MY JAIL EXPERIENCES-VII

[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-VII

 

 

The argument advanced by some friends and put by me at the end of the last chapter deserves consideration if only because so many honestly believe in it and so many followed it out consistently in their conduct in 1921 and 1922, when thousands went to jail. In the first instance, even outside the jails, embarrassment of the Government is not our goal. We are indifferent if the Government is embarrassed so long as our conduct is right. Our non-co-operation embarrasses the Government as nothing else can but we non-co-operate as lawyers or Councillors because it is our duty. That is to say, we will not cease to non-co-operate if we discovered that our non-co-operation pleased the rulers. And we are so indifferent because we believe that, by non-co-operation, we must ultimately benefit ourselves. But there cannot be any such non-co-operation in the jails. We do not enter them to serve a selfish end. We are taken there by the Government as criminals according so their estimation. Our business, therefore, is to disillusion them by acting in an exemplary (and by them expected) manner, just as our business outside is to disillusion them by avoiding, say, their law-courts, schools or Councils or titles and by showing that we are prepared to do without their doubtful benefits. Whether all of us realize it or not the method of non-co-operation is a process of touching the heart and appealing to reason, not one of frightening by rowdyism. Rowdyism has no place in a nonviolent movement. I have often likened satyagrahi prisoners to prisoners of war. Once caught by the enemy, prisoners of war act towards the enemy as friends. It will be considered dishonorable on the part of a soldier as a prisoner of war to deceive the enemy. It does not affect my argument that the Government does not regard satyagrahi prisoners as prisoners of war. If we act as such, we shall soon command respect. We must make the prisons a neutral institution in which we may, nay, must co-operate to a certain extent. We would be highly inconsistent and hardly self-respecting if, on the one hand, we deliberately break prison rules and, in the same breath, complain of punishment and strictness. We may not, for instance, resist and complain of search and, at the same time, conceal prohibited things in our blankets or our clothes. There is nothing in Satyagraha that I know whereby we may, under certain circumstances, tell untruths or practice other deception. When we say that, if we make the lives of prison officials uncomfortable, the Government will he obliged to sue for peace, we either pay them a subtle compliment or regard them as simpletons. We pay a subtle compliment when we consider that, even though we may make prison officials’ lives uncomfortable, the Government will look on in silence and hesitate to award us condign punishment so as utterly to break our spirit. That is to say, we regard the administrators to be so considerate and humane that they will not severely punish us even though we give them sufficient cause. As a matter of fact, they will not and do not hesitate to throw overboard all idea of decency and award not only authorized but even unauthorized punishments on given occasions. But it is my deliberate conviction that, had we but acted with uniform honesty and dignity behooving satyagrahis, we should have disarmed all opposition on the part of the Government, and such strictly honourable behaviour on the part of so many prisoners would have at least shamed the Government into confessing their error in imprisoning so many honourable and innocent men. For, is it not their case that our non-violence is but a cloak for our violence? Do we not, therefore, play into their hands every time we are rowdy? In my opinion, therefore, as satyagrahis we are bound, when we become prisoners:

1. to act with the most scrupulous honesty;

2. to co-operate with the prison officials in their administration;

3. to set, by our obedience to all reasonable discipline, an example to co-prisoners;

4. to ask for no favours and claim no privileges which the meanest of prisoners do not get and which we do not need strictly for reasons of health;

5. not to fail to ask what we do so need and not to get irritated if we do not obtain it;

6. to do all the tasks allotted, to the utmost of our ability. It is such conduct which will make the Government position uncomfortable and untenable. It is difficult for them to meet honesty with honesty for their want of faith and unpreparedness for such a rare eventuality. Rowdyism they expect and meet with a double dose of it. They were able to deal with anarchical crime, but they havenot yet found out any way of dealing with non-violence save by yielding to it.

The idea behind the imprisonment of a satyagrahi is that he expects relief through humble submission to suffering. He believes that meek suffering for a just cause has a virtue all its own and infinitely greater than the virtue of the sword. This does not mean that we may not resist when the treatment touches our self-respect. Thus, for instance, we must resist to the point of death the use of abusive language by officials or if they were to throw our food at us which is often done. Insult and abuse are no part of an official’s duty. Therefore, we must resist them. But we may not resist search because it is part of prison regulations. Nor are my remarks about mute suffering to be construed to mean that there should be no agitation against putting innocent prisoners like satyagrahis in the same class as confirmed criminals. Only as prisoners we may not ask for favours. We must be content to live with the confirmed criminals and even welcome the opportunity of working moral reform in them. It is however expected of a Government that calls itself civilized to recognize the most natural divisions.