INTERVIEW TO ASSOCIATED PRESS ON ROUND TABLE CONFERENCE

[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 TO ASSOCIATED PRESS ON ROUND TABLE CONFERENCE

 

 

 

 Referring to Lord Ronald shay’s speech at the Bengal Legislative Council on Monday last, Mr. Gandhi made the following statement to the correspondent of the Associated Press at his Ashram late in the night: I have read Lord Ronald shay’s speech in the Bengal Legislative Council. Whilst I appreciate the note of conciliation about it, I cannot help saying that it is most misleading. I do not want to criticize those parts of the speech which lend themselves to criticism. I simply want to say that the present situation is entirely his own and the Viceroy’s doing. In spite of my strong ‘desire to avoid suspecting the Government of India and the Local Governments of a wish to precipitate a conflict with the people, up to now all that I have heard and read leads me to the conclusion that my suspicion is justified. Whilst I do not wish to deny the existence of some sort of pressure, even intimidation, on the part of individuals, I do wish emphatically to deny that in connection with the phenomenal hartal on the 17th November in Calcutta, there was any intimidation, organized or initiated by or on behalf of the local Congress or the Khilafat Committees.

On the contrary, I am certain that the influence exerted by both these bodies was in the direction of avoiding all intimidation. Moral pressure there certainly was and will always be in all big movements, but it must be clear to the simplest understanding that a complete hartal such as Calcutta witnessed on the 17th November would be impossibility by mere intimidation. But assume that there was intimidation. Was there any reason for disbanding Volunteer Corps, prohibiting public meetings and enforcing laws which are under promise of repeal? Why has no attempt been made to prove a single case of intimidation? It grieves me to have to say that the Governor of Bengal has brought in the discovery of sword-sticks in one place in Calcutta to discredit large public organizations. Who intimidated the people into observing a complete hartal in Allahabad after all the leaders were arrested and in spite of the reported undue official pressure that was exercised upon shopkeepers and ghariwallas at that place? Again His Lordship says: If we are to assume that this development means there is genuine desire to bring about improvement, there must be a favourable atmosphere. In other words, it will be generally agreed that truce must be an essential preliminary to any possible conference. If responsible leaders of non-co-operation now come forward with the definite assurance that this is the correct interpretation, I should then say we were in sight of such a change of circumstances as would justify Government in reconsidering the position. But words must be backed by deeds.

If I were satisfied only that there was a general desire for the conference and that responsible non-co-operation leaders were prepared to take action, then I should be prepared to recommend my Government to take steps in consonance with the altered situation. This is highly misleading. If wherever the words “on-cooperation leaders” occur, the word “Government” were put in and if the whole of the statement came from a non-co-operator, it would represent the correct situation. Non-co-operators have really to do nothing, for they have precipitated nothing. . They are over-cautious. The disturbance in Bombay was allowed to override their keen desire to take up aggressive civil disobedience but in the present circumstances the phrase “civil disobedience” is really a misnomer. What non- co-operators is doing today, I claim, every co-operator would do tomorrow under similar circumstances. When the Government of India or the local Governments attempt to make our political existence or agitation, no matter how peaceful, an utter impossibility, may we not resist such attempt by every lawful means at our disposal? I cannot imagine anything more lawful or more natural than that we should continue our volunteer organizations purging them of every tendency to become violent and continue also to hold public meetings taking the consequences of such a step. Is it not proof of the law-abiding instinct of hundreds of young men and old men that they have meekly, without offering any defence and without complaining, accepted imprisonment for having dared to exercise their elementary rights in the face of Government prosecution? And so it is the Government which is to prove its genuine desire for a conference and an ultimate settlement.

It is the Government which has to arrest the fatal course along which repression is taking it. It is the Government that is to prove to non-co-operators its bona fides before it can expect them to take part in any conference. When the Government does that, it will find that there is an absolutely peaceful atmosphere. Non-co-operation, when the Government is not resisting anything except violence, is a most harmless thing. There is really nothing for us to suspend. We cannot be expected, until there is actual settlement or guarantee of settlement, to ask schoolboys to return to Government schools or lawyers to resume practice or public men to become candidates for the Councils or titleholders to ask for return of titles. In the nature of things, it is, therefore, clear that non-co-operators have to do nothing. Speaking personally, I can certainly say that if there is a genuine desire for a conference, I would be the last person to advise precipitating aggressive civil disobedience, which certainly it is my intention to do immediately I am entirely satisfied that the people have understood the secret of non-violence; and let me say the last ten days’ events have shown that the people seem clearly to understand its inestimable value. If then the Government recognizes that non-co-operators mean business and intend to suffer limitlessly for the attainment of their goal, let the Government unconditionally retrace its steps, cancel the notifications about disbandment of volunteer organizations and prohibition of public meetings and release all those men in the different provinces who have been arrested and sentenced for so-called civil disobedience or for any other purpose given under the definition of non-cooperation but excluding acts of violence, actual or intended.

Let the Government come down with a heavy hand on every act of violence or incitement to it, but we must claim the right for all time of expressing our opinions freely and educating public opinion by every legitimate and non-violent means. It is, therefore, the Government who has really to undo the grave wrong they have perpetrated and they can have the conference they wish in a favourable atmosphere. Let me also say that so far as I am concerned I want no conference to consider the ways and means of dealing with non-co-operation. The only conference that can at all avail at this stage is a conference called to deal with the causes of the present discontent, namely, the Khilafat and the Punjab wrongs and swaraj. Any conference again which can usefully sit at the present stage must be a conference that is really representative and not a conference to which only those whom the Government desire are invited.