Freedom's Battle
by Mahatma Gandhi · English · Gutenberg #10366 · 470,123 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Freedom's Battle
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Freedom's Battle
Author: Mahatma Gandhi
Release date: December 1, 2003 [eBook #10366]
Most recently updated: October 28, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/10366
Credits: Ted Garvin, Debra Storr and PG Distributed Proofreaders
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK FREEDOM'S BATTLE ***
[Transcriber's Note: The inconsistent spelling of the original has been
preserved in this etext.]
FREEDOM'S BATTLE
BEING A COMPREHENSIVE COLLECTION OF WRITINGS AND SPEECHES ON THE PRESENT
SITUATION
BY MAHATMA GANDHI
Second Edition
1922
The Publishers express their indebtedness to the Editor and Publisher
of the "Young India" for allowing the free use of the articles
appeared in that journal under the name of Mahatma Gandhi, and also to
Mr. C. Rajagopalachar for the valuable introduction and help rendered in
bringing 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 that
is happy; but this has come out of the war, that there is not a single
nation 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 better
to be on the certain though slow course of gradual unfoldment of freedom
than to take the troubled and dangerous path of revolution whether
peaceful or violent, and that the new Reforms are a half-way house
to freedom.
The new constitution granted to India keeps all the military forces,
both in the direction and in the financial control, entirely outside the
scope of responsibility to the people of India. What does this mean? It
means that the revenues of India are spent away on what the nation does
not want. But after the mid-Eastern complications and the fresh Asiatic
additions to British Imperial spheres of action. This Indian military
servitude is a clear danger to national interests.
The new constitution gives no scope for retrenchment and therefore no
scope for measures of social reform except by fresh taxation, the heavy
burden of which on the poor will outweigh all the advantages of any
reforms. It maintains all the existing foreign services, and the cost of
the administrative machinery high as it already is, is further
increased.
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 Executive
Government of India absolute powers to override the popular will, are
still unrepealed. In spite of the tragic price paid in the Punjab for
demonstrating the danger of unrestrained power in the hands of a foreign
bureaucracy and the inhumanity of spirit by which tyranny in a panic
will seek to save itself, we stand just where we were before, at the
mercy of the Executive in respect of all our fundamental liberties.
Not only is Despotism intact in the Law, but unparalleled crimes and
cruelties against the people have been encouraged and even after
boastful admissions and clearest proofs, left unpunished. The spirit of
unrepentant cruelty has thus been allowed to permeate the whole
administration.
THE MUSSALMAN AGONY
To understand our present condition it is not enough to realise the
general political servitude. We should add to it the reality and the
extent of the injury inflicted by Britain on Islam, and thereby on the
Mussalmans of India. The articles of Islamic faith which it is necessary
to understand in order to realise why Mussalman India, which was once so
loyal is now so strongly moved to the contrary are easily set out and
understood. Every religion should be interpreted by the professors of
that religion. The sentiments and religious ideas of Muslims founded on
the traditions of long generations cannot be altered now by logic or
cosmopolitanism, as others understand it. Such an attempt is the more
unreasonable when it is made not even as a bonafide and independent
effort of proselytising logic or reason, but only to justify a treaty
entered into for political and worldly purposes.
The Khalifa is the authority that is entrusted with the duty of
defending Islam. He is the successor to Muhammad and the agent of God on
earth. According to Islamic tradition he must possess sufficient
temporal power effectively to protect Islam against non-Islamic powers
and 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 is
the sacred Home of Islam and the centre towards which Islam throughout
the world turns in prayer. According to the religious injunctions of the
Mussalmans, this entire area should always be under Muslim control, its
scientific border being believed to be a protection for the integrity of
Islamic life and faith. Every Mussalman throughout the world is enjoined
to sacrifice his all, if necessary, for preserving the Jazirat-ul-Arab
under 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 the
world by the grace or the license of non-Muslim powers, but should be
the possession and property of Islam in the fullest degree.
It is a religions obligation, on every Mussalman to go forth and help
the Khalifa in every possible way where his unaided efforts in the
defence of the Khilifat have failed.
The grievance of the Indian Mussalmans is that a government that
pretends to protect and spread peace and happiness among them has no
right to ignore or set aside these articles of their cherished faith.
According to the Peace Treaty imposed on the nominal Government at
Constantinople, the Khalifa far from having the temporal authority or
power needed to protect Islam, is a prisoner in his own city. He is to
have no real fighting force, army or navy, and the financial control
over his own territories is vested in other Governments. His capital is
cut off from the rest of his possessions by an intervening permanent
military occupation. It is needless to say that under these conditions
he is absolutely incapable of protecting Islam as the Mussulmans of the
world understand it.
The Jazirat-ul-Arab is split up; a great part of it given to powerful
non-Muslim Powers, the remnant left with petty chiefs dominated all
round 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 entirely
dependent on European control, and some relegated to newly-formed
non-Muslim states.
In a word, the Mussalman's free choice of a Khalifa such as Islamic
tradition 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 the
unity and the truth of all religions. This unity is established by
mutual help and understanding between the various religions. It has come
as a rare privilege to the Hindus in the fulfilment of this mission of
India to stand up in defence of Islam against the onslaught of the
earth-greed of the military powers of the west.
The Dharma of Hinduism in this respect is placed beyond all doubt by the
Bhagavat Gita.
Those who are the votaries of other Gods and worship them with
faith--even they, O Kaunteya, worship me alone, though not as the
Shastra requires--IX, 23.
Whoever being devoted wishes in perfect faith to worship a particular
form, of such a one I maintain the same faith unshaken,--VII 21.
Hinduism will realise its fullest beauty when in the fulfilment of this
cardinal tenet, its followers offer themselves as sacrifice for the
protection of the faith of their brothers, the Mussalmans.
If Hindus and Mussalmans attain the height of courage and sacrifice that
is needed for this battle on behalf of Islam against the greed of the
West, a victory will be won not alone for Islam, but for Christianity
itself. Militarism has robbed the crucified God of his name and his very
cross and the World has been mistaking it to be Christianity. After the
battle of Islam is won, Islam and Hinduism together can emancipate
Christianity itself from the lust for power and wealth which have
strangled it now and the true Christianity of the Gospels will be
established. This battle of non-cooperation with its suffering and
peaceful withdrawal of service will once for all establish its
superiority over the power of brute force and unlimited slaughter.
What a glorious privilege it is to play our part in this history of the
world, when Hinduism and Christianity will unite on behalf of Islam, and
in that strife of mutual love and support each religion will attain its
own truest shape and beauty.
AN ENDURING TREATY
Swaraj for India has two great problems, one internal and the other
external. How can Hindus and Mussalmans so different from each other
form a strong and united nation governing themselves peacefully? This
was the question for years, and no one could believe that the two
communities could suffer for each other till the miracle was actually
worked. The Khilafat has solved the problem. By the magic of suffering,
each has truly touched and captured the other's heart, and the Nation
now 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 was
the problem of external defence. How is India, left to herself defend
her frontiers against her Mussalman neighbours? None but emasculated
nations would accept such difficulties and responsibilities as an answer
to the demand for freedom. It is only a people whose mentality has been
perverted that can soothe itself with the domination by one race from a
distant country, as a preventative against the aggression of another, a
permanent and natural neighbour. Instead of developing strength to
protect ourselves against those near whom we are permanently placed, a
feeling of incurable impotence has been generated. Two strong and brave
nations can live side by side, strengthening each other through
enforcing constant vigilance, and maintain in full vigour each its own
national strength, unity, patriotism and resources. If a nation wishes
to be respected by its neighbours it has to develop and enter into
honourable treaties. These are the only natural conditions of national
liberty; but not a surrender to distant military powers to save oneself
from one's neighbours.
The Khilafat has solved the problem of distrust of Asiatic neighbours
out of our future. The Indian struggle for the freedom of Islam has
brought about a more lasting _entente_ and a more binding treaty between
the people of India and the people of the Mussalman states around it
than all the ententes and treaties among the Governments of Europe. No
wars of aggression are possible where the common people on the two sides
have become grateful friends. The faith of the Mussulman is a better
sanction than the seal of the European Diplomats and plenipotentiaries.
Not only has this great friendship between India and the Mussulman
States around it removed for all time the fear of Mussulman aggression
from outside, but it has erected round India, a solid wall of defence
against all aggression from beyond against all greed from Europe, Russia
or elsewhere. No secret diplomacy could establish a better _entente_ or
a stronger federation than what this open and non-governmental treaty
between Islam and India has established. The Indian support of the
Khilafat has, as if by a magic wand, converted what Was once the
Pan-Islamic terror for Europe into a solid wall of friendship and
defence for India.
THE BRITISH CONNECTION
Every nation like every individual is born free. Absolute freedom is the
birthright of every people. The only limitations are those which a
people may place over themselves. The British connection is invaluable
as long as it is a defence against any worse connection sought to be
imposed by violence. But it is only a means to an end, not a mandate of
Providence of Nature. The alliance of neighbours, born of suffering for
each other's sake, for ends that purify those that suffer, is
necessarily a more natural and more enduring bond than one that has
resulted from pure greed on the one side and weakness on the other.
Where such a natural and enduring alliance has been accomplished among
Asiatic peoples and not only between the respective governments, it may
truly 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 to
whom Freedom or Justice is denied? Violence at a time when the whole
world has learnt from bitter experience the futility of violence is
unworthy of a country whose ancient people's privilege, it was, to see
this truth long ago.
Violence may rid a nation of its foreign masters but will only enslave
it from inside. No nation can really be free which is at the mercy of
its army and its military heroes. If a people rely for freedom on its
soldiers, the soldiers will rule the country, not the people. Till the
recent awakening of the workers of Europe, this was the only freedom
which the powers of Europe really enjoyed. True freedom can exist only
when those who produce, not those who destroy or know only to live on
other's labour, are the masters.
Even were violence the true road to freedom, is violence possible to a
nation which has been emasculated and deprived of all weapons, and the
whole world is hopelessly in advance of all our possibilities in the
manufacture and the wielding of weapons of destruction.
Submission or withdrawal of co-operation is the real and only
alternative before India. Submission to injustice puts on the tempting
garb of peace and, gradual progress, but there is no surer way to death
than 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 recognised
sometimes by our ancients, which they called _Upeshka_. It is this
_Punchamopaya_ that is placed by Mahatma Gandhi before the people of
India in the form of Non-cooperation as an alternative, besides
violence, to surrender.
Where in any case negotiations have failed and the enemy is neither
corruptible nor incapable of being divided, and a resort to violence has
failed or would certainly be futile the method of _Upeshka_ remains to
be applied to the case. Indeed, when the very existence of the power we
seek to defeat really depends on our continuous co-operation with it,
and where our _Upeskha_ its very life, our _Upeskha_ or non-co-operation
is the most natural and most effective expedient that we can employ to
bend it to our will.
No Englishman believes that his nation can rule or keep India for a day
unless 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 means
impossibility 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 to
this truth. The active assistance of the people of this country in the
supply of the money, men, and knowledge of the languages, customs and
laws of the land, is the main-spring of the continuous life of the
foreign administration. Indeed the circumstances of British rule in this
country are such that but for a double supply of co-operation on the
part of the governed, it must have broken down long ago. Any system of
race domination is unnatural, and can be kept up only by active
coercion through a foreign-recruited public, service invested with large
powers, however much it may be helped by the perversion of mentality
shaping the education of the youth of the country. The foreign recruited
service must necessarily be very highly paid. This creates a wrong
standard for the Indian recruited officials also. Military expenditure
has to cover not only the needs of defence against foreign aggression,
but also the possibilities of internal unrest and rebellion. Police
charges have to go beyond the prevention and deletion of ordinary crime,
for though this would be the only expenditure over the police of a
self-governing people where any nation governs another, a large chapter of
artificial crime has to be added to the penal code, and the work of the
police extended accordingly. The military and public organisations must
also be such as not only to result in outside efficiency, but also at
the same time guarantee internal impotency. This is to be achieved by
the adjustment and careful admixture of officers and units from
different races. All this can be and is maintained only by extra cost
and extra-active co-operation on the part of the people. The slightest
withdrawal of assistance must put such machinery out of gear. This is
the basis of the programme of progressive non violent non-co-operation
that has been adopted by the National Congress.
SOME OBJECTIONS
The powerful character of the measure, however, leads some to object to
non-co-operation because of that very reason. Striking as it does at the
very root of Government in India, they fear that non-co-operation must
lead to anarchy, and that the remedy is worse than the disease. This is
an objection arising out of insufficient allowance for human nature. It
is assumed that the British people will allow their connection with
India to cease rather than remedy the wrongs for which we seek justice.
If this assumption be correct, no doubt it must lead to separation and
possibly also anarchy for a time. If the operatives in a factory have
grievances, negotiations having failed, a strike would on a similar
argument be never admissible. Unyielding obstinacy being presumed, it
must end in the closing down of the factory and break up of the men. But
if in ninety-nine out of a hundred cases it is not the case that strikes
end in this manner, it is more unlikely that, instead of righting the
manifest wrongs that India complains about, the British people will
value their Indian Dominion so low as to prefer to allow us to
non-co-operate up to the point of separation. It would be a totally
false reading of British character and British history. But if such
wicked obstinacy be ultimately shown by a government, far be it from us
to prefer peace at the price of abject surrender to wrong. There is no
anarchy greater than the moral anarchy of surrender to unrepentant
wrong. We may, however, be certain that if we show the strength and
unity necessary for non-co-operation, long before we progress with it
far, we shall have developed true order and true self-government wherein
there is no place for anarchy.
Another fear sometimes expressed that, if non-co-operation were to
succeed, the British would have to go, leaving us unable to defend
ourselves against foreign aggression. If we have the self-respect, the
patriotism, the tenacious purpose, and the power of organisation that are
necessary to drive the British out from their entrenched position, no
lesser foreign power will dare after that, undertake the futile task of
conquering or enslaving us.
It is sometimes said that non-co-operation is negative and destructive
of the advantages which a stable government has conferred on us. That
non-co-operation is negative is merely a half-truth. Non-co-operation
with the government means greater co-operation among ourselves, greater
mutual dependence among the many different castes and classes of our
country. Non-co-operation is not mere negation. It will lead to the
recovery of the lost art of co-operation among ourselves. Long
dependence on an outside government which by its interference
suppressed or prevented the consequences of our differences has made us
forget the duty of mutual trust and the art of friendly adjustment.
Having allowed Government to do everything for us, we have gradually
become incapable of doing anything for ourselves. Even if we had no
grievance against this Government, non-co-operation with it for a time
would be desirable so far as it would perforce lead us to trusting and
working with one another and thereby strengthen the bonds of
national unity.
The most tragic consequence of dependence on the complex machinery of a
foreign government is the atrophy of the communal sense. The direct
touch with administrative cause and effect is lost. An outside protector
performs all the necessary functions of the community in a mysterious
manner, and communal duties are not realised by the people. The one
reason addressed by those who deny to us the capacity for self-rule is
the insufficient appreciation by the people of communal duties and
discipline. It is only by actually refraining for a time from dependence
on Government that we can regain self-reliance, learn first-hand the
value of communal duties and build up true national co-operation.
Non-co-operation is a practical and positive training in Swadharma, and
Swadharma alone can lead up to Swaraj.
The negative is the best and most impressive method of enforcing the
value of the positive. Few outside government circles realise in the
present police anything but tyranny and corruption. But if the units of
the present police were withdrawn we would soon perforce set about
organising a substitute, and most people would realise the true social
value of a police force. Few realise in the present taxes anything but
coercion and waste, but most people would soon see that a share of every
man's income is due for common purposes and that there are many
limitations to the economical management of public institutions; we
would begin once again to contribute directly, build up and maintain
national institutions in the place of those that now mysteriously spring
up and live under Government orders.
EMANCIPATION
Freedom is a priceless thing. But it is a stable possession only when it
is acquired by a nation's strenuous effort. What is not by chance or
outward circumstance, or given by the generous impulse of a tyrant
prince or people is not a reality. A nation will truly enjoy freedom
only when in the process of winning or defending its freedom, it has
been purified and consolidated through and through, until liberty has
become a part of its very soul. Otherwise it would be but a change of
the form of government, which might please the fancy of politicians, or
satisfy the classes in power, but could never emancipate a people. An
Act of Parliament can never create citizens in Hindustan. The strength,
spirit, and happiness of a people who have fought and won their liberty
cannot be got by Reform Acts. Effort and sacrifice are the necessary
conditions 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 and
consolidate India, and forge for her a true and stable liberty is a war
with the latest and most effective weapon. In this war, what has
hitherto been in the world an undesirable but necessary incident in
freedom's battles, the killing of innocent men, has been eliminated; and
that which is the true essential for forging liberty, the
self-purification and self-strengthening of men and women has been kept
pure and unalloyed. It is for men, women and youth, every one of them
that lives in and loves India, to do his bit in this battle, not waiting
for others, not calculating the chances of his surviving the battle to
enjoy the fruits of his sacrifice. Soldiers in the old-world wars did
not insure their lives before going to the front. The privilege of youth
in special is for country's sake to exercise their comparative freedom
and give up the yearning for lives and careers built on the slavery of
the people.
That on which a foreign government truly rests whatever may be the
illusions 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 next
generation are the two main branches of this co-operation of slaves in
the perpetuation of slavery. The boycott of government service and the
law-courts is aimed at the first, the boycott of government controlled
schools is to stop the second. If either the one or the other of these
two branches of co-operation is withdrawn in sufficient measure, there
will be an automatic and perfectly peaceful change from slavery
to liberty.
