For Global Peace with Social Justice in a Sustainable Environment

Messages of Mahatma Gandhi; Part-1

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Gandhian Scholar

Gandhi Research Foundation, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09404955338

E-mail- dr.yadav.yogendra@gandhifoundation.net

Messages of Mahatma Gandhi; Part-1

Mahatma Gandhi a different man. He met a lot of persons daily. He had a lot of work and their concerning people. He gave a message everybody time to time. Those messages had a lot of meaning. The person who had gotten it, change his life according to it. Those messages may be useful today. We can solve many problems by help of them. Mahatma Gandhi gave a message, “I have undertaken this struggle prayerfully and in all humility believing in the entire righteousness of the cause, and I hope that one day the Colonists will do justice to my countrymen. So far as my countrymen are concerned, I can only hope that they will remain firm in their sacred and solemn resolution. By doing so they have nothing to lose. Even though they may have to lose their all they can only gain in the esteem of their fellow-men by being resolute. I sincerely state that in effecting my arrest General Smuts has done a very honourable act. He believes that my countrymen have been misled by me. I am not conscious of having done so, but I may have been misled myself. In any case removing me from the arena will show whether the position is real or unreal. The position therefore is absolutely in our own hands.”1 Mahatma Gandhi gave a message to Indian Youth, “I am not sure that I have any right to send a message to those with whom I have never come into personal contact, but it has been desired and I consent. These, then, are my thoughts: The struggle in the Transvaal is not without its interest for India. We are engaged in raising men who will give a good account of themselves in any part of the world. We have undertaken the struggle on the following assumptions:

(1) Passive Resistance is always infinitely superior to physical force.

(2) There is no inherent barrier between Europeans and Indians anywhere.

(3) Whatever may have been the motives of the British rulers in India, there is a desire on the part of the nation at large to see that justice is done. It would be a calamity to break the connection between the British people and the people of India. If we are treated as, or assert our right to be treated as, free men, whether in India or elsewhere, the connection between the British people and the people of India can not only be mutually beneficial, but is calculated to be of enormous advantage to the world religiously, and, therefore, socially and politically. In my opinion, each nation is the complement of the other. Passive Resistance in connection with the Transvaal struggle I should hold justifiable on the strength of any of these propositions. It may be a slow remedy, but I regard it as an absolutely sure remedy, not only for our ills in the Transvaal, but for all the political and other troubles from which our people suffer in India.”2

Mahatma Gandhi gave a message to Indians, “Keep absolutely firm to the end. Suffering is our only remedy. Victory is certain.”3

Mahatma Gandhi gave a message to Indians, “I am happy that I am going to jail again. The only regret is that I received only three months’ imprisonment, whereas other satyagrahi patriots have received six months. As I go to jail, I see that many Indians have given in. It is left only to a few Indians to continue the campaign now. I am undeterred by this fact. In some ways, it can be more vigorous now. Those who have fallen can rise again. They can still go to jail. I hope they will rise. Even if they cannot, they can offer monetary help, and send statements to newspapers to say that, though they have surrendered, they are in favour of the fight and wish it success.

Men of education outside the Transvaal can enter and be installed in jail. If they do not do this, they can serve as volunteers at meetings wherever they are. It is the duty of all Indians in South Africa to hold meetings, pass resolutions and send telegrams.

This is a fight on behalf of religion, that is, on behalf of the universal religion which underlies all religions. Had I not believed so, I would never have advised the community to invite grievous suffering on itself; I believe that sacrificing one’s all in a struggle like this should in no way be difficult. It is the duty of every Indian to forget all thought of relatives and friends, to sacrifice wealth and life, in this struggle. I pray to God, and beg of Indians that all of them fulfill this duty. It lies in our own hands to shorten the campaign.”4

Mahatma Gandhi gave a message to Tamil, “I have addressed a letter in Gujarati to our countrymen, but, as I do not know the beautiful Tamil language sufficiently, I write to you in English, hoping that I may reach some of you. The struggle has not reached the most critical stage. Whilst the majority of the other sections of the community have fallen, being too weak, the majority of the Tamils and the Parsis have stood firm. The brunt of the battle must, therefore, fall upon their shoulders. I pray to God that He may give you sufficient strength to bear it. You have discharged yourselves brilliantly hitherto. Remember that we are descendants of Prahlad and Sudhanva, both passive resisters of the purest type. They disregarded the dictates even of their parents, when they were asked to deny God. They suffered extreme torture rather than inflict suffering on their persecutors. We in the Transvaal are being called upon to deny God, in that we are required to deny our manhood, go back upon our oath, and accept an insult to our nation. Shall we in the present crisis do less than our forefathers?”5

Mahatma Gandhi gave a message to meeting of British Indian Association, “It will not be possible for us to participate in the celebrations the whites are going to hold in honour of H. R. H. the Duke of Connaught on the occasion of his visit to Johannesburg, nor will it be possible to honour him in view of the troubles we are having, such as failure on the part of the Government to bring about a reasonable solution of the satyagraha struggle; harassment of satyagrahis in jails through extremely unjust treatment; satyagrahi prisoners having to undertake complete fasts to secure the grant of reasonable demands even for things like ghee; depriving minors of the right to register on reaching the age of 16; and the war on women like Mrs. Rambhabai Sodha, whose case is going to be taken up next week. We can give up our struggle only after our demands are satisfied. We would give up our fight if the new immigration law was going to put an end to our grievances. But if under the Union Government that has come into being the new Act applies to all the colonies, and consequently our brethren there are adversely affected and have to take recourse to Satyagraha, we shall have to contribute our utmost to it. But we cannot continue the present struggle on account of these grievances. The Cape Indians did not intend to present an address to H. R. H. the Duke, but, as one was ready, it was sent by post; and, as far as I know, the Natal Indians are presenting none. Under these circumstances, we cannot participate even in the celebrations. And, how can we present an address? We can write a letter to express our loyalty and have done with it. If Mrs. Rambhabai Sodha is sent to jail, we should come forward to fill the jails, and if possible, close our shops, hold meetings and pass resolutions to protest against the injustice.”6

