? It ishardly correct as the friend suggests that withdrawal of associationunder general circumstances would make all government impossible. But itis true that such withdrawal would make all injustice impossible. My correspondent considers that the Government of India having done allit possibly could, non-co-operation could not be applicable to thatGovernment. In my opinion, whilst it is true that the Government ofIndia has done a great deal, it has not done half as much as it mighthave done, and might even now do. No Government can absolve itself fromfurther action beyond protesting, when it realises that the people whomit represents feel as keenly as do lakhs of Indian Mussalmans in theKhilafat question. No amount of sympathy with a starving man can possiblyavail. He must have bread or he dies, and what is wanted at thatcritical moment is some exertion to fetch the wherewithal to feed thedying man. The Government of India can to-day heed the agitation andask, to the point of insistence for full vindication of the pledged wordof a British Minister. Has the Government of India resigned by way ofprotest against the threatened, shameful betrayal of trust on the partof Mr. Lloyd George? Why does the Government of India hide itself behindsecret despatches? At a less critical moment Lord Hardiage committed aconstitutional indiscretion, openly sympathised with South AfricanPassive Resistance movement and stemmed the surging tide of publicindignation in India, though at the same time he incurred the wrath ofthe then South African Cabinet and some public men in Great Britain. After all, the utmost that the Government of India has done is on itsown showing to transmit and press the Mahomedan claim. Was that not theleast it could have done? Could it have done anything less withoutcovering itself with disgrace? What Indian Mahomedans and the Indianpublic expect the Government of India to do at this critical juncture isnot the least, but the utmost that it could do. Viceroys have been knownto tender resignations for much smaller causes. Wounded pride broughtforth not very long ago the resignation of a Lieutenant Governor. On theKhilafat question, a sacred cause dear to the hearts of several millionMahomedans is in danger of being wounded. I would therefore invite theEnglish friend, and every Englishman in India, and every Hindu, be hemoderate or extremist, to make common cause with the Mahomedans andthereby compel the Government of India to do its duty, and therebycompel His Majesty's Ministers to do theirs. There has been much talk of violence ensuing from activenon-co-operation. I venture to suggest that the Mussalmans of India, ifthey had nothing in the shape of non-co-operation in view, would havelong ago yielded to counsels of despair. I admit that non-co-operationis not unattended with danger. But violence is a certainty without, violence is only a possibility with non-co-operation. And it will he agreater possibility if all the important men, English, Hindu and othersof the country discountenance it. I think, that the recommendation made by the friend is being literallyfollowed by the Mahomedans. Although they practically know the fate, they are waiting for the actual terms of the treaty with Turkey. Theyare certainly going to try every means at their disposal to have theterms revised before beginning non-co-operation. And there willcertainly be no non-co-operation commenced so long as there is even hopeof active co-operation on the part of the Government of India with theMahomedans, that is, co-operation strong enough to secure a revision ofthe terms should they be found to be in conflict with the pledges ofBritish statesmen. But if all these things fail, can Mahomedans as menof honour who hold their religion dearer than their lives do anythingless than wash their hands clean of the guilt of British Ministers andthe Government of India by refusing to co-operate with them? And canHindus and Englishmen, if they value Mahomedan friendship, and if theyadmit then full justice of the Mahomaden friendship and if they admitthe full justice of the Mahomedan claim do otherwise than heartilysupport the Mahomedans by word and deed. PLEDGES BROKEN After the forgoing was printed the long-expected peace terms regardingTurkey were received. In my humble opinion they are humiliating to theSupreme Council, to the British ministers, and if as a Hindu with deepreverence for Christianity I may say so, a denial of Christ's teachings. Turkey broken down and torn with dissentions within may submit to thearrogant disposal of herself, and Indian Mahomedans may out of fear dolikewise. Hindus out of fear, apathy or want of appreciation of thesituation, may refuse to help their Mahomedan brethren in their hour ofperil. The fact remains that a solemn promise of the Prime Minister ofEngland has been wantonly broken. I will say nothing about PresidentWilson's fourteen points, for they seem now to be entirely forgotten asa day's wonder. It is a matter of deep sorrow that the Government ofIndia _communique_ offers a defence of the terms, calls them afulfilment of Mr. Lloyd George's pledge of 5th January 1918 and yetapologises for their defective nature and appeals to the Mahomedans ofIndia as if to mock them that they would accept the terms with quietresignation. The mask that veils the hypocrisy is too thin to deceiveanybody. It would have been dignified if the _communique_ had boldlyadmitted Mr. Lloyd George's mistake in having made the promise referredto. As it is, the claim of fulfilment of the promise only adds to theirritation caused by its glaring breach. What is the use of the Viceroysaying, "The question of the Khilafat is one for the Mahomedans andMahomedans only and that with their free choice in the matter Governmenthave no desire to interfere, " while the Khalif's dominions areruthlessly dismembered, his control of the Holy places of Islamshamelessly taken away from him and he himself reduced to utterimpotence in his own palace which can no longer be called a palace butwhich can he more fitly described us a prison? No wonder, His Excellencyfears that the peace includes "terms which must be painful to allMoslems. " Why should he insult Muslim intelligence by sending theMussalmans of India a of encouragement and sympathy? Are they expectedto find encouragement in the cruel recital of the arrogant terms or in aremembrance of 'the splendid response' made by them to the call of theKing 'in the day of the Empire's need. ' It ill becomes His Excellency totalk of the triumph of those ideals of justice and humanity for whichthe Allies fought. Indeed, the terms of the so called peace with Turkeyif they are to last, will be a monument of human arrogance and man-madeinjustice. To attempt to crush the spirit of a brave and gallant race, because it has lost in the fortunes of war, is a triumph not of humanitybut a demonstration of inhumanity. And if Turkey enjoyed the closestties of friendship with Great Britain before the war, Great Britain hascertainly made ample reparation for her mistake by having made thelargest contribution to the humiliation of Turkey. It is insufferabletherefore when the Viceroy feels confident that with the conclusion ofthis new treaty that friendship will quickly take life again and aTurkey regenerate full of hope and strength, will stand forth in thefuture as in the past a pillar of the Islamic faith. The Viceregalmessage audaciously concludes, "This thought will I trust strengthen youto accept the peace terms with resignation, courage and fortitude and tokeep your loyalty towards the Crown bright and untarnished as it hasbeen for so many generations. " If Muslim loyalty remains untarnished itwill