Evidence before Disorders Inquiry - III

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Senior Gandhian Scholar, Professor, Editor and Linguist

Gandhi International Study and Research Institute, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09404955338, 09415777229

E-mail- [e-mail];

[e-mail]

Mailing Address- C- 29, Swaraj Nagar, Panki, Kanpur- 208020, Uttar Pradesh, India

 

 

Evidence before Disorders Inquiry - III

 

The determining consideration was that the Rowlett Act itself would not lend itself to active disobedience from moment to moment and, therefore, if we want to impress ourselves upon the Government, we must stick to some other channel and we did so by actively breaking other laws which did not involve moral turpitude. Now, if you actually break other laws, would you grant that it would make, in a certain measure, ordered Government impossible? I would not say that. Ordered Government would not be impossible in the case of totally inoffensive people. Naturally we have to assume that condition to be in existence with the people. The laws that you determined to be disobeyed were laws that were obeyed by you and other people all these years? Yes. When they were enacted, they were not considered by you to be so outrageous that you should not obey them. Then, determining now to disobey the laws which you had all these years obeyed, would it not look as if meant to make Government impossible? It would, if it covered a wide area. I would make Government impossible if I found that Government had taken leave of its senses entirely. On that 10th April, Mr. Gandhi, you were not in Ahmadabad? No. You were on your way to Bombay. On my way back to Bombay. When did you arrive in Bombay? On the 11th. On the 9th you were arrested at Palwal and you sent a message? Before I was arrested I had dictated the message. Are you aware that on the 10th in Ahmadabad a meeting was held where your message was read? Yes. In that message you had exhorted the people not to commit violence? Yes. And that message was, I understand, explained to the meeting? Yes. That was a very big meeting in Ahmadabad? So I have heard. In spite of that exhortation of yours, which was communicated to the people not to commit violence, the mob burst out into violence on the 11th? Yes. Doesn’t it show, Mr. Gandhi, that it is very difficult to make the ordinary masses, as they are, grasp this theory of no violence and suffering on oneself? I admit the difficulty of it certainly. It is very difficult for them to practice that, i.e., no violence and suffering on oneself? After having been used to methods of violence, one does find it difficult to exercise self-restraint. In the circumstances, as they are at present, it is very difficult to practice abstention from violence in that manner? Certainly. The other part is easy for them to grasp, viz. that they are to oppose certain legislation or to oppose Government in enforcing that legislation. That is a thing which the ordinary mind very easily grasps? I think you are right; but I do not think that I have found it easy to explain to the people and make them understand that it was very difficult to oppose unjust laws. On the contrary, it has cost me considerable energy and industry before I have been able to drive the truth home. What I mean is if you tell the people that the Rowlett Act is an unjust Act, or some other Act is an unjust Act, and we must oppose that, that is a suggestion which the ordinary mind will easily grasp and follow? Certainly. Coupled with that, if you tell them that they should oppose that but abstain from violence, that part is very difficult, as they are constituted at present to grasp and follow? Certainly. Then you arrived in Ahmadabad on the 12th? On the 13th. You explained to the President what you meant by the statement you are reported to have made that this was organized by educated people. You have told us that you meant by that that there was no general conspiracy, but it was organized on the 10th and that the people who organized it were people who could read and write. You do not mean the better educated classes had any hand in it? No. When you say that this was organized by someone, have you any evidence in support of that statement? Yes; I have evidence in support of that statement. I think you are not prepared to place that either before the authorities or before this Committee? I am not prepared to give the names of the informants. I do not want the names of the informants. But the informants must have given you certain facts or certain materials which led you to conclude that this was organized on the 10th. Have you any objection to place those materials before the Committee? I do not know what you mean by material, but I have no objection to describing the nature of the things that were done on the 10th or whenever the thing was suggested to the crowds as to how they should act in the matter. There were some people who suggested to them the burning of the chowkies and some people suggested how to do it. Let us go step by step. As regards such information as you are prepared to give about the organization of the 10th, was there any meeting held on the 10th where they were told to do this? I have no evidence of any meeting held in any house or anything of that kind, but I have evidence of people who were themselves told what to do. Was that