For Global Peace with Social Justice in a Sustainable Environment

Moderates and Mahatma Gandhi

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- dr.yadav.yogendra@gandhifoundation.net;

dr.yogendragandhi@gmail.com

Mailing Address- C- 29, Swaraj Nagar, Panki, Kanpur- 208020, Uttar Pradesh, India

Moderates and Mahatma Gandhi

The feeling which we outwardly show, that moderates or extremists, Surtis or Kathiawari or Ahmedabadis, Hindus or Muslims, all are our brethren, should be there in our hearts, Muslims and others will then be so enslaved by our love that there will be no need to establish societies for the protection of animals. Instead, our Muslim brethren will of their own accord put a stop to animal slaughter in consideration of the religious susceptibilities of their Hindu brethren. If we develop such feeling, this occasion, indeed the whole movement, will yield the expected result as a matter of course. I know the President’s job is like walking on the edge of a sword; let him utilize to the full the advantages he enjoys in virtue of the important position which he occupies. I pray to God to grant him the necessary strength, wisdom and ability to guide the work of this conference. 1

I do not believe that at a critical moment like this we should be satisfied with a patched-up truce between the so-called extremists and the so-called moderates, each giving up a little in favour of the other. I should like a clear enunciation of the policy of each group or party and naturally those who, by the intrinsic merit of their case and ceaseless agitation, make themselves a power in the land will carry the day before the House of Commons. 2 I am sorry I cannot be with you tomorrow nor can I give my name to the movement. I wish to hold myself aloof from both the movements, for I hold views which are acceptable to neither party. I feel that at the present moment all the leaders should concentrate their efforts upon recruiting to the exclusion practically of every other activity. I know that the Extremists do not agree with me and I hardly think the Moderates go as far as I go. Whilst I accept the M. C. Scheme in the main, to make it acceptable I should insist upon certain modifications and my insistence would go the length of wrecking the Scheme if the modifications were not accepted after exhausting every means at my disposal. To get the modifications accepted, I should not therefore hesitate to use what has been commonly called passive resistance. The Moderates will not accept this condition. I must therefore bide my time patiently and plough my own solitary furrow. 3

I know that I hold views which are not acceptable to the principal leaders. Indeed when I discussed my position with Mrs. Besant, she agreed with me that I should abstain. Nor am I going to attend the Moderates’ Conference. I believe that we should render the greatest service to the country by devoting ourselves exclusively to recruiting work. Neither party would be prepared to go the length that I go. Then I would accept principles of the M. C. Scheme and definitely state the minimum of improvements I should require and fight for their attainment unto death. For this, Moderates are certainly not prepared and the Extremists, in so far as they may be prepared, are not in the sense I mean. I therefore feel that I should do nothing at the present moment. So far as the bringing together of the two parties is concerned, I should do nothing by violence and therefore I do not approve of any give and take. These are two definite parties in the country. They should put their programme boldly before the Government and the country and agitate for its acceptance. Then only in my opinion shall we make real headway. Just now we seem to be moving in a vicious circle. 4

I do not propose to attend the Congress or the Moderates’ Conference either. I see that my views are different from those of either. I have already told you about them. My view is that if all of us take up the work of recruitment for the war and enlist hundreds of thousands of recruits we can render a very great service to India. I know that Mrs. Besant and you do not share this view. The Moderates also will not take up the work earnestly. This is one thing. My other point is that we accept the substance of the Montagu-Chelmsford Scheme, explain clearly the improvements that we wish to be made in it and fight till death to have these improvements accepted. That the Moderates will not accept this is clear enough. Even if Mrs. Besant and you accept it, you will certainly not fight in the way I wish to fight. Mrs. Besant has declared that she is not a satyagrahi. You recognize Satyagraha as only a weapon of the weak. I do not wish to get caught in this false position. And I do not wish to carry on an agitation in the Congress in opposition to you both. I have unshakable faith in my own formula. And it is my conviction that if my tapasya is complete, both Mrs. Besant and you will accept my formula. I can be patient. That the Moderates and the Extremists should each abandon some minor positions and come together is a thing repugnant to me. There are two wings in the country. I do not believe that it will do any harm to make the positions of both clear to the Government and the people. I do not at all like the attempt to bring together the Extremists and the Moderates. It will do much good if both the parties boldly proclaim their respective positions before the Government and the people. May God help you in your undertaking? 5