certainly not be for want of effort on the part of the Governmentof India to put the heaviest strain upon it, but it will remain sobecause the Mahomedans realise their own strength--the strength in theknowledge that their cause is just and that they have got the power tovindicate justice in spite of the aberration suffered by Great Britainunder a Prime Minister whom continued power has made as reckless inmaking promises as in breaking them. Whilst therefore I admit that there is nothing either in the peace termsor in the Viceregal message covering them to inspire the Mahomedans andIndians in general with confidence or hope, I venture to suggest thatthere is no cause for despair and anger. Now is the time for Mahomedansto retain absolute self-control, to unite their forces and, weak thoughthey are, with firm faith in God to carry on the struggle with redoubledvigour till justice is done. If India--both Hindu and Mahomedan--can actas one man and can withdraw her partnership in this crime againsthumanity which the peace terms represent, she will soon secure arevision of the treaty and give herself and the Empire at least, if notthe world, a lasting peace. There is no doubt that the struggle would bebitter sharp and possibly prolonged, but it is worth all the sacrificethat it is likely to call forth. Both the Mussalmans and the Hindus areon their trial. Is the humiliation of the Khilafat a matter of concernto the former? And if it is, are they prepared to exercise restraint, religiously refrain from violence and practise non-co-operation withoutcounting the material loss it may entail upon the community? Do theHindus honestly feel for their Mahomedan brethren to the extent ofsharing their sufferings to the fullest extent? The answer to thesequestions and not the peace terms, will finally decide the fate ofthe Khilafat. MORE OBJECTIONS ANSWERED _Swadeshmitran_ is one of the most influential Tamil dailies of Madras. It is widely read. Everything appearing in its columns is entitled torespect. The Editor has suggested some practical difficulty in the wayof non-co-operation. I would therefore like, to the best of my ability, to deal with them. I do not know where the information has been derived from that I havegiven up the last two stages of non-co-operation. What I have said isthat they are a distant goal. I abide by it. I admit that all the stagesare fraught with some danger, but the last two are fraught with thegreatest--the last most of all. The stages have been fixed with a viewto running the least possible risk. The last two stages will not betaken up unless the committee has attained sufficient control over thepeople to warrant the beliefs that the laying down of arms or suspensionof taxes will, humanly speaking, be free from an outbreak of violence onthe part of the people. I do entertain the belief that it is possiblefor the people to attain the discipline necessary for taking the twosteps. When once they realise that violence is totally unnecessary tobend an unwilling government to their will and that the result can beobtained with certainty by dignified non-co-operation, they will ceaseto think of violence even by way of retaliation. The fact is thathitherto we have not attempted to take concerted and disciplined actionfrom the masses. Some day, if we are to become truly a self-governingnation, that attempt has to be made. The present, in my opinion, is apropitious movement. Every Indian feels the insult to the Punjab as apersonal wrong, every Mussalman resents the wrong done to the Khilafat. There is therefore a favourable atmosphere for expecting cohesive andrestrained movement on the part of the masses. So far as response is concerned, I agree with the Editor that thequickest and the largest response is to be expected in the matter ofsuspension of payment of taxes, but as I have said so long as the massesare not educated to appreciate the value of non-violence even whilsttheir holding are being sold, so long must it be difficult to take upthe last stage into any appreciable extent. I agree too that a sudden withdrawal of the military and the police willbe a disaster if we have not acquired the ability to protect ourselvesagainst robbers and thieves. But I suggest that when we are ready tocall out the military and the police on an extensive scale we would findourselves in a position to defend ourselves. If the police and themilitary resign from patriotic motives, I would certainly expect them toperform the same duty as national volunteers, not has hirelings but aswilling protectors of the life and liberty of their countrymen. Themovement of non-co-operation is one of automatic adjustment. If theGovernment schools are emptied, I would certainly expect nationalschools to come into being. If the lawyers as a whole suspendedpractice, they would devise arbitration courts and the nation will haveexpeditions and cheaper method of setting private disputes and awardingpunishment to the wrong-doer. I may add that the Khilafat Committee isfully alive to the difficulty of the task and is taking all thenecessary steps to meet the contingencies as they arise. Regarding the leaving of civil employment, no danger is feared, becauseno one will leave his employment, unless he is in a position to findsupport for himself and family either through friends or otherwise. Disapproval of the proposed withdrawal of students betrays, in myhumble opinion, lack of appreciation of the true nature ofnon-co-operation. It is true enough that we pay the money wherewith ourchildren are educated. But, when the agency imparting the education hasbecome corrupt, we may not employ it without partaking of the agents, corruption. When students leave schools or colleges I hardly imaginethat the teachers will fail to perceive the advisability of themselvesresigning. But even if they do not, money can hardly be allowed to countwhere honour or religion are at the stake. As to the boycott of the councils, it is not the entry of the Moderatesor any other persons that matters so much as the entry of those whobelieve in non-co-operation. You may not co-operate at the top andnon-co-operate at the bottom. A councillor cannot remain in the counciland ask the _gumasta_ who cleans the council-table to resign. MR. PENNINGTON'S OBJECTIONS ANSWERED I gladly publish Mr. Pennington's letter with its enclosure just as Ihave received them. Evidently Mr. Pennington is not a regular reader of'Young India, ' or he would have noticed that no one has condemned moboutrages more than I have. He seems to think that the article he hasobjected to was the only thing I have ever written on General Dyer. Hedoes not seem to know that I have endeavoured with the utmostimpartiality to examine the Jallianwala massacre. And he can see any dayall the proof adduced by my fellow-commissioners and myself in supportof our findings on the massacre. The ordinary readers of 'Young India'knew all the facts and therefore it was unnecessary for me to support myassertion otherwise. But unfortunately Mr. Pennington represents thetypical Englishman. He does not want to be unjust, nevertheless he israrely just in his appreciation of world events because he has no timeto study them except cursorily and that through a press whose businessis to air only party views. The average Englishman therefore except inparochial matters is perhaps the least informed though he claims to bewell-informed about every variety of interest. Mr. Pennington'signorance is thus typical of the others and affords the best reason forsecuring control of our own affairs in our own hands. Ability will comewith use and not by waiting to be trained by those whose naturalinterest is to prolong the period of tutelage