INTERVIEW ON NON-CO-OPERATION

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Gandhian Scholar

Gandhi Research Foundation, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09415777229, 094055338

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

 

 

 

INTERVIEW ON NON-CO-OPERATION

 

 

A representative of this journal called on Mr. M. K. Gandhi yesterday Mr. Gandhi, who has come to Madras on a tour to some of the principal Muslim centres in Southern India, was busy with a number of workers discussing his programme; but he expressed his readiness to answer questions on the chief topic which is agitating Muslims and Hindus.

REPRESENTATIVE: After your experience of the Satyagraha agitation last year, Mr. Gandhi, are you still hopeful and convinced of the wisdom of advising non-co-operation?

GANDHIJI: Certainly. How do you consider conditions have altered since the Satyagraha Movement of last year? I consider that people are better disciplined now than they were before. In this I include even the masses that I have had opportunities of seeing in large numbers in various parts of the country. And you are satisfied that the masses understand the spirit of Satyagraha? Yes. And that is why you are pressing on with the programme of non-co-operation? Yes. Moreover, the danger that attended the civil disobedience part of Satyagraha does not apply to non-co-operation, because in non-co-operation we are not taking up civil disobedience of laws as a mass movement. The result hitherto has been most encouraging. For instance, people in Sind and Delhi, in spite of the irritating restrictions upon their liberty by the authorities, have carried out the committee’s instructions in regard to the Seditious Meetings Proclamation and to the prohibition of posting placards on the walls which we hold to be inoffensive but which the authorities consider to be offensive. What is the pressure which you expect to bring to bear on the authorities if cooperation is withdrawn?

I believe, and everybody must grant that no Government can exist for a single moment without the co-operation of the people, willing or forced, and if people suddenly withdraw their co-operation in every detail, the Government will come to a standstill. But is there not a big “if” in it? Certainly, there is. And how do you propose to succeed against the big “if”? In my plan of campaign, expediency has no room. If the khilafat movement has really permeated the masses and the classes, there must be adequate response from the people.

But are you not begging the question? I am not begging the question, because so far as data before me go, I believe that the Muslims keenly feel the khilafat grievance. It remains to be seen whether their feeling is intense enough to evoke in them the measure of sacrifice adequate for successful non-cooperation. That is, your survey of the conditions, you think, justifies your advising non-co-operation in the full conviction that you have behind you the support of the vast masses of the Mussulman population?

Yes. This non-co-operation, you are satisfied, will extend to complete severance of co-operation with the Government? No; nor is it the present moment my desire that it should. I am simply practicing non-co-operation to the extent that is necessary to make the Government realize the depth of popular feeling in the matter and the dissatisfaction with the Government that all that could be done has not been done either by the Government of India or by the Imperial Government whether on the khilafat question or on the Punjab question. Do you, Mr. Gandhi, realize that even amongst Mohammedans there are sections of people who are not enthusiastic over non-co-operation however much they may feel the wrong that has been done to their community?

Yes. But their number is smaller than those who are prepared to adopt non-co-operation. And yet does not the fact that there has not been an adequate response to your appeal for resignation of titles and offices and for boycott of elections of the councils indicate that you may be placing more faith in their strength of conviction than is warranted? I think not; for the reason that the stage has only just come into operation and our people are always most cautious and slow to move. Moreover, the first stage largely affects the uppermost strata of society, who represent a microscopic minority though they are undoubtedly an influential body of people.

This upper class, you think, has sufficiently responded to your appeal?

I am unable to say either one way or the other at present. I shall be able to give a definite answer at the end of this month.  Do you think that without one’s loyalty to the King and the royal family being questioned, one can advocate non-co-operation in connection with the royal visit? Most decidedly; for the simple reason that if there is any disloyalty about the proposed boycott of the Prince’s visit, it is disloyalty to the Government of the day and not to the person of His Royal Highness.

What do you think is to be gained by promoting this boycott in connection with the royal visit? Because I want to show that the people of India are not in sympathy with the Government of the day and that they strongly disapprove of the policy of the Government in regard to the Punjab and khilafat, and even in respect of other important administrative measures. I consider that the visit of the Prince of Wales is a singularly good opportunity to the people to show their disapproval of the present Government. After all, the visit is calculated to have tremendous political results. It is not to be a non-political event, and seeing that the Government of India and the Imperial Government want to make the visit a political event of first-class importance, namely, for the purpose of strengthening their hold upon India, I for one, consider that it is the bounden duty of the people to boycott the visit which is being engineered by the two Governments in their own interest which at the present moment is totally antagonistic to the people. Do you mean that you want this boycott promoted because you feel that the strengthening of the hold upon India is not desirable in the best interests of the country?

Yes. The strengthening of the hold of a Government so wicked as the present one is not desirable for the best interests of the people. Not that I want the bond between England and India to become loosened for the sake of loosening it but I want that bond to become strengthened only in so far as it adds to the welfare of India. Do you think that non-co-operation and the non-boycott of the legislative councils are consistent?

No; because a person who takes up the programme of non-cooperation

cannot consistently stand for councils. Is non-co-operation, in your opinion, an end in itself or a means to an end, and if so, what is the end?

It is a means to an end, the end being to make the present Government just, whereas it has become mostly unjust. Co-operation with a just government is a duty; non-co-operation with an unjust government is equally a duty. Will you look with favour upon the proposal to enter the councils and to carry on either obstructive tactics or to decline to take the oath of allegiance as consistent with your non-co-operation?

No; as an accurate student of non-co-operation, I consider that such a proposal is inconsistent with the true spirit of non-cooperation. I have often said that a Government really thrives on obstruction, and so far as the proposal not to take the oath of allegiance is concerned, I can really see no meaning in it; it amounts to a useless waste of valuable time and money. In other words, obstruction is no stage in non-co-operation?

No. Are you satisfied that all efforts at constitutional agitation have been? Exhausted and that, non-co-operation is the only course left us? I do not consider non-co-operation to be unconstitutional, but I do believe that of all the constitutional remedies now left open to us, non-co-operation is the only one left for us. Do you consider it constitutional to adopt it with a view merely to paralyze Government? Certainly, it is not unconstitutional, but a prudent man will not take all the steps that are constitutional if they are not otherwise undesirable, nor do I advise that course. I am resorting to non-cooperation in progressive stages because I want to evolve true order out of untrue order. I am not going to take a single step in non-cooperation unless I am satisfied that the country is ready for that step, namely, non-co-operation will not be followed by anarchy or disorder.

How will you satisfy yourself that anarchy will not follow? For instance, if I advise the police to lay down their arms, I shall have satisfied myself that we are able by voluntary assistance to protect ourselves against thieves and robbers. That was precisely what was done in Lahore and Amritsar last year by the citizens by means of volunteers when the military and the police had withdrawn. Even where Government had not taken such measures in a place, for want of adequate force, I know people have successfully protected themselves. You have advised lawyers to non-co-operate by suspending their practice. What is your experience? Has the lawyers’ response to your appeal encouraged you to hope that you will be able to carry through all stages of non-co-operation with the help of such people?

I cannot say that a large number has yet responded to my appeal. It is too early to say how many will respond. But I may say that I do not rely merely upon the lawyer class or highly educated men to enable the Committee to carry out all the stages of non-cooperation. My hope lies more with the masses so far as the later stages of non-co-operation are concerned.