Evidence before Disorders Inquiry - IV

[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 - IV

 

SIR C. H. SETALVAD: Panditji forgets that Mr. Gandhi by fasting for three days brought the mill-owners to their knees. I am sorry; I am humiliated by the fact of my having brought the mill-owners down by my fast. A man who is loved like you or a person like Anasuyabehn, supposing they are arrested again, do you mean to say that during the last four or five months you have so much prepared the people of Ahmadabad and Bombay that if they hear of your arrest, there will be no unrest? There will be unrest enough. I think both Anasuyabehn and I would be seriously disappointed if there was no unrest, but that unrest would take a different shape altogether. That is your opinion, that that unrest would take the form of mourning and fasting and would not take the form of violence? I am not able to say that with confidence, but I really do expect that we have very nearly reached that stage. And certainly I think you will agree with me that, having regard to the percentage of education so far as India is concerned, it is very difficult to expect that illiterate men who love you will be able to control their passions and look upon things in that philosophic light? Not at all, it is not that class of education which you have in mind which I need for the propagation of satyagraha. In course of time you may prepare them for that; I am talking of the present time. I would not say the propagation of the Satyagraha doctrine is more difficult here because of our illiteracy. Illiteracy I hold to be deplorable in common with all our countrymen, but I do not consider that illiteracy is a bar to the propagation of Satyagraha. If I fear any danger, I fear that danger from the half-lettered men. I will give up the word illiterate. Do you say it is very easy to control a city which contains more than 300,000 inhabitants and Bombay city which contains more than 1,200,000 inhabitants? Supposing all these people were to revere and love you and respect you, will they stand and look upon your arrest from a philosophical point of view I have admitted the difficulty of the task, but I dispute the impossibility of it, nor do I consider it is so difficult that it is well-nigh impossible. I consider that it is difficult but it is not at all insurmountable. Then I take it that hartal is not an essential part of the Satyagraha movement at all? It is no integral part of it. And, therefore, so far as hartal is concerned, it is not necessary for the propagation of the Satyagraha movement to order a hartal every second day or every month? Not at all. And having regard to the experience that we have had, it is probable that the Satyagraha movement will continue without a hartal If it is necessary. I have contemplated a hartal and, in order that I might try it in connection with Mr. Horniman, I ordered it and in connection with the Khilafat movement, and on both occasions we were wholly successful, although there was a hartal on an extensive scale and of its type absolutely complete in so many places in India. I may be wrong in my facts, but am I right in supposing that the success of your movement in Africa depended on large bodies of persons going to jail? Yes, or rather because they did not use any violence. And at the same time very large numbers of them went to jail? Certainly. You did not get what you wanted because a handful of them went to jail? Well, when we had got what we wanted, there were not that large number of men in jail as you imagine. I do not dispute the point that the largeness of the number of people going to jail had its due effect. Of course, the South African statesmen can speak with better authority, but my own impression is that it was the correctness of the movement which really gained adherents in the highest ranks of society in South Africa. We were after all a handful who would have been blotted out of existence if we had deviated by a hair’s breadth from the correct path. I do not know if you agree with me that the largeness of the number was a great factor in the success? I would say it had its due weight. Now with regard to one other matter you have touched upon, I want to make it clear, because I find you have mentioned that fact in one of your Madras speeches. One of your objects in starting the satyagraha movement was that you found in India there was an extremist class, a certain class bent upon violence and anarchy, and your object was to give this class of persons a better platform to work on, a more spiritual and more moral platform? Certainly. A question was put to you by Sir C. H. Setalvad, and as I don’t agree with him, I want to have your opinion. Supposing individuals be prepared to disobey any law according to their own lights, I do not understand how that can possibly cause any embarrassment to anybody. Supposing I live in a municipality and I find a tax that has been imposed is not a good tax and if in the following of that truth I am required to go to jail, I do not think I require any moral training. If a man is required to go to jail according to the dictates of his conscience, he does not require any moral training. I think he is the best possible man for being a citizen. Do you agree with me that the mere fact of different individuals breaking different laws in different parts and going to jail cannot possibly embarrass Government unless and until it is a mass movement? That is so. It would not create any hopeless position at all? No, certainly, but I won’t say that it would create a hopeless situation if there was a mass movement. What I mean to say is that I do not see any difficulty; I think that is the highest principle that can be inculcated and I think, if I have judged your speeches aright, that one of the underlying ideas of the satyagraha movement was that you found that one of the besetting sins of the present-day Indians is that, owing to their long slavery, they cannot stand up for the right, and they servilely do things which are against their own conscience and I have seen it stated you wanted them to become more straightforward and more moral. You make a difference between a straightforward man and a man who only for the pleasure of breaking laws breaks them? I think that is obvious. I think