as much as possible. But to return to Mr. Pennington's letter he complains that there hasbeen no 'proper trial of any one. ' The fault is not ours. India hasconsistently and insistently demanded a trial of all the officersconcerned in the crimes against the Punjab. He next objects to be 'violence' of my language. If truth is violent, Iplead guilty to the charge of violence of language. But I could not, without doing violence to truth, refrain from using the language, Ihave, regarding General Dyer's action. It has been proved out of his ownmouth or hostile witnesses: (1) That the crowd was unarmed. (2) That it contained children. (3) That the 13th was the day of Vaisakhi fair. (4) That thousands had come to the fair. (5) That there was no rebellion. (6) That during the intervening two days before the 'massacre' there waspeace in Amritsar. (7) That the proclamation of the meeting was made the same day asGeneral Dyer's proclamation. (8) That General Dyer's proclamation prohibited not meetings butprocessions or gatherings of four men on the streets and not in privateor public places. (9) That General Dyer ran no risk whether outside or inside the city. (10) That he admitted himself that many in the crowd did not knowanything of his proclamation. (11) That he fired without warning the crowd and even after it hadbegun to disperse. He fired on the backs of the people who werein flight. (12) That the men were practically penned in an enclosure. In the face of these admitted facts I do call the deed a 'massacre. ' Theaction amounted not to 'an error of judgment' but its 'paralysis in theface of fancied danger. ' I am sorry to have to say that Mr. Pennington's notes, which too thereader will find published elsewhere, betray as much ignorance ashis letter. Whatever was adopted on paper in the days of Canning was certainly nottranslated into action in its full sense. 'Promises made to the ear werebroken to the hope, ' was said by a reactionary Viceroy. Militaryexpenditure has grown enormously since the days of Canning. The demonstration in favour of General Dyer is practically a myth. No trace was found of the so-called Danda Fauj dignified by the name ofbludgeon-army by Mr. Pennington. There was no rebel army in Amritsar. The crown that committed the horrible murders and incendiarism containedno one community exclusively. The sheet was found posted only in Lahoreand not in Amritsar. Mr. Pennington should moreover have known by thistime that the meeting held on the 13th was held, among other things, forthe purpose of condemning mob excesses. This was brought out at theAmritsar trial. Those who surrounded him could not stop General Dyer. Hesays he made up his mind to shoot in a moment. He consulted nobody. Whenthe correspondent says that the troops would have objected to beingconcerned in 'what might in that case be not unfairly called a'massacre, ' he writes as if he had never lived in India. I wish theIndian troops had the moral courage to refuse to shoot innocent, unarmedmen in full flight. But the Indian troops have been brought in tooslavish an atmosphere to dare do any such correct act. I hope Mr. Pennington will not accuse me again of making unverifiedassertions because I have not quoted from the books. The evidence isthere for him to use. I can only assure him that the assertions arebased on positive proofs mostly obtained from official sources. Mr. Pennington wants me to publish an exact account of what happened onthe 10th April. He can find it in the reports, and if he will patientlygo through them he will discover that Sir Michael O'Dwyer and hisofficials goaded the people into frenzied fury--a fury which nobody, asI have already said, has condemned more than I have. The account of thefollowing days is summed up in one word, _viz. _ 'peace' on the part ofthe crowd disturbed by indiscriminate arrests, the massacre and theseries of official crimes that followed. I am prepared to give Mr. Pennington credit for seeking after the truth. But he has gone about it in the wrong manner. I suggest his reading theevidence before the Hunter Committee and the Congress Committee. He neednot read the reports. But the evidence will convince him that I haveunderstated the case against General Dyer. When however I read his description of himself as "for 12 years ChiefMagistrate of Districts in the South of India before reform, byassassination and otherwise, became so fashionable. " I despair of hisbeing able to find the truth. An angry or a biased man renders himselfincapable of finding it. And Mr. Pennington is evidently both angry andbiased. What does he mean by saying, "before reform by assassination andotherwise became so fashionable?" It ill becomes him to talk ofassassination when the school of assassination seems happily to havebecome extinct. Englishmen will never see the truth so long as theypermit their vision to be blinded by arrogant assumption of superiorityor ignorant assumptions of infallibility. MR. PENNINGTON'S LETTER TO MR. GANDHI Dear Sir, I do not like your scheme for "boycotting" the Government of India under what seems to be the somewhat less offensive (though more cumbrous) name of non-co-operation; but have always given you credit for a genuine desire to carry out revolution by peaceful means and am astonished at the violence of the language you use in describing General Dyer on page 4 of your issue of the 14th July last. You begin by saying that he is "by no means the worst offender, " and, so far, I am inclined to agree, though as there has been no proper trial of anyone it is impossible to apportion their guilt; but then you say "his brutality is unmistakable, " "his abject and unsoldierlike cowardice is apparent, he has called an _unarmed crowd_ of men and children--mostly holiday makers--a rebel army. " "He believes himself to be the saviour of the Punjab in that he was able to shoot down like rabbits men who were _penned_ in an enclosure; such a man is unworthy to be considered a soldier. There was no bravery in his action. He ran no risk. He shot without the slightest opposition and without warning. This is not an error of judgement. It is paralysis of it in the face of _fancied_ danger. It is proof of criminal incapacity and heartlessness, " etc. You must excuse me for saying that all this is mere rhetoric unsupported by any proof, even where proof was possible. To begin with, neither you nor I were present at the Jallianwalla Bagh on that dreadful day--dreadful especially for General Dyer for whom you show no sympathy, --and therefore cannot know for certain whether the crowd was or was not unarmed. ' That it was an 'illegal, ' because a 'prohibited, ' assembly is evident; for it is absurd to suppose that General Dyer's 4-1/2 hours march, through the city that very morning, during the whole of which he was warning the inhabitants against the danger of any sort of gathering, was not thoroughly well-known. You say they were 'mostly holiday makers, ' but you give nor proof; and the idea of holiday gathering in Amritsar just then in incredible. I cannot understand your making such a suggestion. General Dyer was not the only officer present on the occasion and it is impossible to suppose that he would have been allowed to go on shooting into an innocent body of holiday-makers. Even the troops would have refused to carry out what might then have been not unfairly called a "massacre. " I notice that you never even allude to the frightful brutality of the mob which was immediately responsible for the punitive measure reluctantly adopted by General Dyer. Your sympathies seem to be only with the murderers, and I am not sanguine enough to suppose that my view of the case will have much