What charges against the Moderates, besides? If most of the people believe that the Moderates are nothing but traitors and flatterers, I would certainly be disappointed and grieved. I for one believe that both the parties have the welfare of the country at heart. When we were all slumbering, the country resounded with Surendranath’s voice. There was a time when the word of Sir Dinshaw Wacha was respected all over the Bombay Presidency. I consider it a sin to describe such national leaders as traitors or flatterers. At present I do not approve of many of their views. My recent experience has certainly taught me new things. I cannot tolerate Surendranath Banerjea’s blind attachment to the English language. I do not follow some of Sir Dinshaw Wacha’s ideas on economics. But this certainly does not diminish in the slightest measure my reverence for either. I cannot forget the service they have rendered to the country and I would consider myself fortunate if, at their age, I have the same zeal for national service which they display. Tulsidas has said that everything, animate and inanimate, is a mixture of good and bad qualities. But our duty is to distinguish the good from the bad, and imbibe the former and ignore the latter just as the swan takes in only milk, leaving the water of evil behind. For, where would we be if our kinsfolk and our society saw only our faults? 6

Now the first reason hardly does credit to a great popular party. If it is harmful to enter the Councils, why should nationalists be jealous of the moderates entering the Councils? Must they participate in the harm because moderates will not refrain? Or, is it contended that the harm can be avoided only if all join the boycott? If the last is the contention it betrays ignorance of the principles of boycott. We boycott an institution because we do not like it or because we do not wish to co-operate with its conductors. In the matter of the Councils the latter is the deciding reason. And I submit that in a sense we cooperate by joining even though the object is obstruction. Most institutions, and a British legislative council most of all, thrive upon obstruction. The disciplined obstruction of the Irish members made practically no impression upon the House of Commons. The Irishmen have not got the Home Rule they wanted. The Mahratta argues that obstruction would be active and aggressive non-co-operation. I venture to deny it. In my opinion it shows want of faith in yourself, i.e., in your doctrine. You doubt and you perish. I do not believe that either the English or the moderate leaders can possibly contemplate with equanimity a nationalist boycott of the Councils. We are now face to face with the reality. Will a single moderate leader care to enter any council if more than half his electorate disapproved of his offering himself as a candidate at all? I hold that it would be unconstitutional for him to do so, because he will not represent his constituency.

Boycott contemplated by me presupposes a most active discipline and watchful propaganda and it is based on the assumption that the electors themselves will prefer complete to an incomplete boycott in the form of obstruction. If it is assumed that the people themselves do not want a complete boycott it would be the duty of those who believe in it to educate the electorates to appreciate the superiority of boycott over obstruction. To enter the councils is to submit to the vote of the majority, i.e., to co-operate. If then we want to stop the machinery of Government, as we want to, until we get justice in the khilafat and the Punjab matters, we must put our whole weight against the Government and refuse to accept the vote of the majority in the council, because it will neither represent the wish of the country nor our own which is more to the point on a matter of principle. A minister who refuses to serve is better than one who serves under protest. Service under protest shows that the situation is not intolerable. I contend that the situation created by the Government has become intolerable and therefore the only course left open to a self-respecting person is non-co-operation, i.e., complete abstention. General Botha refused to enter Lord Milner’s Council, because he utterly disapproved of the principle that governed Lord Milner in dealing with the Boers. And General Botha succeeded because he had practically the whole of the Transvaal behind him. Politically considered, success depends upon the country accepting the boycott movement. Religiously considered success is there for the individual as soon as he has acted upon the principle he holds and his action has ensured national success because he has laid the foundation by showing the straightest way to it. 7