The beat preparation for any one who desires to take part in the great
battle now going on is a silent study of the writings and speeches
collected herein, and proposed to be completed in a supplementary volume
to 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 has
written 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 the
quotation are likely to be shared by many of my English friends and as I
do not wish, if I can possibly help it, to forfeit their friendship or
their esteem I shall endeavour to state my position as clearly as I can
on the Khilafat question. The letter shows what risk public men run
through irresponsible journalism. I have not seen _The Times_ report,
referred to by my friend. But it is evident that the report has made the
writer to suspect my alliance with "the prevailing anarchies" and to
think that I have "thrown to one side" my "moral responsibilities."
It is just my sense of moral responsibilities which has made me take up
the Khilafat question and to identify myself entirely with the
Mahomedans. It is perfectly true that I am assisting and countenancing
the union between Hindus and Muslims, but certainly not with "a view of
embarrassing England and the Allied Powers in the matter of the
dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire," it is contrary to my creed to
embarrass governments or anybody else. This does not how ever mean that
certain acts of mine may not result in embarrassment. But I should not
hold myself responsible for having caused embarrassment when I resist
the wrong of a wrong-doer by refusing assistance in his wrong-doing. On
the Khilafat question I refuse to be party to a broken pledge. Mr. Lloyd
George's solemn declaration is practically the whole of the case for
Indian Mahomedans and when that case is fortified by scriptural
authority it becomes unanswerable. Moreover, it is incorrect to say that
I have "allied myself to one of the prevailing anarchies" or that I have
wrongly countenanced the movement to place the cruel and unjust
despotism of the Stamboul Government above the interests of humanity.
In the whole of the Mahomedan demand there is no insistance on the
retention of the so-called unjust despotism of the Stamboul Government;
on the contrary the Mahomedans have accepted the principle of taking
full guarantees from that Government for the protection of non-Muslim
minorities. I do not know how far the condition of Armenia and Syria may
be considered an 'anarchy' and how far the Turkish Government may be
held responsible for it. I much suspect that the reports from these
quarters are much exaggerated and that the European powers are
themselves in a measure responsible for what misrule there may be in
Armenia and Syria. But I am in no way interested in supporting Turkish
or any other anarchy. The Allied Powers can easily prevent it by means
other than that of ending Turkish rule or dismembering and weakening the
Ottoman Empire. The Allied Powers are not dealing with a new situation.
If Turkey was to be partitioned, the position should have been made
clear at the commencement of the war. There would then have been no
question of a broken pledge. As it is, no Indian Mahomedan has any
regard for the promises of British Ministers. In his opinion, the cry
against Turkey is that of Christianity _vs._ Islam with England as the
louder in the cry. The latest cablegram from Mr. Mahomed Ali strengthens
the impression, for he says that unlike as in England his deputation is
receiving much support from the French Government and the people.
Thus, if it is true, as I hold it is true that the Indian Mussalmans
have a cause that is just and is supported by scriptural authority, then
for the Hindus not to support them to the utmost would be a cowardly
breach of brotherhood and they would forfeit all claim to consideration
from their Mahomedan countrymen. As a public-server therefore, I would
be unworthy of the position I claim, if I did not support Indian
Mussalmans in their struggle to maintain the Khilafat in accordance with
their religious belief. I believe that in supporting them I am rendering
a service to the Empire, because by assisting my Mahomedan countrymen to
give a disciplined expression to their sentiment it becomes possible to
make the agitation thoroughly, orderly and even successful.
THE TURKISH TREATY
The Turkish treaty will be out on the 10th of May. It is stated to
provide for the internationalisation of the Straits, the occupation of
Gallipoli by the Allies, the maintenance of Allied contingents in
Constantinople and the appointment of a Commission of Control over
Turkish finances. The San Remo Conference has entrusted Britain with
Mandates for Mesopotamia and Palestine and France with the Mandate for
Syria. As regards Smyrna the accounts so far received inform that
Turkish suzerainty over Smyrna will be indicated by the fact that the
population will not be entitled to send delegates to the Greek
Parliament but at the end of five years local Smyrna Parliament will
have the right of voting in favour of union with Greece and in such an
event Turkish suzerainty will cease. Turkish suzerainty will be confined
to the area within the Chatalja lines. With regard to Emir Foisul's
position there is no news except that the Mandates of Britain and France
transform his military title into a civil title.
* * * * *
We have given above the terms of the Turkish treaty as indicated in
Router's messages. These reports are incomplete and all of them are not
equally authenticated. But if these terms are true, they are a challenge
to the Muslim demands. Turkish Sovereignty is confined to the Chatalja
lines. This means that the Big Three of the Supreme Council have cut off
Thrace from Turkish dominions. This is a distinct breach of the pledge
given by one of these Three, _viz._, the Premier of the British Empire.
To remain within the Chatalja lines and, we are afraid, as a dependent
of the Allies, is for the Sultan a humiliating position inconsistent
with the Koranic injunctions. Such a restricted position of the Turks is
virtually a success of the bag and baggage school.
It is not yet known how the Supreme Council disposed of the rich and
renowned lands of Asia Minor. If Mr. Lloyd George's views recently
expressed in this respect have received the Allies' sanction--it is
probable--nothing less than a common control is expected. The decision
in the case of Smyrna will be satisfying to none, though the Allies seem
to have made by their arrangement a skillful attempt to please all the
parties concerned. Mr. Lloyd George, in his reply to the Khilafat
Deputation, had talked about the careful investigations by an impartial
committee and had added; "The great majority of the population
undoubtedly prefer Greek rule to Turkish rule, so I understand" But the
decision postpones to carry out his understanding till a period of
five years.
* * * * *
When we come to the question of mandates, the Allied Powers' motives
come out more distinctly. The Arabs' claim of independence was used as a
difficulty against keeping Turkish Sovereignty. This was defended in the
of self-determination and by pointing out parallels of Transylvania and
other provinces. When the final moment came, the Allies have ventured to
divide the spoils amongst themselves. Britain is given the mandate over
Mesopotamia and Palestine and France has the mandate over Syria. The
Arab delegation complains in their note lately issued expressing their
disappointment at the Supreme Council's decision with regard to the
Arab liberated countries, which, it declares, is contrary to the
principle of self-determination.
* * * * *
So what little news has arrived about the Turkish treaty, is uniformly
disquieting. The Moslems have found sufficient ground to honour Russia,
more than the Allies. Russia has recognised the freedom of Khiva and
Bokhara. The Moslem world, as H. M. the Amir of Afghanistan said in his
speech, will feel grateful towards Russia in spite of all the rumours
abroad about its anarchy and disorder, whereas the whole Moslem world
will resent the action of the other European nations who have allied
with each other to carry out a joint coercion and extinction of Turkey
in the name of self-determination and partly in the guise of the
interest of civilization.
* * * * *
The terms of the Turkish treaty are not only a breach of the Premier's
pledge, not only a sin against the principle of self-determination, but
they also show a reckless indifference of the Allied Powers towards the
Koranic injunctions. The terms point out that Mr. Lloyd George's
misinformed ideas of Khilafat have prevailed in the Council. Like Mr.
Lloyd George other statesmen also at San Remo have compared Caliphate
with Popedom and ignored the Koronic idea of associating spiritual
power with temporal power. These misguided statesmen were too much
possessed by haughtiness and so they refused to receive any
enlightenment on the question of Khilafat from the Deputation. They
could have corrected themselves had they heard Mr. Mahomed Ali on this
point. Speaking at the Essex Hall meeting Mr. Mahomed Ali distinguished
between Popedom and Caliphate and clearly explained what Caliphate
means. 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 the
minds of those that at San Remo, if they were in earnest for a just
solution. But Mr. Mahomed Ali's deputation was not given any hearing by
the Peace Conference. They were told that the Peace Conference had
already heard the official delegation of India on this question. But the
wrong notions the Allies still entertain about Caliphate are a
sufficient indication of the effects of the work of this official
delegation. The result of these wrong notions is the present settlement
and this unjust settlement will unsettle the world. They know not
what they do.
TURKISH PEACE TERMS
The question of question to-day is the Khilafat question, otherwise
known as that of the Turkish peace terms. His Excellency the Viceroy
deserves our thanks for receiving the joint deputation even at this late
hour, especially when he was busy preparing to receive the head of the
different provinces. His Excellency must be thanked for the unfailing
courtesy with which he received the deputation and the courteous
language in which his reply was couched. But mere courtesy, valuable as
it is at all times, never so valuable as at this, is not enough at this
critical moment. 'Sweet words butter no parsnips' is a proverb more
applicable to-day than ever before. Behind the courtesy there was the
determination to punish Turkey. Punishment of Turkey is a thing which
Muslim sentiment cannot tolerate for a moment. Muslim soldiers are as
responsible for the result of the war as any others. It was to appease
them that Mr. Asquith said when Turkey decided to join the Central
Powers that the British Government had no designs on Turkey and that His
Majesty's Government would never think of punishing the Sultan for the
misdeeds of the Turkish Committee. Examined by that standard the
Viceregal reply is not only disappointing but it is a fall from truth
and justice.
What is this British Empire? It is as much Mahomedan and Hindu as it is
Christian. Its religious neutrality is not a virtue, or if it is, it is
a virtue of necessity. Such a mighty Empire could not be held together
on any other terms. British ministers are therefore bound to protect
Mahomedan interests as any other. Indeed as the Muslim rejoinder says,
they are bound to make the cause their own. What is the use of His
Excellency having presented the Muslim claim before the Conference? If
the cause is lost the Mahomedans will be entitled to think that Britain
did not do her duty by them. And the Viceregal reply confirms the view.
When His Excellency says that Turkey must suffer for her having joined
the Central Powers he but expresses the opinion of British ministers.
We hope, therefore, with the framers of the Muslim rejoinder that His
Majesty's ministers will mend the mistakes if any have been committed
and secure a settlement that would satisfy Mahomedan sentiment.
What does the sentiment demand? The preservation of the Khilafat with
such guarantee as may be necessary for the protection of the interests
of the non-Muslim races living under Turkish rule and the Khalif's
control over Arabia and the Holy Places with such arrangement as may be
required for guaranteeing Arab self-rule, should the Arabs desire it. It
is hardly possible to state the claim more fairly than has been done. It
is a claim backed by justice, by the declarations of British ministers
and by the unanimous Hindu and Muslim opinion. It would be midsummer
madness 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 position
in 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 it
challenges you, it commands your respect by its very gracefulness. But
it is just this attitude based upon insufficient or false information
which has ruined many a cause in the British Isles. The superficiality,
the one-sidedness the inaccuracy and often even dishonesty that have
crept into modern journalism, continuously mislead honest men who want
to see nothing but justice done. Then there are always interested
groups whose business it is to serve their ends by means of faul or
food. And the honest Englishman wishing to vote for justice but swayed
by conflicting opinions and dominated by distorted versions, often ends
by becoming an instrument of injustice.
The writer of the letter quoted above has built up convincing argument
on imaginary data. He has successfully shown that the Mahomedan case, as
it has been presented to him, is a rotten case. In India, where it is
not quite easy to distort facts about the Khilafat, English friends
admit the utter justice of the Indian-Mahomedan claim. But they plead
helplessness and tell us that the Government of India and Mr. Montagu
have done all it was humanly possible for them to do. And if now the
judgment goes against Islam, Indian Mahomedans should resign themselves
to it. This extraordinary state of things would not be possible except
under this modern rush and preoccupations of all responsible people.
Let us for a moment examine the case as it has been imagined by the
writer. He suggests that Indian Mahomedans want Turkish rule in Arabia
in spite of the opposition of the Arabs themselves, and that, if the
Arabs do not want Turkish rule, the writer argues, no false religions
sentiment can be permitted to interfere with self-determination of the
Arabs when India herself has been pleading for that very status. Now the
fact is that the Mahomedans, as is known to everybody who has at all
studied the case, have never asked for Turkish rule in Arabia in
opposition to the Arabs. On the contrary, they have said that they have
no intention of resisting Arabian self-government. All they ask for is
Turkish suzerainty over Arabia which would guarantee complete self-rule
for 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 soldiers
split their blood on behalf of the Allied Powers. All the elaborate
argument therefore and the cogent reasoning of the above extract fall to
pieces based as they are upon a case that has never existed. I have
thrown myself heart and soul into this question because British pledges
abstract justice, and religious sentiment coincide. I can conceive the
possibility of a blind and fanatical religious sentiment existing in
opposition to pure justice. I should then resist the former and fight
for the latter. Nor would I insist upon pledges given dishonestly to
support an unjust cause as has happened with England in the case of the
secret treaties. Resistance there becomes not only lawful but obligatory
on the part of a nation that prides itself on its righteousness.
It is unnecessary for me to examine the position imagined by the English
friend, viz., how India would have fared had she been an independent
power. It is unnecessary because Indian Mahomedans, and for that matter
India, are fighting for a cause that is admittedly just; a cause in aid
of which they are invoking the whole-hearted support of the British
people. I would however venture to suggest that this is a cause in which
mere sympathy will not suffice. It is a cause which demands support that
is strong enough to bring about substantial justice.
FURTHER QUESTIONS ANSWERED
I have been overwhelmed with public criticism and private advice and
even anonymous letters telling me exactly what I should do. Some are
impatient that I do not advise immediate and extensive non-co-operation;
others tell me what harm I am doing the country by throwing it knowingly
in a tempest of violence on either side. It is difficult for me to deal
with the whole of the criticism, but I would summarize some of the
objections and endeavour to answer them to the best of my ability. These
are in addition to those I have already answered:--
(1) Turkish claim is immoral or unjust and how can I, a lover of truth
and justice, support it? (2) Even if the claim be just in theory, the
Turk is hopelessly incapable, weak and cruel. He does not deserve any
assistance.
(3) Even if Turkey deserves all that is claimed for her, why should I
land India in an international struggle?
(4) It is no part of the Indian Mahomedans' business to meddle in this
affair. If they cherish any political ambition, they have tried, they
have failed and they should now sit still. If it is a religious matter
with them, it cannot appeal to the Hindu reason in the manner it is put
and in any case Hindus ought not to identify themselves with Mahomedans
in their religious quarrel with Christendom.
(5) In no case should I advocate non-co-operation which in its extreme
sense is nothing but a rebellion, no matter how peaceful it may be.
(6) Moreover, my experience of last year must show me that it is beyond
the capacity of any single human being to control the forces of violence
that are lying dormant in the land.
(7) Non-co-operation is futile because people will never respond in
right earnest, and reaction that might afterwards set in will be worse
than the state of hopefulness we are now in.
(8) Non-co-operation will bring about cessation of all other activities,
even working of the Reforms, thus set back the clock of progress. (9)
However pure my motives may be, those of the Mussalmans are obviously
revengeful.
I shall now answer the objections in the order in which they are
stated--
(1) In my opinion the Turkish claim is not only not immoral and unjust,
but it is highly equitable, if only because Turkey wants to retain what
is her own. And the Mahomedan manifesto has definitely declared that
whatever guarantees may be necessary to be taken for the protection of
non-Muslim and non-Turkish races, should be taken so as to give the
Christians theirs and the Arabs their self-government under the Turkish
suzerainty.
(2) I do not believe the Turk to be weak, incapable or cruel. He is
certainly disorganised and probably without good generalship. He has
been obliged to fight against heavy odds. The argument of weakness,
incapacity and cruelty one often hears quoted in connection with those
from whom power is sought to be taken away. About the alleged massacres
a proper commission has been asked for, but never granted. And in any
case security can be taken against oppression.
(3) I have already stated that if I were not interested in the Indian
Mahomedans, I would not interest myself in the welfare of the Turks any
more than I am in that of the Austrians or the Poles. But I am bound as
an Indian to share the sufferings and trial of fellow-Indians. If I deem
the Mahomedan to be my brother. It is my duty to help him in his hour
of peril to the best of my ability, if his cause commends itself to
me as just.
(4) The fourth refers to the extent Hindus should join hands with the
Mahomedans. It is therefore a matter of feeling and opinion. It is
expedient to suffer for my Mahomedan brother to the utmost in a just
cause and I should therefore travel with him along the whole road so
long as the means employed by him are as honourable as his end. I cannot
regulate the Mahomedan feeling. I must accept his statement that the
Khilafat is with him a religious question in the sense that it binds him
to reach the goal even at the cost of his own life.
(5) I do not consider non-co-operation to be a rebellion, because it is
free from violence. In a larger sense all opposition to a Government
measure is a rebellion. In that sense, rebellion in a just cause is a
duty, the extent of opposition being determined by the measure of the
injustice done and felt.
(6) My experience of last year shows me that in spite of aberrations in
some parts of India, the country was entirely under control that the
influence of Satyagraha was profoundly for its good and that where
violence did break out there were local causes that directly contributed
to it. At the same time I admit that even the violence that did take
place on the part of the people and the spirit of lawlessness that was
undoubtedly shown in some parts should have remained under check. I have
made ample acknowledgment of the miscalculation I then made. But all the
painful experience that I then gained did not any way shake my belief in
Satyagraha or in the possibility of that matchless force being utilised
in India. Ample provision is being made this time to avoid the mistakes
of the past. But I must refuse to be deterred from a clear course;
because it may be attended by violence totally unintended and in spite
of extraordinary efforts that are being made to prevent it. At the same
time I must make my position clear. Nothing can possibly prevent a
Satyagrahi from doing his duty because of the frown of the authorities.