influence with you. Still I am bound to do what I can to get at the truth, and enclose a copy of some notes I have had occasion to make. If you can publish an _exact_ account of what happened at Amritsar on the 10th of April, 1919 and the following days, especially on the 13th, including the demonstration in favour of General Dyer, (if there was one), I for one, as a mere seeker after the truth, should be very much obliged to you. Mere abuse is not convincing, as you so often observe in your generally reasonable paper, Yours faithfully, J. R. PENNINGTON, I. O. S. (Retd. ) 35, VICTORIA ROAD, WORTHING, SUSSEX 27th Aug. 1920. For 12 years Chief Magistrate of Districts in the south of India before reform, by assassination and otherwise, became so fashionable. P. S. Let us get the case in this way. General Dyer, acting as the only representative of Government on the spot shot some hundreds of people (some of them _perhaps_ innocently mixed up in an illegal assembly), in the _bona fide_ belief that he was dealing with the remains of a very dangerous rebellion and was thereby saving the lives of very many thousands, and in the opinion of a great many people did actually save the city from falling in the hands of a dangerous mob. SOME DOUBTS Babu Janakdhari Prasad was a staunch coworker with me in Champaran. Hehas written a long letter setting forth his reasons for his belief thatIndia has a great mission before her, and that she can achieve herpurpose only by non-violent non-co-operation. But he has doubts which hewould have me answer publicly. The letter being long, I am withholding. But the doubts are entitled to respect and I must endeavour to answerthem. Here they are us framed by Bubu Janakdhari Prasad. (a) Is not the non-co-operation movement creating a sort of race-hatredbetween Englishmen and Indians, and is it in accordance with the Divineplan of universal love and brotherhood? (b) Does not the use of words "devilish, " "satanic, " etc. , savour ofunbrotherly sentiment and incite feelings of hatred? (c) Should not the non-co-operation movement be conducted on strictlynon-violent and non-emotional lines both in speech and action? (d) Is there no danger of the movement going out of control and lendingto violence? As to (a), I must say that the movement is not 'creating' race-hatred. It certainly gives, as I have already said, disciplined expression toit. You cannot eradicate evil by ignoring it. It is because I want topromote universal brotherhood that I have taken up non-co-operation sothat, by self-purification, India may make the world better than it is. As to (b), I know that the words 'satanic' and 'devilish' are strong, but they relate the exact truth. They describe a system not persons: Weare bound to hate evil, if we would shun it. But by means ofnon-co-operation we are able to distinguish between the evil and theevil-doer. I have found no difficulty in describing a particularactivity of a brother of mine to be devilish, but I am not aware ofhaving harboured any hatred about him. Non-co-operation teaches us tolove our fellowmen in spite of their faults, not by ignoring orover-looking them. As to (c), the movement is certainly being conducted on strictlynon-violent lines. That all non-co-operators have not yet thoroughlyimbibed the doctrine is true. But that just shows what an evil legacy wehave inherited. Emotion there is in the movement. And it will remain. Aman without emotion is a man without feeling. As to (d), there certainly is danger of the movement becoming violent. But we may no more drop non-violent non-co-operation because of itsdangers, than we may stop freedom because of the danger of its abuse. REJOINDER Messrs. Popley and Philips have been good enough to reply to my letter"To Every Englishman in India. " I recognise and appreciate the friendlyspirit of their letter. But I see that there are fundamental differenceswhich must for the time being divide them and me. So long as I feltthat, in spite of grievous lapses the British Empire represented anactivity for the worlds and India's good, I clung to it like a child toits mother's breast. But that faith is gone. The British nation hasendorsed the Punjab and Khilsfat crimes. The is no doubt a dissentingminority. But a dissenting minority that satisfies itself with a mereexpression of its opinion and continues to help the wrong-doer partakesin wrong-doing. And when the sum total of his energy represents a minus quantity one maynot pick out the plus quantities, hold them up for admiration, and askan admiring public to help regarding them. It is a favourite design ofSatan to temper evil with a show of good and thus lure the unwary intothe trap. The only way the world has known of defeating Satan is byshunning him. I invite Englishmen, who could work out the ideal thebelieve in, to join the ranks of the non-co-operationists. W. T. Steadprayed for the reverse of the British arms during the Boer war. MissHobbhouse invited the Boers to keep up the fight. The betrayal of Indiais much worse than the injustice done to the Boers. The Boers fought andbled for their rights. When therefore, we are prepared to bleed, theright will have become embodied, and idolatrous world will perceive itand do homage to it. But Messers. Popley and Phillips object that I have allied myself withthose who would draw the sword if they could. I see nothing wrong init. They represent the right no less than I do. And is it not worthwhile trying to prevent an unsheathing of the sword by helping to winthe bloodless battle? Those who recognise the truth of the Indianposition can only do God's work by assisting this non-violent campaign. The second objection raised by these English friends is more to thepoint. I would be guilty of wrong-doing myself if the Muslim cause wasnot just. The fact is that the Muslim claim is not to perpetuate foreigndomination of non-Muslim or Turkish races. The Indian Mussalmans do notresist self-determination, but they would fight to the last thenefarious plan of exploiting Mesopotamia under the plea ofself-determination. They must resist the studied attempt to humiliateTurkey and therefore Islam, under the false pretext of ensuring Armenianindependence. The third objection has reference to schools. I do object to missionaryor any schools being carried on with Government money. It is true thatit was at one time our money. Will these good missionaries be justifiedin educating me with funds given to them by a robber who has robbed meof my money, religion and honour because the money was originally mine. I personally tolerated the financial robbery of India, but it wouldhave been a sin to have tolerated the robbery of honour through thePunjab, and of religion through Turkey. This is strong language. Butnothing less would truly describe my deep conviction. Needless to addthat the emptying of Government aided, or affiliated, schools does notmean starving the young mind National Schools are coming into being asfast as the others are emptied. Messrs. Popley and Phillips think that my sense of justice has beenblurred by the knowledge of the Punjab and the Khilafat wrongs. I hopenot. I have asked friends to show me some good fruit (intended anddeliberately produced) of the British occupation of India. And I assurethem that I shall make the amplest amends if I find that I have erred inmy eagerness about the Khilafat and the Punjab wrongs. TWO ENGLISHMEN REPLY Dear Mr. Gandhi, Thank you for your letter to every Englishman in India, with itshard-hitting and its generous tone. Something within us responds to thenote which you have struck. We are not representatives of any corporatebody, but we think that millions of our countrymen in England, and nota