on the 10th? I am not able to tax my memory to that extent, but if I said to Mr. Chatfield it was on the 10th, it is the 10th. I want to be quite clear about this. We have been told that on the 11th people on the spot were told to do various things. That is different from their being told deliberately on the night previous to do certain things? Yes. I understand the distinction. As to the 11th, it is also equally true. Let us first take the evening of the 10th. Have you got any information in proof of your statement? I have. On the 10th some people, whoever they were, went about telling people to work out a programme, which they had thought out. Is that so? Perhaps I would not put it so strongly, I would put it this way, because this is what was impressed upon my mind at the time. I was told that during that night there were people who said, “You are fools, this is what you should do and this is how you should do the thing.” What the whole conversation was I am unable to reproduce today, because I took no notes. On the whole the conversation which was described to me came to this that it was suggested to those who were about them that this is what they should do. Did individuals go about on the night of the 10th for this purpose? I would not even put it so strongly as that, because I have no evidence, but they seized the opportunity which offered itself to them. The opportunity was on the 10th? Supposing I was in my shop for instance and I saw people gathering round me, naturally on a day like that there would be a discussion and there would be crowds of people discussing as to how these things should be done or what was to be done. Somebody would say, “Don’t you know what should be done? This is how things have been done and you ought to do this.” I want to say, also that there was no destruction of life suggested by anybody so far as I know, but there was certainly destruction of property suggested. Then this must have been done during the day on the 10th and the night of the 10th? I do not know about the day on the 10th. I do know about the evening of the 10th but I have more abundant and clear proof about the 11th. We are coming to the 11th presently. Let us confine attention to the 10th now. On the evening of the 10th, say it happened in this way that people congregated somewhere near shops or in some other place and somebody told them “Now, this is how you ought to proceed.” That would be only when people by accident came there and when a man got an opportunity. Such an accident in that manner would not occur ordinarily in the evening or the night. It may happen during the day? I do not know. If it happened in the evening or on the night, it must be more organized in that people deliberately went about telling people what to do? I would not be surprised if that were also true that some people might have deliberately gone about from place to place. I can certainly imagine the possibility of such a thing, but I have not got evidence to the effect that some people actually went about from place to place, but I have with me unimpeachable testimony that some people actually incited the people to this kind of violence. On the 10th? Yes. You are the best judge of what you call unimpeachable evidence. Is it any evidence on which ordinary human beings in ordinary life can base their conclusions? I think so. I have not employed any extraordinary method of reasoning before I accepted it. On the contrary I think that I would act with the greatest caution before I would accept any such testimony. Were the people who gave you the information people who actually heard that or saw that done or did they hear it from somebody? I have the testimony of those deluded people who were told this thing, and I have the testimony of some who did know also. People who heard this being said? Who were told themselves to do the thing and I have the testimony of some who themselves did it also. Was this on a large scale or in an isolated manner? It is difficult to say whether it was on a large scale. In a way I am prepared to say that it was on a large scale. Certainly there were isolated cases. These men did not busy themselves to that extent, that they made it a point to go about from end to end, but they certainly seized the opportunity of the temper of the people and put this idea into their minds. That is the real meaning of what I am saying. What you say is really that the people burst out on your arrest on the 10th? Yes. They had no plan before that at all? They had no plan before that. Some persons saw that the crowds were excited in that manner and they took hold of that opportunity and misled them or diverted them into these actions? I have not the shadow of a doubt about that. And for that you say you have got direct evidence? I have direct evidence. Of people who saw that being done or who themselves had done it? Yes. I take it that your principles forbid you from giving that information to the authorities or to the Committee? I could not give the names of the people who have done so, just as if I was acting as counsel for these people. My principles and law also would forbid that, and I occupy with them a position unfortunately more sacred than that of a counsel. I had people coming to me who wanted to surrender the swords that they had got from the Swami Narayan Temple, but unfortunately they had not the courage