SIR JAMES CRERAR’S NOTE ON DISCUSSION WITH GANDHIJI

[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]

 

 

SIR JAMES CRERAR’S NOTE ON DISCUSSION WITH GANDHIJI

 

 

 I had one and a half hours’ conversation with Mr. Gandhi this afternoon. He traversed a good deal of the ground already covered in his conversations with Mr. Emerson, which it is unnecessary to recapitulate. I put strongly before him the obvious arguments in favour of his going to London, but on this point he still maintained a somewhat ambiguous attitude. The position to which he most obstinately adhered was that particularly in the United Provinces, the attitude of Government, or at least of its officers, was definitely hostile to Congress and to its members as such. He referred to instances in which members of Congress, who had made complaints to Magistrate’s courts, had received, as he considered, no redress. I pointed out that in that event the proper course was to take the case up on revision or appeal. He agreed to this, and said such steps were being taken. He mentioned also, a number of cases in which notices had been issued to Kisan and others warning them against any contact or association with members of Congress. His most insistent plea was that there were a large number of cases in which, as he said, he was convinced the Settlement had been broken both in letter and in spirit. He considered the only possible means of enabling him to go to London would be some assurance that these cases would be examined by an impartial authority. By this, he said, he did not mean anything in the nature of a joint Congress and Government Arbitration Board to consider breaches of the Settlement, but something similar to the kind of impartial enquiry which, when there is a prima facie case of administrative abuse, the administration is ordinarily prepared to hold. His summing up was that unless he had some substantial assurance on this point, he would consider that his primary duty was to remain in India to preserve the peace rather than go to London. I endeavoured to dissuade him from this view, but without much success. He disavowed any intention of resuming the strife, and said that unless he could be convinced that he could safely go to London, his main object would be to maintain the peace in India in order that the Conference could proceed with its work. Our conversation was, throughout, perfectly friendly.