few in India, feel as we do. The reading of your letter convinces usthat you and we cannot be real enemies. May we say at once that in so far as the British Empire stands for thedomination and exploitation of other races for Britain's benefit, fordegrading treatment of any, for traffic in intoxicating liquors, forrepressive legislation, for administration such as that which to theAmritsar incidents, we desire the end of it as much as you do? We quiteunderstand that in the excitement of the present crisis, owing tocertain acts of the British Administration, which we join with you incondemning, the Empire presents itself to you under this aspect along. But from personal contact with our countrymen, we know that working likeleaven in the midst of such tendencies, as you and we deplore, is thefaith in a better ideal--the ideal of a commonwealth of free peoplesvoluntarily linked together by the ties of common experience in the pastand common aspirations for the future, a commonwealth which may hope tospread liberty and progress through the whole earth. With vast numbersof our countrymen we value the British Empire mainly as affording thepossibility of the realization of such an idea and on the ground give itour loyal allegiance. Meanwhile we do repent of that arrogant attitude to Indians which hasbeen all too common among our countrymen, we do hold Indians to be ourbrothers and equals, many of them our superiors, and we would rather beservants than rulers of India. We desire an administration which cannothe intimated either by the selfish element in Anglo-Indian politicalopinion or by any other sectional interest and which shall govern inaccordance with the best democratic principles. We should welcome theconvening of a National assembly of recognized leaders of the people, representing all shades of political opinion of every caste, race andcreed, to frame a constitution for Swaraj. In all the things that mattermost we are with you. Surely you and we can co-operate in the service ofIndia, in such matters for example as education. It seems to us nothingshort of a tragedy that you should be rallying Indian Patriotism toinaugurate a new era of good will under a watchword that divides, instead of uniting all. We have spoken of the large amount of common ground upon which you andwe can stand. But frankness demands that we express our anxiety aboutsome items in your programme. Leaving aside smaller questions on whichyour letter seems to us to do the British side less than justice, may wemention three main points? Your insistence on spiritual forces alone wedeeply respect and desire to emulate, but we cannot understand yourcombining into it with a close alliance with those who, as you franklysay, would draw the sword as soon as they could. Your desire for an education truly national commands our whole-heartedapproval. But instead of Indianizing the present system, as you couldbegin to do from the beginning of next year, or instead of creating ahundred institutions such as that at Bolpur and turning into them thestream of India's young intellectual life, you appear to be turning thatstream out of its present channel into open sands where it may dry up. In other words, you seem to us to be risking the complete cessation, fora period possibly, of years, of all education, for a large number ofboys and young men. Is it best, for those young men or for India thatthe present imperfect education should cease before a better educationis ready to take its place? Your desire to unite Mohammedan and Hindu and to share with yourMohammedan brethren in seeking the satisfaction of Mohammedanaspirations, we can understand and sympathize with. But is there nodanger, in the course which some of your party have urged upon theGovernment, that certain races in the former Ottoman Empire might befixed under a foreign yoke, for worse than that which you hold theEnglish yoke to be? You could not wish to purchase freedom in India atthe price of enslavement in the middle East. To sum up, we thank you for the spirit of your letter, to which we havetried to respond in the same spirit. We are with you in the desire foran India genuinely free to develop the best that is in her and in thebelief that best is something wonderful of which the world to-daystands in need. We are ready to co-operate with you and with every other man of any raceor nationality who will help India to realize her best. Are you going toinsist that you can have nothing to do with us if we receive agovernment grant (i. E. , Indian money), for an Indian School. Surely somemore inspiring battle cry than non-co-operation can be discovered. Wehave ventured quite frankly to point out three items in your presentprogramme, which seem to us likely to hinder the attainment of your trueideals for Indian greatness. But those ideals themselves command ourwarm sympathy, and we desire to work, so far as we have opportunity, fortheir attainment. In fact, it is only thus that we can interpret ourBritish citizenship. Yours sincerely, (Sd. ) H. A. POPLEY, (Sd. ) G. E. PHILLIPS. Bangalore, November 15, 1920. RENUNCIATION OF MEDALS Mr. Gandhi has addressed the following letter to the Viceroy:-- It is not without a pang that I return the Kaisar-i-Hind gold medalgranted to me by your predecessor for my humanitarian work in SouthAfrica, the Zulu war medal granted in South Africa for my services asofficer in charge of the Indian volunteer ambulance corps in 1906 andthe Boer war medal fur my services as assistant superintendent of theIndian volunteer stretcher bearer corps during the Boer war of1899-1900. I venture to return these medals in pursuance of the schemeof non-co-operation inaugurated to-day in connection with the Khilafatmovement. Valuable as those honours have been to me, I cannot wear themwith an easy conscience so long as my Mussalman countrymen have tolabour under a wrong done to their religious sentiment. Events that havehappened during the past month have confirmed me in the opinion that theImperial Government have acted in the Khilafat matter in anunscrupulous, immoral and unjust manner and have been moving from wrongto wrong in order to defend their immorality. I can retain neitherrespect nor affection for such a Government. The attitude of the Imperial and Your Excellency's Governments on thePunjab question has given me additional cause for grave dissatisfaction. I had the honour, as Your Excellency is aware, as one of the congresscommissioners to investigate the causes of the disorders in the Punjabduring the April of 1919. And it is my deliberate conviction that SirMichael O'Dwyer was totally unfit to hold the office of LieutenantGovernor of Punjab and that his policy was primarily responsible forinfuriating the mob at Amritsar. Do doubt the mob excesses wereunpardonable; incendiarism, murder of five innocent Englishmen and thecowardly assault on Miss Sherwood were most deplorable and uncalled for. But the punitive measures taken by General Dyer, Col. Frank Johnson, Col. O'Brien, Mr. Bosworth Smith, Rai Shri Ram Sud, Mr. Malik Khan andother officers were out of all proportional to the crime of the peopleand amounted to wanton cruelty and inhumanity and almost unparalleled inmodern times. Your excellency's light-hearted treatment of the officialcrime, your, exoneration of Sir Michael O'Dwyer, Mr. Montagu's dispatchand above all the shameful ignorance of the Punjab events and callousdisregard of the feelings of Indians betrayed by the House of Lords, have filled me with the gravest misgivings regarding the future of theEmpire, have estranged me completely from the present Government andhave disabled me from tendering, as I have hitherto whole-heartedlytendered, my