I would risk, if necessary, a million lives so long as they are
voluntary sufferers and are innocent, spotless victims. It is the
mistakes of the people that matter in a Satyagraha campaign. Mistakes,
even insanity must be expected from the strong and the powerful, and the
moment of victory has come when there is no retort to the mad fury of
the powerful, but a voluntary, dignified and quiet submission but not
submission to the will of the authority that has put itself in the
wrong. The secret of success lies therefore in holding every English
life and the life of every officer serving the Government as sacred as
those of our own dear ones. All the wonderful experience I have gained
now during nearly 40 years of conscious existence, has convinced me that
there is no gift so precious as that of life. I make bold to say that
the moment the Englishmen feel that although they are in India in a
hopeless minority, their lives are protected against harm not because of
the matchless weapons of destruction which are at their disposal, but
because Indians refuse to take the lives even of those whom they may
consider to be utterly in the wrong that moment will see a
transformation in the English nature in its relation to India and that
moment will also be the moment when all the destructive cutlery that is
to be had in India will begin to rust. I know that this is a far-off
vision. That cannot matter to me. It is enough for me to see the light
and to act up to it, and it is more than enough when I gain companions
in the onward march. I have claimed in private conversations with
English friends that it is because of my incessant preaching of the
gospel of non-violence and my having successfully demonstrated its
practical utility that so far the forces of violence, which are
undoubtedly in existence in connection with the Khilafat movement, have
remained under complete control.
(7) From a religious standpoint the seventh objection is hardly worth
considering. If people do not respond to the movement of
non-co-operation, it would be a pity, but that can be no reason for a
reformer not to try. It would be to me a demonstration that the present
position of hopefulness is not dependent on any inward strength or
knowledge, but it is hope born of ignorance and superstition.
(8) If non-co-operation is taken up in earnest, it must bring about a
cessation of all other activities including the Reforms, but I decline
to draw therefore the corollary that it will set back the clock of
progress. On the contrary, I consider non-co-operation to be such a
powerful and pure instrument, that if it is enforced in an earnest
spirit, it will be like seeking first the Kingdom of God and everything
else following as a matter of course. People will have then realised
their true power. They would have learnt the value of discipline,
self-control, joint action, non-violence, organisation and everything
else that goes to make a nation great and good, and not merely great.
(9) I do not know that I have a right to arrogate greater purity for
myself than for our Mussalman brethren. But I do admit that they do not
believe in my doctrine of non-violence to the full extent. For them it
is a weapon of the weak, an expedient. They consider non-co-operation
without violence to be the only thing open to them in the war of direct
action. I know that if some of them could offer successful violence,
they would do to-day. But they are convinced that humanly speaking it is
an impossibility. For them, therefore, non-co-operation is a matter not
merely of duty but also of revenge. Whereas I take up non-co-operation
against the Government as I have actually taken it up in practice
against members of my own family. I entertain very high regard for the
British constitution, I have not only no enmity against Englishmen but I
regard much in English character as worthy of my emulation. I count many
as my friends. It is against my religion to regard any one as an enemy.
I entertain similar sentiments with respect to Mahomedans. I find their
cause to be just and pure. Although therefore their viewpoint is
different from mine I do not hesitate to associate with them and invite
them to give my method a trial, for, I believe that the use of a pure
weapon even from a mistaken motive does not fail to produce some good,
even as the telling of truth if only because for the time being it is
the best policy, is at least so much to the good.
MR. CANDLER'S OPEN LETTER
Mr. Candler has favoured me with an open letter on this question of
questions. The letter has already appeared in the Press. I can
appreciate Mr. Candler's position as I would like him and other
Englishmen to appreciate mine and that of hundreds of Hindus who feel as
I do. Mr. Candler's letter is an attempt to show that Mr. Lloyd George's
pledge is not in any way broken by the peace terms. I quite agree with
him that Mr. Lloyd George's words ought not to be torn from their
context to support the Mahomedan claim. These are Mr. Lloyd George's
words as quoted in the recent Viceregal message: "Nor are we fighting to
destroy Austria-Hungary or to deprive Turkey of its capital or of the
rich and renowned lands of Asia Minor and Thrace which are predominantly
Turkish in race." Mr. Candler seems to read 'which', as if it meant 'if
they,' whereas I give the pronoun its natural meaning, namely, that the
Prime Minister knew in 1918, that the lands referred to by him were
"predominantly Turkish in race." And if this is the meaning I venture to
suggest that the pledge has been broken in a most barefaced manner, for
there is practically nothing left to the Turk of 'the rich and renowned
lands of Asia Minor and Thrace.'
I have already my view of the retention of the Sultan in Constantinople.
It is an insult to the intelligence of man to suggest that 'the
maintenance of the Turkish Empire in the homeland of the Turkish race
with its capital at Constantinople has been left unimpaired by the terms
of peace. This is the other passage from the speech which I presume Mr.
Candler wants me to read together with the one already quoted:--
"While we do not challenge the maintenance of the Turkish Empire in
the home-land of the Turkish race with its capital at Constantinople,
the passage between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea being
inter-nationalised, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine are in
our judgment entitled to a recognition of their separate national
condition."
Did that mean entire removal of Turkish influence, extinction of Turkish
suzerainty and the introduction of European-Christian influence under
the guise of Mandates? Have the Moslems of Arabia, Armenia, Mesopotamia,
Syria and Palestine been committed, or is the new arrangement being
superimposed upon them by Powers conscious of their own brute-strength
rather than of justice of their action? I for one would nurse by every
legitimate means the spirit of independence in the brave Arabs, but I
shudder to think what will happen to them under the schemes of
exploitation of their country by the greedy capitalists protected as
they will be by the mandatory Powers. If the pledge is to be fulfilled,
let these places have full self-government with suzerainty to be
retained with Turkey as has been suggested by the _Times of India_. Let
there be all the necessary guarantees taken from Turkey about the
internal independence of the Arabs. But to remove that suzerainty, to
deprive the Khalif of the wardenship of the Holy Places is to render
Khilafat a mockery which no Mahomedan can possibly look upon with
equanimity, I am not alone in my interpretation of the pledge. The Right
Hon'ble Ameer Ali calls the peace terms a breach of faith. Mr. Charles
Roberts reminds the British public that the Indian Mussalman sentiment
regarding the Turkish Treaty is based upon the Prime Minister's pledge
"regarding Thrace, Constantinople and Turkish lands in Asia Minor,
repeated on February 26 last with deliberation by Mr. Lloyd George. Mr.
Roberts holds that the pledge must be treated as a whole, not as binding
only regarding Constantinople but also binding as regards Thrace and
Asia Minor. He describes the pledge as binding upon the nation as a
whole and its breach in any part as a gross breach of faith on the part
of the British Empire. He demands that if there is an unanswerable reply
to the charge of breach of faith it ought to be given and adds the Prime
Minister may regard his own word lightly if he chooses, but he has no
right to break a pledge given on behalf of the nation. He concludes that
it is incredible that such pledge should not have been kept in the
letter and in the spirit." He adds: "I have reason to believe that these
views are fully shared by prominent members of the Cabinet."
I wonder if Mr. Candler knows what is going on to-day in England. Mr.
Pickthall writing in _New Age_ says: "No impartial international enquiry
into the whole question of the Armenian massacres has been instituted in
the ample time which has elapsed since the conclusion of armistice with
Turkey. The Turkish Government has asked for such enquiry. But the
Armenian organisations and the Armenian partisans refuse to hear of such
a thing, declaring that the Bryce and Lepssens reports are quite
sufficient to condemn the Turks. In other words the judgment should be
given on the case for prosecution alone. The inter-allied commission
which investigated the unfortunate events in Smyrna last year, made a
report unfavourable to Greek claims. Therefore, that report has not been
published here in England, though in other countries it has long been
public property." He then goes on to show how money is being scattered
by Armenian and Greek emissaries in order to popularise their cause and
adds: "This conjunction of dense ignorance and cunning falsehood is
fraught with instant danger to the British realm," and concludes: "A
Government and people which prefer propaganda to fact as the ground of
policy--and foreign policy at that--is self-condemned."
I have reproduced the above extract in order to show that the present
British policy has been affected by propaganda of an unscrupulous
nature. Turkey which was dominant over two million square miles of
Asia, Africa and Europe in the 17th century, under the terms of the
treaty, says the _London Chronicle_, has dwindled down to little more
than 1,000 square miles. It says, "All European Turkey could now be
accommodated comfortably between the Landsend and the Tamar, Cornawal
alone exceeding its total area and but for its alliance with Germany,
Turkey could have been assured of retaining at least sixty thousand
square miles of the Eastern Balkans." I do not know whether the
_Chronicle_ view is generally shared. Is it by way of punishment that
Turkey is to undergo such shrinkage, or is it because justice demands
it? If Turkey had not made the mistake of joining Germany, would the
principle of nationality have been still applied to Armenia, Arabia,
Mesopotamia and Palestine?
Let me now remind those who think with Mr. Candler that the promise was
not made by Mr. Lloyd George to the people of India in anticipation of
the supply of recruits continuing. In defending his own statement Mr.
Lloyd George is reported to have said:
"The effect of the statement in India was that recruiting went up
appreciably from that very moment. They were not all Mahomedans but
there were many Mahomedans amongst them. Now we are told that was an
offer to Turkey. But they rejected it, and therefore we were
absolutely free. It was not. It is too often forgotten that we are
the greatest Mahomedan power in the world and one-fourth of the
population of the British Empire is Mahomedan. There have been no
more loyal adherents to the throne and no more effective and loyal
supporters of the Empire in its hour of trial. _We gave a solemn
pledge and they accepted it_. They are disturbed by the prospect of
our not abiding by it."
Who shall interpret that pledge and how? How did the Government of India
itself interpret it? Did it or did it not energetically support the
claim for the control of the Holy Places of Islam vesting in the Khalif?
Did the Government of India suggest that the whole of Jazirat-ul-Arab
could be taken away consistently with that pledge from the sphere of
influence of the Khalif, and given over to the Allies as mandatory
Powers? Why does the Government of India sympathise with the Indian
Mussalmans if the terms are all they should be? So much for the pledge.
I would like to guard myself against being understood that I stand or
fall absolutely by Mr. Lloyd George's declaration. I have advisedly used
the adverb 'practically' in connection with it. It is an important
qualification.'
Mr. Candler seems to suggest that my goal is something more than merely
attaining justice on the Khilafat. If so, he is right. Attainment of
justice is undoubtedly the corner-stone, and if I found that I was wrong
in my conception of justice on this question, I hope I shall have the
courage immediately to retrace my steps. But by helping the Mahomedans
of India at a critical moment in their history, I want to buy their
friendship. Moreover, if I can carry the Mahomedans with me I hope to
wean Great Britain from the downward path along which the Prime Minister
seems to me to be taking her. I hope also to show to India and the
Empire at large that given a certain amount of capacity for
self-sacrifice, justice can be secured by peacefullest and cleanest
means without sowing or increasing bitterness between English and
Indians. For, whatever may be the temporary effect of my methods, I know
enough of them to feel certain that they alone are immune from lasting
bitterness. They are untainted with hatred, expedience or untruth.
IN PROCESS OF KEEPING
The writer of 'Current Topics' in the "Times of India" has attempted to
challenge the statement made in my Khilafat article regarding
ministerial pledges, and in doing so cites Mr. Asquith's Guild-Hall
speech of November 10, 1914. When I wrote the articles, I had in mind
Mr. Asquith's speech. I am sorry that he ever made that speech. For, in
my humble opinion, it betrayed to say the least, a confusion of thought.
Could he think of the Turkish people as apart from the Ottoman
Government? And what is the meaning of the death-knell of Ottoman
Dominion in Europe and Asia if it be not the death knell of Turkish
people as a free and governing race? Is it, again, true historically
that the Turkish rule has always been a blight that 'has withered some
of the fairest regions of the earth?' And what is the meaning of his
statement that followed, viz., "Nothing is further from our thoughts
than to imitate or encourage a crusade against their belief?" If words
have any meaning, the qualifications that Mr. Asquith introduced in his
speech should have meant a scrupulous regard for Indian Muslim feeling.
And if that be the meaning of his speech, without anything further to
support me I would claim that even Mr. Asquith's assurance is in danger
of being set at nought if the resolutions of the San Remo Conference are
to be crystallised into action. But I base remarks on a considered
speech made by Mr. Asquith's successor two years later when things had
assumed a more threatening shape than in 1914 and when the need for
Indian help was much greater than in 1914. His pledge would bear
repetition till it is fulfilled. He said: "Nor are we fighting to
deprive Turkey of its capital or of the rich and renowned lands of Asia
Minor and Thrace which are predominantly Turkish in race. We do not
challenge the maintenance of the Turkish Empire in the homelands of the
Turkish race with its capital at Constantinople." If only every word of
this pledge is fulfilled both in letter and in spirit, there would be
little left for quarrelling about. In so far as Mr. Asquith's
declaration can be considered hostile to the Indian Muslim claim, it its
superseded by the later and more considered declaration of Mr. Lloyd
George--a declaration made irrevocable by fulfilment of the
consideration it expected, viz. the enlistment of the brave Mahomedan
soldiery which fought in the very place which is now being partitioned
in spite of the pledge. But the writer of 'Current Topics' says Mr.
Lloyd George "is now in process of keeping his pledge" I hope he is
right. But what has already happened gives little ground for any such
hope. For, imprisonment or internment of the Khalif in his own capital
will be not only a mockery of fulfilment but it would he adding injury
to insult. Either the Turkish Empire is to be maintained in the
homelands of the Turkish race with its capital at Constantinople or it
is not. If it is, let the Indian Mahomedans feel the full glow of it or
if the Empire is to be broken up, let the mask of hypocrisy be lifted
and India see the truth in its nakedness. To join the Khilafat movement
then means to join a movement to keep inviolate the pledge of a British
minister. Surely, such a movement is worth much greater sacrifice than
may be involved in non-co-operation.
APPEAL TO THE VICEROY
Your Excellency.
As one who has enjoyed a certain measure of your Excellency's
confidence, and as one who claims to be a devoted well-wisher of the
British Empire, I owe it to your Excellency, and through your Excellency
to His Majesty's Ministers, to explain my connection with and my conduct
in the Khilafat question.
At the very earliest stages of the war, even whilst I was in London
organising the Indian Volunteer Ambulance Corps, I began to interest
myself in the Khilafat question. I perceived how deeply moved the little
Mussalman World in London was when Turkey decided to throw in her lot
with Germany. On my arrival in India in the January of 1915, I found the
same anxiousness and earnestness among the Mussalmans with whom I came
in contact. Their anxiety became intense when the information about the
Secret Treaties leaked out. Distrust of British intentions filled their
minds, and despair took possession of them. Even at that moment I
advised my Mussalman friends not to give way to despair, but to express
their fear and their hopes in a disciplined manner. It will be admitted
that the whole of Mussalman India has behaved in a singularly restrained
manner during the past five years and that the leaders have been able to
keep the turbulent sections of their community under complete control.
The peace terms and your Excellency's defence of them have given the
Mussalmans of India a shock from which it will be difficult for them to
recover. The terms violate ministerial pledges and utterly disregard
Mussalman sentiment. I consider that as a staunch Hindu wishing to live
on terms of the closest friendship with my Mussalman countrymen. I
should be an unworthy son of India if I did not stand by them in their
hour of trial. In my humble opinion their cause is just. They claim that
Turkey must be _punished_ if their sentiment is to be respected. Muslim
soldiers did fight to inflict punishment on their own Khalifa or to
deprive him of his territories. The Mussalman attitude has been
consistent, throughout these five years.
My duty to the Empire to which I owe my loyalty requires me to resist
the cruel violence that has been done to the Mussalman sentiment. So far
as I am aware, Mussulmans and Hindus have as a whole lost faith in
British justice and honour. The report of the majority of the Hunter
Committee, Your Excellency's despatch thereon and Mr. Montagu's reply
have only aggravated the distrust.
In these circumstances the only course open to one like me is either in
despair to sever all connection with British rule, or, if I still
retained faith in the inherent superiority of the British constitution
to all others at present in vogue to adopt such means as will rectify
the wrong done, and thus restore confidence. I have not lost faith in
such superiority and I am not without hope that somehow or other justice
will yet be rendered if we show the requisite capacity for suffering.
Indeed, my conception of that constitution is that it helps only those
who are ready to help themselves. I do not believe that it protects the
weak. It gives free scope to the strong to maintain their strength and
develop it. The weak under it go to the wall.
It is, then, because I believe in the British constitution that I have
advised my Mussalman friends to withdraw their support from your
Excellency's Government and the Hindus to join them, should the peace
terms not be revised in accordance with the solemn pledges of Ministers
and the Muslim sentiment.
Three courses were open to the Mahomedans in order to mark their
emphatic disapproval of the utter injustice to which His Majesty's
Ministers have become party, if they have not actually been the prime
perpetrators of it. They are:--
(1) To resort to violence,
(2) To advise emigration on a wholesale scale,
(3) Not to be party to the injustice by ceasing to co-operate with the
Government.
Your Excellency must be aware that there was a time when the boldest,
though the most thoughtless among the Mussulmans favoured violence, and
the "Hijrat" (emigration) has not yet ceased to be the battle-cry. I
venture to claim that I have succeeded by patient reasoning in weaning
the party of violence from its ways. I confess that I did not--I did not
attempt to succeed in weaning them from violence on moral grounds, but
purely on utilitarian grounds. The result, for the time being at any
has, however, been to stop violence. The School of "Hijrat" has received
a check, if it has not stopped its activity entirely. I hold that no
repression could have prevented a violent eruption, if the people had
not had presented to them a form of direct action involving considerable
sacrifice and ensuring success if such direct action was largely taken
up by the public. Non-co-operation was the only dignified and
constitutional form of such direct action. For it is the right
recognised from times immemorial of the subject to refuse to assist a
ruler who misrules.
At the same time I admit that non-co-operation practised by the mass of
people is attended with grave risks. But, in a crisis such as has
overtaken the Mussalmans of India, no step that is unattended with large
risks, can possibly bring about the desired change. Not to run some
risks now will be to court much greater risks if not virtual destruction
of Law and Order.