that is your principle? I would draw a sharp distinction between lawlessness and assertiveness. You have been accused of inconsistency and I will put that before you and I want your explanation. It appears that you made a statement to the officials that you did not want to drag the mill-hands into this movement? Yes. And at the same time, in one of your speeches, you have said the mill-hands should come to your meetings, but they should first obtain the permission of the mill-owners, and from this the inference is drawn that here is Mr. Gandhi who in one breath says he does not want to drag the mill-hands into this movement and in the next breath he incites them to come to his meetings and become satyagrahis? I should like to see the passages. I can recall two occasions. There was an occasion when I said I did not want the mill-hands to join this movement at all. And on the second occasion you said they should not come to the meetings until they got permission? True, and as a matter of fact, between these two positions I see no inconsistency whatsoever, because I was anxious that the millhands should not come to us holus-bolus; I said no mill-hand. The instructions given to the secretaries of the Satyagraha Sabha were that they were not to take in a single mill-hand on the satyagraha pledge unless he was seen by me or better still, by Anasuyaben because she would know, she would guarantee that that man under-stood the position, and he would be able to do so. Then there is another matter about your helping the authorities with evidence. Your objection is to disclose the names? That is so. And you had no other objection in helping the authorities for the procuring of evidence. I find here, as a matter of fact, that you went to certain people who were in jail? I did. And you exhorted them to confess their guilt? Not only that, I very nearly succeeded but for two mishaps. I would have completely succeeded in getting every one of the wirecutters to make a confession. But I saw them together with Mr. Ker. It was nearly 11 o’clock at night, and his assistant was also present, and the men said if they were sent under escort or somehow among the people, they would get the real men, and if some of them themselves had done the thing, they would say so. And, therefore, you did propose that they should make a clean breast of it and help the authorities? I went much further than that in trying to do that. I wanted to go to Nadiad to finish the work, but an equally important matter in connection with helping the authorities engaged me and kept me in Bombay. Meanwhile, some proceedings were taken here, and a third attempt was made when I really did not succeed because of the sections under which they were tried. The men were so frightened that they would not listen to me when I suggested that they should make a confession. Of course I did not see them directly then, but Mr. Vallabhbhai Patel, a co-worker of mine, tried. He took the message from me, he saw the men in person but he did not succeed. I think you will agree with me that if respect for law is diminished in the mass mind, that would be a hopeless position, however good, bad or indifferent the laws may be? I won’t say that respect for law and order means respect for such law and order that promotes the well-being of a nation; but that presupposes discrimination on the part of the people. People will become lawless; they have become lawless for ages past. In that question what I had to address myself to was whether they should continue to become lawless in the manner in which they have been, that is, either surreptitiously breaking a law and if arrested putting up any kind of defence, or resorting to secret violence or open violence, none of which things can possibly promote the well-being of a community. My point is, having regard to the circumstances, a sort of sanctity attaches to the laws of the Government of the time being? Not in my estimation. I do not mean that philosophers look upon things in this way? I look upon it as a practical man. That is not the best check on the masses? Not a blind adherence to laws, no check whatsoever. It is because either they blindly adhere or they blindly commit violence. Either event is undesirable. So long as every individual is not fit to judge for himself, he would have to follow somebody? Certainly, he would have to follow somebody. The masses will have to choose their leaders most decidedly. Supposing your own ministers pass any law, would it be open to anybody and everybody to break them? Will it be open to the masses? I think it will be more open to the masses when India has her own ministers, because whilst English ministers have at least the benefit of ignorance on their side, unintentionally, our own ministers will have absolutely no such excuse. Is not the remedy to turn those ministers out and not to break the laws? I have known in most democratic countries ministers who have made themselves irremovable somehow or other. In that event what is a poor respectable minority to do? That minority will certainly bring down the tallest minister by offering stubborn civil resistance, and such a position I do anticipate happening in India also. I am troubling you but I do not understand. Supposing your own minister, your own representative Government, passes a law, that is a guarantee that it is a good law, and do you mean to say that under your satyagraha principles it is open to any body of men to preach the breaking of those laws and to break those laws? The remedy is to turn out those ministers? A satyagrahi would exhaust all means possible, but I simply gave you a concrete instance of a minister under a democracy having made himself practically irremovable because he would not listen to those who have got the voice of conscience in them. What are those people who have got that voice within them then, to do; although it is their own domestic affair of their Government, even so it would be not only open but it would be the duty of a body of satyagrahis to offer civil disobedience, but when they can turn out the minister, naturally let them do so. If I could have turned out Lord Chelmsford, I would have said, “Lord Chelmsford, you go if you do not remove the Rowlett  Act,” and I would have got some other Viceroy from England. I hope