loyal co-operation. In my humble opinion the ordinary method of agitating by way ofpetitions, deputations and the like is no remedy for moving torepentence a Government so hopelessly indifferent to the welfare of itscharges as the Government of India has proved to me. In Europeancountries, condonation of such grievous wrongs as the Khilafat and thePunjab would have resulted in a bloody revolution by the people. Theywould have resisted at all costs national emasculation such as the saidwrongs imply. But half of India is to weak to offer violent resistanceand the other half is unwilling to do so. I have therefore ventured to suggest the remedy of non-co-operation whichenables those who wish, to dissociate themselves from the Government andwhich, if it is unattended by violence and undertaken in an orderedmanner, must compel it to retrace its steps and undo the wrongscommitted. But whilst I shall pursue the policy of non-co-operation inso far as I can carry the people with me, I shall not lose hope that youwill yet see your way to do justice. I therefore respectfully ask YourExcellency to summon a conference of the recognised leaders of thepeople and in consultation with them find a way that would placate theMussalmans and do reparation to the unhappy Punjab. _August 4, 1920. _ MAHATMA GANDHI'S LETTER TO H. R. H. THE DUKE OF CONNAUGHT The following letter has been addressed by Mr. Gandhi to his RoyalHighness the Duke of Connaught;-- Sir, Your Royal Highness must have heard a great deal about non-co-operation, non-co-operationists and their methods and incidentally of me its humbleauthor. I fear that the information given to Your Royal Highness musthave been in its nature one-sided. I owe it to you and to my friends andmyself that I should place before you what I conceive to be the scope ofnon-co-operation as followed not only be me but my closest associatessuch as Messrs. Shaukat Ali and Mahomed Ali. For me it is no joy and pleasure to be actively associated in theboycott of your Royal Highness' visit--I have tendered loyal andvoluntary association to the Government for an unbroken period of nearly30 years in the full belief that through that way lay the path offreedom for my country. It was therefore no slight thing for me tosuggest to my countrymen that we should take no part in welcoming YourRoyal Highness. Not one among us has anything against you as an Englishgentleman. We hold your person as sacred as that of a dearest friend. Ido not know any of my friends who would not guard it with his life, ifhe found it in danger. We are not at war with individual Englishmen weseek not to destroy English life. We do desire to destroy a system thathas emasculated our country in body, mind and soul. We are determined tobattle with all our might against that in the English nature which hasmade O'Dwyerism and Dyerism possible in the Punjab and has resulted in awanton affront upon Islam a faith professed by seven crores of ourcountrymen. The affront has been put in breach of the letter and thespirit of the solemn declaration of the Prime Minister. We consider itto be inconsistent with our self respect any longer to brook the spiritof superiority and dominance which has systematically ignored anddisregarded the sentiments of thirty crores of the innocent people ofIndia on many a vital matter. It is humiliating to us, it cannot be amatter of pride to you, that thirty crores of Indians should live day inand day out in the fear of their lives from one hundred thousandEnglishmen and therefore be under subjection to them. Your Royal Highness has come not to end the system I have described butto sustain it by upholding its prestige. Your first pronouncement was alaudation of Lord Wellingdon. I have the privilege of knowing him. Ibelieve him to be an honest and amiable gentleman who will not willinglyhurt even a fly. But, he has certainly failed as a ruler. He allowedhimself to be guided by those whose interest it was to support theirpower. He is reading the mind of the Dravidian province. Here in Bengalyou are issuing a certificate of merit to a Governor who is again fromall I have heard an estimable gentleman. But he knows nothing of theheart of Bengal and its yearnings. Bengal is not Calcutta. Fort Williamand the palaces of Calcutta represent an insolent exploitation of theunmurmuring and highly cultured peasantry of this fair province. Non-co-operationists have come to the conclusion that they must not bedeceived by the reforms that tinker with the problem of India's distressand humiliation. Nor must they be impatient and angry. We must not inour impatient anger resort, to stupid violence. We freely admit that wemust take our due share of the blame for the existing state. It is notso much the British guns that are responsible fur our subjection, as ourvoluntary co-operation. Our non-participation in a hearty welcome toyour Royal Highness is thus in no sense a demonstration against yourhigh personage but it is against the system you have come to uphold. Iknow that individual Englishmen cannot even if they will alter theEnglish nature all of a sudden. If we would be equals of Englishmen wemust cast off fear. We must learn to be self-reliant and independent ofthe schools, courts, protection, and patronage of a Government, we seekto end, if it will not mend. Hence this non-violent non-co-operation. Iknow that we have not all yet become non-violent in speech and deed. Butthe results so far achieved have I assure Your Royal Highness, beenamazing. The people have understood the secret and the value ofnon-violence as they have never done before. He who runs may see thatthis a religious, purifying movement. We are leaving off drink, we aretrying to rid India of the curse of untouchability. We are trying tothrow off foreign tinsel splendour and by reverting to the spinningwheel reviving the ancient and the poetic simplicity of life. We hopethereby to sterilize the existing harmful institution. I ask Your RoyalHighness as an Englishman to study this movement and its possibilitiesfor the Empire and the world. We are at war with nothing that is good inthe world. In protecting Islam in the manner we are, we are protectingall religions. In protecting the honour of India we are protecting thehonour of humanity. For our means are hurtful to none. We desire to liveon terms of friendship with Englishmen but that friendship must befriendship of equals in both theory and practice. And we must continueto non-co-operate, i. E. To purify ourselves till the goal is achieved. I ask Your Royal Highness and through you every Englishman toappreciate the view-point of the non-co-operationists. I beg to remain, Your Royal Highness's faithful servant, (Sd. ) M. K. GANDHI. _February_, 1921 THE GREATEST THING It is to be wished that non-co-operationists will clearly recognise thatnothing can stop the onward march of the nation as violence. Ireland maygain its freedom by violence. Turkey may regain her lost possessions byviolence within measurable distance of time. But India cannot win herfreedom by violence for a century, because her people are not built inthe manner of other nations. They have been nurtured in the traditionsof suffering. Rightly or wrongly, for good or ill, Islam too has evolvedalong peaceful lines in India. And I make bold to say that, if thehonour of Islam is to be vindicated through its followers in India, itwill only be by methods of peaceful, silent, dignified, conscious, andcourageous suffering. The more I study that wonderful faith, the moreconvinced I become that the glory of Islam is due not to the sword butto the sufferings, the renunciation, and the nobility of its earlyCaliphs. Islam decayed when its followers, mistaking