But there is yet an escape from non-co-operation. The Mussalman
representation has requested your Excellency to lead the agitation
yourself, as did your distinguished predecessor at the time of the South
African trouble. But if you cannot see your way to do so, and
non-co-operation becomes a dire necessity, I hope that your Excellency
will give those who have accepted my advice and myself the credit for
being actuated by nothing less than a stern sense of duty.
I have the honour to remain,
Your Excellency's faithful servant,
(Sd.) M.K. GANDHI.
Laburnam Road, Gamdevi, Bombay
22nd June 1920
THE PREMIER'S REPLY
The English mail has brought us a full and official report of the
Premier's speech which he recently made when he received the Khilafat
deputation. Mr. Lloyd George's speech is more definite and therefore
more disappointing than H.E. the Viceroy's reply to the deputation here.
He draws quite unwarranted deductions from the same high principles on
which he had based his own pledge only two years ago. He declares that
Turkey must pay the penalty of defeat. This determination to punish
Turkey does not become one whose immediate predecessor had, in order to
appease Muslim soldiers, promised that the British Government had no
designs on Turkey and that His Majesty's Government would never think of
punishing the Sultan for the misdeeds of the Turkish Committee. Mr.
Lloyd George has expressed his belief that the majority of the
population of Turkey did not really want to quarrel with Great Britain
and that their rulers misled the country. In spite of this conviction
and in spite of Mr. Asquith's promise, he is out to punish Turkey and
punish it in the name of justice.
He expounds the principle of self-determination and justifies the scheme
of depriving Turkey of its territories one after another. While
justifying this scheme he does not exclude even Thrace and this strikes
the reader most, because this very Thrace he had mentioned in his pledge
as predominantly Turkish. Now we are told by him that both the Turkish
census and the Greek census agree in pointing out the Mussulman
population in Thrace is in a considerable minority! Mr. Yakub Hussain
speaking at the Madras Khilafat conference has challenged the truth of
this statement. The Prime Minister cites among others also the example
of Smyrna where, he says, we had a most careful investigation by a very
impartial committee in the whole of the question of Smyrna and it was
found that considerable majority was non-Turkish.' Who will believe the
one-sided "impartial committee's" investigations until it is disproved
that thousands of Musselmans have been murdered and hundreds of
thousands have been driven away from their hearths and homes? Strangely
enough Mr. Lloyd George, believes in the necessity of fresh
investigations by a purposely appointed committee in Smyrna as the most
authenticated and up-to-date report, whereas he would not accept Mr.
Mahomed Ali's proposal for an impartial commission in regard to Armenian
massacre! Doubtful and one-sided facts and figures suffice for him even
to conclude that the Turkish Government is incapable of protecting its
subjects. And he proceeds to suggest foreign interference in ruling over
Asia Minor in the interests of civilization. Here he cuts at the root of
the Sultan's independence. This proposal of appropriating supervision is
distinctly unlike the treatment meted out to other enemy powers.
This detraction of the Sultan's suzerainty is only a corollary of the
Premier's indifference towards the Muslim idea of the Caliphate. The
premier's injustice in treating the Turkish question becomes graver when
he thus lightly handles the Khilafat question. There had been occasions
when the British have used to their advantage the Muslim idea of
associating the Caliph's spiritual power with temporal power. Now this
very association is treated as a controversial question by the great
statesman.
Will this raise the reputation of Great Britain or stain it? Can this be
tolerated by those who fought against Turkey with full faith in British
honesty? Mere receipts of gratitude cannot console the wounded
Mussalmans. There lies the alternative for England to choose between two
mandates--a mandate over some Turkish territories which is sure to lead
to chaos all over the world and a mandate over the hearts of the
Muhomedans which will redeem the pledged honour of Britain. The prime
minister has an unwise choice. This narrow view registers the latest
temperature of British diplomacy.
THE MUSSULMAN REPRESENTATION
Slowly but surely the Mussulmans are preparing for the battle before
them. They have to fight against odds that are undoubtedly heavy but
not half as heavy as the prophet had against him. How often did he not
put his life in danger? But his faith in God was unquenchable. He went
forward with a light heart, for God was on his side, for he represented
truth. If his followers have half the prophet's faith and half his
spirit of sacrifice, the odds will be presently even and will in little
while turn against the despoilers of Turkey. Already the rapacity of the
Allies is telling against themselves. France finds her task difficult.
Greece cannot stomach her ill-gotten gains. And England finds
Mesopotamia a tough job. The oil of Mosul may feed the fire she has so
wantonly lighted and burn her fingers badly. The newspapers say the
Arabs do not like the presence of the Indian soldiery in their midst. I
do not wonder. They are a fierce and a brave people and do not
understand why Indian soldiers should find themselves in Mesopotamia.
Whatever the fate of non-co-operation, I wish that not a single Indian
will offer his services for Mesopotamia whether for the civil or the
military department. We must learn to think for ourselves and before
entering upon any employment find out whether thereby we may not make
ourselves instruments of injustice. Apart from the question of Khilafat
and from the point of abstract justice the English have no right to hold
Mesopotamia. It is no part of our loyalty to help the Imperial
Government in what is in plain language daylight robbery. If therefore
we seek civil or military employment in Mesopotamia we do so for the
sake of earning a livelihood. It is our duty to see that the source is
not tainted.
It surprises me to find so many people shirking over the mention of
non-co-operation. There is no instrument so clean, so harmless and yet
so effective as non-co-operation. Judiciously hauled it need not produce
any evil consequences. And its intensity will depend purely on the
capacity of the people for sacrifice.
The chief thing is to prepare the atmosphere of non-co-operation. "We
are not going to co-operate with you in your injustice," is surely the
right and the duty of every intelligent subject to say. Were it not for
our utter servility, helplessness and want of confidence in ourselves,
we would certainly grasp this clean weapon and make the most effective
use of it. Even the most despotic government cannot stand except for the
consent of the governed which consent is often forcibly procured by the
despot. Immediately the subject ceases to fear the despotic force his
power is gone. But the British government is never and nowhere entirely
or laid upon force. It does make an honest attempt to secure the
goodwill of the governed. But it does not hesitate to adopt unscrupulous
means to compel the consent of the governed. It has not gone beyond the
'Honesty is the best policy' idea. It therefore bribes you into
consenting its will by awarding titles, medals and ribbons, by giving
you employment, by its superior financial ability to open for its
employees avenues for enriching themselves and finally when these fail,
it resorts to force. That is what Sir Michael O'Dwyer did and that is
almost every British administrator will certainly do if he thought it
necessary. If then we would not be greedy, if we would not run after
titles and medals and honorary posts which do the country no good, half
the battle is won.
My advisers are never tired of telling me that even if the Turkish peace
terms are revised it will not be due to non-co-operation. I venture to
suggest to them that non-co-operation has a higher purpose than mere
revision of the terms. If I cannot compel revision I must at least cease
to support a government that becomes party to the usurpation. And if I
succeed in pushing non-co-operation to the extreme limit, I do compel
the Government to choose between India and the usurpation. I have faith
enough in England to know that at that moment England will expel her
present jaded ministers and put in others who will make a clean sweep of
the terms in consultation with an awakened India, draft terms that will
be honourable to her, to Turkey and acceptable to India. But I hear my
critics say "India has not the strength of purpose and the capacity for
the sacrifice to achieve such a noble end. They are partly right. India
has not these qualities now, because we have not--shall we not evolve
them and infect the nation with them? Is not the attempt worth making?
Is my sacrifice too great to gain such a great purpose?"
CRITICISM OF THE MUSLIM MANIFESTO
The Khilafat representation addressed to the Viceroy and my letter on
the same subject have been severely criticised by the Anglo-Indian
press. _The Times of India_ which generally adopts an impartial attitude
has taken strong exception to certain statements made in the Muslim
manifesto and has devoted a paragraph of its article to an advance
criticism of my suggestion that His Excellency should resign if the
peace terms are not revised.
_The Times of India_ excepts to the submission that the British Empire
may not treat Turkey like a departed enemy. The signatories have, I
think, supplied the best of reasons. They say "We respectfully submit
that in the treatment of Turkey the British Government are bound to
respect Indian Muslim sentiment in so far as it is neither unjust nor
unreasonable." If the seven crore Mussulmans are partners in the Empire,
I submit that their wish must be held to be all sufficient for
refraining from punishing Turkey. It is beside the point to quote what
Turkey did during the war. It has suffered for it. _The Times_ inquires
wherein Turkey has been treated worse than the other Powers. I thought
that the fact was self-evident. Neither Germany nor Austria and Hungary
has been treated in the same way that Turkey has been. The whole of the
Empire has been reduced to the retention of a portion of its capital, as
it were, to mock the Sultan and that too has been done under terms so
humiliating that no self-respecting person much less a reigning
sovereign can possibly accept.
_The Times_ has endeavoured to make capital out of the fact that the
representation does not examine the reason for Turkey not joining the
Allies. Well there was no mystery about it. The fact of Russia being one
of the Allies was enough to warn Turkey against joining them. With
Russia knocking at the gate at the time of the war it was not an easy
matter for Turkey to join the Allies. But Turkey had cause to suspect
Great Britain herself. She knew that England had done no friendly turn
to her during the Bulgarian War. She was hardly well served at the time
of the war with Italy. It was still no doubt a bad choice. With the
Musssalmans of India awakened and ready to support her, her statesmen
might have relied upon Britain not being allowed to damage Turkey if she
had remained with the Allies. But this is all wisdom after event. Turkey
made a bad choice and she was punished for it. To humiliate her now is
to ignore the Indian Mussulman sentiment. Britain may not do it and
retain the loyalty of the awakened Mussulmans of India.
For "The Times" to say that the peace terms strictly follow the
principle of self-determination is to throw dust in the eyes of its
readers. Is it the principle of self-determination that has caused the
cessation of Adrianople and Thrace to Greece? By what principle of
self-determination has Smyrna been handed to Greece? Have the
inhabitants of Thrace and Smyrna asked for Grecian tutelege?
I decline to believe that the Arabs like the disposition that has been
made of them. Who is the King of Hedjaj and who is Emir Feisul? Have the
Arabs elected these kings and chiefs? Do the Arabs like the Mandate
being taken by England? By the time the whole thing is finished, the
very name self-determination will stink in one's nostrils. Already signs
are not wanting to show that the Arabs, the Thracians and the Smyrnans
are resenting their disposal. They may not like Turkish rule but they
like the present arrangement less. They could have made their own
honourable terms with Turkey but these self-determining people will now
be held down by the 'matchless might' of the allied _i.e._, British
forces. Britain had the straight course open to her of keeping the
Turkish Empire intact and taking sufficient guarantees for good
government. But her Prime Minister chose the crooked course of secret
treaties, duplicity and hypocritical subterfuges.
There is still a way out. Let her treat India as a real partner. Let her
call the true representatives of the Mussalmans. Let them go to Arabia
and the other parts of the Turkish Empire and let her devise a scheme
that would not humiliate Turkey, that would satisfy the just Muslim
sentiment and that will secure honest self-determination for the races
composing that Empire. If it was Canada, Australia or South Africa that
had to be placated, Mr. Lloyd George would not have dared to ignore
them. They have the power to secede. India has not. Let him no more
insult India by calling her a partner, if her feelings count for naught.
I invite _The Times of India_ to reconsider its position and join an
honourable agitation in which a high-souled people are seeking nothing
but justice.
I do with all deference still suggest that the least that Lord
Chelmsford can do is to resign if the sacred feelings of India's sons
are not to be consulted and respected by the Ministers. _The Times_ is
over-taxing the constitution when it suggests that as a constitutional
Viceroy it is not open to Lord Chelmsford to go against the decision of
his Majesty's Ministers. It is certainly not open to a Viceroy to retain
office and oppose ministerial decisions. But the constitution does allow
a Viceroy to resign his high office when he is called upon to carry out
decisions that are immoral as the peace terms are or like these terms
are calculated to stir to their very depth the feelings of those whose
affair he is administering for the time being.
THE MAHOMEDAN DECISION
The Khilafat meeting at Allahabad has unanimously reaffirmed the
principle of non-co-operation and appointed an executive committee to
lay down and enforce a detailed programme. This meeting was preceded by
a joint Hindu-Mahomedan meeting at which Hindu leaders were invited to
give their views. Mrs. Beasant, the Hon'ble Pandit Malaviyuji, the
Hon'ble Dr. Sapru Motilal Nehru Chintamani and others were present at
the meeting. It was a wise step on the part of the Khilafat Committee to
invite Hindus representing all shades of thought to give them the
benefit of their advice. Mrs. Besant and Dr. Sapru strongly dissuaded
the Mahomedans present from the policy of non-co-operation. The other
Hindu speakers made non-committal speeches. Whilst the other Hindu
speakers approved of the principle of non-co-operation in theory, they
saw many practical difficulties and they feared also complications
arising from Mahomedans welcoming an Afghan invasion of India. The
Mahomedan speakers gave the fullest and frankest assurances that they
would fight to a man any invader who wanted to conquer India, but were
equally frank in asserting that any invasion from without undertaken
with a view to uphold the prestige of Islam and to vindicate justice
would have their full sympathy if not their actual support. It is easy
enough to understand and justify the Hindu caution. It is difficult to
resist Mahomedan position. In my opinion, the best way to prevent India
from becoming the battle ground between the forces of Islam and those of
the English is for Hindus to make non-co-operation a complete and
immediate success, and I have little doubt that if the Mahomedans remain
true to their declared intention and are able to exercise
self-restraint, and make sacrifices the Hindus will "play the game" and
join them in the campaign of non-co-operation. I feel equally certain
that the Hindus will not assist Mahomedans in promoting or bringing
about an armed conflict between the British Government and their allies,
and Afghanistan. British forces are too well organised to admit of any
successful invasion of the Indian frontier. The only way, therefore, the
Mahomedans can carry on an effective struggle on behalf of the honour of
Islam is to take up non-co-operation in real earnest. It will not only
be completely effective if it is adopted by the people on an extensive
scale, but it will also provide full scope for individual conscience. If
I cannot bear an injustice done by an individual or a corporation, and
if I am directly or indirectly instrumental in upholding that individual
or corporation, I must answer for it before my Maker, but I have done
all it is humanly possible for me to do consistently with the moral code
that refuses to injure even the wrong-doer, if I cease to support the
injustice in the manner described above. In applying therefore such a
great force there should be no haste, there should be no temper shown.
Non-co-operation must be and remain absolutely a voluntary effort. The
whole thing then depends upon Mahomedans themselves. If they will but
help themselves Hindu help will come and the Government, great and
mighty though it is, will have to bend before this irresistible force.
No Government can possibly withstand the bloodless opposition of a whole
nation.
MR. ANDREWS' DIFFICULTY
Mr. Andrews whose love for India is equalled only by his love for
England and whose mission in life is to serve God, i.e., humanity
through India, has contributed remarkable articles to the 'Bombay
Chronicle' on the Khilafat movement. He has not spared England, France
or Italy. He has shown how Turkey has been most unjustly dealt with and
how the Prime Minister's pledge has been broken. He has devoted the last
article to an examination of Mr. Mahomed Ali's letter to the Sultan and
has come to the conclusion that Mr. Mahomed Ali's statement of claim is
at variance with the claim set forth in the latest Khilafat
representation to the Viceroy which he wholly approves.
Mr. Andrews and I have discussed the question as fully as it was
possible. He asked me publicly to define my own position more fully than
I have done. His sole object in inviting discussion is to give strength
to a cause which he holds as intrinsically just, and to gather round it
the best opinion of Europe so that the allied powers and especially
England may for very shame be obliged to revise the terms.
I gladly respond to Mr. Andrew's invitation. I should clear the ground
by stating that I reject any religious doctrine that does not appeal to
reason and is in conflict with morality. I tolerate unreasonable
religious sentiment when it is not immoral. I hold the Khilafat claim to
be both just and reasonable and therefore it derives greater force
because it has behind it the religious sentiment of the Mussalman world.
In my opinion Mr. Mahomed Ali's statement is unexceptionable. It is no
doubt clothed in diplomatic language. But I am not prepared to quarrel
with the language so long as it is sound in substance.
Mr. Andrews considers that Mr. Mahomed Ali's language goes to show that
he would resist Armenian independence against the Armenians and the
Arabian against the Arabs. I attach no such meaning to it. What he, the
whole of Mussalmans and therefore I think also the Hindus resist is the
shameless attempt of England and the other Powers under cover of
self-determination to emasculate and dismember Turkey. If I understand
the spirit of Islam properly, it is essentially republican in the truest
sense of the term. Therefore if Armenia or Arabia desired independence
of Turkey they should have it. In the case of Arabia, complete Arabian
independence would mean transference of the Khilafat to an Arab
chieftain. Arabia in that sense is a Mussulman trust, not purely
Arabian. And the Arabs without ceasing to be Mussulman, could not hold
Arabia against Muslim opinion. The Khalifa must be the custodian of the
Holy places and therefore also the routes to them. He must be able to
defend them against the whole world. And if an Arab chief arose who
could better satisfy that test than the Sultan of Turkey, I have no
doubt that he would be recognised as the Khalifa.
I have thus discussed the question academically. The fact is that
neither the Mussulmans nor the Hindus believe in the English Ministerial
word. They do not believe that the Arabs or the Armenians want complete
independence of Turkey. That they want self-government is beyond doubt.
Nobody disputes that claim. But nobody has ever ascertained that either
the Arabs or the Armenians desire to do away with all connection, even
nominal, with Turkey.
