MY JAIL EXPERIENCES- V

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Gandhian Scholar

Gandhi Research Foundation, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09415777229, 094055338

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

 

 

 

MY JAIL EXPERIENCES- V

 

 

It has been my invariable experience that good evokes good, Evil evil; and that therefore, if the evil does not receive the corresponding response, it ceases to act, dies of want of nutrition. Evil can only live upon itself. Sages of old, knowing this law, instead of returning evil for evil, deliberately returned good for evil and killed it. Evil lives nevertheless, because many have not taken advantage of the discovery, though the law underlying it acts with scientific precision. We arc too lazy to work out in terms of the law the problems that face us and, therefore, fancy that we are too weak to act up to it. The fact is, that the moment the truth of the law is realized, nothing is so easy as to return good for evil. It is the one quality that distinguishes man from the brute. It is man’s natural law not to retaliate. Though we have the human form, we are not truly human till we have fully realized the truth of the law and acted up to it. The law admits of no escape. I cannot recall a single instance in which it has not answered. Utter strangers have within my experience irresistibly responded to it.

In all the South African jails through which I passed, the officials who were at first most unfriendly to me became uniformly friendly because I did not retaliate. I answered their bitterness with sweetness. This does not mean that I did not fight injustice. On the contrary, my South African jail experiences were a continuous fight against it, and in most cases it was successful. The longer Indian experience has but emphasized the truth and the beauty of non-violent conduct. It was the easiest thing for me to acerbate the authorities at Yeravda. For instance, I could have answered the Superintendent in his own coin when he made the insulting remarks described in my letter to Hakim Saheb. I would have in that case lowered myself in my own estimation and confirmed the Superintendent in his suspicion that I was a cantankerous and mischievous politician. But the experiences related in that letter were trivialities compared to what was to follow. Let me recall a few of them. A European warder I knew suspected me. He thought it was his business to suspect every prisoner. As I did not want to do any the slightest thing without the knowledge of the Superintendent, I had told him that, if a prisoner passing by salaamed, I would return the salaam and that I was giving to the convict-warder in charge of me all the food that I could not eat. The European warder knew nothing of the conversation with the Superintendent. He once saw a prisoner salaam me. I returned the salaam. He saw us both in the act, but only took from the prisoner his ticket. It meant that the poor man would be reported. I at once told the warder to report me too, as I was equally guilty with the poor man. He simply told me he had to do his duty. Instead of reporting the warder for his officiousness, but in order to protect a fellow-prisoner, I merely mentioned to the Superintendent the incident of salaaming without the conversation I had with the warder.

The latter recognized that I meant no ill whatsoever to him, and from that time forward ceased to suspect me. On the contrary, he became very friendly. I was subject to search like the other prisoners. I never objected. And so, daily before the lock-up, a regular search took place for many months. Occasionally, a jailor used to come who was exceptionally rude. I had nothing but my loin-cloth on. There was, therefore, no occasion for him to touch my person. But he did touch the groins. Then he began overhauling the blankets and other things. He touched my pot with his boots. All this was proving too much for me and my anger was about to get the better of me. Fortunately, I regained self-possession and said nothing to the young jailor. The question, however, still remained whether I should or should not report him. This happened a fairly long time after my admission to Yeravda. The Superintendent was, therefore, likely to take severe notice of the jailor’s conducted if I reported him. I decided to the contrary. I felt that I must pocket this personal rudeness’s. If I reported him, the jailor was likely to lose his job. Instead, therefore, of reporting him, I had a talk with him. I told him how I had felt his rudeness, how I had at first thought of reporting him and how in the end I decided merely to talk to him. He took my conversation in good part and felt grateful. He admitted, too, that his conduct was wrong, though he said he did not act with the intention of wounding my susceptibilities. He certainly never molested me again. Whether he improved his general conduct in regard to other prisoners I do not know. But what was most striking was perhaps the result of my intervention in connection with the floggings and the hunger-strikes. The first hunger-strike was that of the Sikh life-sentence prisoners.

They would not eat food without the restoration of their sacred loin-cloth and without the permission to them to cook their own food. As soon as I came to know of these strikes, I asked to be allowed to meet them. But the permission could not be granted. It was a question of prestige and jail discipline. As a matter of fact, there was no question of either, if the prisoners could be regarded as human beings just as susceptible to finer forces as their species outside. My seeing them, I feel sure, would have saved the authorities a great deal of trouble worry and public expense, and would also have saved the Sikh prisoners the painful, prolonged fast But, I was told, if I could not see them, I could send them ‘wireless messages’! I must explain this special expression. Wireless messages in prison parlance means unauthorized messages sent by one prisoner to another with or without the knowledge of the officials. Every official knows and must connive at such interchange of messages. Experience has shown them that it is impossible to guard against or to detect such breaches of prison regulations. I may say that I was scrupulously exact about such messages.