Among the details of non-co-operation I have placed in the foremost rank the boycott of the councils. Friends have quarreled with me for the use of the word boycott, because I have disapproved as I disapprove even now—boycott of British goods or any goods for that matter. But there, boycott has its own meaning and here boycott has its own meaning. I not only do not disapprove but approve of the boycott of the councils that are going to be formed next year. And why do I do it? The people the masses require from us, the leaders, a clear lead. They do not want any equivocation from us. The suggestion that we should seek election and then refuse to take the oath of allegiance would only make the nation distrust the leaders. It is not a clear lead to the nation. So I say to you, my countrymen, not to fall into this trap. We shall sell our country by adopting the methods of seeking election and then not taking the oath of allegiance. We may find it difficult and I frankly confess to you that I have not that trust in so many Indians making that declaration and standing by it.

Today I suggest to those who honestly hold the view viz., that we should seek election and then refuse to take the oath of allegiance I suggest to them that they will fall into a trap which they are preparing for themselves and for the nation. That is my view. I hold that if we want to give the nation the clearest possible lead and if we want not to play with this great nation, we must make it clear to this nation that we cannot take any favours, no matter how great they may be, so long as those favours are accompanied by an injustice, a double wrong done to India not yet redressed. The first indispensable thing before we can receive any favours from them is that they should redress this double wrong. There is a Greek proverb which used to say: “Beware of the Greeks but especially beware of them when they bring gifts to you”. Today from those ministers who are bent upon perpetuating the wrong to Islam and to the Punjab, I say we cannot accept gifts but we should be doubly careful lest we may not fall into the trap that they may have devised. I therefore suggest that we must not coquet with the councils and must not have anything whatsoever to do with them. I am told that if we, who represent the national sentiment, do not seek election, the Moderates who do not represent that sentiment will. I do not agree. I do not know what the Moderates represent and I do not know what the Nationalists represent. I know that there are good sheep and black sheep among the Moderates. I know that there are good sheep and black sheep amongst the Nationalists. I know that many Moderates hold honestly the view that it is a sin to resort to non-co-operation. I respectfully agree to differ from them.

I do say to them also that they will fall into a trap which they will have devised if they seek election. But that does not affect my situation. If I feel in my heart of hearts that I ought not to go to the councils, I ought at least to abide by this decision and it does not matter if ninety-nine other countrymen seek election. That is the only way in which public work can be done and public opinion can be built. That is the only way in which reforms can be achieved and religion can be conserved. If it is a question of religious honour, whether I am one or among many, I must stand upon my doctrine. Even if I should die in the attempt, it is worth dying for than that I should live and deny my own doctrine. I suggest that it will be wrong on the part of anyone to seek election to these councils. If once we feel that we cannot co-operate with this Government, we have to commence from the top. We are the natural leaders of the people and we have acquired the right and the power to go to the nation and speak to it with the voice of non-co-operation. I, therefore, do suggest that it is inconsistent with non-co-operation to seek election to the councils on any terms whatsoever. 8

Moderates believe in the possibility of justice being obtained at the hands of this Government. Nationalists with firmness, on the other hand, have wrung with denunciation unadulterated of this Government and of its measures. How can a Nationalist ever hope to gain anything by entering into these councils holding people that they do? But if they really represent popular will and if they want to retain their hold on the popular mind, I venture to suggest to them that it is their business to remain out of the councils, consolidate public opinion and wring justice from unwilling hands. 9 It is a matter of no small grief to me that I find myself estranged from you in ideas, although by training and association I have been brought up in the company of those who have been regarded as Moderates. Partly owing to circumstances and partly owing to temperament, I have never belonged to any of the great parties in India. Nevertheless, my life has been influenced much more by men belonging to the Moderate party than the Extremist. Dadabhai Naoroji, Gokhale, Badruddin Tyabji, Pherozeshah Mehta are all names to conjure with. Their services to the country can never be forgotten. They have inspired the lives of many like me throughout our country. I have enjoyed the pleasantest associations with many of the living amongst you. What is it that has flung me away from you and into the lap of the Nationalist party? Why do I find more in common with the Nationalists than with you? I am unable to see that you love your country less than the Nationalists.