The solution of the question lies not in our academic discussion of the
ideal position, it lies in an honest appointment of a mixed commission
of absolutely independent Indian Mussulmans and Hindus and independent
Europeans to investigate the real wish of the Armenians and the Arabs
and then to come to a _modus vivendi_ where by the claims of the
nationality and those of Islam may be adjusted and satisfied.
It is common knowledge that Smyrna and Thrace including Adrianople have
been dishonestly taken away from Turkey and that mandates have been
unscrupulously established in Syria and Mesopotamia and a British
nominee has been set up in Hedjaj under the protection of British guns.
This is a position that is intolerable and unjust. Apart therefore from
the questions of Armenia and Arabia, the dishonesty and hypocrisy that
pollute the peace terms require to be instantaneously removed. It paves
the way to an equitable solution of the question of Armenian and Arabian
independence which in theory no one denies and which in practice may be
easily guaranteed if only the wishes of the people concerned could with
any degree of certainty be ascertained.
THE KHILAFAT AGITATION
A friend who has been listening to my speeches once asked me whether I
did not come under the sedition section of the Indian Penal Code. Though
I had not fully considered it, I told him that very probably I did and
that I could not plead 'not guilty' if I was charged under it. For I
must admit that I can pretend to no 'affection' for the present
Government.
And my speeches are intended to create 'dis-affection' such that the
people might consider it a shame to assist or co-operate with a
Government that had forfeited all title to confidence, respect or
support.
I draw no distinction between the Imperial and the Indian Government.
The latter has accepted, on the Khilafat, the policy imposed upon it by
the former. And in the Punjab case the former has endorsed the policy of
terrorism and emasculation of a brave people initiated by the latter.
British ministers have broken their pledged word and wantonly wounded
the feelings of the seventy million Mussulmans of India. Innocent men
and women were insulted by the insolent officers of the Punjab
Government. Their wrongs not only remain unrighted but the very officers
who so cruelly subjected them to barbarous humiliation retain office
under the Government.
When at Amritsar last year I pleaded with all the earnestness I could
command for co-operation with the Government and for response to the
wishes expressed in the Royal Proclamation. I did so because I honestly
believed that, a new era was about to begin, and that the old spirit of
fear, distrust and consequent terrorism was about to give place to the
new spirit of respect, trust and goodwill. I sincerely believed that the
Mussulman sentiment would be placated and that the officers that had
misbehaved during the Martial Law regime in the Punjab would be at least
dismissed and the people would be otherwise made to feel that a
Government that had always been found quick (and mighty) to punish
popular excesses would not fail to punish its agents' misdeeds. But to
my amazement and dismay I have discovered that the present
representatives of the Empire have become dishonest and unscrupulous.
They have no real regard for the wishes of the people of India and they
count Indian honour as of little consequence.
I can no longer retain affection for a Government so evilly manned as it
is now-a-days. And for me, it is humiliating to retain my freedom and be
witness to the continuing wrong. Mr. Montagu however is certainly right
in threatening me with deprivation of my liberty if I persist in
endangering the existence of the Government. For that must be the result
if my activity bears fruit. My only regret is that inasmuch as Mr.
Montagu admits my past services, he might have perceived that there must
be something exceptionally bad in the Government if a well-wisher like
me could no longer give his affection to it. It was simpler to insist on
justice being done to the Mussalmans and to the Punjab than to threaten
me with punishment so that the injustice might be perpetuated. Indeed I
fully expect it will be found that even in promoting disaffection
towards an unjust Government I had rendered greater services to the
Empire than I am already credited with.
At the present moment, however, the duty of those who approve my
activity is clear. They ought on no account to resent the deprivation of
my liberty, should the Government of India deem it to be their duty to
take it away. A citizen has no right to resist such restriction imposed
in accordance with the laws of the State to which he belongs. Much less
have those who sympathise with him. In my case there can be no question
of sympathy. For I deliberately oppose the Government to the extent of
trying to put its very existence in jeopardy. For my supporters,
therefore, it must be a moment of joy when I am imprisoned. It means the
beginning of success if only the supporters continue the policy for
which I stand. If the Government arrest me, they would do so in order to
stop the progress of Non-co-operation which I preach. It follows that if
Non-co-operation continues with unabated vigour, even after my arrest,
the Government must imprison others or grant the people's wish in order
to gain their co-operation. Any eruption of violence on the part of the
people even under provocation would end in disaster. Whether therefore
it is I or any one else who is arrested during the campaign, the first
condition of success is that there must be no resentment shown against
it. We cannot imperil the very existence of a Government and quarrel
with its attempt to save itself by punishing those who place it in
danger.
HIJARAT AND ITS MEANING
India is a continent. Its articulate thousands know what its
inarticulate millions are doing or thinking. The Government and the
educated Indians may think that the Khilafat movement is merely a
passing phase. The millions of Mussalmans think otherwise. The flight of
the Mussalmans is growing apace. The newspapers contain paragraphs in
out of the way corners informing the readers that a special train
containing a barrister with sixty women, forty children including twenty
sucklings, all told 765, have left for Afghanistan. They were cheered
_en route_. They were presented with cash, edibles and other things, and
were joined by more Muhajarins on the way. No fanatical preaching by
Shaukatali can make people break up and leave their homes for an unknown
land. There must be an abiding faith in them. That it is better for them
to leave a State which has no regard for their religious sentiment and
face a beggar's life than to remain in it even though it may be in a
princely manner. Nothing but pride of power can blind the Government of
India to the scene that is being enacted before it.
But there is yet another side to the movement. Here are the facts as
stated 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 the
duty of the military not to attempt to pull out the ticketless
Mahajarins for the sake of a few annas. But they actually attempted
force. 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 prestige
been enhanced by the episode? Why have not the Government put tactful
officers in charge at the frontier, whilst a great religious emigration
is in progress? The action of the military will pass from tongue to
tongue throughout India and the Mussalman world around, will not doubt
be unconsciously and even consciously exaggerated in the passage and the
feeling bitter as it already is will grow in bitterness. The
_Communique_ says that the Government are making further inquiry. Let us
hope that it will be full and that better arrangements will be made to
prevent a repetition of what appears to have been a thoughtless act on
the part of the military.
And may I draw the attention of those who are opposing non-co-operation
that unless they find out a substitute they should either join the
non-co-operation movement or prepare to face a disorganised subterranean
upheaval whose effect no one can foresee and whose spread it would be
impossible to check or regulate?
III. THE PUNJAB WRONGS
POLITICAL FREEMASONRY
Freemasonry is a secret brotherhood which has more by its secret and
iron rules than by its service to humanity obtained a hold upon some of
the best minds. Similarly there seems to be some secret code of conduct
governing the official class in India before which the flower of the
great British nation fall prostrate and unconsciously become instruments
of injustice which as private individuals they would be ashamed of
perpetrating. In no other way is it possible for one to understand the
majority report of the Hunter Committee, the despatch of the Government
of India, and the reply thereto of the Secretary of State for India. In
spite of the energetic protests of a section of the Press to the
personnel of the committee, it might be said that on the whole the
public were prepared to trust it especially as it contained three Indian
members who could fairly be claimed to be independent. The first rude
shock to this confidence was delivered by the refusal of Lord Hunter's
Committee to accept the very moderate and reasonable demand of the
Congress Committee that the imprisoned Punjab leaders might be allowed
to appear before it to instruct Counsel. Any doubt that might have been
left in the mind of any person has been dispelled by the report of the
majority of that committee. The result has justified the attitude of the
Congress Committee. The evidence collected by it shows what lord
Hunter's Committee purposely denied itself.
The minority report stands out like an oasis in a desert. The Indian
members deserve the congratulation of their countrymen for having dared
to do their duty in the face of heavy odds. I wish that they had refused
to associate themselves even in a modified manner with the condemnation
of the civil disobedience form of Satyagraha. The defiant spirit of the
Delhi mob on the 30th March 1919 can hardly be used for condemning a
great spiritual movement which is admittedly and manifestly intended to
restrain the violent tendencies of mobs and to replace criminal
lawlessness by civil disobedience of authority, when it has forfeited
all title to respect. On the 30th March civil disobedience had not even
been started. Almost every great popular demonstration has been hitherto
attended all the world over by a certain amount of lawlessness. The
demonstration of 30th March and 6th April could have been held under any
other aegis us under that of Satyagrah. I hold that without the advent
of the spirit of civility and orderliness the disobedience would have
taken a much more violent form than it did even at Delhi. It was only
the wonderfully quick acceptance by the people of the principle of
Satyagrah that effectively checked the spread of violence throughout the
length and breadth of India. And even to-day it is not the memory of the
black barbarity of General Dyer that is keeping the undoubted
restlessness among the people from breaking forth into violence. The
hold that Satyagrah has gained on the people--it may be even against
their will--is curbing the forces of disorder and violence. But I must
not detain the reader on a defence of Satyagrah against unjust attacks.
If it has gained a foothold in India, it will survive much fiercer
attacks than the one made by the majority of the Hunter Committee and
somewhat supported by the minority. Had the majority report been
defective only in this direction and correct in every other there would
have been nothing but praise for it. After all Satyagrah is a new
experiment in political field. And a hasty attributing to it of any
popular disorder would have been pardonable.
The universally pronounced adverse judgment upon the report and the
despatches rests upon far more painful revelations. Look at the
manifestly laboured defence of every official act of inhumanity except
where condemnation could not be avoided through the impudent admissions
made by the actors themselves; look at the special pleading introduced
to defend General Dyer even against himself; look at the vain
glorification of Sir Michael O'Dwyer although it was his spirit that
actuated every act of criminality on the part of the subordinates; look
at the deliberate refusal to examine his wild career before the events
of April. His acts were an open book of which the committee ought to
have taken judicial notices. Instead of accepting everything that the
officials had to say, the Committee's obvious duty was to tax itself to
find out the real cause of the disorders. It ought to have gone out of
its way to search out the inwardness of the events. Instead of patiently
going behind the hard crust of official documents, the Committee allowed
itself to be guided with criminal laziness by mere official evidence.
The report and the despatches, in my humble opinion, constitute an
attempt to condone official lawlessness. The cautious and half-hearted
condemnation pronounced upon General Dyer's massacre and the notorious
crawling order only deepens the disappointment of the reader as he goes
through page after page of thinly disguised official whitewash. I need,
however, scarcely attempt any elaborate examination of the report or the
despatches which have been so justly censured by the whole national
press whether of the moderate or the extremist hue. The point to
consider is how to break down this secret--be the secrecy over so
unconscious--conspiracy to uphold official iniquity. A scandal of this
magnitude cannot be tolerated by the nation, if it is to preserve its
self-respect and become a free partner in the Empire. The All-India
Congress Committee has resolved upon convening a special session of the
Congress for the purpose of considering, among other things, the
situation arising from the report. In my opinion the time has arrived
when we must cease to rely upon mere petition to Parliament for
effective action. Petitions will have value, when the nation has behind
it the power to enforce its will. What power then have we? When we are
firmly of opinion that grave wrong has been done us and when after an
appeal to the highest authority we fail to secure redress, there must be
some power available to us for undoing the wrong. It is true that in the
vast majority of cases it is the duty of a subject to submit to wrongs
on failure of the usual procedure, so long as they do not affect his
vital being. But every nation and every individual has the right and it
is their duty, to rise against an intolerable wrong. I do not believe in
armed risings. They are a remedy worse than the disease sought to be
cured. They are a token of the spirit of revenge and impatience and
anger. The method of violence cannot do good in the long run. Witness
the effect of the armed rising of the allied powers against Germany.
Have they not become even like the Germans, as the latter have been
depicted to us by them?
We have a better method. Unlike that of violence it certainly involves
the exercise of restraint and patience: but it requires also
resoluteness of will. This method is to refuse to be party to the wrong.
No tyrant has ever yet succeeded in his purpose without carrying the
victim with him, it may be, as it often is, by force. Most people choose
rather to yield to the will of the tyrant than to suffer for the
consequences of resistance. Hence does terrorism form part of the
stock-in-trade of the tyrant. But we have instances in history where
terrorism has failed to impose the terrorist's will upon his victim.
India has the choice before her now. If then the acts of the Punjab
Government be an insufferable wrong, if the report of Lord Hunter's
Committee and the two despatches be a greater wrong by reason of their
grievous condonation of those acts, it is clear that we must refuse to
submit to this official violence. Appeal the Parliament by all means, if
necessary, but if the Parliament fails us and if we are worthy to call
ourselves a nation, we must refuse to uphold the Government by
withdrawing co-operation from it.
THE DUTY OF THE PUNJABEE
The Allahabad _Leader_ deserves to be congratulated for publishing the
correspondence on Mr. Bosworth Smith who was one of the Martial Law
officers against whom the complaints about persistent and continuous
ill-treatment were among the bitterest. It appears from the
correspondence that Mr. Bosworth Smith has received promotion instead of
dismissal. Sometime before Martial Law Mr. Smith appears to have been
degraded. "He has since been restored," says the _Leader_ correspondent,
"to his position of a Deputy Commissioner of the second grade from which
he was degraded and also been invested with power under section 30 of
the Criminal Procedure Code. Since his arrival, the poor Indian
population of the town of Amhala Cantonment has been living under a
regime of horror and tyranny." The correspondent adds: "I use both these
words deliberately for conveying precisely what they mean." I cull a few
passage from this illuminating letter to illustrate the meaning of
horror and tyranny. "In private complaints he never takes the statement
of the complainant. It is taken down by the reader when the court rises
and got signed by the magistrate the following day. Whether the report
received (upon such complaints) is favourable to the complainant or
unfavourable to him, it is never ready by the magistrate, and
complaints are dismissed without proper trial. This is the fate of
private complaints. Now as regards police chellans. Pleaders for the
accused are not allowed to interview under trial prisoners in police
custody. They are not allowed to cross-examine prosecution witnesses....
Prosecution witnesses are examined with leading questions.... Thus a
whole prosecution story is put into the mouth of police, witnesses for
the defence though called in are not allowed to be examined by the
defence counsel.... The accused is silenced if he picks up courage to
say anything in defence.... Any Cantonment servant can write down the
name of any citizen of the Cantonment on a chit of paper and ask him to
appear the next day in court. This is a summons.... If any one does not
appear in court who is thus ordered, criminal warrants of arrest are
issued against him." There is much more of this style in the letter
which is worth producing, but I have given enough to illustrate the
writer's meaning. Let me turn for a while to this official's record
during Martial Law. He is the official who tried people in batches and
convicted them after a farcical trial. Witnesses have deposed to his
having 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 pleaders
of Shokhupura indescribable persecution. Mr. Andrews personally
investigated complaints against this official and came to the conclusion
that no official had behaved worse than Mr. Smith. He gathered the
people of Shokhupura, humiliated them in a variety of ways, called them
'suvarlog,' 'gandi mukkhi.' His evidence before the Hunter Commission
betrays his total disregard for truth and this is the officer who, if
the correspondent in question has given correct facts, has been
promoted. The question however is why, he is at all in Government
service and why he has not been tried for assaulting and abusing
innocent men and women.
I notice a desire for the impeachment of General Dyer and Sir Michael
O'Dwyer. I will not stop to examine whether the course is feasible. I
was sorry to find Mr. Shastriar joining this cry for the prosecution of
General Dyer. If the English people will willingly do so, I would
welcome such prosecution as a sign of their strong disapproval of the
Jallianwalla Bagh atrocity, but I would certainly not spend a single
farthing in a vain pursuit after the conviction of this man. Surely the
public has received sufficient experience of the English mind.
Practically the whole English Press has joined the conspiracy to screen
these offenders against humanity. I would not be party to make heroes of
them by joining the cry for prosecution private or public. If I can only
persuade India to insist upon their complete dismissal, I should be
satisfied. But more than the dismissal, of Sir Michael O'Dwyer and
General Dyer, is necessary the peremptory dismissal, if not a trial, of
Colonel O'Brien, Mr. Bosworth Smith, Rai Shri Ram and others mentioned
in the Congress Sub-Committee's Report. Bad as General Dyer is I
consider Mr. Smith to be infinitely worse and his crimes to be far more
serious than the massacre of Jallianwalla Bugh. General Dyer sincerely
believed that it was a soldierly act to terrorise people by shooting
them. But Mr. Smith was wantonly cruel, vulgar and debased. If all the
facts that have been deposed to against him are true, there is not a
spark of humanity about him. Unlike General Dyer he lacks the courage to
confirm what he has done and he wriggles when challenged. This officer
remains free to inflict himself upon people who have done no wrong to
him, and who is permitted to disgrace the rule he represents for the
time being.
What is the Punjab doing? Is it not the duty of the Punjabis not to rest
until they have secured the dismissal of Mr. Smith and the like? The
Punjab leaders have been discharged in vain if they will not utilise the
liberty they have received, in order to purge the administration of
Messrs. Bosworth Smith and Company. I am sure that if they will only
begin a determined agitation they will have the whole India by their
side. I venture to suggest to them that the best way to qualify for
sending General Dyer to the gallows is to perform the easier and the
more urgent duty of arresting the mischief still continued by the
officials against whom they have assisted in collecting
overwhelming evidence.
GENERAL DYER
The Army Council has found General Dyer guilty of error of judgment and
advised 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 by
no means the worst offender. His brutality is unmistakable. His abject
and unsoldier-like cowardice is apparent in every line of his amazing
defence before the Army Council. 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 inclosure. Such a man is unworthy of
being 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. But the fury that has been spent upon General Dyer is, I
am sure, largely misdirected. No doubt the shooting was 'frightful,' the
loss of innocent life deplorable. But the slow torture, degradation and
emasculation that followed was much worse, more calculated, malicious
and soul-killing, and the actors who performed the deeds deserve greater
condemnation that General Dyer for the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre. The
latter merely destroyed a few bodies but the others tried to kill the
soul of a nation. Who ever talks of Col. Frank Johnson who was by far
the worst offender? He terrorised guiltless Lahore, and by his merciless
orders set the tone to the whole of the Martial Law officers. But what I
am concerned with is not even Col. Johnson. The first business of the
people 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 still
retained in the service. Their guilt is as much proved as that of
General Dyer. We shall have failed in our duty if the condemnation
pronounced upon General Dyer produces a sense of satisfaction and the
obvious duty of purging the administration in the Punjab is neglected.