Mahatma Gandhi gave a message to Strikers, “No cessation of the strike without the repeal of the £3 tax. The Government, having imprisoned me, can gracefully make a declaration regarding the repeal.”7

Mahatma Gandhi gave a message of thanks, “May I convey, on behalf of Mrs. Gandhi, Mr. Kallenbach and self, our deepest thanks to hundreds of senders of telegrams from all parts of South Africa which awaited us upon our arrival on board. These telegrams, containing messages of love and sympathy, will be an additional reminder to us of what South Africa has meant to us. We trust that the goodwill shown to us personally by so many European friends will be transferred to those to who’s because our lives in South Africa were dedicated.”8

Mahatma Gandhi gave a message of Gokhale life, “All that you do, and all you enjoy, what you offer in sacrifice, what you give in charity, All austerities that you go through, Render up everything to me. When, smiling and playing my way through life, I see Hari revealed to me, a visible presence, and then shall I consider my life to have attained its true end. Muktanand’s Lord, who sports with us, O Odha! He is the thread of our lives. The counsel Shri Krishna addressed to Arjuna was, as it were, addressed by Lady India to Mahatma Gokhale and taken to heart by the latter, such was the manner of life of this great, departed soul. It is a fact known to everyone that all his activities, all his joys and the sacrifices he made, all the suffering he went through, were dedicated to Mother India.

The state of Odhava’s mind5 with regard to Shri Krishna, as depicted by Muktanand, was that of the late Gokhale with regard to India. What is the message of a life such as this? The Mahatma did not leave even this unsaid. When dying, he sent for the members of the Servants of India Society who were then present and told them: “Do not occupy yourselves with writing my biography or spend your time in putting up my statues. If you are true servants of India, dedicate your lives to the fulfillment of our aims, to the service of India.” We know, too, what he felt in his heart about the meaning of that service. The Congress should of course be kept alive, the true condition of the country should be placed before the people through speeches and writings and efforts made to have education provided to every Indian. What was the aim behind all this? And how was it to be realized? In answering these questions, we get to know his point of view. Framing a constitution for the Servants of India Society, he laid down that the duty of its members would be to spiritualize political life in India.

This embraces everything. His was a religious life. My soul stands witness that, in all that he did, at all times, he acted wholly in the spirit of religion. Some twenty years ago, this Mahatma’s sentiments sometimes appeared to be those of an atheist. He said once: “I don’t have Ranade’s1 faith. How I should like to have it!” Even at that time, however, I could see a religious bent of mind in his actions. It would not be wrong to say that his very doubt proceeded from such a bent of mind. He who lives in the manner of a sadhu, whose desires are simple, who is the image of truth, is full of humility, who represents the very essence of truth and has wholly renounced his ego, such a one is a holy soul, whether he knows it or not. Such a one was Mahatma Gokhale, as I could see from my twenty years’ acquaintance with him.

In 1896, I discussed [with leaders] in India the question of indentured labour in Natal. At that time, I knew the Indian leaders only by name. This was the first occasion when I had contact with he leaders at Calcutta, Bombay, Poona and Madras. The late Gokhale was then known as a follower of Ranade. He had already at this time dedicated his life to the Fergusson College. I was a mere youth, with no experience. The bond which developed between us on the occasion of our very first meeting in Poona never came to exist between any other leader and me. Sure enough, all that I had heard about Mahatma Gokhale was confirmed by my own experience; but especially the effect which the soft expression on his lotus-like face had on me has still not vanished from my mind. I instantly recognized him as dharma incarnate. I had an audience with Shri Ranade, too, at that time, but I could get no glimpse into his heart. I could only see him as Gokhale’s mentor. Whether it was that he was much senior to me in age and experience or that there were some other reasons, whatever the reason, I could not understand Shri Ranade as well as I could Gokhale.

After this contact with him in 1896, Gokhale’s political life became my ideal. That very time he took possession of my heart as my guru in matters political. He edited the Quarterly of the Sarvajanik Sabha; he made Fergusson College illustrious by teaching there. He gave evidence before the Welby Commission1 and demonstrated his true worth to India. He created so fine an impression on Lord Curzon by his ability that the latter, who feared none, feared him. By his performance in the Central Legislative Assembly, he brought credit to India. At the risk of his life, he served on the Public Service Commission. He did all this and much more. Others have given a far better account of these things than I could hope to. Moreover, one cannot claim that his message, as I have understood it and defined it here, may be clearly deduced from these actions of his. I, therefore propose to conclude this article by relating what I have myself known and what exemplifies his message.

The Satyagraha struggle made so profound an impression on his mind that, though his health absolutely forbade it, he decided to pay a visit to South Africa. He went there in 1912. The Indians in South Africa gave him a right royal welcome. On the very next day after his arrival in Cape Town, there was a meeting in the local Town Hall. The Mayor was in the chair. Gokhale was in no condition to attend meetings and make speeches. But he left intact all the countless and taxing engagements that had been fixed. Following this decision, he attended the meeting in the Town Hall. At that very first appearance, he conquered the hearts of the whites in Cape Town. Everyone felt that a great soul was visiting South Africa. Mr. Merriman, a prominent leader in South Africa and a man of character and liberal views, had this to say when they met: “Sir, a visit by a person like you brings a breath of fresh air into this land of ours.”