the evil for thegood, dangled the sword in the face of man, and lost sight of thegodliness, the humility, and austerity of its founder and his disciples. But, I am not at the present moment, concerned with showing that thebasis of Islam, as of all religions, is not violence but suffering notthe taking of life but the giving of it. What I am anxious to show is that non-co-operationists must be true aswell to the spirit as to the letter of their vow if they would gainSwaraj within one year. They may forget non-co-operation but they darenot forget non-violence. Indeed, non-co-operation is non-violence. Weare violent when we sustain a government whose creed is violence. Itbases itself finally not on right but on might. Its last appeal is notto reason, nor the heart, but to the sword. We are tired of this creedand we have risen against it. Let us not ourselves belie our professionby being violent. Though the English are very few, they are organisedfor violence. Though we are many we cannot be organised for violence fora long time to come. Violence for us is a gospel or despair. I have seen a pathetic letter from a god-fearing English woman whodefends Dyerism for she thinks that, if General Dyer had not enactedJallianwala, women and children would have been murdered by us. If weare such brutes as to desire the blood of innocent women and children, we deserve to be blotted out from the face of the earth. There is theother side. It did not strike this good lady that, if we were friends, the price that her countrymen paid at Jallianwala for buying theirsafety was too great. They gained their safety at the cost of theirhumanity. General Dyer has been haltingly blamed, and his evil geniusSir Michael O'Dwyer entirely exonerated because Englishmen do not wantto leave this country of fields even if everyone of us has to be killed. If we go mad again as we did at Amritsar, let there be no mistake that ablacker Jallianwala will be enacted. Shall we copy Dyerism and O'Dwyerism even whilst we are condemning it?Let not our rock be violence and devilry. Our rock must be non-violenceand godliness. Let us, workers, be clear as to what we are about. _Swaraj depends upon our ability to control all the forces of violenceon our side. _ Therefore there is no Swaraj within one year, if there isviolence on the part of the people. We must then refrain from sitting _dhurna_, we must refrain from crying'shame, shame' to anybody, we must not use any coercion to persuade ourpeople to adopt our way. We must guarantee to them the same freedom weclaim for ourselves. We must not tamper with the masses. It is dangerousto make political use of factory labourers or the peasantry--not that weare not entitled to do so, but we are not ready for it. We haveneglected their political (as distinguished from literary) education allthese long years. We have not got enough honest, intelligent, reliable, and brave workers to enable us to act upon these countrymen of ours. IX. MAHATMA GANDHI'S STATEMENT [The following is the Statement of Mahatma Gandhi made before the Courtduring his Trial in Ahmedabad on the 18th March 1921. ] Before reading his written statement Mahatma Gandhi spoke a few words asintroductory remarks to the whole statement. He said: Before I read thisstatement, I would like to state that I entirely endorse the learnedAdvocate-General's remarks in connection with my humble self. I thinkthat he was entirely fair to me in all the statements that he has made, because it is very true and I have no desire whatsoever to conceal fromthis Court the fact that to preach disaffection towards the existingsystem of Government has become almost a passion with me. And thelearned Advocate-General is also entirely in the right when he says thatmy preaching of disaffection did not commence with my connection with"Young India" but that it commenced much earlier and in the statementthat I am about to read it will be my painful duty to admit before thisCourt that it commenced much earlier than the period stated by theAdvocate-General. It is the most painful duty with me but I have todischarge that duty knowing the responsibility that rested upon myshoulders. And I wish to endorse all the blame that theAdvocate-General has thrown on my shoulders in connection with theBombay occurrence, Madras occurrences, and the Chouri Choura occurrencesthinking over these things deeply, and sleeping over them night afternight and examining my heart I have come to the conclusion that it isimpossible for me to dissociate myself from the diabolical crimes ofChouri Choura or the mad outrages of Bombay. He is quite right when hesays that as a man of responsibility, a man having received a fair shareof education, having had a fair share of experience of this world, Ishould know them. I knew that I was playing with fire. I ran the riskand if I was set free I would still do the same. I would be failing inmy duty if I do not do so. I have felt it this morning that I would havefailed in my duty if I did not say all what I said here just now. Iwanted to avoid violence. Non-violence is the first article of my faith. It is the last article of my faith. But I had to make my choice. I hadeither to submit to a system which I considered has done an irreparableharm to my country or incur the risk of the mad fury of my peoplebursting forth when they understood the truth from my lips. I know thatmy people have sometimes gone mad. I am deeply sorry for it; and I am, therefore, here to submit not to a light penalty but to the highestpenalty. I do not ask for mercy. I do not plead any extenuating act. Iam here, therefore, to invite and submit to the highest penalty that canbe inflicted upon me for what in law is a deliberate crime and whatappears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen. The only course opento you, Mr. Judge, is, as I am just going to say in my statement, eitherto resign your post or inflict on me the severest penalty if you believethat the system and law you are assisting to administer are good for thepeople. I do not expect that kind of conversion. But by the time I havefinished with my statement you will, perhaps, have a glimpse of what israging within my breast to run this maddest risk which a sane mancan run. WRITTEN STATEMENT I owe it perhaps to the Indian public and to the public in England toplacate which this prosecution is mainly taken up that I should explainwhy from a staunch loyalist and co-operator I have become anuncompromising disaffectionist and non-co-operator. To the Court too Ishould say why I plead guilty to the charge of promoting disaffectiontowards the Government established by law in India. My public lifebegan in 1893 in South Africa in troubled weather. My first contact withBritish authority in that country was not of a happy character. Idiscovered that as a man and as an Indian I had no rights. On thecontrary I discovered that I had no rights as a man because I wasan Indian. But I was not baffled. I thought that this treatment of Indians was anexcrescence upon a system that was intrinsically and mainly good. I gavethe Government my voluntary and hearty co-operation, criticising itfully where I felt it was faulty but never wishing its destruction. Consequently when the existence of the Empire was threatened in 1899 bythe Boer challenge, I offered my services to it, raised a volunteerambulance corps and served at several actions that took place for therelief of Ladysmith. Similarly in 1906 at the time of the Zulu revolt Iraised a stretcher-bearer party and served till the end of the'rebellion'. On both these occasions I received medals and was evenmentioned in despatches. For my work in South Africa I was given by LordHardinge