you are not going to give evidence in Bombay. The Committee has two functions here, I do not know. I have no evidence to give in Bombay. I wanted to ask you one thing about Bombay which you witnessed yourself. Certainly everything about Bombay, or if the Committee wishes to travel outside Bombay, I am at the Committee’s disposal. I know as a matter of fact you are not keeping very good health? I am not keeping very good health just now. During the last two or three years? During the last two years. And at different times you were in so indifferent health that you were not able to read even your address? Yes. And you asked other people to read your address? Yes. And you were not shamming? I hope so. You were at Bombay when some of these things were going on at Bombay? Yes, I was there. And you wanted to address a meeting? Yes. On what date? On the 6th I addressed several meetings. Any subsequent to that? I addressed a meeting on the 11th on my return from Delhi. And you got the sanction of the authorities there? Oh, yes. But the military or the police were in possession of the streets and you could not pass without a permit being obtained? No, I do not think the military or the police were in possession of the streets. The streets through which you had a pass? No, the crowd gathered at Chowpati. I am talking of Pydhownie. Oh, yes, they were there. And when your motor passed that street you had the sanction of the authorities to pass? No, I did not receive any sanction. I simply went there as there was danger of violence breaking out. Messages came to me immediately I reached my house and I sent some friends informing the crowd that I was free and that did not answer, and I think Mr. Hansraj came and asked me to go there, otherwise the crowd would not be pacified. Did you succeed in pacifying the crowd? I think the crowd was pacified enough. If it be said the attempt was futile? I do not think it would be correct to say my attempt to control the crowd was futile. The crowd was insistent on passing the street; their passage was prevented by the military or the police whosoever these officials were, and I was in front in the car with Anasuyaben, and I was reasoning with the people who were within the reach of my voice asking them to go by the lane that the officials had pointed out, and they were turning. Meanwhile, the police had ceased resisting and a portion of the crowd was making way in the direction also because the police had ceased to resist, but I do not mean to imply therefore that the police had ceased to resist because they wanted to, but I think they felt the pressure of the crowd so much that they ceased to resist, when suddenly there was a dash from the cavalry or the horsemen. Here it is said that Mr. Gandhi was held up, the crowd was extremely angry, and the police officer, seeing the cavalry in possession, used his discretion and allowed him to pass? Allowed me to pass? I do not know what they did; I certainly passed. The motor did not stop for a single minute. And when the cavalry saw the excited crowd, they charged on the crowd? They charged upon the crowd but they charged at the point I have mentioned. Did you complain of this charge to anybody? Yes. In your opinion was that charge justifiable? My own opinion as an onlooker is, they could have avoided the charge. It was not necessary for them to make the charge because the crowd was turning in the other direction. Even your life was in danger and you had to leave your motor-car? No. Here it is said: “It is interesting to note that while Gandhi has regularly adopted the pose of the interesting invalid when addressing meetings, the officer in command of the armed police reports that he showed wonderful agility and nimbleness in escaping from his car when the cavalry were charging.” Anyhow, that is untrue. You have deposed to the evidence of which you were in possession about this organization on the evening of the 10th, and also about the firing that took place under the Martial Law orders, and you said that, in your opinion, certain innocent persons were wounded or shot down. May I take it that according to you both these facts are equally reliable? I think so. You also believe that evidence in the same way as you believe the evidence with regard to the conspiracy and organization? I do believe so. You make no difference between the two sets of circumstances? No. By Sardar Sahibzada Sultan Ahmed Khan: I want to ask you a few questions, Mr. Gandhi. Now going back for a moment to the Rowlett legislation, you are no doubt aware that, before the War, there were a great many anarchical crimes in India? I would not subscribe to the statement that there were a great many anarchical crimes in India. There were at any rate dacoity and murders in Bengal by people who were not afraid of Government. There was a bomb thrown on the Viceroy at Delhi? Certainly. There were a great many trials held in Bengal? Certainly. And it was due to these occurrences and to keep law and order a Commission was appointed consisting of three eminent judges presided over by Mr. Justice Rowlett ? Yes. They went into the question very carefully and after a very careful investigation of the whole case, they submitted a report to the Government, and in that report, I understand, they made certain recommendations for a certain kind of legislation. I heard you to say that you did not agree with the conclusions of that report? I said that. What are your grounds for not agreeing with that legislation? Because the facts that have been marshalled in the Rowlett Committee’s report did not irresistibly lead me to the conclusion that any such legislation was at all necessary. On the contrary, upon those facts I would have written a report totally contrary to the Rowlett  report. That was the impression left on my mind. But you do not deny that, so far as the information in the hands of the Government was concerned, it is a fact that serious crime was happening in the country? No more serious than in any other country, and certainly there is no serious crime in India. This anarchy proper has been confined to Bengal. You have had an outburst here and there, but after all Bengal is not India. Anarchy and crime prevailed very largely in Bengal? I would not underrate the significance of it. It was there