and the pluck to do so. You have evidence before you that on the 11th some people led the mobs or suggested to them what to do? I have no evidence as to people leading the mobs, but I have evidence again equally strong, perhaps stronger than the evidence with reference to the 10th, that youngsters and youths rebuked those who were idle and who would not go and assist in the work of destruction. You have also definite information as to who those people were? I cannot say that I have definite information, but I have had the names. I do not know them; I may have seen them, but I would not be able to identify them, that is to say, the people who said so. I do not know that at this distance of time I could even identify my informants. You cannot identify your informants? I cannot. One man was not saying this to me. For instance, a party from a village came to me and I said, “Hullo, this is what you have done and that is how you have understood my mission.” They begged pardon of me. This is what happened on the morning of the 14th. They said they were exceedingly sorry but I would not find them doing the same thing again. I asked them to describe how they did it; then they described. If you ask me to identify them, I would not be able to do so, because I do not know them by names; I have not seen them either for any length of time, whereas I can identify some of my informants certainly. The informants with regard to the 10th, you can identify? With regard to the 11th, more clearly, but I think I can identify some with reference to the 10th also. You say that some villagers came to you? Quite a number. And you rebuked them for having acted in that manner? I simply took them to task. I asked them, “Why didn’t you interfere? Why did you allow these things to happen under your very nose?” Then they said that they were instigated or were asked by others? No. They said, “Prem.” That was the exact word. They said, “Our love for you made us do this thing.” Then I asked them to describe how they did it; then they described. So far as you have described, it only comes to this that they said they had done it and nobody asked them to do it? I have given you three illustrations. One, of those men who knew the thing, but who were not themselves told to do the thing, another party who saw these things being done, the inciting and the act, whilst they themselves were mere spectators, and the third class of people who themselves were actors but not the inciters. I have not got any testimony or any confession from the instigators themselves. There may not be confession by the instigators. But if you rebuked certain people for having done certain things, they would naturally shoulder responsibility on somebody else by saying, “True, I did it, but somebody else asked me to do it.” They may do that, but I think I should be able to discriminate between that and a true thing. You formed your own conclusions? That is all I can say. You still adhere to them? I do and as I am gaining experience, day after day, it confirms me in that conclusion. I understood that with regard to the Kaira disturbances and the derailments, there also you had certain information? Yes. Was that in your view an organized movement? It was not organized, and it was done certainly by a definite party of people some of whom were really drunkards. They went to the station. Whether they went to the station with that intention or not, I have no clear evidence but having reached the station they said, “Let us do this thing.” It was not organized in the sense that the people of the town were behind it? No; on the contrary, it is my conviction that, if the people in the town had come to know of any such thing, they would have gone and turned these men away. I may be mistaken, but that is my view and my view is based on the testimony of those for whom I entertain a very high regard. I do not think they will willingly deceive me. About those people who were reported to you as having taken part in the derailment, they have never been prosecuted? Whether they have been prosecuted or some others I do not know, because I do not know the names. Then when these disturbances occurred, Mr. Gandhi, you suspended your Satyagraha propaganda, so far as civil disobedience was concerned. That was on the 18th April? Yes. When you issued that notice, you realized, I think, that civil disobedience as a mass movement under the existing circumstances was not advisable? Under those circumstances, it was not opportune at the time. I could not restrain the violence of the mob. In the circumstances then existing you realized that it was not advisable that this movement should proceed as a mass movement? Yes. Then at that stage you merely suspended and you notified, if I remember correctly, that you proposed to resume it sometime in July? On the 1st of July. Have you got the notice that you issued on that occasion? I have, but I do not have it in my possession just now. But Mr. Justice Rankin had it. Then you thought in two months people will come up to the standard and Government military arrangements would be complete? I said that. That is the letter. Then you suspended it till July in the hope that before that time, the masses would be educated as regards the correct principles of Satyagraha and there would be no danger then to resume civil disobedience movement? That is correct as a partial