That task will not be performed by platform rhetoric or resolutions
merely. Stern action is required on out part if we are to make any
headway with ourselves and make any impression upon the officials that
they are not to consider themselves as masters of the people but as
their trusties and servants who cannot hold office if they misbehave
themselves and prove unworthy of the trust reposed in them.
THE PUNJAB SENTENCES
The commissioners appointed by the Congress Punjab Sub Committee have in
their report accused His Excellency the Viceroy of criminal want of
imagination. His Excellency's refusal to commute two death sentences out
of five is a fine illustration of the accusation. The rejection of the
appeal by the Privy Council no more proves the guilt of the condemned
than their innocence would have been proved by quashing the proceedings
before the Martial Law Tribunal. Moreover, these cases clearly come
under the Royal Proclamation in accordance with its interpretation by
the Punjab Government. The murders in Amritsar were not due to any
private quarrel between the murderers and their victims. The offence
grave, though it was, was purely political and committed under
excitement. More than full reparation has been taken for the murders and
arson. In the circumstances commonsense dictates reduction of the death
sentences. The popular belief favours the view that the condemned men
are innocent and have not had a fair trial. The execution has been so
long delayed that hanging at this stage would give a rude shock to
Indian society. Any Viceroy with imagination would have at once
announced commutation of the death sentences--not so Lord Chelmsford. In
his estimation, evidently, the demands of justice will not be satisfied
if at least some of the condemned men are not hanged. Public feeling
with him counts for nothing. We shall still hope that, either the
Viceroy or Mr. Montagu will commute the death sentences.
But if the Government will grievously err, if they carry out the
sentences, the people will equally err if they give way to anger or
grief over the hanging if it has unfortunately to take plane. Before we
become a nation possessing an effective voice in the councils of
nations, we must be prepared to contemplate with equanimity, not a
thousand murders of innocent men and women but many thousands before we
attain a status in the world that, shall not be surpassed by any nation.
We hope therefore that all concerned will take rather than lose heart
and 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. It
is now for the latter to take heart in spite of the unkindest
cut.--Ed. Y.I.]
IV. SWARAJ
SWARAJ IN ONE YEAR
Much laughter has been indulged in at my expense for having told the
Congress audience at Calcutta that if there was sufficient response to
my programme of non-co-operation Swaraj would be attained in one year.
Some have ignored my condition and laughed because of the impossibility
of getting Swaraj anyhow within one year. Others have spelt the 'if' in
capitals and suggested that if 'ifs' were permissible in argument, any
absurdity could be proved to be a possibility. My proposition however is
based on a mathematical calculation. And I venture to say that true
Swaraj is a practical impossibility without due fulfilment of my
conditions. Swaraj means a state such that we can maintain our separate
existence without the presence of the English. If it is to be a
partnership, it must be partnership at will. There can be no Swaraj
without our feeling and being the equals of Englishmen. To-day we feel
that we are dependent upon them for our internal and external security,
for an armed peace between the Hindus and the Mussulmans, for our
education and for the supply of daily wants, nay, even for the
settlement of our religious squabbles. The Rajahs are dependent upon the
British for their powers and the millionaires for their millions. The
British know our helplessness and Sir Thomas Holland cracks jokes quite
legitimately at the expense of non-co-operationists. To get Swaraj then
is to get rid of our helplessness. The problem is no doubt stupendous
even as it is for the fabled lion who having been brought up in the
company of goats found it impossible to feel that he was a lion. As
Tolstoy used to put it, mankind often laboured under hypnotism. Under
its spell continuously we feel the feeling of helplessness. The British
themselves 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 by
slow educative processes. The "Times" suggested that if we boycott the
councils we shall lose the opportunity of a training in Swaraj. I have
no doubt that there are many who believe what the "Times" says. It even
resorts to a falsehood. It audaciously says that Lord Milner's Mission
listened to the Egyptians only when they were ready to lift the boycott
of the Egyptian Council. For me the only training in Swaraj we need is
the ability to defend ourselves against the whole world and to live our
natural life in perfect freedom even though it may be full of defects.
Good Government is no substitute for self-Government. The Afghans have a
bad Government but it is self-Government. I envy them. The Japanese
learnt the art through a sea of blood. And if we to-day had the power to
drive out the English by superior brute force, we would be counted their
superiors, and in spite of our inexperience in debating at the Council
table or in holding executive offices, we would be held fit to govern
ourselves. For brute force is the only test the west has hitherto
recognised. The Germans were defeated not because they were necessarily
in the wrong, but because the allied Powers were found to possess
greater brute strength. In the end therefore India must either learn the
art of war which the British will not teach her or, she must follow her
own way of discipline and self-sacrifice through non-co-operation. It is
as amazing as it is humiliating that less than one hundred-thousand
white men should be able to rule three hundred and fifteen million
Indians. They do so somewhat undoubtedly by force, but more by securing
our co-operation in a thousand ways and making us more and more helpless
and dependent on them as time goes forward. Let us not mistake reformed
councils, more lawcourts and even governorships for real freedom or
power. They are but subtler methods of emasculation. The British cannot
rule us by mere force. And so they resort to all means, honourable and
dishonourable, in order to retain their hold on India. They want India's
billions 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 the
Viceregal Council. Mr. Shustri could not move his resolution on the
Punjab. The Indian victims of Jullianwala received Rs. 1,250, the
English victims of mob-frenzy received lakhs. The officials who were
guilty of crimes against those whose servants they were, were
reprimanded. 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, we
too would perhaps have resorted to the same methods as they are now
employing. Terrorism and deception are weapons not of the strong but of
the weak. The British are weak in numbers we are weak in spite of our
numbers. The result is that each is dragging the other down. It is
common experience that Englishmen lose in character after residence in
India and that Indians lose in courage and manliness by contact with
Englishmen. This process of weakening is good neither for us, two
nations, nor for the world.
But if we Indians take care of ourselves the English and the rest of
the world would take care of themselves. Our contributions to the
world's progress must therefore consist in setting our own house
in order.
Training in arms for the present is out of the question. I go a step
further and believe that India has a better mission for the world. It is
within her to show that she can achieve her destiny by pure
self-sacrifice, i.e., self-purification. This can be done only by
non-co-operation. And non-co-operation is possible only when those who
commenced to co-operate being the process of withdrawal. If we can but
free ourselves from the threefold _maya_ of Government-controlled
schools, Government law-courts and legislative councils, and truly
control our own education regulate our disputes and be indifferent to
their legislation, we are ready to govern ourselves and we are only then
ready to ask the government servants, whether civil or military, to
resign, and the tax-payers to suspend payment of taxes.
And is it such an impracticable proposition to expect parents to
withdraw their children from schools and colleges and establish their
own institutions or to ask lawyers to suspend their practice and devote
their whole time attention to national service against payment where
necessary, of their maintenance, or to ask candidates for councils not
to enter councils and lend their passive or active assistance to the
legislative machinery through which all control is exercised. The
movement of non-co-operation is nothing but an attempt to isolate the
brute force of the British from all the trappings under which it is
hidden and to show that brute force by itself cannot for one single
moment hold India.
But I frankly confess that, until the three conditions mentioned by me
are fulfilled, there is no Swaraj. We may not go on taking our college
degrees, taking thousands of rupees monthly from clients for cases which
can be finished in five minutes and taking the keenest delight in
wasting national time on the council floor and still expect to gain
national self-respect.
The last though not the least important part of the Maya still remains
to be considered. That is Swadeshi. Had we not abandoned Swadeshi, we
need not have been in the present fallen state. If we would get rid of
the economic slavery, we must manufacture our own cloth and at the
present moment only by hand-spinning and hand weaving.
All this means discipline, self-denial, self-sacrifice, organising
ability, confidence and courage. If we show this in one year among the
classes that to-day count, and make public opinion, we certainly gain
Swaraj within one year. If I am told that even we who lead have not
these 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 are
doing. 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 is
altogether an evil and that the people of India are to be taught so to
regard it? He must hold it to be so evil that the wrongs it does
outweigh the benefit it confers, for only so is non-co-operation to be
justified at the bar of conscience or of Christ." My answer is
emphatically in the affirmative. So long as I believed that the sum
total of the energy of the British Empire was good, I clung to it
despite what I used to regard as temporary aberrations. I am not sorry
for having done so. But having my eyes opened, it would be sin for me to
associate myself with the Empire unless it purges itself of its evil
character. I write this with sorrow and I should be pleased if I
discovered that I was in error and that my present attitude was a
reaction. The continuous financial drain, the emasculation of the Punjab
and the betrayal of the Muslim sentiment constitute, in my humble
opinion, a threefold robbery of India. 'The blessings of _pax
Britanica_' I reckon, therefore, to be a curse. We would have at least
remained like the other nations brave men and women, instead of feeling
as we do so utterly helpless, if we had no British Rule imposing on us
an armed peace. 'The blessing' of roads and railways is a return no
self-respecting nation would accept for its degradation. 'The blessing'
of education is proving one of the greatest obstacles in our progress
towards freedom.
A MOVEMENT OF PURIFICATION
The fact is that non-co-operation by reason of its non-violence has
become a religious and purifying movement. It is daily bringing strength
to the nation, showing it its weak spots and the remedy for removing
them. It is a movement of self-reliance. It is the mightiest force for
revolutionising opinion and stimulating thought. It is a movement of
self-imposed suffering and therefore possesses automatic checks against
extravagance or impatience. The capacity of the nation for suffering
regulates its advance towards freedom. It isolates the force of evil by
refraining 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 ponder
over it. I do not know what I should adopt and what I should avoid from
the nations of Europe. but one question comes to my lips immediately. If
civilisation is a disease, and if it has attacked England why has she
been able to take India, and why is she able to retain it?
Editor: Your question is not very difficult to answer, and we shall
presently be able to examine the true nature of Swaraj; for I am aware
that I have still to answer that question. I will, however, take up your
previous question. The English have not taken India; we have given it to
them. They are not in India because of their strength, but because we
keep them. Let us now see whether these positions can be sustained. They
came to our country originally for the purpose of trade. Recall the
Company Bahadur. Who made it Bahadur? They had not the slightest
intention at the time of establishing a kingdom. Who assisted the
Company's officers? Who was tempted at the sight of their silver? Who
bought their goods? History testifies that we did all this. In order to
become rich all at once, we welcomed the Company's officers with open
arms. We assisted them. If I am in the habit of drinking Bhang, and a
seller thereof sells it to me, am I to blame him or myself? By blaming
the seller shall I be able to avoid the habit? And, if a particular
retailer is driven away will not another take his place? A true servant
of India will have to go to the root of the matter. If an excess of food
has caused me indigestion I will certainly not avoid it by blaming
water. He is a true physician who probes the cause of disease and, if
you pose as a physician for the disease of India, you will have to find
out its true cause.
Reader: You are right. Now, I think you will not have to argue much with
me to drive your conclusions home. I am impatient to know your further
views. 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 proceed
further we shall have differences of opinion. Nevertheless, I shall
argue only when you will stop me. We have already seen that the English
merchants were able to get a footing in India because we encouraged
them. When our princes fought among themselves, they sought the
assistance of Company Bahadar. That corporation was versed alike in
commerce and war. It was unhampered by questions of morality. Its object
was to increase its commerce and to make money. It accepted our
assistance, and increased the number of its warehouses. To protect the
latter it employed an army which was utilised by us also. Is it not then
useless to blame the English for what we did at that time? The Hindus
and the Mahomedans were at daggers drawn. This, too, gave the Company
its opportunity, and thus we created the circumstances that gave the
Company its control over India. Hence it is truer to say that we gave
India 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. Some
Englishmen state that they took, and they hold, India by the sword. Both
these statements are wrong. The sword is entirely useless for holding
India. We alone keep them. Napoleon is said to have described the
English as a nation of shop keepers. It is a fitting description. They
hold whatever dominions they have for the sake of their commerce. Their
army and their navy are intended to protect it. When the Transvaal
offered no such attractions, the late Mr. Gladstone discovered that it
was no right for the English to hold it. When it became a paying
proposition, resistance led to war. Mr. Chamberlain soon discovered that
England enjoyed a suzerainty over the Transvaal. It is related that some
one asked the late President Kruger whether there was gold in the moon?
He replied that it was highly unlikely, because, if there were, the
English would have annexed it. Many problems can be solved by
remembering that money is their God. Then it follows that we keep the
English 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 further
strengthen their hold by quarrelling amongst ourselves. If you accept
the above statements, it is proved that the English entered India for
the purposes of trade. They remain in it for the same purpose, and we
help them to do so. Their arms and ammunition are perfectly useless. In
this connection, I remind you that it is the British flag which is
waving in Japan, and not the Japanese. The English have a treaty with
Japan for the sake of their commerce and you will see that, if they can
manage it, their commerce will greatly expand in that country. They
wish to convert the whole word into a vast market for their goods. That
they cannot do so is true, but the blame will not be theirs. They will
leave no stone unturned to reach the goal.
SWARAJ MY IDEAL
The following is a fairly full report of Mr. Gandhi's important speech
at Calcutta on the 13th December 1920:--
The very fact, that so many of you cannot understand Hindi which is
bound to be the National medium of expression throughout Hindustan in
gatherings of Indians belonging to different parts of the land, shows
the depth of the degradation to which we have sunk, and points to the
supreme necessity of the non-co-operation movement which is intended to
lift us out of that condition. This Government has been instrumental in
degrading this great nation in various ways, and it is impossible to be
free from it without co-operation amongst ourselves which is in turn
impossible without a national medium of expression.
But I am not here to day to plead for the medium. I am to plead for the
acceptance by the country of the programme of non-violent, progressive
non-co-operation. Now all the words that I have used here are absolutely
necessary and the two adjectives 'progressive' and 'non-violent' are
integral part of a whole. With me non-violence is part of my religion, a
matter of creed. But with the great number of Mussalmans non-violence is
a policy, with thousand, if not millions of Hindus, it is equally a
matter of policy. But whether it is a creed or a policy, it is utterly
impossible for you to finish the programme for the enfranchisement of
the millions of India, without recognising the necessity and the value
of non-violence. Violence may for a moment avail to secure a certain
measure of success but it could not in the long run achieve any
appreciable result. On the other hand all violence would prove
destructive to the honour and self-respect of the nation. The blue books
issued by the Government of India show that inasmuch as we have used
violence, military expenditure has gone up, not proportionately but in
geometrical progression. The bonds of our slavery have been forged all
the stronger for our having offered violence. And the whole history of
British rule in India is a demonstration of the fact that we have never
been able to offer successful violence. Whilst therefore I say that
rather than have the yoke of a Government that has so emasculated us, I
would welcome violence. I would urge with all the emphasis that I can
command that India will never be able to regain her own by methods
of violence.
Lord Ronaldshay who has done me the honour of reading my booklet on Home
Rule has warned my countrymen against engaging themselves in a struggle
for a Swaraj such as is described in that booklet. Now though I do not
want to withdraw a single word of it, I would say to you on this
occasion that I do not ask India to follow out to-day the methods
prescribed in my booklet. If they could do that they would have Home
Rule not in a year but in a day, and India by realising that ideal wants
to acquire an ascendancy over the rest of the world. But it must remain
a day dream more or less for the time being. What I am doing to-day is
that I am giving the country a pardonable programme not the abolition of
law courts, posts, telegraphs and of railways but for the attainment of
Parliamentary Swarja. I am telling you to do that so long as we do not
isolate ourselves from this Government, we are co-operating with it
through schools, law courts and councils, through service civil and
military and payment of taxes and foreign trade.
The moment this fact is realised and non-co-operation is effected, this
Government must totter to pieces. If I know that the masses were
prepared for the whole programme at once, I would not delay in putting
it at once to work. It is not possible at the present moment, to prevent
the masses from bursting out into wrath against those who come to
execute the law, it is not possible, that the military would lay down
their arms without the slightest violence. If that were possible to-day,
I would propose all the stages of non-co-operation to be worked
simultaneously. But we have not secured that control over the masses, we
have uselessly frittered away precious years of the nation's life in
mastering a language which we need least for winning our liberty; we
have frittered away all those years in learning liberty from Milton and
Shakespeare, in deriving inspiration from the pages of Mill, whilst
liberty could be learnt at our doors. We have thus succeeded in
isolating ourselves from the masses: we have been westernised. We have
failed these 35 years to utilise our education in order to permeate the
masses. We have sat upon the pedestal and from there delivered harangues
to them in a language they do not understand and we see to-day that we
are unable to conduct large gatherings in a disciplined manner. And
discipline is the essence of success. Here is therefore one reason why I
have introduced the word 'progressive' in the non-co-operation
Resolution. Without any impertinence I may say that I understand the
mass mind better than any one amongst the educated Indians. I contend
that the masses are not ready for suspension of payment of taxes. They
have not yet learnt sufficient self-control. If I was sure of
non-violence on their part I would ask them to suspend payment to-day
and not waste a single moment of the nations time. With me the liberty
of India has become a passion. Liberty of Islam is as dear to me. I
would not therefore delay a moment if I found that the whole of the
programme could be enforced at once.