and serious enough to warrant strong Government measures. I do not deny that at all. But at the time the Rowlett Committee framed its report and took evidence, I venture to submit that the material before that Committee did not warrant the conclusions. I may be totally wrong in that, but the Rowlett  Committee’s report is tainted with one very serious defect, in that it is evidence which was taken practically in secret and it was all official evidence. Assuming for argument’s sake that the facts as marshaled by the Rowlett  Committee did not warrant the report which they made, you say that the conditions in Bengal were such as made the adoption of such strong measures necessary, and you admit, independent of the report, such strong measures were necessary? I admit that. What measures would you suggest that Government should have adopted to meet the situation? But the Government have actually adopted measures which I do not approve of entirely. I simply say that the Government would be entitled, and it would be its duty, to adopt strong measures to root out crime of that nature. In answer to the question what measures should be adopted by the Government, I can only say, not the Rowlett  Act of course, it is not for me to suggest that measures Government should adopt » but if I were to point out what measures Government should adopt, then all the measures that I would be capable of suggesting would be of a reformatory character and not of a repressive character, whereas the Government measures were all of a repressive character. You will surely agree that, in the existing state of human nature, Government who are responsible for keeping law and order are compelled, however much it may be against their wishes, to adopt repressive legislation? Certainly. Therefore I can only say, constituted as I am, that I am prepared to examine any measures that the Government may submit and criticize. But it is not possible for me to say what measures Government should adopt because my mind would immediately work at reforming the criminal and not at punishing the criminal. If I had to frame a legislative measure, it would be of that character, but I would not deny the right of a Government to adopt repressive measures also. When you admit the right of Government to adopt strong measures and you criticize the particular measures that Government have adopted, surely I am entitled to ask what repressive legislation in your opinion Government should have undertaken to meet the circumstances? It is very difficult for me to answer that. I can only give a negative answer, certainly not the Rowlett  Act, and I would give my reasons for it. The Viceroy has got sufficient powers independently of the Rowlett  legislation not to warrant his disfiguring the statute-book with an enactment of such nature. Anybody reading such a law, if he had never lived in India and had opened the statute-book and read the Rowlett  legislation, the irresistible conclusion that would be left on his mind would be that India must be a country simply infested with anarchy. I do not for one moment believe that India is a country which is infested with anarchy. Therefore, I believe that the powers the Viceroy has got are absolutely ample in order to stamp out anarchy, and if the Viceroy does not use those powers and takes other powers, I think he is wrong. He has got powers of emergency legislation, and I think that that is the proper thing to do. By ordinances you mean? Yes, and I think he would be justified in doing so, and I shall give my reasons for it, because I have discussed it thoroughly and given many an anxious night to the thing as to why it was that a man with the cool head of Lord Chelmsford had run into the trap. He has got this emergency legislation power; he could use those powers and he could use those powers without the slightest hesitation and need not go to the legislature. He takes a responsible step and he should justify his step subsequently to the legislature or to the country or to the public opinion such as it is today in the country and not anticipate events and put a law on the ordinary statute-book of the country. I think that there the executive went much further than was warranted by the facts. I have not had the benefit of reading the Rowlett  Act, but I suppose it is merely an enabling statute, i.e., by passing it the Government of India have not necessarily brought it into operation. It can only be brought into operation if the Governor- General-in-Council thinks it necessary? Except that part of it. The Governor-General certifies that the law has to be extended to a certain area, but don’t think that it is a sufficient safeguard? I do not think for one moment that it is so, knowing so well as I do the manner in which these sanctions are given. The origin of the sanction makes it really a tainted sanction. The origin would be through a humble police officer, or not even an officer, but a humble policeman. He goes and tells his superior, ‘Oh, such and such things are happening here.’ Now the police goes into the thing deeply, he would examine the things through the spectacles of the policeman who gave him the information. Then after that the original taint in it travels upward till at last it goes to the Viceroy. With all this ceremonial sanctity of an investigation which is so tainted, I say it is wrong, and therefore the Viceroy should not have taken the power ordinarily to declare those things. If he wants to make himself responsible, then let him be the author of the legislation, and not the legislature. Do I understand you correctly that in such important matters, because a thing has originated from a policeman, that will be taken up by all the officials above him right through to the Viceroy without they themselves minutely scrutinizing the thing based on the light of their own experience and knowledge whether the representation is worth giving attention to or not? I do not say that it is not possible to manage things in any other manner. In a Government constituted as ours is, that is the only possible step to take, but knowing that, I would not arm the executive with powers so deadly in connection with a crime which is not endemic in India. If anarchy had become endemic throughout the length and breadth of India, I would not probably