a Kaiser-i-Hind Gold Medal. When the war broke out in 1914between England and Germany I raised a volunteer ambulance corps inLondon consisting of the then resident Indians in London, chieflystudents. Its work was acknowledged by the authorities to be valuable. Lastly in India when a special appeal was made at the War Conferencein Delhi in 1917 by Lord Chelmsford for recruits, I struggled at thecost of my health to raise a corps in Kheda and the response was beingmade when the hostilities ceased and orders were received that no morerecruits were wanted. In all those efforts at service I was actuated bythe belief that it was possible by such services to gain a status offull equality in the Empire for my countrymen. The first shock came in the shape of the Rowlalt Act a law designed torob the people of all real freedom. I felt called upon to lead anintensive agitation against it. Then followed the Punjab horrorsbeginning with the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh and culminating inbrawling orders, public floggings and other indescribable humiliations, I discovered too that the plighted word of the Prime Minister to theMussalmans of India regarding the integrity of Turkey and the holyplaces of Islam was not likely to be fulfilled. But in spite of theforeboding and the grave warnings of friends, at the Amritsar Congressin 1919 I fought for co-operation and working the Montagu-Chelmsfordreforms, hoping that the Prime Minister would redeem his promise to theIndian Mussalmans, that the Punjab wound would be healed and that thereforms inadequate and unsatisfactory though they were, marked a new eraof hope in the life of India. But all that hope was shattered. TheKhilafat promise was not to be redeemed. The Punjab crime waswhite-washed and most culprits went not only unpunished but remained inservice and some continued to draw pensions from the Indian revenue, andin some cases were even rewarded. I saw too that not only did thereforms not mark a change of heart, but they were only a method offurther draining India of her wealth and of prolonging her servitude. I came reluctantly to the conclusion that the British connection hadmade India more helpless than she ever was before, politically andeconomically. A disarmed India has no power of resistance against anyaggressor if she wanted to engage in an armed conflict with him. So muchis this the case that some of our best men consider that India must takegenerations before she can achieve the Dominion status. She has becomeso poor that she has little power of resisting famines. Before theBritish advent India spun and wove in her millions of cottages just thesupplement she needed for adding to her meagre agricultural resources. The cottage industry, so vital for India's existence, has been ruined byincredibly heartless and inhuman processes as described by Englishwitnesses. Little do town-dwellers know how the semi-starved masses ofIndians are slowly sinking to lifelessness. Little do they know thattheir miserable comfort represents the brokerage they get for the workthey do for the foreign exploiter, that the profits and the brokerageare sucked from the masses. Little do they realise that the Governmentestablished by law in British India is carried on for this exploitationof the masses. No sophistry, no jugglery in figures can explain away theevidence the skeletons in many villages present to the naked eye. I haveno doubt whatsoever that both England and the town dwellers of Indiawill have to answer, if there is a God above, for this crime againsthumanity which is perhaps unequalled in history. The law itself in thiscountry has been used to serve the foreign exploiter. My unbiased, examination of the Punjab Martial Law cases had led me to believe thatat least ninety-five per cent. Of convictions were wholly bad. Myexperience of political cases in India leads me to the conclusion thatin nine out of every ten the condemned men were totally innocent. Theircrime consisted in love of their country. In ninety-nine cases out ofhundred justice has been denied to Indians as against Europeans in theCourt of India. This is not an exaggerated picture. It is the experienceof almost every Indian who has had anything to do such cases. In myopinion the administration of the law is thus prostituted consciously orunconsciously for the benefit of the exploiter. The greatest misfortuneis that Englishmen and their Indian associates in the administration ofthe country do not know that they are engaged in the crime I haveattempted to describe. I am satisfied that many English and Indianofficials honestly believe that they are administering one of the bestsystems devised in the world and that India is making steady though slowprogress. They do not know that a subtle but effective system ofterrorism and an organised display of force on the one hand and thedeprivation of all powers of retaliation of self-defence on the otherhave emasculated the people and induced in them the habit of simulation. This awful habit has added to the ignorance and the self-deception ofthe administrators. Section 124-A under which I am happily charged isperhaps the prince among the political sections of the Indian Penal Codedesigned to suppress the liberty of the citizen. Affection cannot bemanufactured or regulated by law. If one has no affection for a personor thing one should be free to give the fullest expression to hisdisaffection so long as he does not contemplate, promote or incite toviolence. But the section under which mere promotion of disaffection isa crime. I have studied some of the cases tried under it, and I knowthat some of the most loved of India's patriots have been convictedunder it. I consider it a privilege therefore, to be charged under it. I have endeavoured to give in their briefest outline the reasons for mydisaffection. I have no personal ill-will against any singleadministrator, much less can I have any disaffection towards the King'sperson. But I hold it to be a virtue to be disaffected towards aGovernment which in its totality has done more harm to India than anyprevious system. India is less manly under the British rule than sheever was before. Holding such a belief, I consider it to be a sin tohave affection for the system. And it has been a precious privilege forme to be able to write what I have in the various articles tendered inevidence against me. In fact I believe that I have rendered a service to India and England byshowing in non-co-operation the way out of the unnatural state in whichboth are living. In my humble opinion, non-co-operation with evil is asmuch a duty as is co-operation with good. But in the past, non-co-operation has been deliberately expressed in violence to the evildoer. I am endeavouring to show to my countrymen that violentnon-co-operation only multiplies evil and that as evil can only besustained by violence, withdrawal of support of evil requires completeabstention from violence. Non-violent implies voluntary submission tothe penalty for non-co-operation with evil. I am here, therefore, toinvite and submit cheerfully to the highest penalty that can heinflicted upon me for what in law is a deliberate crime and what appearsto me to be the highest duty of a citizen. The only course open to you, the Judge and the Assessors, is either to resign your posts and thusdissociate yourselves from evil if you feel that the law you are calledupon to administer is an evil and that in reality I am innocent, or toinflict on me the severest penalty if you believe that the system andthe law you are assisting to administer are good for the people of thiscountry and that my activity is therefore injurious to the public weal. M. K. GHANDI.