statement. What I felt was that if I suspended the thing for two months, I shall be able to overtake the misinterpretation and misunderstanding about it, and I shall be able to make the position much more clear than I had done or had been able to do before the people and Government. I will come to the Government in a minute. I want to understand first this. When you suspended it you believed that the people had not fully understood your propaganda or creed and that they were not yet fit to exercise Satyagraha, and certainly its offshoot of civil disobedience in the real manner in which you desired and you believed that they would be fit to do so within two months? I did not believe they would be fit to do so within two months. I want the actual expression used. (Reads) “I am sorry that when I embarked upon a mass movement, I under-rated the forces of evil and I must now pause and consider how best to meet the situation. But whilst doing so I wish to say that from a careful examination of the tragedy at Ahmadabad and Viramgam, I am convinced that Satyagraha had nothing to do with the violence of the mob, and that many swarmed round the banner of mischief largely because of their affection for Anasuyabai and myself. Had the Government, in an unwise manner, not prevented me from entering Delhi and so compelled me to disobey their orders, I feel certain that Ahmadabad and Viramgam would have remained free from the horrors of the last week. In other words, Satyagraha has neither been the cause nor the occasion of the upheaval. If anything, the presence of satyagrahis has acted as a check, ever so light, upon the previously existing lawless elements. As regards the events in the Punjab, it is admitted that they are unconnected with the Satyagraha movement. “In the course of the Satyagraha struggle in South Africa, several thousands of indentured Indians had struck work. This was a satyagraha strike and, therefore, entirely peaceful and voluntary. Whilst the strike was going on, the strike of the European miners and railway employees, etc., was declared.” Take that portion where you refer to the reason for suspending it for two months. I am coming to that. “Overtures were made to me to make common cause with the European strikers. As a satyagrahi, I did not require a moment’s consideration to decline to do so. I went further, and for fear of our strike being classed with the strike of the Europeans, in which methods of violence and the use of arms found a prominent place, ours was suspended and satyagraha from that moment came to be recognized by the Europeans of South Africa as an honourable and honest movement and in the words of General Smuts, ‘a constitutional movement’. I can do no less at the present critical moment. I would be untrue to Satyagraha if I allowed it, by any action of mine, to be used as an occasion for feeding violence; for embittering the relations between the English and the Indians. Our Satyagraha must, therefore, now consist in ceaselessly helping the authorities in all the ways available to us as satyagrahis to restore order and to curb lawlessness. We can turn the tragedies going on before us to good account, if we could but succeed in gaining the adherence of the masses to the fundamental principles of Satyagraha.  “Satyagraha is like a banian-tree with innumerable branches. Civil disobedience is one such branch. Satya (truth) and ahimsa (nonviolence) together make the parent trunk from which all the innumerable branches shoot out. We have found by bitter experience that, whilst in an atmosphere of lawlessness, civil disobedience found ready acceptance. Satya (truth) and ahimsa (non-violence), from which alone civil disobedience can worthily spring, have commanded little or no respect. Ours then is a Herculean task, but we may not shirk it. We must fearlessly spread the doctrine of satya and ahimsa, and then and not till then shall we be able to undertake masssatyagraha. My attitude towards the Rowlett legislation remains unchanged. Indeed, I do feel that the Rowlett legislation is one of the many causes of the present unrest. But in a surcharged atmosphere, I must refrain from examining these causes. The main and only purpose of this letter is to advise all satyagrahis to temporarily suspend civil disobedience, to give the Government effective cooperation in restoring order, and by preaching and practice to gain adherence to the fundamental principles mentioned above.” “‘When is satyagraha going to be resumed,’ is the question many have asked me. There are two answers. One is that Satyagraha has not at all ceased as long as we practice truth and ask others to do so, so long satyagraha can never be said to have ceased. And if all practice truth and refrain from violence to person and property, we would get all we want. When all are not prepared to do so, we have to devise other methods. One such method is civil disobedience. I have already explained the reason why this civil disobedience has been for the time being suspended. As long as we know that there is every likelihood bordering on certainty to rioting and violence following civil disobedience, so long disobedience of laws cannot be regarded as civil disobedience but is disobedience that is thoughtless, uncivil and devoid of truth. Satyagrahis may never commit such disobedience. My confidence in satyagrahis has led me to