I refuse to believe that you are less willing to sacrifice yourselves for the counry’s good than the Nationalists. Certainly the Moderate party can claim as much intelligence, integrity and ability as the Nationalists, if not more. The difference, therefore, lies in the ideals. I will not weary you with a discussion of the different ideals. I or the moment, I will simply invite your attention to some of the items in the constructive programme in the movement of non-co-operation. You may not like the word itself. You may intensely dislike, as I know you do, many items in the programme. But if you concede to the non-co-operators the same credit for love of the land that you will claim for yourselves, will you not view with favour those parts of the programme on which there cannot be two opinions? I refer to the drink evil. I ask you to accept my evidence that the country as a whole is sick of the drink curse. Those unfortunate men who have become slaves to the habit require to be helped against themselves. Some of them even ask to be helped. I invite you to take advantage of the wave of feeling that has been roused against the drink traffic. The agitation arose spontaneously. Believe me; the deprivation of the Government of the drink revenue is of the least importance in the campaign. The country is simply impatient of the evil itself. In no country in the world will it be possible to carry on this traffic in the face of the united and the enlightened opposition of a people, such as is now to be witnessed in India.

Whatever the errors or excesses that were committed by the mob in Nagpur, the cause was just. The people were determined to do away with the drink curse that was sapping their vitality. You will not be deceived by the specious argument that India must not be made sober by compulsion, and that those who wish to drink must have facilities provided for them. The State does not cater for the vices of its people. We do not regulate or license houses of ill fame. We do not provide facilities for thieves to indulge their propensity for thieving I hold drink to be more damnable than thieving and perhaps even prostitution. Is it not often the parent of both? I ask you to join the country in sweeping out of existence the drink revenue and abolishing the liquor-shops. Many liquor-sellers would gladly close their shops, if the money paid by them were refunded. ‘What about the education of the children?’ may be the question asked. I venture to suggest to you that it is a matter of deep humiliation for the country to find its children educated from the drink revenue. We shall deserve the curse of posterity if we do not wisely decide to stop the drink evil, even though we may have to sacrifice the education of our children.

But we need not. I know many to you have laughed at the idea of making education self-supporting by introducing spinning in our schools and colleges. I assure you that it solves the problem of education as nothing else can. The country cannot bear fresh taxation. Even the existing taxation is unbearable. Not only must we do away with the opium and the drink revenue, but the other revenue has also to be very considerably reduced if the ever-growing poverty of the masses is to be combated in the near future. And that brings me to the existing system of government. The country is the poorer for the Reforms. The annual expenditure has grown. A deeper study of the system has convinced me that no tinkering with it will do. A complete revolution is the greatest need of the time. The word revolution displeases you. What I plead for, however, is not a bloody revolution, but a revolution in the thought world, such as would compel a radical revision of the standard of life in the higher services of the country. I must frankly confess to you that the ever-increasing rate of salaries paid to the higher branches of the Civil Service fairly frightens me, as I hope it would frighten you. Is there any correspondence between the life of the governors and of the governed millions who are groaning under their heels?

The bruised bodies of the latter are a standing testimony to the truth of my statement. You now belong to the governing class. Let it not be said that your heels are no softer than your predecessors’ or your associates’. Must you also rule from Simla? Must you also follow the policy that, only a year ago, you criticized adversely? It is under your regime that a man has been sentenced to transportation for life for holding certain opinions. You may not plead that he was inciting to violence, for not very long ago you dismissed such pleas. The Ali Brothers have apologized for even a suspicion of violence in their speeches. You will be doing a cruel injustice to the country if you allow yourselves to believe that any fear of prosecution has prompted the apology. A new spirit has been born in the country. The fear of the judge within is more terrible than that of the one without.