have said much against the Rowlett  legislation; then I would condescend to examine the details. Today I would not condescend to examine the legislation and even to talk of it because I consider that the principle itself is at bottom unsound. In ordinary affairs I can understand it, but not when it is a matter of simply dealing with a whole community because that is what the powers mean; anybody may be commanded and called upon to lodge security. You know that during the War under the Defence of India Act there were a great many people who were interned as a necessary measure of safety and that after signing the peace, I suppose ipso facto, after a lapse of six months those people must come out. Then the question would certainly arise as to how the Government should deal with people of a dangerous character. Would you not approve of the Government having a certain weapon in their hands to deal with the situation that might be created any moment? I respectfully contend that the Government have such a weapon. They have it already in the powers granted to the Viceroy to pass ordinances. The Defence of India Act cannot really be used, in my humble opinion, as a stepping-stone to legislation of the Rowlett  Act type in times of peace. It was pre-eminently a war measure, and what you would allow in war time you would certainly not allow in times of peace. But the legislation is merely an enabling measure and it is also limited to three years? I understand that, but I cannot contemplate with equanimity a whole people being condemned even for three years. Now I want to know what was the object of starting the satyagraha movement? Was is started with a view to bring about a better political condition or as a means to oppose the immoral legislation which is not approved of by the country. What was the necessity for it? The necessity lay in the intense desire to have that legislation repealed. If you fail to get redress through the ordinary channels of petition and so on, you must examine whether there are other ways open to you extraordinary, still not unconstitutional, and I found that this was the only way to combat the mischief and the evil. Could you not do it by constitutional means? I fail to discover any other less1 effective constitutional means. It has been suggested to me by a very great friend that I should have at least promoted a petition and awaited an answer to the petition to the House of Commons before embarking upon it. I beg to differ from him, and I still hold that while it was open to me to do it constitutionally, it would have been totally ineffective. I could not have secured a repeal of the Rowlett  Act by those means. Why? Because of my political experience. A petition after its having gone through all the stages in India, I have not known to have succeeded. Therefore you think that the only means open to you was the satyagraha movement? The only other honourable means open to me was that. Certainly. If I heard you correctly you said you feared half literacy more than illiteracy. Did I hear you correctly? That was quite right. I would like to know the reasons for holding that view? Because I have noticed travelling throughout India that youths with ill-digested education are far more irresponsible and thoughtless than the illiterate masses. I think that the illiterate masses are much better balanced than the half-educated youths of the country, and I believe that if the latter could be reclaimed from the error into which they have today fallen the problem before India could become infinitely simpler than it is today. Whom would you call half-educated men? Take a boy who has passed to the High School and has a little knowledge of English, a still less knowledge of English history. He reads newspapers which he only half understands and feeds on his own predilections instead of checking them. Such a man is far more dangerous to the peace and well-being of India than the totally illiterate masses. How would you meet the situation? I have been trying to meet the situation, and I flatter myself with the belief that I have attained success which I had not anticipated in that direction. In what way? Because even such men, when you appeal to them, tax your patience more than illiterate people, but if you are patient enough with them, they are certainly amenable to reason and control also. Do I understand you correctly to say that those people who go through High Schools are patient enough to receive further teaching but that they tax your patience when you try to put them on the right path? I think the very foundation of the educational system today in India is so unsound that it does not tend to make a man balanced after he has even finished his education. As a matter of fact we have not so many highly educated Indians as to be able to form universal conclusions, and so I do not dread to lay down any definite conclusions about that, because I have got sufficient data, a large number of men to work with and work upon, and so I have come to the conclusion that our educational system is rotten to the core and requires overhauling. I want to know the big defects of that educational system. The one defect is, that there is no real moral or religious education in the schools. The second defect is that, seeing that the medium of instruction is English which places such a strain upon the intellectual resources of the youths who are reviving the education, they really do not assimilate the noblest ideas that are imparted to them through the schools. They have got nothing but parrot’s training, the very best of them. What would you substitute? In your view the medium of instruction should be the vernacular and religious teaching should be introduced? I think these two defects must be remedied and then there is the personal element; the personal touch on the part of the teachers is also lacking. A better class of teachers with much better traditions than are in vogue today is required. These three things will certainly bring about the needful change. Do I understand it correctly that the satyagraha movement is concerned principally or mainly with the inculcation of truth and high morality without regard to the number of people who will follow it? Certainly, that is the idea. The essence of the thing is in itself, apart