say that we shall be fitted to resume civil disobedience in about two months if the Rowlett legislation is not withdrawn in the meantime. We may resume by the beginning of July next. In provisionally fixing this period, I am guided by the following considerations: One of them is that we shall have by that time spread our message throughout the country, namely, that during the tenure of civil disobedience, no one under the cover of Satyagraha, under a pretence to help it, should resort to violence, and it may be hoped that the people, convinced that the true interests of the country will be served by acting in accordance with the message of peace, will materially contribute towards India’s progress, but it is possible that India may not understand satyagraha to this extent. In that case, there is one more way to help the non-recurrence of violence. Though the condition upon which it is based is humiliating, it is open to a satyagrahi to avail him of this advantage. Now it becomes their duty to resume Satyagraha under such conditions. The military dispositions that are now going on will ensure non-recurrence of violence. The recent outbreaks were so sudden that the Government were not prepared to cope with them; but the Government arrangements are likely to be effected in two months and breach of public peace will be well-nigh impossible, and therefore conscious or unconscious of the past, the satyagrahi, under that state of things, may without fear of any disturbance commit civil disobedience and thereby demonstrate that not violence but satyagraha alone can help us to secure justice.” Then you hoped that within two months’ time people would be fitted for the proper civil disobedience campaign. Has that hope been fulfilled? Personally I consider that the hope would have been fulfilled if I had resumed Satyagraha at the moment. I made that altogether bold experiment on the 17th October. In fact, it has not been fulfilled. If all people become quite fitted to practice Satyagraha doctrines » pardon me, I have not said that in my letter. What I have said is that we shall have the passive help of the people; they will not egg others to violence and will not do violence themselves. If I heard you correctly, you used the words “fitted in two months, they would practice satyagraha”? I have described here the sense in which ‘fitted’ is used. Fitted, because the people will have received the message, and they will be passive sympathizers with the movement along with the movement to go forward. In the first part, you explained that people did not realize the real inwardness of your creed and therefore civil disobedience got associated with violence, and therefore you came to the conclusion that it was imperative in the interests of the country, of law and order, that it should be suspended? Questions have been asked when it is going to be resumed. Then you say you would be able to resume it on the 1st July. In giving the reasons, you say “within that time people would become fitted” By receiving the message of Satyagraha. You mean by that time people would realize the real inwardness of Satyagraha and would be able to practice civil disobedience. I won’t expect the people to realize the inwardness of Satyagraha but I would expect the people to realize that it is better for them to join the movement again, at least to refrain from disturbing the movement. That is far different from saying “that I expect the people to be fitted, etc.” That is the meaning conveyed by the word ‘fitted’. I would ask you to accept my interpretation of it. I think you will find it here; if not that is the interpretation. Then you go on to express the apprehension that people may not get so fitted in the manner you have explained now, in which event also there will be no harm in restarting civil disobedience because the military dispositions by that time would have been so completely organized that any violence would be effectively dealt with; and therefore you advocate it, the restarting of civil disobedience, even if people did not quite get fitted in the sense you mean? Certainly. Just see what that means. The military dispositions should be kept in all parts of the country or certainly in some parts of the country in order that some people may have the pleasure of breaking certain laws and violence may not result? Does it not involve that? Not the interpretation warranted by this letter. I have not meant that. I simply say that I see the dispositions going on and I have every right to seize the opportunity. If you will kindly read it again. You give two reasons, two circumstances on which you hope to start the movement again on the 1st of July. One is your hope that people would get fitted and therefore the chance of violence would be avoided. Secondly, even if they were not so fit and even if they were as before prone to go to violence, still the military dispositions now taking place in the country would be so complete within the two months that, even if people not fitted in that manner resorted in the old way to violence, there would be no great harm done to law and order because the military dispositions were there? That is totally different from my wishing the military dispositions in order. That is the meaning of what you say. I did not say you wished? Then you are correct. Whether you wish it or not, you say in fact, the military