Do you know that during the past six months several high-souled youths, your countrymen have gone to jail, because they will not condescend to give security which, in their opinion, was dishonorable for them to do? It is under you regime that the patience of utterly innocent Moplahs has been put to a severe test and has as yet not been found wanting. I would gladly think, as I really believe, that you are not responsible for the atrocities that are at present being perpetrated in the name of peace and justice. But you will not let the public or me say that you are helpless where you are not hoodwinked. That, however, would bring me to a discussion of our ideals, which I must no enter upon at the present moment. If the country can only get your assistance in stopping the drink traffic, you will certainly add to the many services that you have rendered it in the past, and, maybe, that one step will open your eyes to much another possibility. 10

What is it that hinders attainment of swaraj, if it is not fear of violence? Are we not deterred simply through that fear, from taking all our steps at once? Can we not, if we can be sure of non-violence, issue today an ultimatum to the Government either to co-operate with us or to go? Do not the Moderates keep aloof, mainly because they distrust our ability to create a non-violent atmosphere? Their timidity will derive nurture from the Moplahs outbreak. 11 I ask every one of you to go away with the spirit of goodwill towards Moderates, lawyers, schoolmasters, Government servants and C.I.D. The Moderates are our countrymen, they are rallying round us today and when they find that the liberty of the country is really at stake, they are giving full expression to their views. It does one’s soul good to read the leading articles in The Leader and the Bengalee and, after all, are we going to wash away the services of Sir Surendranath Banerjee? I cannot possibly help shedding a tear when anything is said disparagingly of him. I urge upon this Committee to understand the admirable spirit in which the Maharashtra party has pleaded for toleration for those who do not see eye to eye with us. I am perfectly sure that when the time comes for sacrifice, Maharashtra will not be behind Bengal; or rather it is likely to come at the top. 12

I don’t know. In the present state, it may not continue for more than two months. We must be prepared for indiscriminate flogging and shooting by the Government from all parts of India. We must not flinch even then. The present struggle is not so much to right the Punjab and Khilafat wrongs, much less for swaraj. We are now fighting for the elementary rights of free speech and freedom to form associations, and on this question we expect Moderates and others to be with us. When this intermediate skirmish will be finished, our way will be clear. 13 Moderates and non-co-operating Extremists, The latter impute timidity to the former rather than faithlessness to the country. Both are well-wishers and servants of the country. It is open to the Moderates to consider Extremists to be rash and even reckless. We must be able to stand such honest criticism without feeling irritated or offended. 14

Such being my view of the Council-entry, it follows that, if I could persuade the Swarajists, I would have them retrace their steps and give up the Assembly and the Councils. But if they have failed to convince me of the soundness of the step they have taken, I have fared no better with them. On the contrary, they can show, and with justice, brilliant victories: my release, an ocular demonstration of khaddar in the highest places, almost complete success of obstruction, namely, forcing the Government to resort to certification, which success would have been complete if the Congress had given unstinted support to the Council-entry at Gaya, thus enabling the Swaraj Party to organize so effectively as to prevent a single election from going in favour of non-Swarajists. Naturally, it is vain for me to argue that all such things could have been done even before non-co-operation.

If our aim was to get releases of prisoners, we could have got not merely a Gandhi released but many Hasrat Mohani’s and all Punjab prisoners. It is idle for me to argue that there is not much in the khaddar demonstration or in keeping so many Moderates out. The machinery of the Government goes unchecked with or without the Moderates and in spite of obstruction. Nor is it much uses arguing that all that the entry into the Councils is likely to achieve could have been achieved by fairly directed agitation even in 1920. It is highly likely that, whilst the Government may not make the admission, some pleasant advance upon the Reforms will be made, but I have no doubt that everything that is likely to be granted will be far short of what the Congress programme was and is designed for. 15 All Indians, Moderates and others united last year. They proclaimed even a boycott of British goods. But the import of British goods remained unaffected and the Kenya Indians have gained little for the agitation. We have not the power, or more accurately we do not know how to use the power we have. Let the reader understand the distinction between Kenya and Natal. Natal has dominion status. Kenya has not. The decision in Natal is an act of the local legislature. There is therefore still hope of relief. In Kenya the decision now is that of the Imperial Government. Therefore it is practically final. 16

References: