Madan Lal Dhingra and Mahatma Gandhi

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Gandhian Scholar

Gandhi Research Foundation Jalgaon, Maharashtra, Indai

Contact No. – 09404955338, 09415777229

[e-mail]; [e-mail]

 

 

Madan Lal Dhingra and Mahatma Gandhi

 

Madan Lal Dhingra was born on 18 September, 1883 in Amritsar, Punjab. He was a freedom fighter. He had taken his primary education in 1904 he lead a student protest against Principal's order to have college blazer made out of Imported Cloth from England. He was thrown out of college. At that time he was Student of Masters of Art He was under the influence of Nationalist Movement of Swadeshi. He deeply studied the literature concerning the cause of Indian Poverty and famines, as solution to these problems Swaraj and Swadeshi became key issues. He came to in contact to Savarkar and Shyam Krishna Verma. Who impressed him and attached with revolutionary movement. He died on 17 September, 1909 in London. Sir William Curzon Wyllie, Political ADC to the Secretary of State for India, was shot dead by an Indian student, Madan Lal Dhingra, at a reception held by the National Indian Association at the Imperial Institute in South Kensington, London. Dr. Cawas Lalkaka, a Parsee doctor from Shanghai, was fatally wounded while trying to save Sir Curzon Wyllie.

During this period Mahatma Gandhi lived in South Africa and leaded to South Africa movement. Mahatma Gandhi commented, “Under the heading “Deputation Notes”, I have given all the information about the activities of the deputation that can be made public. Under the above heading, I give other news worth reporting. The assassination of Sir Curzon Wyllie and Dr. Lalkaka was a terrible thing. Sir Curzon Wyllie served as an officer at several places in India. Here he was Lord Morley’s aide-de-camp. Dr. Lalkaka was a Parsi physician and carried on business at Shanghai in China. He was here on a short visit only. On July 2, there was a tea-meeting of the National Indian Association in the Jehangir Hall of the Imperial Institute. Such meetings are arranged with the object of bringing Indian students into contact with Englishmen, who therefore attend as the guests of Indians. Sir Curzon Wyllie was thus a guest of the assassin. From this point of view, Mr. Madanlal Dhingra murdered his guest in his own house, and also killed Dr. Lalkaka who tried to interpose himself between them. It is being said in defence of Sir Curzon Wyllie’s assassination that it is the British who are responsible for India’s ruin, and that, just as the British would kill every German if Germany invaded Britain, so too it is the right of any Indian to kill any Englishman. Every Indian should reflect thoughtfully on this murder. It has done India much harm; the deputation’s efforts have also received a setback. But that need not be taken into consideration. It is the ultimate result that we must think of. Mr. Dhingra’s defence is inadmissible. In my view, he has acted like a coward. All the same, one can only pity the man. He was egged on to do this act by ill-digested reading of worthless writings. His defence of himself, too, appears to have been learnt by rote. It is those who incited him to this that deserve to be punished. In my view, Mr. Dhingra himself is innocent. The murder was committed in a state of intoxication.

It is not merely wine or bhang that makes one drunk; a mad idea also can do so. That was the case with Mr. Dhingra. The analogy of Germans and Englishmen is fallacious. If the Germans were to invade Britain, the British would kill only the invaders. They would not kill every German whom they met. Moreover, they would not kill an unsuspecting German, or Germans who are guests. If I kill someone in my own house without a warning someone who has done me no harm I cannot but be called a coward. There is an ancient custom among the Arabs that they would not kill anyone in their own house, even if the person be their enemy. They would kill him after he had left the house and after he had been given time to arm him. Those who believe in violence would be brave men if they observe these rules when killing anyone. Otherwise, they must be looked upon as cowards. It may be said that what Mr. Dhingra did, publicly and knowing full well that he himself would have to die, argues courage of no mean order on his part. But as I have said above, men can do these things in a state of intoxication, and can also banish the fear of death. Whatever courage there is in this is the result of intoxication, not a quality of the man himself. A man’s own courage consists in suffering deeply and over a long period. That alone is a brave act which is preceded by careful reflection. I must say that those who believe and argue that such murders may do well to India are ignorant men indeed. No act of treachery can ever profit a nation. Even should the British leave in consequence of such murderous acts, who will rule in their place? The only answer is: the murderers. Who will then be happy? Is the Englishman bad because he is an Englishmen? Is it that everyone with an Indian skin is good? If that is so, we can claim no rights in South Africa, nor there any angry protest against oppression by Indian princes. India can gain nothing from the rule of murderers no matter whether they are black or white. Under such a rule, India will be utterly ruined and laid waste. This train of thought leads to a host of reflections, but I have no time to set them down here. I am afraid some Indians will commend this murder. I believe they will be guilty of a heinous sin. We ought to abandon such fanciful ideas.”1

Mahatma Gandhi commented, “Mr. Madanlal Dhingra’s case came up for hearing today (the 23rd). We were not permitted not be present in the court. Since Mr. Dhingra did not put up any defence, the case did not take much time. He only stated that he had done the deed for the good of his country, and that he did not regard it as a crime. The presiding judge sentenced him to death. I have already given my views about this assassination. Mr. Dhingra’s statement, according to me, argues mere childishness or mental derangement. Those who incited him to this act will be called to account in God’s court, and are also guilty in the eyes of the world. Mr. Dhingra’s case has led to Government action against The Indian Sociologist. The journal had published a categorical statement that homicide for the good of one’s country was no murder. The printer, poor man, has been sentenced to four months’ imprisonment for printing such a violent article. The man who has been sentenced is a poor, innocent Englishman, who was entirely ignorant [of what he was printing]. The authors are in Paris, and hence the Government is unable to get at them. Such acts will not advance the progress of the nation. So long as the people do not throw up men who will be prepared to invite the utmost suffering on them, India will never prosper.”2

Mahatma Gandhi commented, “Mr. Dhingra has been awarded the death penalty. He will probably be executed on the 10th. Some whites have been trying to secure remission of the death penalty. They argue that he acted out of foolishness. Moreover, they add, the act was not inspired by any personal motive and, therefore, should not be treated as ordinary murder. The white printer of The Indian Sociologist has been sentenced to four months’ imprisonment for printing the particular issue of the journal. Being a very poor man, he is put to great loss. He had no knowledge whatever of the contents of the issue. But ignorance is no defence in law.”3

Mahatma Gandhi commented, “Mr. Dhingra, it is said, will be hanged on the 17th. But it is also likely that the death penalty will be commuted.”4 Mahatma Gandhi commented, “That is to say, you want to make the holy land of India unholy. Do you not tremble to think of freeing India by assassination? What we need to do is to sacrifice ourselves. It is a cowardly thought, that of killing others. Whom do you suppose to free by assassination? The millions of India do not desire it. Those who are intoxicated by the wretched modern civilization think these things. Those who will rise to power by murder will certainly not make the nation happy. Those who believe that India has gained by Dhingra’s act and other similar acts3 in India make a serious mistake. Dhingra was a patriot, but his love was blind. He gave his body in a wrong way; its ultimate result can only be mischievous.”5

Mahatma Gandhi commented, “I know, however, that there are Muslims, and Hindus too, who welcome such assassinations. A good many people read with interest accounts of murders in Ireland. Quite a few believe that, were it not for bomb-throwing, the partition of Bengal would not have been undone. There are some who believe that the assassination [of Sir William Curzon Wyllie] by Dhingra did some good. I myself am emphatically of the view that assassinations never do any good, and that, if sometimes for a while good seems to have followed, in the end there is harm. I regard the victory of the British to be their defeat. Evil has increased in them. Greed, hypocrisy, anger, lying, injustice these are rapidly increasing. There is no limit to their arrogance. The Germans have no scope for these evil impulses. On whom should they perpetrate injustice? What will anger avail them? I would make this appeal even to those who believe in the creed of violence, that they may not ride two horses at a time. Either we should have non-violent non-co-operation or abandon non-cooperation altogether. In saying this, it is not my purpose to suggest that we should now abandon non-co-operation; I only wish to alert those in charge of the movement, to point out to them where the real danger lies. Probably, the assassin of Mr. Willoughby does not even know what the term “non-co-operation” means; the key to our success, however, lies in our acquiring control over every person in the country. If we are not strong enough to prevent even sporadic attempts at assassination, our movement simply cannot go on. What is the way to prevent them, By changing the atmosphere. The atmosphere can change only when those who are conducting the non-co-operation movement fully understand its true nature and the conditions for its success. The first condition is that we appoint ourselves policemen for the protection of Englishmen’s life; if we do so, we would reason with all around us and explain to them that our success depended wholly on our eschewing violence.”6 On this way we can say that Mahatma Gandhi was taking interest every activity of India during his South Africa movement.

 

References:

 

1. VOL. 9 : 23 JULY, 1908 - 4 AUGUST, 1909, Page- 427
2. Indian Opinion, 21-8-1909
3. Indian Opinion, 4-9-1909
4. Indian Opinion, 11-9-1909
5. VOL. 10 : 5 AUGUST, 1909 - 9 APRIL, 1910, Page-  285
6. Navajivan, 5-9-1920