It grieves me to miss the faces of dear and revered leaders in this
assembly. We miss here the trumpet voice of Surendranath Banorji, who
has rendered inestimable service to the country. And though we stand as
poles asunder to-day, though we may have sharp differences with him, we
must express them with becoming restraint. I do not ask you to give up a
single iota of principle. I urge non-violence in language and in deed.
If non-violence is essential in our dealings with Government, it is more
essential in our dealings with our leaders. And it grieves me deeply to
hear of recent instances of violence reported to have been used in East
Bongal against our own people. I was pained to hear that the ears of a
man who had voted at the recent elections had been cut, and night soil
had 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 not
succeed unless we create an atmosphere of perfect freedom, unless we
prize our opponents liberty as much as our own. The liberty of faith,
conscience, thought and action which we claim for ourselves must be
conceded equally to others. Non co-operation is a process of
purification and we must continually try to touch the hearts of those
who differ from us, their minds, and their emotions, but never their
bodies. Discipline and restraint are the cardinal principles of our
conduct and I warn you against any sort of tyrannical social ostracism.
I was deeply grieved therefore to hear of the insult offered to a dead
body in Delhi and feel that if it was the action of non-co-operators
they have disgraced themselves and their creed. I repeat we cannot
deliver our land through violence.
It was not a joke when I said on the congress platform that Swaraj could
be established in one year if there was sufficient response from the
nation. 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 the
Bhagwad Gita and the Koran, we would finish the programme in the
remaining nine months and deliver Islam the Punjab and India.
I have proposed a limited programme workable within one year, having a
special regard to the educated classes. We seem to be labouring under
the illusion that we cannot possibly live without Councils, law courts
and schools provided by the Government. The moment we are disillusioned
we have Swaraj. It is demoralising both for Government and the governed
that a hundred thousand pilgrims should dictate terms to a nation
composed of three hundred millions. And how is it they can thus dictate
terms. It is because we have been divided and they have ruled. I have
never forgotten Humes' frank confession that the British Government was
sustained by the policy of "Divide and Rule." Therefore it is that I
have laid stress upon Hindu Muslim Unity as one of the important
essentials for the success of Non-co-operation. But, it should be no lip
unity, nor bunia unity it should be a unity broad based on a recognition
of the heart. If we want to save Hinduism, I say for Gods sake, do not
seek to bargain with the Mussalmans. I have been going about with
Maulana Shaukat Ali all these months, but I have not so much as
whispered anything about the protection of the cow. My alliance with the
Ali Brothers is one of honour. I feel that I am on my honour, the whole
of Hinduism is on its honour, and if it will not be found wanting, it
will do its duty towards the Mussalmans of India. Any bargaining would
be degrading to us. Light brings light not darkness, and nobility done
with a noble purpose will be twice rewarded. It will be God alone who
can protect the cow. Ask me not to-day--'what about the cow,' ask me
after Islam is vindicated through India. Ask the Rajas what they do to
entertain their English guests. Do they not provide beef and champagne
for their guests. Persuade them first to stop cow killing and then think
of bargaining with Mussalmans. And how are we Hindus behaving ourselves
towards the cow and her progeny! Do we treat her as our religion
requires us? Not till we have set our own house in order and saved the
cow from the Englishmen have we the right to plead on her behalf with
the Mussalmans. And the best way of saving the cow from them is to give
them unconditional help in their hour of trouble.
Similarly what do we owe the Punjab? The whole of India was made to
crawl on her belly in as much as a single Punjabi was made to crawl in
that dirty lane in Amritsar, the whole womanhood of India was unveiled
in as much as the innocent woman of Manianwalla were unveiled by an
insolent office; and Indian childhood was dishonoured in that, that
school children of tender age were made to walk four times a day to
stated places within the martial area in the Punjab and to salute the
Union Jack, through the effect of which order two children, seven years
old died of sunstroke having been made to wait in the noonday sun. In my
opinion it is a sin to attend the schools and colleges conducted under
the aegis of this Government so long as it has not purged itself of
these crimes by proper repentance. We may not with any sense of
self-respect plead before the courts of the Government when we remember
that it was through the Punjab Courts that innocent men were sentenced
to be imprisoned and hanged. We become participators in the crime of the
Government by voluntarily helping it or being helped by it.
The women of India have intuitively understood the spiritual nature of
the struggle. Thousands have attended to listen to the message of
non-violent non-co-operation and have given me their precious ornaments
for the purpose of advancing the cause of Swaraj. Is it any wonder if I
believe the possibility of gaining Swaraj within a year after all these
wonderful demonstrations? I would be guilty of want of faith in God if I
under-rated the significance of the response from the women of India. I
hope that the students will do their duty. The country certainly expects
the lawyers who have hitherto led public agitation to recognise the new
awakening.
I have used strong language but I have done so with the greatest
deliberation, I am not actuated by any feeling of revenge. I do not
consider Englishmen as my enemy. I recognise the worth of many. I enjoy
the privilege of having many English friends, but I am a determined
enemy of the English rule as is conducted at present and if the
power--tapasya--of one man could destroy it, I would certainly destroy
it, if it could not be mended. An Empire that stands for injustice and
breach of faith does not deserve to stand if its custodians will not
repent and non-co-operation has been devised in order to enable the
nation to compel justice.
I hope that Bengal will take her proper place in this movement of
self-purification. Bengal began Swadeshi and national education when the
rest of India was sleeping. I hope that Bengal will come to the front
in this movement for gaining Swaraj and gaining justice for the Khilafat
and the Punjab through purification and self-sacrifice.
ON THE WRONG TRACK
Lord Ronaldshay has been doing me the favour of reading my booklet on
Indian Home Rule which is a translation of Hind Swaraj. His Lordship
told his audience that if Swaraj meant what I had described it to be in
the booklet, the Bengalis would have none of it. I am sorry that Swaraj
of the Congress resolution does not mean the Swaraj depicted in the
booklet; Swaraj according to the Congress means Swaraj that the people
of 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 people
with the fullest power over the finance, the police, the military, the
navy, 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 practically
impossible the repetition of the Khilafat and the Punjab wrongs, and
will enable the nation to do good or evil as it chooses, and not he
'good' at the dictation of an irresponsible, insolent, and godless
bureaucracy. Under that Swaraj the nation will have the power to impose
a heavy protective tariff on such foreign goods as are capable of being
manufactured in India, as also the power to refuse to send a single
soldier outside India for the purpose of enslaving the surrounding or
remote nationalities. The Swaraj that I dream of will be a possibility
only, 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 certainly
recommend it to the reader. Government over self is the truest Swaraj,
it is synonymous with _moksha_ or salvation, and I have seen nothing to
alter the view that doctors, lawyers, and railways are no help, and are
often a hindrance, to the one thing worth striving after. But I know
that association, a satanic activity, such as the Government is engaged
in, makes even an effort for such freedom a practical impossibility. I
cannot tender allegiance to God and Satan at the same time.
* * * * *
The surest sign of the satanic nature of the present system is that even
a nobleman of the type of Lord Ronaldshay is obliged to put us off the
track. He will not deal with the one thing needful. Why is he silent
about the Punjab? Why does he evade the Khilafat? Can ointments soothe
a patient who is suffering from corroding consumption? Does his lordship
not see that it is not the inadequacy of the reforms that has set India
aflame but that it is the infliction of the two wrongs and the wicked
attempt to make us forget them? Does he not see that a complete change
of heart is required before reconciliation?
* * * * *
But it has become the fashion nowadays to ascribe hatred to
non-co-operationism. And I regret to find that even Col. Wedgewood has
fallen into the trap. I make bold to say that the only way to remove
hatred is to give it disciplined vent. No man can--I cannot--perform the
impossible task of removing hatred so long as contempt and despise for
the feelings of India are sedulously nursed. It is a mockery to ask
India not to hate when in the same breath India's most sacred feelings
are contemptuously brushed aside. India feels weak and helpless and so
expresses her helplessness by hating the tyrant who despises her and
makes her crawl on the belly, lifts the veils of her innocent women and
compels her tender children to acknowledge his power by saluting his
flag four times a day. The gospel of Non-co-operation addresses itself
to the task of making the people strong and self-reliant. It is an
attempt to transform hatred into pity. A strong and self-reliant India
will cease to hate Bosworth Smiths and Frank Johnsons, for she will have
the power to punish them and therefore the power also to pity and
forgive them. To-day she can neither punish nor forgive, and therefore
helplessly nurses hatred. If the Mussalmans were strong, they would not
hate the English but would fight and wrest from them the dearest
possessions of Islam. I know that the Ali Brothers who live only for the
honour and the prestige of Islam, and are prepared any moment to die for
it, will to-day make friends with the latter Englishmen, if they were to
do 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 the
English 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 a
strength to the world as an Indian weak and helpless is a curse to
mankind. Indian soldiers have involuntarily helped to destroy Turkey and
are now destroying the flower of the Arabian nation. I cannot recall a
single campaign in which the Indian soldier has been employed by the
British Government for the good of mankind. And yet, (Oh! the shame of
it!) Indian Maharajas are never tired of priding themselves on the loyal
help they have rendered the English! Could degradation sink any lower?
THE CONGRESS CONSTITUTION
The belated report of the Congress Constitution Committee has now been
published for general information and opinion has been invited from all
public bodies in order to assist the deliberations of the All India
Congress Committee. It is a pity that, small though the Constitution
Committee was, all the members never met at any one time in spite of
efforts, to have a meeting of them all. It is perhaps no body's fault
that all the members could not meet. At the same time the draft report
has passed through the searching examination of all but one member and
the report represents the mature deliberations of four out of the five
members. It must be stated at the same time that it does not pretend to
be the unanimous opinion of the members. Rather than present a
dissenting minute, a workable scheme has been brought out leaving each
member free to press his own views on to several matters in which they
are not quite unanimous. The most important part of the constitution,
however, is the alteration of the creed. So far as I am aware there is
no fundamental difference of opinion between the members. In my opinion
the altered creed represents the exact feeling of the country at the
present moment.
I know that the proposed alteration has been subjected to hostile
criticism in several newspapers of note. But the extraordinary situation
that faces the country is that popular opinion is far in advance of
several newspapers which have hitherto commanded influence and have
undoubtedly moulded public opinion. The fact is that the formation of
opinion to-day is by no means confined to the educated classes, but the
masses have taken it upon themselves not only to formulate opinion but
to 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 mistake
to suppose that this awakening amongst the masses is due either to the
activity of the Ali Brothers or myself. For the time being we have the
ear of the masses because we voice their sentiments. The masses are by
no means so foolish or unintelligent as we sometimes imagine. They often
perceive things with their intuition, which we ourselves fail to see
with our intellect. But whilst the masses know what they want, they
often do not know how to express their wants and, less often, how to get
what they want. Herein comes the use of leadership, and disastrous
results can easily follow a bad, hasty, or what is worse, selfish lead.
The first part of the proposed creed expresses the present desire of
the nation, and the second shows the way that desire can be fulfilled.
In my humble opinion the Congress creed with the proposed alteration is
but an extension of the original. And so long as no break with the
British connection is attempted, it is strictly within even the existing
article that defines the Congress creed. The extension lies in the
contemplated possibility of a break with the British connection. In my
humble opinion, if India is to make unhampered progress, we must make it
clear to the British people that whilst we desire to retain the British
connection, if we can rise to our full height with it we are determined
to dispense with, and even to get rid of that connection, if that is
necessary for full national development. I hold that it is not only
derogatory to national dignity but it actually impedes national progress
superstitiously to believe that our progress towards our goal is
impossible without British connection. It is this superstition which
makes some of the best of us tolerate the Punjab wrong and the Khilafat
insult. This blind adherence to that connection makes us feel helpless.
The proposed alteration in the creed enables us to rid ourselves of our
helpless condition. I personally hold that it is perfectly
constitutional openly to strive after independence, but lest there may
be dispute as to the constitutional character of any movement for
complete 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 our
end are legitimate, honourable, and peaceful, I believe that this was
the reasoning that guided my colleagues in accepting the proposed creed.
In any case, such was certainly my view of the whole alteration. There
is no desire on my part to adopt any means that are subversive of law
and order. I know, however, that I am treading on delicate ground when I
write about law and order for, to some of our distinguished leaders even
my present methods appear to be lawless and conducive to disorder. But
even they will perhaps grant that the retention of the word
'constitutional' cannot protect the country against methods such as I am
employing. It gives rise, no doubt, to a luminous legal discussion, but
any such discussion is fruitless when the nation means business. The
other important alteration refers to the limitation of the number of
delegates. I believe that the advantages of such a limitation are
obvious. We are fast reaching a time when without any such limitation
the Congress will become an unwieldy body. It is difficult even to have
an unlimited number of visitors; it is impossible to transact national
business if we have an unlimited number of delegates.
The next important alteration is about the election of the members of
the All-India Congress Committee, making that committee practically the
Subjects Committee, and the redistribution of India for the purposes of
the Congress on a linguistic basis. It is not necessary to comment on
these alterations, but I wish to add that if the Congress accepts the
principle of limiting the number of delegates it would be advisable to
introduce the principle of proportional representation. That would
enable all parties who wish to be represented at the Congress.
I observe that _the Servant of India_ sees an inconsistency between my
implied acceptance of the British Committee, so far as the published
draft constitution is concerned, and my recent article in _Young India_
on that Committee and the newspaper _India_. But it is well known that
for several years I have held my present views about the existence of
that body. It would have been irrelevant for me, perhaps, to suggest to
my colleagues the extinction of that committee. It was not our function
to report on the usefulness or otherwise of the Committee. We were
commissioned only for preparing a new constitution. Moreover I knew that
my colleagues were not averse to the existence of the British Committee.
And the drawing up of a new constitution enabled me to show that where
there was no question of principle I was desirous of agreeing quickly
with my opponents in opinions. But I propose certainly to press for
abolition of the committee as it is at present continued, and the
stopping of its organ _India_.
SWARAJ IN NINE MONTHS
Asked by the _Times_ representative as to his impressions formed as a
result of his activities during the last three months, Mr. Gandhi
said:--"My own impression of these three months' extensive experience is
that this movement of non-co-operation has come to stay, and it is most
decidedly a purifying movement, in spite of isolated instances of
rowdyism, as for instance at Mrs. Besant's meeting in Bombay, at some
places in Delhi, Bengal, and even in Gujarat. The people are
assimilating day after day the spirit of non-violence, not necessarily
as a creed, but as an inevitable policy. I expect most startling
results, more startling than, say, the discoveries of Sir J.C. Bose, or
the acceptance by the people of non-violence. If the Government could be
assured beyond any possibility of doubt that no violence would ever be
offered by us the Government would from that moment alter its character,
unconsciously and involuntarily, but nonetheless surely on that
account."
"Alter its character,--in what, direction?" asked the _Times_
representative.
"Certainly in the direction which we ask it should move--that being in
the direction of Government becoming responsive to every call of
the nation."
"Will you kindly explain further?" asked the representative.
"By that I mean," said Mr. Gandhi, "people will be able by asserting
themselves through fixed determination and self-sacrifice to gain the
redress of the Khilafat wrong, the Punjab wrong, and attain the Swaraj
of their choice."
"But what is your Swaraj, and where does the Government come in
there--the Government which, you say will alter its character
unconsciously?"
"My Swaraj," said Mr. Gandhi, "is the Parliamentary Government of India
in the modern sense of the term for the time being, and that Government
would be secured to us either through the friendly offices of the
British people or without them."
"What do you mean by the phrase, 'without them!'" questioned the
interviewer.
"This movement," continued Mr. Gandhi, "is an endeavour to purge the
present Government of selfishness and greed which determine almost every
one of their activities. Suppose that we have made it impossible by
disassociation from them to feed their greed. They might not wish to
remain in India, as happened in the case of Somaliland, where the moment
its administration ceased to be a paying proposition they evacuated it."
"How do you think," queried the representative, "in practice this will
work out?"
"What I have sketched before you," said Mr. Gandhi, "is the final
possibility. What I expect is that nothing of that kind will happen. In
so far as I understand the British people I will recognise the force of
public opinion when it has become real and patent. Then, and only then,
will they realise the hideous injustice which in their name the Imperial
ministers and their representatives in India have perpetrated. They will
therefore remedy the two wrongs in accordance with the wishes of the
people, and they will also offer a constitution exactly in accordance
with the wishes of the people of India, as represented by their
chosen leaders.
"Supposing that the British Government wish to retire because India is
not a paying concern, what do you think will then be the position
of India?"
Mr. Gandhi answered: "At that stage surely it is easy to understand that
India will then have evolved either outstanding spiritual height or the
ability to offer violence, against violence. She will have evolved an
organising ability of a high order, and will therefore be in every way
able to cope with any emergency that might arise." "In other words,"
observed the _Times_ representative, "you expect the moment of the
British evacuation, if such a contingency arises, will coincide with the
moment of India's preparedness and ability and conditions favourable for
India to take over the Indian administration as a going concern and work
it for the benefit and advancement of the Nation?"
Mr. Gandhi answered the question with an emphatic affirmative. "My
experience during the last months fills me with the hope," continued Mr.
Gandhi, "that within the nine months that remain of the year in which I
have expected Swaraj for India we shall redress the two wrongs and we
shall see Swaraj established in accordance with the wishes of the people
of 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 with
the 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: The
object of the Indian National Congress is the attainment of Swarajya by
the people of India by all legitimate and peaceful means."
There are only two kinds of objections, so far as I understand, that
will be advanced from this platform. One is that we may not to-day think
of dissolving the British connection. What I say is that it is
derogatory to national dignity to think of permanence of British
connection at any cost. We are labouring under a grievous wrong, which
it is the personal duty of every Indian to get redressed. This British
Government not only refused to redress the wrong, but it refuses to
acknowledge _its_ mistake and so long as it retains its attitude, it is
not possible for us to say all that we want to be or all that we want to
get, retaining British connection. No matter what difficulties be in our
path, we must make the clearest possible declaration to the world and to
the whole of India, that we may not possibly have British connection, if
the British people will not do this elementary justice. I do not, for
one moment, suggest that we want to end at the British connection at all
costs, unconditionally. If the British connection is for the advancement
of India, we do not want to destroy it. But if it is inconsistent with
our national self respect, then it is our bounden duty to destroy it.