dispositions would be so completed in two months that you can then, even though the people were not quite fitted, without apprehension of disorder, restart civil disobedience because no great harm or violence will be done as the military is there to cope with it. Certainly I meant that. I ask you to follow me, and to see what that means. That involves that assuming that the people have not got so fitted within the two months, Government must maintain these military disposition in various parts of the country in order that some people who have taken the vow - only some people - could have the pleasure of breaking some laws. Going further, it involves that in order that these few people who have taken this vow might be able to break the laws, certain laws, without any serious consequences to society, these military dispositions must be maintained at a considerable cost which must be paid for by the large masses of innocent people who have nothing to do with that. It must result in that? That will be the result if the man who pretended to be a satyagrahi had really said good-bye to his senses. It could not otherwise result. You yourself apprehended that it is possible that within two months men cannot be got so fitted as to avoid violence. Even then passive civil disobedience will be started, or ought to be started, on the 1st July, because, even though people may be minded to do violence, they will be prevented from doing so because of the effective military dispositions? Quite right. I am taking advantage there of a circumstance that is happening before me irrespective of what I may do. But I think it will obviate the necessity of asking questions on this score if I am making the position clear. As a satyagrahi I would never say I would not be guilty of doing any such thing, that in order that I may go with a handful of men breaking laws, the Government may impose a military force on the country. Then I would understand that the atmosphere had not been prepared for the reception of the doctrine and I must not do so. I take it so far then you modified what you said? I did so. I did not start the campaign as I had expected to on the 1st July, much to the disappointment of my co-workers who were with me in this letter of the 2nd May, only because the Governor-General and the Governor of Bombay felt that I had not sufficient data before me and this was how it was put to me: “Do you want India to be an armed camp?” I said, “No”. “Then if you do not want India to be an armed camp, won’t you suspend the satyagraha?” On this I suspended it. That shows that you on the representation that were made to you, modified the position you took up in this manifesto? Certainly I postponed the time. You would start civil disobedience only when you are satisfied that the people have got so fitted that it would not result in violence? Or otherwise some other circumstance presents itself to me which has fulfilled the propagation of that doctrine. But that you would not start if the people do not become fitted, and if violence could only be prevented by military organisation? Military organization got for the purpose. You say with regard to the events in Ahmedabad on the 10th and 11th, that the action of the mob was no doubt unjustifiable and indefensible, but you speak of an unpardonable error of judgment on the part of the Government. Would you specify the acts of Government you characterize in that way? I said that it was an unpardonable error of judgment on the part of the Government in having arrested me. That is what I am referring to. I am not thinking of any errors committed here. I have heard about cause being given to the mob by those two gentlemen I forgot their names I did not consider that in any way justified the mob in taking the law into their own hands. You do not attribute any error of judgment to the actual measures taken in Ahmedabad? I won’t go so far as to say that. I am not prepared to say that there was an error of judgment. I have not troubled myself to find out what was true. Having made up my mind to consider that not even any excess by the people is pardonable, it was no part of my duty to put the thing in the scales. I am not prepared to say whether there was an error or no error. I understand you to complain of the method of compensation, of recoveries made for the destruction of property? From the labourers. Do I understand you to say that the levy was made about the time of the Moharram, somewhere in September or October? Yes. Is it a fact that the labourers then on work whose eight days’ wages were confiscated, a good number of them, were people who had not been in Ahmedabad in April at all? Absolutely new men who had come from the villages later and who did not belong to the city of Ahmedabad and who were not in the city of Ahmedabad when these events occurred, and who newly joined the mills, came from other places outside Ahmedabad. And you consider that very wrong » that these wages should be confiscated for events which occurred at that time? Not only that, I want to add to the fact, which I can prove even today, that a large number of men, when this kind of campaign went on, simply went out of Ahmedabad, taking no part. They are also made to pay. With regard to this it can be said that the residents of Ahmedabad, those who belonged to the mill population, are responsible for the excess though individually they might not be, but with regard to those who came afterwards there was no semblance of excuse of that kind. That is your complaint? What is the other complaint with regard to the mill labourers? The other complaint is that the manner of collection was so wholly bad, as also the amount. I think it was the distribution per capita. The mill labourers could ill afford to pay a week’s wage. That was how it was calculated. I saw no calculation. I do not follow you. That it was a week’s wages in each case. It was first of all not fixing the amount I am speaking under correction. It was per capita of the whole city of Ahmedabad. That was bad, that a labourer should pay individually precisely the same as the mill-owner himself. Have I made myself understood? If I understand you aright, it is the incidence of the amount that you talk of, that the labourers as the richer classes had to pay the same amount? Is that really so? In addition to this, the income-tax people have been made to pay? Yes; I am speaking under correction, but my impression as it was then left on mind was that. I am quite prepared to study the thing and submit my reason on the score. But all I wanted to submit before the Committee was, that the fine imposed on the labourers was excessive and as you have pointed out was exacted from many of those here who were not here at the time and the time chosen for exacting the fine was most inopportune. And there I wish to say that the authorities are not to blame for selecting that time. They did not select that time, because it was Moharram time; it accidently happened to be so. It was too late for them to make any alteration, but whatever it was, it was difficult for the labourers to understand that it was not deliberately chosen. So the time was inopportune and to take away a week’s wage from the labourers was not a proper thing. It was very heavy? I did feel it. Do you object to the exemptions as they were given? I won’t say anything about exemptions. I am not prepared to dispute the discretion vested in the authorities with reference to that. I am not prepared to say I have not seen any such glaring injustice in that. It would perhaps not be quite fair if I do not put my testimony to the handsomest manner in which the present Collector of Ahmedabad had dealt with anything that has gone before him and wherever he has committed errors of judgment that have appeared to me to be errors, they have been partly explained, and so it goes against my course to complain even of this tax upon the labourers, but as it so happened unfortunately, it was their misfortune; but he in the most gentlemanly manner possible took the whole of the blame, if it was blameworthy, on his shoulders. This was what he said: “It is my act; I must take the sole responsibility.” But I, as a citizen, am here to say that, having definite information from the responsible men, he thought that that was the only manner in which he can make the collection from the labourers and that would be the proper sum to exact from. By the Hon’ble Pandit Jagat Narayan: You have been asked certain questions about the Rowlatt legislation. Will you permit me to ask one or two more? You have said that you had no objection to the Government putting down anarchical crime. It is the duty of the Government to do so. Then you were asked what were your objections to the Rowlatt Bill and you have given certain reasons. I would like to know whether Rowlett Bill No. II did not create a new crime at all or was only a procedure? The Rowlett Bill No. I did create a new crime. No. II concerns itself with the trial of anarchical crimes. That is how I heard it put. As a matter of fact, these anarchical crimes could have been punished by the ordinary law of the land and they were so punished. It was only during the 3 years of the War that by special legislation the Defence of India Act was passed. And you thought that during the time of the War, though the whole nation showed its loyalty, it had been passed. When after the War was finished this procedure might be adopted for normal times. So, practically, your objection was not to the punishment of anarchical crimes but it was that the fundamental principles of justice as administered in every civilized country were departed from in this legislation. With regard to the second point, you have mentioned to the Committee, and I have also gathered from your speeches, that during the last eight or ten years they had also similar safeguards Then as regards Bill No. II. What is your position? I have certainly regarded the safeguards provided in this Rowlett Bill to be not merely illusory but as dangerous traps. That is my impression of the safeguards provided for in the Rowlett Act. Really I feel that it makes the executive still more responsible because it deludes itself into the belief that they are safeguarding the subjects whereas there are really no safeguards. That is my opinion. As you are the fountain-head of the Satyagraha movement I will ask you one or two more questions. I will deal only with the political aspect of the Satyagraha movement. You will agree with me that every political movement for its success depends upon the number of its followers every political movement. I am only dealing here with the political aspect of the Satyagraha movement. Depends for its success on the number of its