Mahatma Gandhi Conference with Swarajists Leaders

[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

 

 

Mahatma Gandhi Conference with Swarajists Leaders

 

 

GANDHIJI: Sarojini Devi told me that it was generally understood that I had advised the complete suspension of civil disobedience on the part of the Congress. Then I would say it is not so. If this is the interpretation put upon my statement, it is the imperfection of my language, but this is not what I have sought to convey. Dr. Ansari, Bhulabhai and Bidhan know what is at the back of my mind.

BHULABHAI: They do not mean to say that this is what the statement conveys, but that this is what it ought to be.

G. Sarojini Devi observed that the interpretation put upon my statement in Bombay was that there would be a suspension of civil disobedience on behalf of the Congress, and that my civil disobedience would be quite individual. It is not so.

B. The wish is father to the thought. Many people read into it that meaning. The two conceptions are quite distinct. They read that meaning in hope. Please see if it may be possible to remove the wrong impression by another statement.

G. Is it the impression also among those that are here? And is it your desire that the Congress should wash its hands of civil disobedience as restricted to me?

B. Will you offer it in the name of the Congress?

G. Yes.

C. RAJAGOPALACHARI: Is the Congress going to disown him?

B. There is a third, middle course. It may be possible to persuade Gandhiji not to treat it as the Congress disowning him but as his releasing the Congress from it. G. It would be possible if it was my advice that civil disobedience should be undertaken by me not on behalf of the Congress but on my own account.

B. It may be possible to put it to Gandhiji as the desire of the Congress, ‘Will you please relieve us? We are unable to bear the burden.’

ASAF ALI: I have understood your statement to mean that you have relieved the Congressmen; and since you say that civil disobedience should be according to your own conception, you have confined it to yourself. The Congress has faith in civil disobedience, but we cannot say so about the modification of it.

G. Under these circumstances the Congress should free itself altogether from this.

A. A. The civil disobedience must remain in our armoury. But the present is not the time to use it, nor does it seem likely to come in the near future. You should not use that weapon now.

DEEPNARAYAN SINGH: The Congress would wish not to reject it, but to suspend it.

G. I will explain later why I have given this advice. But what I wish to know just now is whether my language is capable of bearing the interpretation I am now putting on it.

D. S. We have taken it to mean complete suspension of civil disobedience.

G. If the people have interpreted it in this way, then it would be a different matter altogether. A sense of relief there is, because they have come to know that they have no longer to offer civil disobedience. ‘He will go to prison. It is enough if one man goes to jail on our behalf.’ If the sense of relief is due to this feeling, it is one thing. But it would be quite a different thing if the sense of relief is due to the feeling that, ‘He will go on offering it himself; but we are free from it.’ After Sarojini Devi spoke to me, I asked myself if there was anything in my statement to justify this interpretation. I read the statement once again at three o’clock last night. I have nowhere said in the statement that the Congress should suspend civil disobedience. In fact, I have assumed that the Congress is not prepared for complete suspension. In Poona it was definitely against it. If the Congressmen wish to get out of it altogether, I must respect their wish, and you may disown me. It would, in my opinion, be detrimental to Congress prestige. I said so at Poona also. If there is violence and it goes on increasing, we can suspend civil disobedience; but we cannot suspend it because our number is small. We should carry on civil disobedience, even if there is one satyagrahi left. If the adviser says, ‘I have nothing left now and even I am unable to offer civil disobedience’, then we can do something else. But I do not feel that I cannot offer civil disobedience. I feel no despondency in me. I do feel that it can be still more powerful in certain circumstances. One of them is that civil disobedience is confined to me. I want to do this as the Congress expert on this subject. The Congress is responsible for civil disobedience. But finally I am responsible. I am not feeling helpless. I cannot suspend it in my own person, nor can the Congress. The Congress dare not suspend it. The Congress must not suspend it, because thousands of persons have ruined themselves in this movement. What answer shall we give to them? And what reward? Are you afraid that the Congress will still be treated as illegal? But there is something much more powerful.

D. S. They will not like to disown you, and yet they want to suspend this civil disobedience for a time.

G. You can’t have both the things together. If the Congressmen have that desire and yet do not want to disown me, I may withdraw from the Congress. There are two instances of a similar nature. I might have become a member of the Servants of India Society. But it came to votes and I withdrew. I said, ‘I don’t want to divide the house.’ The second instance refers to the Gujarati Sahitya Parishad. Some people wanted to elect me as the president of the Parishad in 1926, and there was the controversy over the proposal. Munshi brought the matter to me. I said, ‘I don’t want to enter into any rivalry. It is unthinkable.’

B. Government did not put the two propositions together; it was the newspapers that did so.

MUNSHI: My impression is that they want the A.I.C.C. to do nothing more than endorsing Gandhiji’s statement. If you don’t do so, it will be a vote of censure, whether you wish it or not.

G. There are some Congressmen who want to go further. I have, in my statement, advised the Congress to restrict civil disobedience to me. Now the suggestion is that I should practice it in my own person but not in the name of the Congress. If that is the desire of the bulk of the Congressmen then I would give that advice, without dividing the A.I.C.C. on the question.

B. That is precisely what I want to say.

G. I want to know two things: first, whether I am misunderstood; secondly, whether it is the desire of the bulk of the Congressmen that I should go further than this.

B. If the word ‘effectively’ means endorsing your statement, Congressmen would be too glad.

C. R. ‘Effective’ means something more.

G. It is quite likely that the Government may say that this is not enough.

C. R. They had a doubt as to whether a majority of the Congressmen would accept the advice. Let us only think whether we want to disown Gandhiji.

G. The Congressmen don’t want to disown me. They want this accommodation from me. If that is so, I must give them that accommodation. If there is such a desire on the part of a majority of Congressmen, I must do so.

C. R. Does it not mean that they don’t want civil disobedience?

G. No, I won’t go so far as to say that. An honest man would say, ‘I cannot understand one man doing it. If you have invincible faith, you may do it. If you show results, we shall come to it!’ That many can’t understand it I can see. But my hope is that many don’t have that feeling. Having seen brilliant results, they would say, ‘We can’t possibly give it up.’ If I give up civil disobedience, I would be denying myself. There are some Congressmen who wish to tell me, ‘You should not isolate yourself from the nation; therefore, you too should give up civil disobedience.’ The U.P. Congressmen have said this.

DR. ANSARI: They prohibit you just now, but they say, ‘When you go forward, take us with you.

JAMNALAL BAJAJ: In any case he is not going to jail just now—at least not till August.

G. The resolution in effect means to say, ‘Your advice is good, but you should go one step further and suspend civil disobedience completely. When in future we go that way, we will all go together.’ Grannie, you were right about those two women, and I was staggered.

NARIMAN: I want civil disobedience to be given up as the official programme of the Congress.

BIDHAN ROY: Nariman says that in accordance with your statement, it will be the official programme of the Congress.

G. Civil disobedience is still the official programme of the Congress.

N. Can you please give us the formula you will place before the A.I.C.C.?

G. My formula will be: ‘Having read Gandhi’s statement carefully, and having heard his explanation, the A.I.C.C. endorses the advice tendered by him to restrict civil disobedience to himself, provided that when and if he has the proposal for the extension of the programme of civil disobedience, the A.I.C.C. reserves the right of accepting it or not. The A.I.C.C. asks all other Congressmen to follow his advice and suspend civil disobedience.’ It will not be a blank card given to me. Every time I have something, I shall come to the Congress. You don’t pledge yourselves as to the future. You reserve your right to accept my advice or reject it. The Congress has a perfect right to offer civil disobedience. I say that you should not do so just now. The Congress may not do so till the expert does not advice. All energy will thus be husbanded, instead of being frittered away and wasted. The nation has got energy of which you have no conception but I have. I do not want to put an undue strain on the energy. Those who want to go to jail may retain the desire and prepare; and if and when I am ready, I shall come to the Congress, if I am alive. Civil disobedience will be wholly unnecessary, if the constructive programme is followed out. The parliamentary programme will also form part of the Congress programme, supposing the members of the Congress who go to the Councils are not going there for their personal ends. If a communal settlement is achieved, if untouchability is removed, if there is an Indian sober instead of an Indian drunk, and if we build up universal cottage industries in India, then there will be no occasion for civil disobedience. My civil disobedience will cover everything. My civil disobedience will be enough even after swaraj is achieved. The only difficulty lies in convincing the people that this way lies swaraj. And your parliamentary programme will be nugatory, if Hindu-Muslim unity is not achieved. You will be in a turmoil.

N. But how will this decision contribute to the parliamentary programme?

G. It will contribute by releasing your energy. I cannot go into the Councils. I am a red rag to the bull. My silence has contributed more than my words. My words have lost their power. I know that I shall give a good account of myself when the time comes.

N.  Is this dual programme not inconsistent civil disobedience confined to one individual on the one hand and the parliamentary work on the other?

G. It is absolutely consistent. The law-maker is no good, if he is not also a law-breaker.

N. I can understand the same individual doing the two things at different times. But how can an organization do both the things at the same time?

G. Yes, it would be very difficult, but not impossible. If the Congress does not endorse my statement, you will be rendered impotent, and you will be asked to give up position after position. If you say, with your back to the wall, ‘Thus far and no further’, no Government can defy you.

B. You can make a good law and can break a bad one. This distinction is unnecessarily verbal.

N. Are we to have a dual programme with two parts opposite to one another?

G. Are they really opposite?

N. We then shall have two sections—one making and the other breaking laws. Why should there be hurry for Council-entry at this stage?

G. If I were in your place, as lover of the country I would say, ‘We do believe in Council-entry.’ I tried to see if we could have such a strong mentality in the Congress that no one would think of the Councils. But I find that we have a large body of men looking to the Councils. I will not call it a weakness. It is a felt want in the country; I called it a weakness while I was hoping about keeping out this mentality from the Congress. But I could not keep it out. Every time it erupts. I realized the situation. I goaded Dr. Bidhan Roy. I said, ‘I advise you to form a party.’ And I gave similar advice to Asaf Ali, Satyamurti and Abhyankar. I said to them, ‘In the Councils you will be able to swear at the Government.’ ‘But we are swearing at the Government’, they said, ‘when we are in jail.’ ‘But you can’t go to jail’, I answered, ‘because you don’t believe in individual civil disobedience. When mass action comes, you will, of course, be there.’ I am for prosecuting the constructive programme. I am not a believer in Councils. But if I were, I would be the first member of the Swaraj Party.

 

Reference:

 

Mahatma, Vol. III, pp. 261-6