There is room in this resolution for both--those who believe that, by
retaining British connection, we can purify ourselves and purify British
people, and those who have no belief. As for instance, take the extreme
case of Mr. Andrews. He says all hope for India is gone for keeping the
British connection. He says there must be complete severance--complete
independence. There is room enough in this creed for a man like Mr.
Andrews also. Take another illustration, a man like myself or my brother
Shaukat Ali. There is certainly no room for us, if we have eternally to
subscribe to the doctrine, whether these wrongs are redressed or not, we
shall have to evolve ourselves within the British Empire; there is no
room for me in that creed. Therefore this creed is elastic enough to
take in both shades of opinions and the British people will have to
beware that, if they do not want to do justice, it will be the bounden
duty of every Indian to destroy the Empire.
I want just now to wind up my remarks with a personal appeal, drawing
your attention to an object lesson that was presented in the Bengal
camp yesterday. If you want Swaraj, you have got a demonstration of how
to get Swaraj. There was a little bit of skirmish, a little bit of
squabble, and a little bit of difference in the Bengal camp, as there
will always be differences so long as the world lasts. I have known
differences between husband and wife, because I am still a husband; I
have noticed differences between parents and children, because I am
still a father of four boys, and they are all strong enough to destroy
their father so far as bodily struggle is concerned; I possess that
varied experience of husband and parent; I know that we shall always
have squabbles, we shall always have differences but the lesson that I
want to draw your attention to is that I had the honour and privilege of
addressing both the parties. They gave me their undivided attention and
what is more they showed their attachment, their affection and their
fellowship for me by accepting the humble advice that I had the honour
of tendering to them, and I told them I am not here to distribute
justice that can be awarded only through our worthy president. But I ask
you not to go to the president, you need not worry him. If you are
strong, if you are brave, if you are intent upon getting Swaraj, and if
you 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 in
your hearts and forget these things here under this very roof and I told
them to forget their differences, to forgot the wrongs. I don't want to
tell you or go into the history of that incident. Probably most of you
know. I simply want to invite your attention to the fact. I don't say
they have settled up their differences. I hope they have but I do know
that they undertook to forget the differences. They undertook not to
worry the President, they undertook not to make any demonstration here
or in the Subjects Committee. All honour to those who listened to
that advice.
I only wanted my Bengali friends and all the other friends who have come
to this great assembly with a fixed determination to seek nothing but
the settlement of their country, to seek nothing but the advancement of
their respective rights, to seek nothing but the conservation of the
national honour. I appeal to every one of you to copy the example set by
those who felt aggrieved and who felt that their heads were broken. I
know, before we have done with this great battle on which we have
embarked at the special sessions of the Congress, we have to go
probably, possibly through a sea of blood, but let it not be said of us
or any one of us that we are guilty of shedding blood, but let it be
said by generations yet to be born that we suffered, that we shed not
somebody's blood but our own, and so I have no hesitation in saying that
I do not want to show much sympathy for those who had their heads
broken or who were said to be even in danger of losing their lives. What
does it matter? It is much better to die at the hands, at least, of our
own countrymen. What is there to revenge ourselves about or upon. So I
ask everyone of you that if at any time there is blood-boiling within
you against some fellow countrymen of yours, even though he may be in
the employ of Government, though he may be in the Secret Service, you
will 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 ask
everyone of you not to retaliate but to bottle up all your rage, to
dismiss your rage from you and you will rise graver men. I am here to
congratulate those who have restrained themselves from going to the
President and bringing the dispute before him.
Therefore I appeal to those who feel aggrieved to feel that they have
done the right thing in forgetting it and if they have not forgotten I
ask them to try to forget the thing; and that is the object lesson to
which I wanted to draw your attention if you want to carry this
resolution. Do not carry this resolution only by an acclamation for this
resolution, but I want you to accompany the carrying out of this
resolution with a faith and resolve which nothing on earth can move.
That you are intent upon getting Swaraj at the earliest possible moment
and that you are intent upon getting Swaraj by means that are
legitimate, that are honourable and by means that are non-violent, that
are peaceful, you have resolved upon, so far you can say to-day. We
cannot give battle to this Government by means of steel, but we can give
battle by exercising, what I have so often called, "soul force" and soul
force is not the prerogative of one man of a Sanyasi or even a so-called
saint. Soul force is the prerogative of every human being, female or
male and therefore I ask my countrymen, if they want to accept this
resolution, to accept it with that firm determination and to understand
that it is inaugurated under such good and favourable auspices as I have
described to you.
In my humble opinion, the Congress will have done the rightest thing, if
it unanimously adopts this resolution. May God grant that you will pass
this resolution unanimously, may God grant that you will also have the
courage and the ability to carry out the resolution and that within one
year.
V. HINDU MOSLEM UNITY
[A dialogue between Editor and reader on the Hindu-Moslem Unity--_Indian
Home Rule_.]
THE HINDUS AND THE MAHOMEDANS.
EDITOR: Your last question is a serious one, and yet, on careful
consideration, it will be found to be easy of solution. The question
arises because of the presence of the railways of the lawyers, and of
the doctors. We shall presently examine the last two. We have already
considered the railways. I should, however, like to add that man is so
made by nature as to require him to restrict his movements as far as his
hands and feet will take him. If we did not rush about from place to
place by means of railways such other maddening conveniences, much of
the confusion that arises would be obviated. Our difficulties are of our
own creation. God set a limit to a man's locomotive ambition in the
construction of his body. Man immediately proceeded to discover means of
overriding the limit. God gifted man with intellect that he might know
his Maker. Man abused it, so that he might forget his Maker. I am so
constructed that I can only serve my immediate neighbours, but, in my
conceit, I pretend to have discovered that I must with my body serve
every individual in the Universe. In thus attempting the impossible, man
comes in contact with different natures, different religions, and is
utterly confounded. According to this reasoning, it must be apparent to
you that railways are a most dangerous institution. Man has therefore
gone further away from his Maker.
READER: But I am impatient to hear your answer to my question. Has the
introduction of Mahomedanism not unmade the nation?
EDITOR: India cannot cease to be one nation because people belonging to
different religions live in it. The introduction of foreigners does not
necessarily destroy the nation, they merge in it. A country is one
nation only when such a condition obtains in it. That country must have
a faculty for assimilation. India has ever been such a country. In
reality, there are as many religions as there are individuals, but those
who are conscious of the spirit of nationality do not interfere with one
another's religion. If they do, they are not fit to be considered a
nation. If the Hindus believe that India should be peopled only by
Hindus, they are living in dreamland. The Hindus, the Mahomedans, the
Parsees and the Christians who have made India their country are fellow
countrymen, and they will have to live in unity if only for their own
interest. In no part of the world are one nationality and one religion
synonymous 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 the
Hindus and Mahomedans fought against one another, they certainly spoke
in that strain. They have long since ceased to fight. How, then, can
there be any inborn enmity? Pray remember this, too, that we did not
cease to fight only after British occupation. The Hindus flourished
under Moslem sovereigns, and Moslems under the Hindu. Each party
recognised that mutual fighting was suicidal, and that neither party
would abandon its religion by force of arms. Both parties, therefore,
decided to live in peace. With the English advent the quarrels
recommenced.
The proverbs you have quoted were coined when both were fighting; to
quote them now is obviously harmful. Should we not remember that many
Hindus and Mahomedans own the same ancestors, and the same blood runs
through their veins? Do people become enemies because they change their
religion? Is the God of the Mahomedan different from the God of the
Hindu? Religions are different roads converging to the same point. What
does it matter that we take different roads, so long as we reach the
same goal? Wherein is the cause for quarrelling?
Moreover, there are deadly proverbs as between the followers of Shiva
and those of Vishnu, yet nobody suggests that these two do not belong to
the same nation. It is said that the Vedic religion is different from
Jainism, but the followers of the respective faiths are not different
nations. The fact is that we have become enslaved, and, therefore,
quarrel and like to have our quarrels decided by a third party. There
are Hindu iconoclasts as there are Mahomedan. The more we advance in
true knowledge, the better we shall understand that we need not be at
war 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 with
affectionate reverence. The cow is the protector of India, because, it
being an agricultural country, is dependent on the cow's progeny. She is
a most useful animal in hundreds of ways. Our Mahomedan brethren will
admit this.
But, just as I respect the cow so do I respect my fellow-men. A man is
just 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? In
doing so, I would become an enemy as well of the cow as of the
Mahomedan. Therefore, the only method I know of protecting the cow is
that I should approach my Mahomedan brother and urge him for the sake of
the 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 beyond
my ability. If I were over full of pity for the cow, I should sacrifice
my life to save her, but not take my brother's. This, I hold, is the law
of 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 will
return the compliment. If I bow to him gently, he will do it much, more
so, and if he does not, I shall not be considered to have done wrong in
having bowed. When the Hindus became insistent, the killing of cows
increased. In my opinion, cow protection societies may be considered cow
killing societies. It is a disgrace to us that we should need such
societies. When we forgot how to protect cows, I suppose we needed such
societies.
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 you
admit that I should adopt the latter course I must do the same to my
Moslem brother. Who protects the cow from destruction by Hindus when
they cruelly ill-treat her? Whoever reasons with the Hindus when they
mercilessly belabour the progeny of the cow with their sticks? But this
has not prevented us from remaining one nation.
Lastly, if it be true that the Hindus believe in the doctrine of
non-killing, and the Mahomedans do not, what, I pray, is the duty of the
former? 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. In
order to save one being, he may not kill another. He can only
plead--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 destroy
life. We are said to follow that religion because we want to obtain
freedom from liability to kill any kind of life. Generally speaking, we
may observe that many Hindus partake of meat and are not, therefore,
followers of Ahimsa. It is, therefore, preposterous to suggest that the
two cannot live together amicably because the Hindus believe in Ahimsa
and the Mahomedans do not.
These thoughts are put into our minds by selfish and false religious
teachers. The English put the finishing touch. They have a habit of
writing history; they pretend to study the manners and customs of all
peoples, God has given us a limited mental capacity, but they usurp the
function of the Godhead and indulge in novel experiments. They write
about their own researches in most laudatory terms and hypnotise us into
believing them. We in our ignorance, then fall at their feet.
Those who do not wish to misunderstand things may read up the Koran, and
will find therein hundreds of passages acceptable to the Hindus; and the
Bhagavad Gita contains passages to which not a Mahomedan can take
exception. Am I to dislike a Mahomedan because there are passages in the
Koran I do not understand or like? It takes two to make a quarrel. If I
do not want to quarrel with a Mahomedan, the latter will be powerless to
foist a quarrel on me, and, similarly, I should be powerless if a
Mahomedan refuses his assistance to quarrel with me. An arm striking the
air will become disjointed. If everyone will try to understand the core
of his own religion and adhere to it, and will not allow false teachers
to 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 our
shallowness. If two brothers want to live in peace, is it possible for a
third party to separate them? If they were to listen to evil counsels,
we would consider them to be foolish. Similarly, we Hindus and
Mahomedans would have to blame our folly rather than the English, if we
allowed them to put asunder. A clay pot would break through impact; if
not with one stone, thou with another. The way to save the pot is not to
keep it away from the danger point, but to bake it so that no stone
would 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 by
the Hindus. They are superior in numbers, they pretend that they are
more educated, they are, therefore, better able to shield themselves
from 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 the
Hindus oppose this? If the Hindus desisted, the English would notice it,
the Mahomedans would gradually begin to trust the Hindus, and
brotherliness would be the outcome. We should be ashamed to take our
quarrels to the English. Everyone can find out for himself that the
Hindus can lose nothing be desisting. The man who has inspired
confidence 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 our
heads broken. Such a thing ought not to be necessary, but all men are
not 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 do
not 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 a
third party distribute justice amongst them? Those who fight may expect
to be injured.
HINDU-MAHOMEDAN UNITY
Mr. Candler some time ago asked me in an imaginary interview whether if
I was sincere in my professions of Hindu-Mahomedan Unity. I would eat
and drink with a Mahomedean and give my daughter in marriage to a
Mahomedan. This question has been asked again by some friends in another
form. Is it necessary for Hindu Mahomedan Unity that there should he
interdining and intermarrying? The questioners say that if the two are
necessary, real unity can never take place because crores of _Sanatanis_
would never reconcile themselves to interdining, much less to
intermarriage.
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 national
well-being. In my opinion the idea that interdining or intermarrying is
necessary for national growth, is a superstition borrowed from the West.
Eating is a process just as vital as the other sanitary necessities of
life. And if mankind had not, much to its harm, made of eating a fetish
and indulgence we would have performed the operation of eating in
private even as one performs the other necessary functions of life in
private. Indeed the highest culture in Hinduism regards eating in that
light and there are thousands of Hindus still living who will not eat
their food in the presence of anybody. I can recall the names of several
cultured men and women who ate their food in entire privacy but who
never had any illwill against anybody and who lived on the friendliest
terms with all.
Intermarriage is a still more difficult question. If brothers and
sisters can live on the friendliest footing without ever thinking of
marrying each other, I can see no difficulty in my daughter regarding
every Mahomedan brother and _vice versa_. I hold strong views on
religion and on marriage. The greater the restraint we exercise with
regard to our appetites whether about eating or marrying, the better we
become from a religious standpoint. I should despair of ever cultivating
amicable relations with the world, if I had to recognise the right or
the propriety of any young man offering his hand in marriage to my
daughter or to regard it as necessary for me to dine with anybody and
everybody. I claim that I am living on terms of friendliness with the
whole world. I have never quarrelled with a single Mahomedan or
Christian but for years I have taken nothing but fruit in Mahomedan or
Christian households. I would most certainly decline to eat food cooked
from the same plate with my son or to drink water out of a cup which his
lips have touched and which has not been washed. But the restraint or
the exclusiveness exercised in these matters by me has never affected
the closest companionship with the Mahomedan or the Christian friends
or 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's
throats 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 factors
in friendship and unity though they are often emblems thereof. But
insistence on either the one or the other can easily become and is
to-day a bar to Hindu-Mahomedan Unity. If we make ourselves believe that
Hindus and Mahomedans cannot be one unless they interdine or intermarry,
we would be creating an artificial barrier between us which it might be
almost impossible to remove. And it would seriously interfere with the
flowing unity between Hindus and Mahomedans if, for example, Mahomedan
youths consider it lawful to court Hindu girls. The Hindu parents will
not, even if they suspected any such thing, freely admit Mahomedans to
their homes as they have begun to do now. In my opinion it is necessary
for Hindu and Mahomedan young men to recognise this limitation.
I hold it to be utterly impossible for Hindus and Mahomedans to
intermarry and yet retain intact each other's religion. And the true
beauty of Hindu-Mahomedan Unity lies in each remaining true to his own
religion and yet being true to each other. For, we are thinking of
Hindus and Mahomedans even of the most orthodox type being able to
regard one another as natural friends instead of regarding one another
as natural enemies as they have done hitherto.
What then does the Hindu-Mahomedan Unity consist in and how can it be
best promoted? The answer is simple. It consists in our having a common
purpose, a common goal and common sorrows. It is best promoted by
co-operating to reach the common goal, by sharing one another's sorrow
and by mutual toleration. A common goal we have. We wish this great
country of ours to be greater and self-governing.[4] We have enough
sorrows to share and to-day seeing that the Mahomedans are deeply
touched on the question of Khilafat and their case is just, nothing can
be so powerful for winning Mahomedans friendship for the Hindu as to
give his whole-hearted support to the Mahomedan claim. No amount of
drinking out of the same cup or dining out of the same bowl can bind the
two as this help in the Khilafat question.
And mutual toleration is a necessity for all time and for all races. We
cannot live in peace if the Hindu will not tolerate the Mahomedan form
of worship of God and his manners and customs or if the mahomedans will
be impatient of Hindu idolatory, cow-worship. It is not necessary for
toleration that I must approve of what I tolerate. I heartily dislike
drinking, meat eating and smoking, but I tolerate all these in Hindus,
Mahomedans and Christians even as I expect them to tolerate my
abstinence from all these, although they may dislike it. All the
quarrels between the Hindus and the Mahomedans have arisen from each
wanting to _force_ the other his view.
HINDU-MUSLIM UNITY
There can be no doubt that successful non-co-operation depends as much
on Hindu-Muslim Unity as on non-violence. Greatest strain will be put
upon 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 when
either party went to the authorities they were referred to Maulana
Shaukat Ali and me. Fortunately there was a far better man at hand.
Hakimji Ajmal khan is a devout Muslim who commands the confidence and
the respect of both the parties. He with his band of workers hastened to
Agra, settled the dispute and the parties became friends as they were
never before. An incident occurred nearer Delhi and the same influence
worked successfully to avoid what might have become an explosion.
But Hakimji Ajmal khan cannot be everywhere appearing at the exact hour
as an angel of peace. Nor can Maulana Shankat Ali or I go everywhere.
And yet perfect peace must be observed between the two communities in
spite of attempts to divide them.
Why was there any appeal made to the authorities at all at Agra? If we
are to work out non-co-operation with any degree of success we must be
able to dispense with the protection of the Government when we quarrel
among ourselves. The whole scheme of non-co-operation must break to
pieces, if our final reliance is to be upon British intervention for the
adjustment of our quarrels or the punishment of the guilty ones. In
every village and hamlet there
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/10366