As the late Mr. Gokhale’s tour progressed, this first impression became stronger. At every place the distinction between whites and Coloureds was forgotten for the moment. There were meetings in all places like the one held in Cape Town. The whites and Indians sat in the same rows at these meetings and, according equal honour to the late Mr. Gokhale, earned similar honour for themselves. There was a dinner in his honour in Johannesburg. It was attended by nearly three hundred prominent whites. The Mayor was in the chair. The whites in Johannesburg are not likely to be awed by anyone. If they have some multi-millionaires among them, they have also men who know people’s worth. These vied with one another in shaking hands with Mr. Gokhale. There was only one reason for this. In his speeches, the audiences saw Gokhale’s overflowing love for his motherland and a sense of fairness, at the same time. He wanted his country to be treated with the fullest respect and honour but did not want that any other country should be humiliated. If he was anxious to see all the rights of his countrymen preserved, he was equally anxious to see that the rights of others were not jeopardized in the process. Because of this, everyone felt a genuine sweetness in his utterances.

Mr. Gokhale believed that he delivered in Johannesburg his best speech in South Africa. It lasted more than three quarters of an hour but I never felt that anyone in the audience was bored. How did he make this speech? He started preparing for it six days in advance. He acquainted himself with the history of the question, as much as was necessary for his purpose, posted himself with the relevant figures and, sitting up late the preceding night, got ready with his language. The result was as I have stated. He satisfied both the whites and his own people.

I shall never forget while I live the pains he took to prepare himself for his meeting with Generals Botha and Smuts in Pretoria, the capital of South Africa. On the day before the interview, he closely examined Mr. Kallenbach and me. He got up at three o’clock and woke us up. He had finished with the literature he had been supplied and now wanted to cross-examine me, in order to make sure whether he was fully prepared. I told him politely that he need not have exerted himself so much, that we would fight it out if we obtained nothing then, but that we did not want him to be sacrificed for our sake. But how would a man, who had made it a rule to throw himself heart and soul into everything that he undertook, listen to my words?

How shall 1 describe his manner of cross-examining me? How shall I praise his thoroughness? Such pains could have only one result. The cabinet promised Mr. Gokhale that a Bill conceding the satyagrahis’ demands would be introduced in Parliament in the ensuing session and that the annual tax of £3 on the indentured labourers would be repealed. The promises were not kept at the time mentioned. Did Mr. Gokhale hold his peace thereafter? Not for a moment. I am sure his exertions in 1913 to secure the fulfillment of the promises must have shortened his life by at least ten years. This is what his doctors believe. It is difficult to give an idea of the labour he went through in that year in rousing India and collecting funds. India was in an uproar about the issue of South Africa. The power which brought this about was Mr. Gokhale’s. Lord Hardinge made a speech in Madras1 which will go down in history. This too was owing to Gokhale. Those who were the nearest to him bear witness that, worrying himself over the South African issue, he became permanently bed-ridden. Even so, till the very last he refused to rest. He would receive, at midnight, telegrams from South Africa as long as letters. He attended to them immediately and drafted a reply on the instant. A telegram would be sent to Lord Hardinge the same moment and a statement for the Press prepared.

In attending to the question, he delayed his meal and delayed going to bed, ignored the difference between day and night. Such single-minded and selfless devotion would be possible only to an elevated soul. On the Hindu-Muslim question, too, his approach was ever the most religious. Once a man dressed as a sadhu went to see him, claiming to speak for Hindus. He would have the Muslims treated as inferior and the Hindus as superior. When Mr. Gokhale refused to play this game, he was accused of wanting in pride as a Hindu.

Knitting his brows, he replied in a voice that pierced the heart: “If Hinduism consists in doing what you say, I am not a Hindu. Please leave me.” One sannyasi left another and walked off. Mr. Gokhale possessed in an eminent degree the quality of fearlessness. Among the qualities that make for the religious way of life this occupies almost the first place. There was a reign of terror in Poona after the assassination of Lieutenant Rand1. Mr. Gokhale was in England at that time. He made a famous speech there in defence of Poona. Some of the statements he made in that speech could not subsequently be proved. After some time, he returned to India. He apologized to the British troops against whom he had levelled charges. This action even displeased a section of the Indian people. Some persons advised the Mahatma to retire from public life. A few ignorant Indians did not even hesitate to accuse him of pusillanimity. To all of them, he replied in words at once earnest and gentle: “What I have undertaken at no one’s order, I can abandon at no one’s order. I should be happy to have popular opinion on my side while performing my duty; should I not be so fortunate, however, that too may be just as well.” He believed that one’s duty lay in working. I never observed that while doing anything, he considered its effect on popular opinion from the point of view of his personal fortunes. If it ever became necessary to mount the gallows for the sake of the country, I believe he had the strength to do so fearlessly and with a smile on his face. I know that, often enough, mounting the gallows would have been a far easier thing for him than to be in the condition he had to pass through. He was in such painful situations more than once but he never gave way.

