CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IS NOT SEDITIOUS

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Gandhian Scholar

Gandhi Research Foundation, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09415777229, 094055338

E-mail- [e-mail];[e-mail]

 

 

 

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IS NOT SEDITIOUS

 

 

The Mahratta, quoting from the judgment in the Hindwasi case, had suggested that Gandhiji should clear up the point raised by the magistrate in the passage quoted. Mr. Gandhi responded to the suggestion by the letter to The Mahratta. The passage from the judgment is given below: There is another aspect of Satyagraha in its political garb which shows as plainly as the events at Delhi the inherent the law-breaking character of the doctrine. The substance of the Satyagraha Vow is a matter of common knowledge. By the Vow the individual claims the right to disobey civilly any laws which the Satyagraha Sabha decides should be disobeyed. Now “civil disobedience” has never been explained. In Bombay, it is well known, “civil disobedience” tools the form of selling proscribed literature, an offence under section 124-A., I.P.C., or in other words, an active disobedience of a criminal law. Furthermore, “civil disobedience” of any law which safeguards the right of others is plainly subversive of all law and order, and is ipso facto calculated to bring Government, as the guardian of law and order, into hatred and contempt. That is to say, this aspect of political Satyagraha is in essence and effect seditious. And here is Mr. Gandhi’s reply: After quoting from the magisterial judgment in the Hindwasi case, the dissertation of the magistrate on Civil Disobedience, you have asked me to clear the point raised in the judgment. I gladly respond to your wish. It is difficult to crowd into a paragraph more misconceptions about a grand doctrine of life, or misstatements of facts, than has been done in the paragraphs you have quoted. The paragraph referred to begins: There is another aspect of Satyagraha in its political garb which shows as plainly as the events at Delhi the inherent the law-breaking character of the doctrine. Until the mystery about Delhi is cleared up by an impartial judgment, we shall never know whose fault it was for the events that happened at Delhi. Let it, however, be remembered that Civil Disobedience had not commenced on the 30th March last, or on the 6th April. Swami Shraddhanand contends that the law was broken by the authorities and that the handful of satyagrahis were busy, even at the peril of their lives, restraining the fury, alike of the mob and the local authority. The judgment proceeds: By the vow, the individual claims the right to disobey any law that the Satyagraha Sabha decides should be disobeyed. Now in this sentence there is the sin of commission ant omission. The Vow gives the votary the right to disobey civilly, not any laws which the Satyagraha Sabha decides upon, but such laws as may be selected by the Special Committee to be appointed by the votaries. The distinction is important. The learned magistrate has omitted to mention that in committing Civil Disobedience the Civil Resister is pledged to truth and nonviolence to person and property not an unimportant qualification. The next sentence betrays ignorance that is unpardonable in a judge. He says, “Civil Disobedience has never been explained.” If he proposed to convict on the grounds of Civil Disobedience, it was his duty to have understood it thoroughly. He had the whole of the Satyagraha Leaflet Series including, Thoreau’s Classic on Civil Disobedience, at his disposal.

I must endeavour here to explain briefly what is meant by Civil Disobedience before I can show the absurdity of the sentences that follow. Civil Disobedience is opposed to criminal or immoral disobedience. Civil Disobedience therefore can be confined only to those laws which do not carry any moral sanction. Laws in themselves may be either criminal or civil. But a Civil Resister will not hesitate to commit a civil breach of artificial crime law?, e.g., Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code, under which anything according to the vagaries or predilections of a judge may be termed sedition. He will not commit any attack upon the rights of others. He will never do an act which is calculated to bring any person or corporation in hatred or contempt but he will not hesitate to disregard or expose, irrespective of consequences to himself, any hateful or contemptible act of such person or corporation; and by so doing, he will protect such person or corporation from all undeserved hatred and contempt. The law of sedition could never mean [that] tyranny or high-handedness, even though they may be enshrined in a Statute-book, should be submitted to, for fear of the tyrant being held in contempt. A Civil Resister will therefore not impute motives but examine each act on merits. Civil Disobedience is therefore based upon love and fellow-feeling whereas criminal disobedience upon hatred and ill will. Civil Disobedience therefore is to criminal disobedience what light is to darkness; and when the spirit of Civil Disobedience permeates, as I hope it will very soon permeate, the people of India, crimes or violence will be practically things of the past.

What has been urged by friends and the Government is that whilst Civil Disobedience as a doctrine of life is admirable in itself, unthinking people not being able to distinguish between Civil and Criminal disobedience and being mentally disobedient as to what they do not relish are likely to mistake Civil Disobedience of the enlightened for any disobedience and thus resort to lawlessness. This is an argument which has appealed, but it has not disproved the necessity or the grandeur of Civil Disobedience. It emphasizes the necessity for caution in one like me trying to practice Civil Disobedience on a new and extensive plane. Your readers now will be able to assess at their true value the following concluding passage from the paragraph in question: In Bombay, it is well known that Civil Disobedience took the form of selling proscribed literature, an offence under Section 124-A I.P.C., or in other words an active disobedience of a criminal law. The sale of proscribed literature was undertaken not for committing an active disobedience of criminal law but for questioning a prohibitory order of the executive authority and, as it has now turned out, the sale did not amount even to Civil Disobedience. For, it did not attack any law or order. The Civil Resister had misread (?) the prohibitory orders. The paragraph then proceeds: Furthermore, Civil Disobedience of any law which safeguards the rights of others is plainly subversive of all law and order and is ipso facto calculated to bring the Government as a guardian of law and order into hatred and contempt, that is to say, the aspect of political Satyagraha is in essence and effect seditious. After the explanation that I have offered of Civil Disobedience, further comment is superfluous. And if Mr. Jethamal had been convicted upon a total misconception of the doctrine of Satyagraha, he ought to be set free without delay.