I cannot recall a single occasion when I sent a ‘wireless’ for my own purpose. In every case it was in the interest of prison discipline. The result was, I think, that the officials had ceased to distrust me and, if they had it in their power, they would have availed themselves of my offer of intervention in such cases. But the superior authority, so jealous of its prestige, would not hear of it. In the above instance, I did set in motion the wireless apparatus, but it was hardly effective. The fast was broken after many days, but I am unable to say whether it was at all due to my messages. This was the first occasion when I felt that I should intervene in the interest of humanity. The next occasion was when certain Mulshi Peta prisoners were flogged for short task. I need not go into the painful story at length. Some of these prisoners were youngsters. It is likely that they had willfully done much less task than they could have. They were put on grinding. Somehow or other these prisoners were not classed political as the swaraj prisoners were. Whatever the cause, they were mostly given grinding as their task. Grinding has an unnecessary bad odour about it. I am aware that all labour is irksome when it has to be done as a task and under supervision not always gentle. But a prisoner who courts imprisonment for conscience sake should look upon his task as a matter of pride and pleasure. He should put his whole soul into the labour that may be allotted to him. The Mulshi Peta prisoners, or for that matter the others, as a body were certainly not of this type. It was a new experience for them all and they did not know what was their duty as Satyagrahis—whether to do the most or the least or not at all. The majority of the Mulshi Peta prisoners were perhaps indifferent. They had perhaps not given a thought to the thing. But they were mostly high-spirited men and youths. They would brook no jo hukum and, therefore, there was constant friction between them and the officials. The crisis came at last. Major Jones became angry. He thought they were willfully not doing their task.

He wanted to make an example of them and ordered six of them to receive stripes. The flogging created a sensation in the prison. Everybody knew what was happening and why. I noticed the prisoners as they were passing by. I was deeply touched. One of them recognized me and bowed. In the ‘separate’, the ‘political’ prisoners intended to strike as a protest. I have paid my tribute to Major Jones. Here it is my painful duty to criticize his action. In spite of his sterling good nature, love of justice and even partiality for prisoners as against officials, he was hasty in action. His decisions were sometimes, therefore, erroneous. It would not matter, as he is equally ready to repent, if it was not for sentences like flogging which once administered are beyond recall. I discussed the matter gently with him, but I know that I could not persuade him that he was wrong in punishing prisoners for short task. I could not persuade him to think that every short task was not proof of willfulness. He did indeed admit that there always was a margin fear error, but his experience was that it was negligible. Unfortunately, like so many officers, he believed in the efficacy of flogging. The political prisoners, having taken a serious view of the case, were on the point of hunger-striking. I came to know of it. I felt that it was wrong to hunger-strike without an overwhelming case being made out. The prisoners could not take the law into their own hands and claim to judge every case for themselves. I asked Major Jones again for permission to see them. But that was not to be allowed. I have already published the correspondence on the subject which I invite the studious reader to consult at the time of reading these notes. I had, therefore, again to fall back upon the ‘wirelesses. The hunger strike and a crisis were averted as a direct result of the ‘wirelesses. But there was an unpleasant incident arising from the matter. Mr. Jeramdas had delivered my message contrary to the regulations. Mr. Jeramdas saw, as he had to see, the political prisoners concerned.

They were purposely kept in separate blocks. He therefore ‘wandered’ from his own to the other blocks with the knowledge of the convict officers and one of the European jailors. He told them that he knew that he was breaking the regulations and that they were free to report him. He was reported in due course. Major Jones thought that he could not but take notice of the breach although he knew that it was for a good cause, and although he even appreciated Mr. Jeramdas’s work. The punishment awarded was seven days’ solitary confinement. On my coming to know of this, I invited Major Jones to award at least the same penalty to me as to Mr. Jeramdas. For he (Mr. Jeramdas) had broken the regulations at my instance. Major Jones said that in the interest of discipline he was bound to take notice of an open defiance brought officially to his notice. But he was not only not displeased with what Mr. Jeramdas had done, but he was glad that, even at the risk of being punished, he saw the prisoners who were about to hunger strike and thus saved an ugly situation. There was no occasion, he saw, to punish me as I had not left my boundary and as my instigation of Mr. Jeramdas was not officially brought to his notice. I recognized the force of Major Jones’s argument and attitude and did not further press for punishment. I must consider in the next chapter another incident still more telling and important from the satyagrahi standpoint and then consider the moral results of non-violent action and the ethics of fasting.