All these instances would seem to point to this lesson, that if we would learn anything from the life of this great patriot, it should be to emulate his religious attitude. All of us cannot go into the Central Legislative Assembly, nor do we always observe that doing so necessarily means serving the nation. We all cannot join the Public Service Commission and all those who do are not patriots. We may not, everyone of us, acquire his learning, nor do we see that every learned person is a servant of the country. All of us, however, can cultivate virtues like fearlessness, truthfulness, fortitude, justice, straightforwardness, firmness of purpose, and dedicate them to the service of the nation. This is the religious way. This is what the mahavakya, that political life should be spiritualized, means. He who follows this line will always know the path he should take. He will earn a share in the legacy left by the late Shri Gokhale. It is the divine assurance that anyone acting in this spirit will come by all the other gifts he needs. The life of the late Shri Gokhale is an irrefutable proof of this.”9

Mahatma Gandhi gave a message to Gujrati Hindu Stri Mandal, “The women whom this message reaches are likely to have had some measure of education. I wish, therefore, to consider one thing. What should educated women do for their illiterate sisters? This is a very important issue. Beyond question, if women choose, they can attain a far greater measure of success in this field than men can ever do. At present, we do not find many women taking to this work. That is, I believe, not their fault but that of their education. The first thing, therefore, which educated women must do, is to try and see that their sisters do not fall a victim to it. Modern education fails utterly to prepare women for their distinctive role; this is not questioned by anyone. I do not wish here to examine the shortcomings of modern education or to bother you with the question how they may be overcome. All that I desire is that educated women should make this question their own and that those of them with some experience should dedicate their all to rouse Gujarat over it and focus attention on the right lines of reform.

Educated women have no contact with those not educated; often, they don’t welcome such contacts. This disease must be cured. It is necessary that educated women are made conscious of their most obvious duty. Men also are not free from faults of this kind, but women need not follow in their footsteps. They have the power, denied to men, of creating new ideals and translating them into action. By comparison, man is thoughtless, impatient and given to the pursuit of novelty. Woman, it is observed, is serious-minded, patient and inclined generally to cling to old ways. When, therefore, she has a new idea, it seems to have its birth in the tender depths of her heart. An idea born in this manner commands her unshakable faith and, for that reason, it is capable of being rapidly propagated. I believe therefore that, if educated women give up copying the ways of men and think independently about the important questions affecting their sex, we shall find it quite easy to solve many a knotty problem.

The problem of widows is not quite a simple one. It is a worthy cause to which quite a few women can dedicate their lives. It is one thing for a widow to marry again, if she so desires, quite another to waste one’s time over persuading a child-widow to do so. If women were to resolve, instead, and induce others to resolve, not to marry a widower or offer one’s daughter in marriage to one, and not to sacrifice one’s daughter to a child bridegroom, fit enough to be rocked in a cradle, I am confident the fruits will be sweet for India. It is worth considering carefully in what way the country can avail itself of the services of hundreds of widows, young and old; if educated women will not think about this, who else should? I have had an idea for many years; I may as well mention it here. Only a few years ago, our women used to spin cotton, and even weave. Today, the art is about to disappear. India has had to suffer much because of its decline. Millions of rupees have been lost to foreign countries. At present, widows spend their time going to temples or in the service of those claiming to be holy men, or in idle gossip. It does not seem to me that one can live a religious life only by going to a temple, though; of course, I do not wish to suggest that thoughtful visits to a temple may not be profitable. The idea, however, that spending time in a temple, unmindful of other tasks, is the furthest limit of selflessness is sheer superstition. Likewise, to wait on men of holy life, who stand in no need of services from others, and to serve them in all manner of ways, is unwholesome for both parties and waste of one’s time. To draw widows away from such activities and induce them to take up the task of serving India, work which will promote their ultimate good, is to help them to remarriage of the purest kind. Why do not the educated women embark upon this mission? Those of them who might think of doing so should themselves take the first lesson in the school of industry, namely, spin cotton and weave.”10

Mahatma Gandhi gave a message on National Education, “If people can be made to understand what National Education is truly and to cultivate a taste for it, the Government schools will be empty; and there will be no return thereto until the character of education in Government institutions is so radically altered as to accord with national ideals. Mahatma Gandhi gave a message to Hindi Class, “I wish every success to your effort. Feel sure Deccan will lead the way as in so many cases in recognizing Hindi as common medium and thus save India loss of immense nerve energy required in the use of English.”12 Mahatma Gandhi gave a message to Satyagrahi Agriculturists, “You did well to listen to Mr. Pratt attentively and courageously. That is the right way for satyagrahis. We have had to disobey the orders of the Government about revenue, but we should not fail in the courtesy due to Government officers. We want freedom from fear and slavery, but have no desire to forget our manners. Rude, of course, we can never be. In Satyagraha, one should always show due courtesy. The Commissioner pointed out the rights as also the duties of agriculturists and his advice in regard to both was worthy enough, but the gentleman failed to say that every human being has one fundamental right and obligation. A man owes it as a duty to refuse to do anything out of fear and, therefore, when anyone holds out a threat in order to force him to do something; he has a right to resist. By virtue of this right, the people of Kheda are at present respectfully disobeying the Government’s order. We believe that the crops this year have been less than four annas and that, accordingly, the collection of Government dues should be suspended. If, therefore, we pay the assessment which ought to have been suspended, we shall be doing so only out of fear that our movable property or our lands might be confiscated. If we give way to this fear, we shall become incapable of any manly effort. About eighty per cent of the farmers have paid up the dues out of this fear and, therefore, it is for the remaining twenty per cent to redeem the honour of all. Anyone who has lost his manliness cannot even show true loyalty. The difference between animals and man lies only in the latter’s manliness. This is a fight for asserting our manliness.

If the orders of the Revenue Department or any other Government orders are not revised despite petitions, it is not the spirit of the British Constitution that they must be obeyed meekly. There is no such political doctrine. It is the birth-right and the duty of the people to disobey orders which, on mature consideration, they regard as unjust or oppressive. The rule which obtains in the affairs of a family is equally applicable to the relations of a Government and its subjects and a violation of this rule leads to a conflict between the two: the subjects turn disloyal in secret and the Government ceases to trust anyone and becomes suspicious. In disobeying an order of the Government, one thing must be remembered. We cannot claim with certainty that the order in question is unjust; though we may think it so, it may in fact be just. Therefore, as in private dealings, so a difference between a Government and its subjects should be settled through a panch. This is what our ancient kings used to do. The British Government always does so. Such a panch is called a ‘commission’ or ‘committee’ and in order to save the prestige of the Government the recommendations of the panch are not made enforceable through a court but are left to the discretion of the former. The ultimate result, though, is the same as in arbitration of the usual kind. Government cannot be carried on without taking into account public opinion. What should be done, then, if the Government refuses to appoint a committee or commission? Person amongst whom brute force is the sole arbiter resorts to violence and seeks justice with arms. My own experience is that this method is futile. I believe also that the scriptures of all religions have denounced this manner of obtaining justice through violence and we certainly do not employ it in our domestic affairs. The straightforward course is to disobey the order and submit patiently and without anger to the consequent suffering. This will serve many purposes. If it turns out that we were in the wrong, the suffering we may have gone through would be justified; if are right, the other party, that is, the Government, cannot remain unmoved and ultimately it will have no option but to do justice. This is vouched for by the scriptures; they assert truth to be ever victorious; and time and again we find it is. The people of Kheda have come forward to suffer in this manner for the sake of truth, of dharma.

Lest we should become weak, we have bound ourselves by a pledge. No people can ever rise without doing this. A pledge means unshakable resolution. The undecided man is swept from this side to that like a rudderless boat, and finally destroyed. The Commissioner says that the pledge itself was improper and taken without thought. That it was not improper, we saw earlier, inasmuch as we have the right to disobey what we believe to be an unjust order; and that it was not taken thoughtlessly, everyone who took it knows. The course of the sun may alter, but this pledge, just and taken after full deliberation, shall not be abandoned.

I am sorry that Mr. Pratt has misrepresented the facts in his reference to the mill-hands’ strike in Ahmadabad and has violated the dictates of courtesy, justice, propriety and friendship. I hope that he has done so inadvertently. If any people in this world have honoured their pledge, the mill-workers of Ahmadabad have. They had always maintained that they would be prepared to accept any wage that the arbitrators fixed. It was because, at the time of the strike, the mill owners repudiated this principle that the mill-hands demanded thirty-five per cent. Even afterwards, they did not refuse arbitration. They secured thirty-five per cent for the first day and so kept the letter of the pledge. To decide what they should get afterwards, an arbitrator was appointed and the workers agreed to accept whatever he awarded.

Pending the award, the wages were fixed at between twenty per cent as offered by the mill-owners and thirty-five per cent as demanded by the workers. Even for this intervening period, adjustments were to be made subsequently in accordance with the arbitrators’ award. Thus the spirit of the pledge was kept. However that may be, the mill-hands certainly did not deliberately abandon their pledge, as alleged by Mr. Pratt. He is free to believe that they did; he is his own master. What is material is how the matter appeared to the workers; and this has been misrepresented by Mr. Pratt. He was present when the terms of the agreement were being explained to the mill-hands. It was shown to them how the pledge could be considered to have been kept and the agreement was readily welcomed by the workers. The gentleman was a witness to all this. Speaking on the agreement. he said: I am happy that the two parties have arrived at a settlement. So long as you seek and follow Mr. Gandhi’s advice, I am sure, you will succeed improving your lot and securing justice. You must bear it in mind that Mr. Gandhi and the ladies and gentlemen who helped him have suffered a great deal for you, have put themselves to trouble and shown their love for you.

With what little intelligence I have, I fail to understand how, despite this, he talks of the pledge having been given the go-by. The Commissioner uttered many threats and even said that he would carry them out. That means that he will confiscate the lands of all those who have taken this pledge and will even debar their heirs from owning lands in Kheda district.

This is a very fearful, cruel and heartless threat. I believe it issues from intense anger. When the anger has subsided, he will feel sorry for having uttered such a cruel threat. He holds the relationship between the Government and the people to be the same as between parents and children. There is no instance in the whole history of the world of parents having disinherited their children for having resisted them in a non-violent manner. The pledge you have taken may be a mistaken one—that is not inconceivable but there is not even a trace of discourtesy or insolence or defiance in it. It is still inconceivable to me how punishment of this serious nature could be meted out for taking a pledge in a more or less religious spirit for one’s own uplift. India cannot tolerate such punishment nor will the British statesmen ever uphold it. The British public would be horrified at it. If such fearful injustice should be perpetrated in the British Empire, I can live in it only as an outlaw. But I have far greater faith in British statesmanship than the Commissioner has. And I will repeat, what I said to you before, that I consider it impossible that you should lose your lands for anything done with such pure motives as yours.

Nevertheless, we too must be ready to lose our lands. On the one hand, there is your pledge and, on the other, there is your property. All that property both movable and immovable is nothing as compared to your pledge. Your honouring the pledge will be a far more valuable legacy for your posterity than property worth lakhs of rupees. This is a way by following which the whole of India can raise itself and I am sure you will never abandon it. I pray to God that He may give you the strength to keep the pledge.13

Mahatma Gandhi gave a message on opening Swadeshi Store, “Being bed-ridden, I am unable to be present, but my spirit is there, of course. If you have faith in swadeshi goods, it is bound to bear fruit. If our love for the country is sincere, we just cannot use foreign goods. I should like the store to be on a larger scale still. The country will prosper only when the people cultivate the spirit of swadeshi with religious devotion.14 Mahatma Gandhi gave a message to first railway conference, “I am sorry that, not being well, I am unable to be present. Improvement on railways falls under two heads: one, securing relief from the Government and, two, removing the ignorance of passengers. The key to swaraj lies in self-help.”15 Mahatma Gandhi gave a message on Gokhale Anniversary, “I had looked forward to attending today’s meeting, but for reasons of health I am not able to do so. Even so, my spirit is there. The meeting will have been to some purpose only if it helps us to take a step forward in public service. Make an earnest appeal to the people to buy copies of the book which is being published today or, if anyone cannot afford to do so, to borrow a copy from someone else and read it.”16

Mahatma Gandhi gave a message to Madras meeting, “I am sorry that I shall not be with you for this evening’s meeting, as I must take the train for Bezwada in order to keep my engagement with our Andhra friends. But before my departure, I would like to reduce to writing my impressions of the tour through the southern part of the Presidency, which I have just completed, and to answer some criticism and some doubts that have been offered by friends. I have visited Tanojre, Trichinopoly, Madura, Tuticorin and Nagapatam; and taking the lowest estimate, the people addressed must have been not less than thirty thousand. Those who have a right to give us warnings, to express misgivings and who have just as great a love of the motherland as we claim to have feared the danger that, however well-meaning we may be, and however anxious we may be to avoid violence, the people who may join the movement under an enthusiastic impulse may not be able to exercise sufficient self-control and break out into violence, resulting in needless loss of life and, what is more, injury to the national cause. After embarking upon the movement, I began addressing meetings with Delhi. I passed then through Lucknow, Allahabad and Bombay to Madras. My experience of all these meetings shows that the advent of satyagraha has already altered the spirit of those who attend the satyagraha meetings. In Lucknow, upon an innocent remark by the Chairman as to the manifes to signed by some of the members of the Imperial Legislative Council disapproving of our movement, the audience cried out “Shame, shame!” I drew their attention to the fact that satyagrahis and those who attend Satyagraha meetings should not use such expressions and that the speeches at our meetings ought not to be punctuated with either marks of disapproval or of approval. The audience immediately understood the spirit of my remarks and never afterwards made any demonstration of their opinion. In the towns of this Presidency as elsewhere, whilst it is true that the large crowds have refrained from any noisy demonstration out of regard for my health, they have fully understood the necessity of refraining from it on the higher ground. The leaders in the movement have also fully understood the necessity for self-restraint. These experiences of mine fill me with the greatest hope for the future. I never had any apprehension of the danger our friends fear; and the various meetings I have described confirm my optimism. But I would venture further to state that every precaution that is humanly possible is being and will be taken to avert any such danger. It is for that reason that our Pledge commits the signatories to the breach of those laws that may be selected for the purpose by a committee of satyagrahis1; and I am glad that our Sind friends have understood their Pledge, and obeyed the prohibition of the Hyderabad Commissioner of Police to hold their inoffensive procession, for it is no part of the present movement to break all the laws of the land the breach of which is not inconsistent with the Pledge. A satyagrahi is nothing if not instinctively law-abiding, and it is his law-abiding nature which exacts from him implicit obedience of the highest law, i.e., the voice of conscience, which overrides all other laws. His civil disobedience even of certain laws only only seems disobedience. Every law gives the subject an option, either to obey the primary sanction or the secondary; and I venture to suggest that the satyagrahi by inviting the secondary sanction obeys the law. He does not act like the ordinary offender who not only commits a breach of the laws of the land, whether good or bad, but wishes to avoid the consequences of that breach. It will seem therefore that everything that prudence may dictate has been done to avoid any untoward results.

Some friends have said, “We understand your breach of the Rowlett legislation, but as a satyagrahi there is nothing for you in it to break. How can you however break the other laws which you have hitherto obeyed, and which may also be good?” As far as the good laws are concerned, i.e., laws which lay down moral principles, the satyagrahi may not break them, and their breach is not contemplated under the Pledge. But the other laws are neither good nor bad, moral nor immoral. They may be useful, or may even be harmful. These laws one obeys for the supposed good government of the country. Such laws are laws framed for purposes of revenue, or political laws creating statutory offences. These laws enable the Government to continue its power. When therefore a Government goes wrong to the extent of hurting the national fibre itself, as does the Rowlett legislation, it becomes the right of the subject, indeed it is his duty, to withdraw his obedience to such laws, to the extent it may be required to bend the Government to the national will.

A doubt has been expressed during my tour, and by friends who have written to me, as to the validity in terms of Satyagraha of the entrustment of the selection of the laws for breach to a committee. For, it is argued that it amounts to a surrender of one’s conscience to leave such selection to others. This doubt betrays a misunderstanding of the Pledge. A signatory to the Pledge undertakes, so far as he is concerned, to break if necessary all the laws which it would be lawful for a satyagrahi to break. It is not, however, obligatory on him to break all such laws. He can therefore perfectly conscientiously leave the selection of the laws to be broken to the judgment of those who are experts in the matter and who in their turn are necessarily subject to the limitations imposed by the Pledge. The worst that can happen to any signatory is that the selection may not be exhaustive enough for him.

I have been told that I am diverting the attention of the country from the one and only thing that matters, viz., the forthcoming Reforms. In my opinion, the Rowlatt legislation, in spite of the amendments which, as the Select Committee very properly says, do not affect its principles, blocks the way to progress, and therefore the attainment of substantial reforms. To my mind, the first thing needful is to secure a frank and full recognition of the principle that public opinion properly expressed shall be respected by the Government. I am no believer in the doctrine that the same power can at the same time trust and distrust, grant liberty and repress it. I have a right to interpret the coming Reforms by the light that the Rowlett legislation throws upon them; and I make bold to promise that if we do not gather sufficient force to remove from our path this great obstacle in the shape of the Rowlett legislation, we shall find the Reforms to be a whitened sepulcher. Yet another objection to answer. Some friends have argued, “Your satyagraha movement only accentuates the fear we have of the onrush of Bolshevism.” The fact, however, is that if anything can possibly prevent this calamity descending upon our country, it is satyagraha. Bolshevism is the necessary result of modern materialistic civilization. Its insensate worship of matter has given rise to a school which has been brought up to look upon material advancement as the goal and which has lost all touch with the finer things of life. Self-indulgence is the Bolshevic creed, self-restraint is the Satyagraha creed. If I can but induce the nation to accept Satyagraha if only as a predominant factor in life, whether social or political, we need have no fear of the Bolshevic propaganda. In asking the nation to accept Satyagraha, I am asking for the introduction in reality of nothing new.

I have coined a new word for an ancient law that has hitherto mainly governed our lives, and I do prophesy that if we disobey the law of the final supremacy of the spirit over matter, of truth and love over brute force, in a few years’ time we shall have Bolshevism rampant in this land, which was once so holy.”17

Mahatma Gandhi gave a message Madras, “I do hope that presidency that produced beautiful Valliamma, Nagappan, Narayansami and so many others of your presidency with whom I was privileged to work in South Africa will not quail in presence of sacrifice demanded of us all. I fee; convinced that reforms will be of no avail unless our would be partners respect us and we know that they only respect those who are capable of sacrifice for ideals as themselves. See how unstintingly they poured out treasure and blood during the war. Ours is a noble cause and our means infinitely superion in that we ever refrain from shedding blood other than our own.”18 Mahatma Gandhi gave a message countryman, “Mr. Desai, Secretary to Mahatma Gandhi, writes: Mahatma Gandhi on his way to Delhi was served with an order at Kosi not to enter the Punjab, not to enter Delhi and restrict himself to Bombay. The officer serving the order treated him most politely assuring him that it would be his most painful duty to arrest him if he elected to disobey, but that there would be no ill will between them. Mr. Gandhi smilingly said, he must elect to disobey as it was his duty and that the officer ought also to do what was his duty. In the few minutes that were left to us, he dictated the following message, laying special emphasis on his oral message to me, as in the written message that none should resent his arrest or do anything tainted with untruth or violence which were sure to damn the sacred cause.”19

Mahatma Gandhi gave a message to countrymen, “It is a matter of the highest satisfaction to me, as I hope to you, that I have received an order from the Punjab Government not to enter that province and another from the Delhi Government not to enter Delhi, while an order of the Government of India, served on me immediately after, restricts me to Bombay. I had no hesitation in saying to the officer who served the order on me that I was bound in virtue of my Pledge to disregard it which I have done and I shall presently find myself a free man, my body being taken by them into their custody. It was galling to me to remain free whilst the Rowlett legislation disfigured the Statute-book. My arrest makes me free. It now remains for you to do your duty which is clearly stated in the Satyagraha Pledge. Follow it and you will find it will be your I hope there will be no resentment about my arrest. I was seeking, either withdrawal of the Rowlett legislation or imprisonment. The departure from truth by a hair’s breadth or violence committed against anybody, whether Englishman or Indian, will surely damn the great cause the satyagrahis are handling. I hope the Hindu-Muslim unity, which seems now to have taken a firm hold of the people, will become a reality and I feel convinced that it will only be a reality if the suggestions I have ventured to make in my communication to the Press are carried out. The responsibility of the Hindus in the matter is greater than that of the Mahomedans, they being in the minority, and I hope they will discharge their responsibility in a manner worthy of their country. I have also made certain suggestions regarding the proposed swadeshi vow. Now, I commend them to your serious attention and you will find that, as your ideas of Satyagraha become matured, Hindu-Muslim unity becomes part of Satyagraha.

Finally, it is my firm belief that we shall obtain salvation only through suffering and not by reforms dropping on us from England, no matter how unstintingly they might be granted. The English are a great nation, but the weaker also go to the wall if they come in contact with them. When they are themselves courageous, they have borne untold sufferings, and they only respond to courage and suffering, and partnership with them is only possible after we have developed in-Council, is pleased hereby to direct that the said Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi shall forthwith return to Bombay and, until further orders, reside within the limits of the Bombay Presidency.”20

Mahatma Gandhi gave a message to people of Ahmadabad, “Bai Anasuya Behn and I have arrived in Ahmadabad this morning. Bai Anasuya Behn was never arrested. I also was absolutely free on Friday, and went to Bombay. During the time I was in custody, I suffered no kind of trouble, my condition was such as if I was enjoying heavenly happiness. After getting free, I became extremely sorry on hearing of the occurrences at Ahmadabad. Behn’s heart bled. We both felt exceedingly ashamed. Now, we both have come to meet you. It is necessary to say a couple of words; therefore, I don’t wish to say anything now. I also wish, as all of you must be wishing, that martial law should be instantly removed. It is in our own hands to get it removed. I want to show the key with which this can be done. Those who can do so should come to the Ashram at 4 p.m. on Monday. While coming take the routes where there are no military pickets. Do not come in groups of more than two or three persons.