from the number? It does not matter whether there are two members or one member. Has this movement also spread to the Punjab? I think it has spread to the Punjab as a leaven. I cannot lay my hands upon any who has signed the satyagraha pledge, but I have come to the conclusion that the Punjab is just as capable of receiving and responding to the doctrine as any other part of India, if not perhaps more so; but there I may be mistaken, but certainly the Punjab is just as receptive as any other part of India. By Mr. Kemp, Counsel to the Government of Bombay: I am not trying your patience, Mr. Gandhi, by asking many questions about the satyagraha movement. I do not mean by that I am convinced at all by what you have said. Now I am afraid that on the view you take of the Rowlett  Committee’s recommendations, we do not see eye to eye. There are two points which I must ask you to explain. One is this: you say that the Martial Law order of the 12th was absolutely unjustifiable. With regard to that, do you know the circumstances under which it was brought about? I was not here on the 12th but I heard about it. Yes, you were not here on the 12th, but you came here on the 13th. On the night of the 12th, you may take it from me, this is what happened. The person who was in charge of the military command decided, taking all things into consideration, that things could not go on very well. The mobs could not be held in hand, anywhere else riots might break out, and he and his men then available would not be able to cope with them properly. He therefore passed orders which in the result were successful. What have you to say first with regard to that? I would not like to say anything, because as I said, when I spoke about it as an outsider it did not appeal to me, the necessity of it did not appeal to me, and certainly not the terms of the orders that were issued. As an outsider, you mean? As an outsider, as a non-military man; naturally I would concede a great deal to the authorities who have got to deal with the situation. Supposing you and I were there on the spot in charge of the military, would you consider that order justifiable? I consider it fair enough giving my opinion for what it is worth, always with the caution that I concede that the military would be the better judges of the situation, but if I may be permitted to give my judgement after examining the circumstances and the facts; I say these facts do not warrant the orders that were issued. By these facts, do you mean the facts that you have elicited from information as against the facts which were present in the military commander’s mind? I do not say that against the facts, but from what I have now heard and also from what little I have read, it leads me to the conclusion that certainly on those facts if I had any military training I would not issue those orders. I see we do not see eye to eye there also? I am afraid, not there. There is only one other point. Mr. Gandhi, with regard to the instances of indiscriminate and wanton firing on the 12th under this order. I have not used all those adjectives, but I simply said. I think what you said was that a number of innocent people were fired upon? That I said. You base that on what? On the evidence of those people who came to me hot from the thing. Who were wounded? I say wounded people also. I went over to the hostel, and I saw every one of the wounded people. Just consider what impulse would there be at the back of these people’s minds to make them tell you the truth as regards how their wounds were received. What was there to make these people tell you the absolute truth when you saw them wounded? When he is speaking to me I would certainly consider that the most natural thing for him would be to tell me the unvarnished truth. He could gain nothing by saying that he was in the right and he could gain something by saying he was not? I know there is that point to be considered, but I have not gone in forming my conclusion upon the testimony of those who told me. I had the testimony of those who witnessed the firing, and I think I have a hazy recollection that I brought to the notice of Mr. Pratt one instance. Do you remember that on the 14th of April you wrote to Mr. Chatfield and said that you had heard that one or two women were killed by the military and some men also? Will you please give me the pure facts, as I am myself anxious to know under what circumstances it had happened, or whether it did happen at all? Mr. Chatfield wrote back asking for any data and if possible for the people to come and tell him all about it. Yes. I remember it. Well now, Mr. Chatfield is still in the dark about this. It was simply because we had not collected sufficient material to place before him and the orders were withdrawn by that time and I did not wish to prosecute it any further. Could you have given any names of persons who were wounded? Yes, if I had been so reminded then I could have done that. But Mr. Chatfield asked you, did he not? Yes, but when I saw that these orders were withdrawn I did not want to prosecute the thing any further, because I knew that, in a matter of that character there must have been a certain amount of accidents to look to and I did not want to go any further into the matter. Nor did I stay in Ahmadabad for any length of time after that. On this point of your information, I just want to say to you that the suggestion that you made in various other evidences with regard to such organizations as there were on the 10th, was meant to correspond exactly with what you have told us. But I just like also to point out that the evidence on which you base that is rather different to the evidence on which you base these instances of being wounded without a just cause. For this reason that people who came and told you that they had organized little bits of riots would gain nothing but opprobrium from you. And people who came to you and said they had been wounded under that cause, could not run the risk of any opprobrium from you? No. So there is that distinction between the two classes of evidences. I think you based that statement. It is not for me to value both classes of evidence differently. I mean to say a man would not come to me straight and appreciate a thing and describe the incident differently from what he had actually seen it. I am afraid we cannot take it any further? No, but I would really ask you and ask the Committee also not to feel the least of it that I wish to labour this point. I do not really suggest that it is there placed by way of any complaint, but as I am bound to give my view I have simply given it. There is this other point that you did not hear anything from the military side. If you knew the circumstances on the military side, then would you be able to find out whether they fired at anybody? A stray bullet might ricochet and go off at right angles and a man standing at right angles may be wounded. But the suggestion that that was the fault of the military is not quite fair, is it? Not in the manner you put it. Well, I think that is the manner it has got to be put. The case I have brought to the notice of the Committee, and on which I have based my conclusion that these orders were obeyed, is that some of these young men actually shot into a party of men, whether 10 or 11 or even under 10, without any notice that would enable the people to understand what they were asked to do. Well, as I say, you cannot give any instance that has really occurred? Because I have no desire to labour that point. Otherwise I would come prepared and I have no desire to make a big thing out of a little thing in a large movement in which the Government have covered themselves with nothing but credit. I did not want to magnify that incident nor did I wish to trouble Mr. Chatfield any further about it. TO PRESIDENT: There is only one point further with regard to this Bombay case. At present there is nobody actually appearing for this case as it was not known whether this was going to be taken and the result is that no one has been instructed to ask Mr. Gandhi questions on it. PRESIDENT: Mr. Gandhi’s evidence so far as it has been given does not amount to a great deal. MR. KEMP: The only point he contended was that particular charge of cavalry was not justified. PRESIDENT: I did not hear whether there were any casualties in that case? There is no suggestion of casualties in that case. In the course of the demonstrations one or two men were trampled and that is natural if there was a charge of that character. I do not think there were any deaths and the injuries sustained even by the men who were trampled were by no means serious so far as I understood it. After the whole event had finished I went to Mr. Griffith’s to protest against the cavalry being sent. And he really demurred to my using the word ‘cavalry’, but not being a military man I did not know what it was. By Mr. Jivanlal V. Desai, Counsel to the Gujarat Sabha, Ahmadabad: Mahatma Gandhiji, you left Bombay on the 8th of April? Yes, in the evening. When was the order served on you? In the evening at 9 between Palwal and Muttra. That was the first order. Not to enter the province of Punjab or Delhi, I think? I forget which it was, I think it was Delhi. Subsequent to that a second order was served upon you at the next station? Two more orders at the next station. At about what time? Probably at half-past seven or 8 or even 9. It was between that time. Then you dictated a message? Yes, before reaching Palwal, after the first order was served and after knowing that I was to be arrested at Palwal. And the gentleman who took down this message is a graduate in Arts and Law? Yes. There was no mistake in the message taken [down] by him? No, because I had read the message. You simply exhorted your Ashram people to hold that day as a day of rejoicing? Not only they but everybody. You did not want the Ashram people or passengers to observe the hartal? It seems that the words “with redoubled zeal” had been mentioned therein and had been interpreted in a different way? There is nothing in my statement with regard to the hartal. But if you want to examine my mental condition, I did not want to say at that time that I wanted the hartal or not. Could your message be construed in the light that people were to observe the hartal and to go about the streets creating mischief? Most decidedly not. Do you know that the message was never construed by the Ashram people or by the Satyagraha Sabha as such? So I was told. Mr. Vallabhbahi Patel told me emphatically that he told the people that they were not to have the hartal. Now you were brought back to Bombay on the 11th? Yes. The train was stopped at Marine Lines station? It was accidently stopped and then I suggested to Mr. Bowring that I should get down at Marine Lines station in order to avoid any demonstration at Colaba. And nobody in Bombay knew that you were going by that train? No. When you reached Marine Lines station were there no people to meet you there? Naturally none. And casually you got into a passing victoria? No. A friend was passing by and he saw me and gave me a lift. And you wanted to avoid all demonstration in Bombay as far as you could? Yes. And when you traced the disturbances you went to pacify the people? Certainly. When did you hear of the incidents at Ahmadabad, on the morning of the 12th? I think for the first time on the morning of the 12th. A friend came and said that something had happened there. No, if I now recollect, I heard something from Mr. Griffith himself because he was discussing the situation with me and he said, “Do not know what is happening in Ahmadabad, but he could not give me the details because the wires were cut. But he did let me have an inkling that there was something amiss in Ahmadabad. As soon as you heard that you were wanted there you came down? Yes, by the first available train. Were there any citizens to meet you at the station? I do not think there were any friends. Mr. Boyd1 was there and some other officer whose name I do not know. Then from the station, you went to Mr. Ambalal’s house? To the Commissioner straight. And you stopped with him for about two hours, I suppose? Probably. And from Mr. Pratt you went to Ambalal’s? Yes, I think I went to him for a few minutes. Were you accompanied by any military officers when you were coming back from there? Yes, purely for my protection. Because of the existence of Martial Law? Because of the pickets that might challenge me. You found everything quiet on the 13th? Yes. You wanted to hold a meeting on that day? Yes. And you had instructed Mr. Vallabhbhai Patel and others to organize a meeting if possible? Yes. But it could not be organized because of the existence of Martial Law? Not purely. There were difficulties. It was suggested that there were such difficulties that we might not get a large gathering and without a large gathering I could not deliver my message. So you directed them to arrange the meeting for the next day? Yes. And you did not know then that Martial Law would be withdrawn? Certainly, I did not know. On the 13th you gave instructions to Messrs Vallabhbhai Patel and others to show to the people a particular path of going to the Ashram to avoid the military pickets and to come by side-streets? Yes. At what time did you go to the Ashram on that day? I think I must have reached there at 2 o’clock on the 13th. Then among other non-official people, you met Messrs Vallabhbhai Patel and others? Yes. When you joined the meeting did any other people see you till you saw Mr. Vallabhbhai Patel? No. When did you deliver your speech? Sometime during the night. Did you have many callers from the time you went to the Ashram? Not on the 13th. I think the statement that you made in your speech on the 13th is more or less an impression created upon your mind? I think the speech puts it like that. From the fact that certain particular wires were cut, and buildings burnt, it was the impression in your mind that there was some sort of organized attempt? Yes. Were there any particular statements made to you by any of the rioters? I would not say they were made to me by any of the rioters on the 13th, but some endorsement of the view that I suggested was certainly forthcoming at that time. I said to myself, “This is what appears to have happened,” and I discussed with those friends who called there and instead of disputing the proposition, they said, “Yes”. Was that an impression or was it knowledge? I did not cross-examine them so as to know whether they were speaking out of their impression or knowledge. I would not be able to say that, but they certainly endorsed the views I expressed. That may have been merely an impression also? Yes. You had a sort of conference on the morning of the 14th at the district court house with Mr. Pratt and Mr. Chatfield and the Officer Commanding. And it was resolved that what was known as Martial Law was to be withdrawn? I was told that it would be. And as a result of that only, the meeting in the Ashram in the afternoon was so well attended? No, not because the orders were withdrawn. Now you noticed that on the 6th the crowds that were going to your Ashram were very orderly? I think absolutely orderly, and I think I saw the Rev. Mr. Gillespie there? Yes. And your speech was read out by Mr. Vallabhbhai Patel because you were not in a fit condition of health? My voice could not reach the audience at that time. When did you have an interview with Mr. Chatfield? Was it before or after the meeting? Before that on the 13th and on the 14th in the morning at about 9 o’ clock. When did you have an interview with Mr. Guider? He honoured me with a visit some day after the meeting. Your conversation at that honourable interview was all bona fide. There was no shamming on your part. Certainly none on my part nor any on his part. Mr. Guider says in his report of what happened at that interview that “the impression he gave me was that though he was prepared to denounce the rioters for his own benefit, that is to say, to swell the ranks of his followers, he had no intention of denouncing them to the authorities”. Well, I can only say that Mr. Guider has done (though unintentionally perhaps) violence to me. THE PRESIDENT: That is, to your satyagraha doctrine? Yes. MR. DESAI: You told him that there were certain persons in the crowd inviting them actually to take part? Doing what? Certain men among the leaders who were the instigators of the riots or present among them. But I have a distinct recollection that I told Mr. Guider that the leaders were there trying to restrain the mob. That is my impression. After this meeting of the 14th you addressed several other meetings through your Devas in the streets? Yes. And you wrote out your speeches and got them read by several of the audience in the city and that had a pacifying effect on the minds of the people? Yes. And that was from the 11th till again the meetings were prohibited? Yes. And what we might call the so-called educated people of Ahmadabad; did they take any active part in the propaganda work? Some of them. Now you have been for a fairly long time in Ahmadabad, for 5 years. What is your estimate about the educated people of Ahmadabad? Do they take part in such riotous movements, burning buildings and cutting wires at Ahmadabad? I have not found them to be doing that. Of course, they might be intent upon menacing Government by making speeches and criticizing the Rowlett  Bill and such legislations. Apart from that you found them to be a quiet sort of people? Yes. Now you know there was some trouble between the mill-hands and mill-owners in 1918? I suppose it was in 1918. And large crowds of these mill-hands used to assemble day after day and you used to preach to them sermons, and Anasuya Bai and others did likewise. Yes. During all these days thousands of mill-hands met and they were very orderly even till the very last when the question of wages was a disquieting factor. They took part in large processions through the city and the crowds were always very orderly, and the mill-hands were well behaved and orderly? Certainly. I found them so. Now did you tell Mr. Chatfield or give him any reason to think that you told him that the Home Rule League either in Ahmadabad or up-country had made any organizations for these troubles on the 11th? I do not think that I did say so. I should be very much surprised indeed if he did say so. You have come into contact with the Home Rule League agitation in the provinces? Yes. There is also a constant agitation among the people? Yes. Do you know that the satyagraha movement against the Rowlett Act had a rather pacifying effect on the people? It is my deliberate conviction that but for Satyagraha, India would have witnessed scenes perhaps more terrible than it has passed through.  

 

Reference:

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