followers, yes. Therefore [for] that portion of the satyagraha movement which dealt with political matters, the natural idea would be to get as many followers as possible? Yes. And the underlying idea of having a large number of followers is that, if a certain thing be done not by one person or two persons but be done by a large number of persons, the Government will be attracted? I won’t agree with you there. I will take the example of a strike. Do I understand you as saying that, supposing only one or two persons strike, will that have any effect? Or for the purpose of having an effective result is it not necessary for a large number of people to strike? I do not subscribe to that doctrine. When you are engaged in a political movement which is based on the strictest principles of morality, any single isolated good act has its consequence, no matter whether it is done by the humblest or the highest; that is my deliberate conviction. I do not dispute that. You have stated here that your idea was to accomplish everything by spiritual force, or soul-force; that was the underlying idea. But in order to achieve any political object, it is necessary to have the force of numbers? That is to say if you will ask me to say ‘yes’ to a non-moral political movement, yes, but not to a movement which is emphatically moral and goes on to the political platform because it must. So far as the moral aspect of it is concerned, I understand that follows the truth. Assuming this, you would depend for the success of your movement on a very large following? If the soul-force of one man accomplishes a thing in two months, probably the soul-force of 10,000 persons would accomplish it in ten days? You cannot have an arithmetical calculation for a force like that. It is not like the question of an ordinary soldier, that if one man can shoot ten, then ten men will be able to shoot 100. Anyhow 100 men, if they are of the same quality, will be able to shoot more than ten. Imagine that ten satyagrahis with the same power behind them are working, then certainly they will be able to produce better results than one. Having regard to the constitution of our Government here or in England, I think you will agree with me that there is no use fighting shy of the word “embarrassment” because the word has been used and you said so? Not at all. You will agree with me that any agitation, the most loyal and constitutional agitation, if it is against something done by authority, is bound to embarrass the authorities. Therefore in your Satyagraha agitation, it may be that you are fighting with soul-force, but one consequence is that you do embarrass the Government and you do not fight shy of that? It is no question of fighting shy; when I was trying to dispute the use of the word embarrassment I meant that that was not the intention. I think the intention is a definite ingredient in determining the value of the embarrassment. You do not say that any political agitation should not embarrass the Government? No, I do not say that for one moment. But it must be conducted, according to you, with truth and no violence? But I would like to emphasize the distinction that ordinary political agitation starts with the definite intention of embarrassing the Government. The satyagraha agitation never starts with the intention of embarrassing anybody, but if embarrassment is the result, it faces it. Therefore the embarrassment would be the result either of soul-force or the result of numbers, is it not so? What I say is a satyagrahi would not shirk that issue, but would never want to embarrass But taking that example of a strike. I have not much experience of strikes, but I have a little. Do you think any strike has ever succeeded in which one or two persons who are against mill-owners say they will not work? Has that ever succeeded? Oh yes, I can show you scores of instances, and I think any millowner will come here and say that, if the head man who controls a department strikes, it is quite enough to bend the mill-owner. There again there is that force of numbers behind his back. I quite understand that, if a Gandhi strikes and goes to jail, it may cause a stir in the whole country, but supposing a common man, even a man who is not going to have recourse to violence, a man who is going to follow truth, a common man, says he will not pay taxes, a poor man, and he goes to jail, do you mean to say the Viceroy, the Governor-General or the King-Emperor would hear of what had happened? I can certainly lay my hands on many a Viceroy of India who, if he found that there was a man whom he would value purely for his strictest morality, honesty and truth, would not sacrifice that man, and if that man struck he would consider that he would rather have a million men strike than that one man. You will agree with that hardly one in a million will be such a man as will come to the notice of the Viceroy or the King-Emperor? I do not know that. I think a man who is strictly moral and who is working on a field which is touched by a Viceroy, would certainly make his impression, as did, I think Keshub Chunder Sen when Lord William Bentinck was Viceroy. You are again talking of the highest men India has produced? I cannot help that. It must be the desire of every citizen that India should multiply top men.

 

Reference:

Evidence before Disorders Inquiry Committee Vol. II, pp. 107-32