Obey whatever orders the police give you. It is my request that you do not shout or make any kind of noise on the road, and if you will all preserve silence at the Ashram, I shall be able to explain all that I wish to explain. It is extremely desirable that all shopkeepers should open their shops and all mill-hands resume their work. In conclusion, I wish to say that I am so sure about Satyagraha that, if the mistakes which have been committed here and at other places had not been committed, the Rowlett Bill would have been cancelled today. May God give you all good understanding and peace.21?

Mahatma Gandhi gave a message, “As my arrest may come upon me unawares, I wish to leave the following as my message. I appeal to all my countryrnen and countrywomen throughout India to observe absolute calmness and to refrain from violence to person and property in any shape or form. The greatest injury that can be done to me is deeds of violence after my arrest and for my sake. Those who love me will show their true affection only by becoming satyagrahis, i.e., believers in Truth and nonviolence and self-suffering as the only means for securing redress of grievances. To the Government of India, I respectfully wish to submit that they will never establish peace in India by ignoring the causes of the present discontent. Satyagraha has not bred lawlessness and violence. It is a vital force and it has certainly hastened the crisis that was inevitable. But it has also acted as a restraining force of the first magnitude. Government as well as the people should recognize this fact and feel thankful for it. Without the purifying and soothing effect of Satyagraha, violence would have been infinitely greater, for mutual retaliation would have produced nothing but chaos. Mahomedans are deeply resentful of what they believe to be England’s attitude towards the question of Turkey, Palestine and Mecca Sharif. The people are deeply distrustful of England’s attitude towards the forthcoming Reforms and they want repeal of the Rowlett legislation. No repression can possibly avail to secure even a shadow of peace in the land. Substantial peace can only be had by conciliating Mahomedan religious sentiments by granting reforms in a liberal and trusting spirit, even as was done by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman in the case of South Africa and by recognizing the sacredness of public opinion by immediate repeal of the Rowlett legislation. But the British Government all the world over has demanded proof of a people’s earnestness. The chosen European method of expressing earnestness is to create disorder by violence. The Government has given a crushing reply to this method. It may prosper in Europe, but not in India. To Satyagraha, there can be no reply but that of acceding to Satyagraha demands. Government of a country is possible when people support it by contributing revenue, by filling public services and such like actions symbolic of approval. When a Government doe’s justice, i.e., is broad based upon the will of a people, such support is a duty in spite of its temporary aberrations. Withdrawal total or partial of such support becomes equally a duty when Government is carried on in defiance of people’s will and such withdrawal of support is pure Satyagraha when it is unaccompanied by violence in any shape or form and unadulterated by untruth. Satyagrahis, then, knowing the sanctity and invincibility of satyagraha will not lend themselves to violence and untruth and will refrain from offering civil disobedience until they are assured that there will be no violence on the part of the people, whether such a state of things was brought about by the peoples’ willing acceptance of the doctrine of Truth and non-violence or by the military dispositions of the Government. In the former case, the whole of India will have participated in the joy of Satyagraha and will have given a lesson to the world. In the latter case, the Government will realize that no physical force that they can summon to their aid will ever bend the spirit of satyagrahis.”22

Mahatma Gandhi gave a message on Annie Besant’s birthday, “I gladly respond to the request to add my humble quota to the many appreciations that would be tendered to the Editor of New India on Mrs. Besant's birthday. It was in 1889 that I first paid my respects to Mrs. Besant when I was studying as a lad in London. I was privileged to do so by the courtesy of two English friends who were at the time ardent Theosophical students. She had only just joined the Theosophical Society there. Not much impression was created on my mind then. I really went not to have impressions but out of mere curiosity to see what this lady who was once an atheist looked like. My friends had told me that she was the best among the living women orators in the world, and that Madame Blavatsky was in great joy over this big "capture". But when, immediately after, I went to Queen's Hall, I went not to look at Mrs. Besant but to listen to her. And the words she uttered then as she rose to answer the charge of inconsistency have never faded from my memory. She said as she wound up her great speech which held her audience spell-bound that she would be quite satisfied to have the epitaph written on her tomb that she lived for truth and she died for truth. I had from my childhood an instinctive fascination for truth. The utter sincerity with which, I felt, she spoke these words captivated me and ever since I have followed her career with unabated interest and always with admiration for her boundless energy, her great organizing ability and her devotion to the work she might have made her own for the moment. I have sharp differences of opinion with her as to methods of work. I have also been hurt to feel at times that she has lost her robust independence of 1888 and her uncompromising search after and adherence to truth at all cost. But in the midst of all my doubts I have never wavered in my belief in her great devotion to India. It is no small gain for India to have her many gifts dedicated to her cause with a single-mindedness few of her natural-born sons and daughters can claim. I have no doubt that she has popularized Home Rule in a manner no other person has. May she be spared for many a long year to serve the country she has made her own.”23

Mahatma Gandhi gave a message to people of Amritsar, “Please tell the public that I have been simply unable to go, because the mission on which I have come requires my presence in Lahore. I hope to see the friends in Amritsar shortly.”24 Mahatma Gandhi gave a message to Christians, “All Christians, leaders and all, must begin to live more like Jesus. You must practise your Christianity without adulterating it or toning it down. You must lay greater emphasis upon your central principle Love. You must study more sympathetically non-Christian religions and try to discover the good in them.”25

References: