The Hindu and Mahatma-III

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Senior Gandhian Scholar

Gandhi Research Foundation, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09415777229, 094055338

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

Mailing Address-   C- 29, Swaraj Nagar, Panki, Kanpur-208020, U.P.

 

 

The Hindu and Mahatma-III

 

 

 

Mahatma Gandhi gave interview to a journalist, “As soon as he finished his letter, he turned round to me again and asked me what had brought me all the way from Madras. I told him I had come to see Mr. Roff on his way to England and then we fell to discussing the general situation. I asked him whether he had any near idea of resuming civil disobedience. He said it all depended on the Government and what they did to relieve the situation in the near future. He did not want to complicate matters by any precipitate action of his as it might easily lend itself to mask real issues. If the Government do not move in the matter pretty soon, relieve the situation in the Punjab and repeal the Rowlett Act, it will be his painful duty to resort to passive resistance again. Should this contingency arise, he intends to break his internment order on the Madras border as being much the quieter side so that there may be no excuse for the Government to set in motion any positive measures on the plea of disorder or violence.

I asked him if he had any special message for the time for the people in South India and any special duty for the satyagrahis. Yes, I want every man, woman and child to learn hand spinning and weaving. I want every satyagrahi to help to propagate this work. Let every man learn to provide for his clothing in his house and many of our current problems will resolve themselves. I am asking you to do nothing new. It is not as though you have to skip over the centuries and go to ancient India for this kind of work. Even a few decades back, every village had its hand-looms and the people were wearing only clothes woven there from. Spinning was being done normally in every house. It is not neecha mean work. Queens in palaces have done this. If this is resumed again we shall have done well by our country. I am quite hopeful of results. I have already set a thousand looms going in Gujarat and leading people like Mrs. Banker, Mrs. Petit, and Miss Anasuyabehn have taken up spinning enthusiastically. The mechanism is quite simple and a spinning outfit costs only about Rs. 3-8-0 to Rs. 4. The work is easily learnt in a couple of days. For example you will find in the next room Mrs. T. A. Chettiar learning to spin. She has been at it only from yesterday and a few more hours practice will make her quite fit for the work and quite competent to put other people in the way as I expect her to do.” 1

Mahatma Gandhi wrote a press statement on Repatriation Scheme, “With reference to the approval that seems to have been accorded to the scheme of repatriation, said to have been recommended by the South African Commission and accepted by the Union Government, I would respectfully caution the public against accepting the proposed scheme. The public have not the interim report of the Commission. We do not know the conditions of repatriation. It seems to me therefore that it is most hazardous to venture any opinion at all on a scheme of which we have a most imperfect knowledge. Generally, it must be stated that any scheme of State repatriation must be looked upon with the gravest suspicion, especially when the scheme is fathered by those who are uncompromisingly hostile to Indian aspirations.

The Indians of South Africa are able to remain in that country because of their domicile. I very much fear that the proposed scheme will be found to involve forfeiture of domicile against acceptance of repatriation money, that is, passage back to India and possibly a trifling sum as pocket-money. I am inclined to think that apart from everything else such considerations will be wholly insufficient for giving away a valuable right. I would hardly call any such repatriation as purely voluntary. This, however, is one of the many objections that may be advanced against the proposed repatriation. I have no doubt that the best thing is to suspend judgment till we have the full scheme before us for examination. It is to be hoped that the Government of India will take the public fully into its confidence before pronouncing upon the scheme.” 2

Mahatma Gandhi spoke on Boycott of Councils, “A prolonged informal conference was held on July 18, 1920, when the question of the boycott of reformed councils as a protest against the Punjab martial law atrocities and khilafat settlement was discussed. Mr. Gandhi said with Indians, non-participation in the councils was a matter of national honour and self-respect and no self-respecting Indian could participate until martial law delinquents were punished. He said the English people were a high-souled race but unfortunately they had been weaned away from the teaching of Jesus Christ by the theories of Bentham, Darwin and other materialistic writers. If Indians wanted to be partners with Englishmen, they had got to cultivate virtues of self-respect and honour, qualities which alone appealed to Englishmen and they should not be subservient weaklings. Incidentally, Mr. Gandhi said knowing as he did the agriculturists of his country and their love and attachment to home and homestead lands, he thought the consequences of non-payment of taxes might bring them into collision with the authorities. He did not therefore advise them to have recourse to non-payment of taxes which was the last stage in his programme.” 3

Mahatma Gandhi spoke on Non-Co-Operation, “Like last year, I have to ask your forgiveness that I should have to speak being seated. Whilst my voice has become stronger than it was last year, my body is still weak; and if I were to attempt to speak to you standing, I could not hold on for very many minutes before the whole frame would shake. I hope, therefore, that you will grant me permission to speak seated. I have sat here to address you on a most important question, probably a question whose importance we have not measured up to now. But before I approach that question on this dear old beach of Madras, you will expect me you will want me to offer my tribute to the great departed, Lokamanya Tilak Maharaj. I would ask this great assembly to listen to me in silence. I have come to make an appeal to your heart and to your reason and I could not do so unless you were prepared to listen to whatever I have to say in absolute silence. I wish to offer my tribute to the departed patriot and I think that I cannot do better than say that his death, as his life, has poured new vigour into the country. If you were present as I was present at that great funeral procession, you would realize with me the meaning of my words. Mr. Tilak lived for his country. The inspiration of his life was freedom for his country which he called swaraj; the inspiration of his deathbed was also freedom for his country. And it was that which gave him such marvellous hold upon his countrymen; it was that which commanded the adoration not of a few chosen Indians belonging to the upper strata of society but of millions of his countrymen. His life was one long sustained piece of self-sacrifice. He began that life of discipline and self-sacrifice in 1879 and he continued that life up to the end of his day, and that was the secret of his hold upon his country.

He not only knew what he wanted for his country but also how to live for his country and how to die for his country. I hope then that whatever I say this evening to this vast mass of people, will bear fruit in that same sacrifice for which the life of Lokamanya Tilak Maharaj stands. His life, if it teaches us anything whatsoever, teaches one supreme lesson; that if we want to do anything whatsoever for our country, we can do so not by speeches, however grand, eloquent and convincing they may be, but only by sacrifice at the back of every word and at the back of every act of our life. I have come to ask everyone of you whether you are ready and willing to give sufficiently for your country’s sake, for your country’s honour and for religion. I have boundless faith in you, the citizens of Madras, and the people of this great presidency, a faith which I began to cultivate in the year 1893 when I first made acquaintance with the Tamil labourers in South Africa; and I hope that, in these hours of our trial, this province will not be second to any other in India, and that it will lead in this spirit of self-sacrifice and will translate every word into action.

 NEED FOR NON-CO-OPERATION

What is this non-co-operation about which you have heard much, and why do we want to offer this non-co-operation? I wish to go for the time being into the why. There are two things before this country. The first and the foremost is the khilafat question. On this the heart of the Mussulmans of India has become lacerated. British pledges, given after the greatest deliberation by the Prime Minister of England in the name of the English nation, have been dragged into the mire. The promises given to Muslim India, on the strength of which the consideration that was accepted by the British nation was exacted, have been broken and the great religion of Islam has been placed in danger. The Mussulmans hold and I venture to think they rightly hold that so long as British promises remain unfulfilled so long is it impossible for them to tender whole-hearted fealty and loyalty to the British connection; and if it is to be a choice for a devout Mussulman between loyalty to the British connection and loyalty to his Code and Prophet, he will not require a second to make his choice and he has declared his choice. The Mussulmans say frankly, openly and honorably to the whole world that if the British ministers and the British nation do not fulfil the pledges given to them and do not wish to regard with respect the sentiments of 70 millions of the inhabitants of India who profess the faith of Islam, it will be impossible for them to retain Islamic loyalty. It is a question, then, for the rest of the Indian population to consider whether they want to perform a neighborly duty by their Mussulman countrymen and if they do, they have an opportunity of a lifetime which will not occur for another hundred years, to show their goodwill, fellowship and friendship and to prove what they have been saying for all these long years that the Mussulman is the brother of the Hindu. If the Hindu regards that before the connection with the British nation comes his natural connection with his Moslem brother, then I say to you that if you find that the Moslem claim is just, that it is based upon real sentiment, and that at its background is this great religious feeling, you cannot do otherwise than help the Mussulmans through and through so long as their cause remains just and the means for attaining the end remains equally just, honourable and free from harm to India.

These are the plain conditions which the Indian Mussulmans have accepted and it was when they saw that they could accept the preferred aid of the Hindus that they could always justify the cause and the means before the whole world that they decided to accept the preferred hand of fellowship. It is then for Hindus and Mussulmans to offer a united front to the whole of the Christian powers of Europe and tell them that weak as India is, India has still got the capacity of preserving her self-respect. That is the khilafat in a nutshell; but you have also got the Punjab. The Punjab has wounded the heart of India as no other question has for the past century. I do not exclude from my calculation the Mutiny of 1857 whatever hardships India had to suffer during the Mutiny, the insult that was attempted to be offered to her during the passage of the Rowlett legislation, and that which was offered after its passage, were unparalleled in Indian history. It is because you want justice from the British nation in connection with the Punjab atrocities; you have to devise ways and means as to how you can get this justice. The House of Commons, the House of Lords, Mr. Montagu, the Viceroy of India, everyone of them knows what the feeling of India is on this khilafat question and on that of the Punjab; the debates in both the Houses of Parliament, the action of Mr. Montagu and that of the Viceroy have demonstrated to you completely that they are not willing to give the justice which is India’s due and which she demands. I suggest that our leaders have got to find a way out of this great difficulty and unless we have made ourselves even with the British rulers in India, and unless we have gained a measures of self-respect at the hands of the British rulers in India, no connection and no friendly intercourse is possible between them and ourselves. I, therefore venture to suggest this beautiful unanswerable method of non-co-operation.

 IS IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

 I have been told that non-co-operation is unconstitutional. I venture to deny that it is unconstitutional. On the contrary, I hold that non-co-operation is a just and religious doctrine; it is the inherent right of every human being and it is perfectly constitutional. A great lover of the British Empire has said that under the British Constitution, even a successful rebellion is perfectly constitutional and he quotes historical instances which I cannot deny in support of his claim. I do not claim any constitutionality for a rebellion successful or otherwise so long as that rebellion means in the ordinary sense of the term what it does mean, namely, wresting justice by violent means. On the contrary, I have said it repeatedly to my countrymen that violence, whatever end it may serve in Europe, will never serve us in India.

My brother and friend Shaukat Ali believes in methods of violence; and if it was in his power to draw the sword against the British Empire, I know that he has got the courage of a man and he has got also the wisdom to see that he should offer that battle to the British Empire. But because he recognizes as a true soldier that means of violence are not open to India, he sides with me accepting my humble assistance and pledges his word that so long as I am with him and so long as he believes in the doctrine so long will he not harbour even the idea of violence against any single Englishman or any single man on earth. I am here to tell you that he has been as true as his word and has kept it religiously. I am here to bear witness that he has been following out this plan of non-violent non-co-operation to the very letter and I am asking India to follow this non-violent non-co-operation. I tell you that there is not a better soldier living in our ranks in British India than Shaukat Ali. When the time for the drawing of the sword comes, if it ever comes, you will find him drawing that sword and you will find me retiring to the jungle of Hindustan. As soon as India accepts the doctrine of the sword, my life as an Indian is finished. It is because I believe in a mission special to India, and it is because I believe that the ancients of India, after centuries of experience, have found out that the true thing for any human being on earth is not justice based on violence but justice based on sacrifice of self, justice based on yajna and kurbani I cling to that doctrine and I shall cling to it forever it is for that reason I tell you that whilst my friend believes also in the doctrine of violence and has adopted the doctrine of nonviolence as a weapon of the weak, I believe in the doctrine of nonviolence as a weapon of the strongest. I believe that a man is the strongest soldier for daring to die unarmed with his breast bare before the enemy So much for the non-violent part of non-co-operation.

I, therefore, venture to suggest to my learned countrymen that so long as the doctrine of non-co-operation remains non-violent so long there is nothing unconstitutional in the doctrine. I ask further, is it unconstitutional for me to say to the British Government, “I refuse to serve you”? Is it unconstitutional for our worthy chairman to return with every respect all the titles that he has ever held from the Government? Is it unconstitutional for any parent to withdraw his children from a Government or aided school? Is it unconstitutional for a lawyer to say, “I shall no longer support the arm of the law so long as that arm of law is used not to raise me but to debase me”? Is it unconstitutional for a civil servant or for a judge to say, “I refuse to serve a Government which does not wish to respect the wishes of the whole people”? I ask, is it unconstitutional for a policeman or for a soldier to tender his resignation when he knows that he is called to serve a Government which traduces its own countrymen? Is it unconstitutional for me to go to the “krishak”, to the agriculturist, and say to him, “It is not wise for you to pay any taxes, if these taxes are used by the Government not to raise you but to weaken you”? I hold and I venture to submit that there is nothing unconstitutional in it. What is more, I have done every one of these things in my life and nobody has questioned the constitutional character of it. I was in Kaira working in the midst of seven lakhs of agriculturists. They had all suspended the payment of taxes and the whole of India was at one with me. Nobody considered that it was unconstitutional. I submit that in the whole plan of non-co-operation there is nothing unconstitutional. But I do venture to suggest that it will be highly unconstitutional in the midst of this unconstitutional Government in the midst of a nation which has built up its magnificent constitution for the people of India to become weak and to crawl on their belly it will be highly unconstitutional for the people of India to pocket every insult that is offered to them; it is highly unconstitutional for the 70 millions of Mohammedans of India to submit to a violent wrong done to their religion; it is highly unconstitutional for the whole of India to sit still and co-operate with an unjust Government which has trodden under its feet the honour of the Punjab; I say to my countrymen : “So long as you have a sense of honour and so long as you wish to remain the descendants and defenders of the noble traditions that have been handed to you for generations after generations, it is unconstitutional for you not to non-cooperate and unconstitutional for you to co-operate with a Government which has become so unjust as our Government has become.

I am not anti-English; I am not anti-British; I am not antigay government; but I am anti-untruth anti-humbug and an injustice. So long as the Government spells injustice, it may regard me as its enemy, implacable enemy. I had hoped at the Congress at Amritsar I am speaking God’s truth before you when I pleaded on knees before some of you for co-operation with the Government, I had full hope that the British ministers, who are wise as a rule, would placate the Mussulman sentiment, that they would do full justice in the matter of the Punjab atrocities, and, therefore, I said : Let us return goodwill to the hand of fellowship that has been extended to us, which, I then believed, was extended to us through the Royal Proclamation. It was on that account that I pleaded for co-operation. But today that faith having gone and [been] obliterated by the acts of the British ministers, I am here to plead not for futile obstruction in the legislative council but for real substantial non-co-operation which would paralyze the mightiest government on earth. That is what I stand for today. Until we have wrung justice and until we have wrong our self-respect from unwilling hands and from unwilling pens, there can be no co-operation. Our Shastras say and I say so with the greatest deference to all the greatest religious preceptors of India but without fear of contradiction that our Shastras teach us that there shall be no co-operation between injustice and justice, between an unjust man and a justice-loving man, between truth and untruth. Co-operation is a duty only so long as Government protects your honour, and non-cooperation is an equal duty when the Government, instead of protecting robs you of your honour.

That is the doctrine of non-co-operation. I have been told that I should have waited for the declaration of the special Congress which is the mouthpiece of the whole nation. I know that it is the mouthpiece of the whole nation. If it was for me, individual Gandhi, to wait, I would have waited for eternity. But I had in my hands a sacred trust. I was advising my Mussulman countrymen and for the time being I hold their honour in my hands. I dare not ask them to wait for any verdict but the verdict of their own conscience. Do you suppose that Mussulmans can eat their own words, can withdraw from the honourable position they have taken up? If perchance and God forbid that it should happen the special Congress decides against them, I would still advise my countrymen, the Mussulmans, to stand single-handed and fight rather than yield to the attempted dishonor to their religion. It is, therefore, given to the Mussulmans to go to the Congress on bended knees and plead for support. But support or no support, it was not possible for them to wait for the Congress to give them the lead. They had to choose between futile violence, drawing of the naked sword and peaceful non-violent but effective non-co-operation, and they have made their choice. I venture further to say to you that if there is any body of men who feel as I do, the sacred character of non-co-operation, it is for you and me not to wait for the Congress but to act and to make it impossible for the Congress to give any other verdict. After all what is the Congress? The Congress is the collected voice of individuals who form it, and if the individuals go to the Congress with a united voice that will be the verdict you will gain from the Congress. But if we go to the Congress with no opinion because we have none or because we are afraid to express it, then naturally we await the verdict of the Congress. To those who are unable to make up their mind, I say, by all means wait. But for those who have seen the clear light as they see the lights in front of them, for them to wait is a sin. The Congress does not expect you to wait but it expects you to act so that the Congress can gauge properly the national feeling So much for the Congress.

 BOYCOTT OF THE COUNCILS

 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, and 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.

 LAWYERS AND NON-CO-OPERATION

 I have suggested another difficult matter, viz, that the lawyers should suspend their practice. How should I do otherwise knowing so well how the Government had always been able to retain this power through the instrumentality of lawyers? It is perfectly true that it is the lawyers of today who are leading us, who are fighting the country’s battles, but when it comes to a matter of action against the Government, when it comes to a matter of paralyzing the activity of the Government, I know that the Government always looks to the lawyers, however fine fighters they may have been, to preserve their dignity and their self-respect. I, therefore, suggest to my lawyer friends that it is their duty to suspend their practice and to show to the Government that they will no longer retain their offices, because lawyers are considered to be honorary officers of the courts and, therefore, subject to their disciplinary jurisdiction. They must no longer retain these honorary offices if they want to withdraw cooperation from Government. But what will happen to law and order? We shall evolve law and order through the instrumentality of these very lawyers. We shall promote arbitration courts and dispense justice, pure, simple, home-made justice, swadeshi justice to our countrymen. That is what suspension of practice means.

PARENTS AND NON-CO-OPERATION

I have suggested yet another difficulty to withdraw our children from the Government schools and to ask collegiate students to withdraw from the college and to empty Government-aided schools. How could I do otherwise? I want to gauge the national sentiment. I want to know whether the Mohammedans feel deeply. If they feel deeply, they will understand in the twinkling of an eye that it is not right for them to receive schooling from a Government in which they have lost all faith; and which they do not trust at all. How can I, if I do not want to help this Government, receive any help from that Government? I think that the schools and colleges are factories for making clerks and Government servants. I would not help this great factory for manufacturing clerks and servants if I want to withdraw co-operation from that Government. Look at it from any point of view you like. It is not possible for you to send your children to the schools and still believe in the doctrine of non-co-operation.

 THE DUTY OF TITLE-HOLDERS

 I have gone further. I have suggested that our title-holders should give up their titles. How can they hold on to the titles and honours bestowed by this Government? They were at one time badges of honour when we believed that national honour was safe in their hands. But now they are no longer badges of honour but badges of dishonor and disgrace when we really believe that we cannot get justice from this Government. Every title-holder holds his title and honours as trustee for the nation and in this first step in the withdrawal of co-operation from the Government, they should surrender their titles without a moment’s consideration. I suggest to my Mohammedan countrymen that, if they fail in this primary duty, they will certainly fail in non-co-operation unless the masses themselves reject the classes and take up non-co-operation in their own hands and are able to fight that battle even as the men of the French Revolution were able to take the reins of Government in their own hands leaving aside the leaders and marched to the banner of victory. I want no revolution. I want ordered progress. I want no disordered order. I want no chaos. I want real order to be evolved out of this chaos which is misrepresented to me as order. If it is order established by a tyrant in order to get hold of the tyrannical reins of Government I say that it is no order for me but it is disorder. I want to evolve justice out of this injustice. Therefore, I suggest to you the passive non-co-operation. If we would only realize the secret of this peaceful and infallible doctrine, you will know and you will find that you will not want to use even an angry word when they lift the sword at you and you will not want even to lift your little finger, let alone a stick or a sword.

 A SERVICE TO THE EMPIRE

 You may consider that I have spoken these words in anger because I have considered the ways of this Government immoral, unjust, debasing and untruthful. I use these adjectives with the greatest deliberation. I have used them for my own true brother with whom I was engaged in a battle of non-co-operation for full 13 years and although the ashes cover the remains of my brother, I tell you that I used to tell him that he was unjust when his plans were based upon immoral foundation. I used to tell him that he did not stand for truth. There was no anger in me. I told him this home truth because I loved him. In the same manner I tell the British people that I love them and that I want their association but I want that association on conditions well defined. I want my self-respect and I want my absolute equality with them. If I cannot gain that equality from the British people, I do not want the British connection. If I have to let the British people go and import temporary disorder and dislocation of national business, I will rather favour that disorder and dislocation than that I should have injustice from the hands of a great nation such as the British nation. You will find that by the time the whole chapter is closed that the successors of Mr. Montagu will give me the credit for having rendered the most distinguished service that I have yet rendered to the Empire, in having offered this non-co-operation and in having suggested the boycott, not of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, but of boycott of a visit engineered by the Government in order to tighten its hold on the national neck. I will not allow it even if I stand alone, if I cannot persuade this nation not to welcome that visit, but will boycott that visit with all the power at my command. It is for that reason I stand before you and implore you to offer this religious battle, but it is not a battle offered to you by a visionary or a saint. I deny being a visionary.

I do not accept the claim of saintliness. I am of the earth, earthly, a common gardener man as much as anyone of you, probably much more than you is. I am prone to as many weaknesses as you are. But I have seen the world. I have lived in the world with my eyes open. I have gone through the fieriest ordeals that have fallen to the lot of man. I have gone through this discipline. I have understood the secret of my own sacred Hinduism. I have learnt the lesson that non-cooperation is the duty not merely of the saint but it is the duty of every ordinary citizen, who not knowing much, not caring to know much, but wants to perform his ordinary household functions. The people of Europe teach even their masses, the poor people, and the doctrine of the sword. But the rishis of India, those who have held the traditions of India, have preached to the masses of India the doctrine, not of the sword, not of violence but of suffering, of self-suffering. And unless you and I are prepared to go through the primary lesson, we are not ready even to offer the sword and that is the lesson my brother Shaukat Ali has imbibed to teach and that is why he today accepts my advice tendered to him in all prayerfulness and in all humility and says: “Long live non-co-operation”. Please remember that even in England the little children were withdrawn from the schools; and colleges in Cambridge and Oxford were closed. Lawyers had left their desks and were fighting in the trenches. I do not present to you the trenches but I do ask you to go through the sacrifice that the men, women and the brave lads of England went through. Remember that you are offering battle to a nation which is saturated with the spirit of sacrifice whenever the occasion arises.

Remember that the little band of Boers offered stubborn resistance to a mighty nation. But their lawyers had left their desks. Their mothers had withdrawn their children from the schools and colleges and the children had become the volunteers of the nation. I have seen them with these naked eyes of mine. I am asking my countrymen in India to follow no other gospel than the gospel of self-sacrifice which precedes every battle. Whether you belong to the school of violence or non-violence, you will still have to go through the fire of sacrifice and of discipline. May God grant you, may God grant our leaders the wisdom, the courage and the true knowledge to lead the nation to its cherished goal! May God grant the people of India the right path, the true vision and the ability and the courage to follow this path, difficult and yet easy, of sacrifice.” 4

Mahatma Gandhi spoke on Right and Duties of Labour, “I hope that you will excuse me for not standing whilst speaking. Though my voice has become stronger than it was over a year ago, my body has not become as strong as I should like to be so as to enable me to stand up and speak. It gives me very great pleasure to renew your acquaintance a second time. I think I told you last year, when I had privilege of addressing some of you that I considered myself a fellow-labourer with you. Perhaps you are labourers not by choice, but somewhat by compulsion. But I entertain such high regard for labour. I entertain such great respect for the dignity of labour that I have thrown in my lot with the labourers. And for many many years now, I have lived in their midst like them labouring with my hands and with my feet. I believe that it is the lot of life for every sentient being that before he or she eats, he or she must use hands and feet. In labouring therefore with your bodies you are simply following the law of your being and there is not the slightest reason for you to feel dissatisfied with your lot. On the contrary I would ask to regard yourselves as trustees for the nation for which you are labouring. A nation may do without its millionaires, without its capitalists, but a nation can never do without its labour. There is one fundamental distinction between your labour and my labour. You are labouring for someone else. In a natural state perhaps we would expect everyone to be his own master, viz, to be his own labourer. You are not your own labourer. I consider that I am labouring for myself, i.e., I am my own master. In a natural state, we should all find ourselves our own masters. But such a state of things cannot be reached in a day. It therefore becomes a very serious question for you to consider how you are to conduct yourselves as labourers serving for others. Just as there is no shame in being a labourer, so also there is no shame in labouring for others. It becomes necessary to find the true relation between master and servant. What are your duties?

What are your responsibilities? And what are your rights? It is simple enough to understand that your right is to receive the hire for your labour and it is equally simple to know that your duty is to work to the best of your ability for the wages you receive. And it is my universal experience that as a rule labour discharges its obligations more effectively and more conscientiously. The master has corresponding duties towards the labourers. It therefore becomes necessary for labour to find out how far labour can impose its will upon the masters. If we find that we are not adequately paid, or adequately housed, how are we to claim and receive enough wages and good accommodation? Who is to determine the standard of wages and the standard of comfort required by the labourers? The best way, no doubt, is that you labourers understand your own rights, understand the method of enforcing those rights and enforce them. For that you require a little previous training and education. You have been brought to a central point from various parts of the country, and find yourselves duly congregated together and it was in the stress of circumstances perhaps you did not earn enough on your fields, or in your previous occupation, that you found yourselves in the hands of a particular master. But later you find that you are not getting enough and that you are not properly housed. But you do not know how to go about your work. I therefore venture to suggest to Mr. Wadia and those who are leading you and advising you that their first business is to guide you, not by giving you knowledge of letters, but knowledge of human affairs and human relations.

I make this suggestion respectfully and in all humility, because my survey of labour in India, in so far as I have been able to undertake it, and my long experience of conditions of labour in South Africa led me to the conclusion that in a large majority of cases, leaders consider that they have to give labour a knowledge of the three R’s. That undoubtedly is a necessity of the case. But it is to be preceded by a proper knowledge of your own rights and a way of enforcing them. In conducting many a strike I have found that it is possible to give this fundamental education to the labourers within a day. That brings me to the subject of strikes. Strikes are in the air today throughout the world. On the slightest pretext, the labourer goes in for strikes. My own experience of the last six months is that many strikes have done harm to labour rather than good. I have studied in so far as I could the strike in Bombay, the strike at the Tata Iron Works, the strike in Gorakhpur twice, and the celebrated strike of the Railway labourers in the Punjab. In all these four strikes I was more or less in connection with the labourers and what I am about to tell is derived from the labourers themselves. There was partial failure in all these strikes. Labour was not able to make good its points to the fullest extent. What was the reason? Labour was badly led. I want you to distinguish between two classes of leaders, you have leaders derived from yourselves and they are in their turn advised and led by those who are not themselves labourers, but who are in sympathy or expected to be in sympathy with labour.

You do not require me to tell you that unless there is correspondence between yourselves, your own leaders, and those who are above you, unless there is perfect correspondence between these three there is bound to be failure. Now in all these four strikes, that perfect correspondence was lacking. There is another substantial reason which I discovered. The labourers looked at pecuniary support from their unions for the maintenance. No labour can prolong a strike indefinitely so long as labour depends upon the resources of its union. No strike can absolutely succeed which cannot be indefinitely prolonged. In all the strikes that I have ever conducted, I have laid down one indispensable rule, that labourers must find their own support. Therein lays the secret of success. And there in consists your education. You should be able to perceive that if you are able to serve one master and command a particular wage your labour must be worth and must be fit to receive that wage anywhere else. Strikers therefore cannot be expected to be idlers and to succeed. Your demands must be just and there should be no pressure exerted upon those whom you call blacklegs; any force of this kind exerted against your own fellow-labourers is bound to react upon yourselves.

I think your advisers will tell you that these three conditions being fulfilled no strike need ever fail. That at once demonstrates to you the necessity of thinking a hundred times, before undertaking a strike So much for your rights and the method of enforcing it. You on this point any further but as labour become organized, strikes must become few and far between and as your mental development progresses further you will find immediately that the principle of arbitration replaces the principle of strikes. Time has now arrived when we should reach this stage. I will not detain I would now venture to say a few words in connection with your national responsibilities. Just as you have to understand obligations amongst yourselves with reference to your own masters, so also it is necessary to understand your obligations to the nation to which you belong. Then your primary education is complete. If you sufficiently realize the dignity of labour, you will realize that you have a duty to discharge by your country. You must therefore find out the affairs of our country in the best manner you can. You must find it out without having to wade through a cartful of books, which are your governors, what your duties in relation to them are, what they can do to you and what you can do to them. I do not propose to go into the existing conditions. I have not come here to give you a long address. It is impossible for me to interest you in the intricate questions that are now agitating the country. It is enough for me to tell you that it is your bounden duty to understand your responsibilities and your duties as citizens of this great land. In my humble opinion it is not possible for you to live up to your religion fully until you undertake to understand these things.

My task this evening is finished, if I have stimulated your desire after knowledge of the affairs of your country and I hope that you will not rest content until you have found out through your advisers and leaders the principal affairs of this country. I thank the controllers of labour here for extending this invitation to me and I thank you all for having come and given me patient hearing. I wish to give you my assurance that whenever you find that, you need any advice from me, it is yours. It therefore grieves me very much that when you invited me at one time to come to Madras, I was unable, because I was preoccupied, to respond to your invitation to come to Madras. But you will accept my assurance that it was not due to want of will, it was due to want of ability. I wish you all the prosperity that you may deserve and I hope that you will discharge yourselves as good citizens of this country.” 5

“Messrs Gandhi and Shaukat Ali spoke in English and Urdu respectively, their speeches being rendered into Tamil sentence by sentence. Acknowledging address of welcome presented at Kumbakonam and addressing a huge mass meeting, Mahatma Gandhi while regretting his insufficient knowledge of Tamil exhorted the people to learn the national lingua franca, Hindi or Urdu, as an essential condition of national progress and wished some of the addresses had been presented in Tamil instead of English. He next asked the country to remember that the khilafat cause cannot thrive without large funds and though money in itself was neither of high importance nor of as much consequence as self-sacrifice, appealed to people to contribute their mite to the Khilafat Fund, especially those who could not actively take part in non-cooperation. He emphasized the time for speeches and mere deliberations or demonstrations had gone and the time had now come for organized, continuous and sustained work. Action must be the watchword of the people. It had become the imperative duty of the people, obligatory on everyone of them to withdraw cooperation from the wicked, immoral and unjust Government, as khilafat and the Punjab questions had proved the present Government to be. If the Turkish Terms really affronted Islam it was a religious duty of Muslims to take up non-co-operation in all its stages. Hindus considered Muslims to be their brethren as sons of Mother India and they wish to be true to their religion and preserve their self-respect and honour. They must also resort to non-violent non-co-operation as laid down by him. Ordinary methods of agitating as memorializing, etc., have failed. The principle of non-co-operation was the only course open to them and whosoever approved of it in principle must also recognize that surrender of titles, boycott of proposed visit of Prince of Wales and vigorous prosecution of swadeshi, were the chief essentials of any effective programme of non-co-operation.

All Government-managed, aided or recognized educational institutions must be emptied as they were mainly manufacturing clerks and servants for the Government. As regards councils the policy of co-operating to the extent of securing seats in councils, with a view to obstruct Government might be half non-co-operation but not a full one. In the present situation where they wanted to offer non-co-operation to an insolvent and strong Government which was able to protect itself well against popular will and persist in its unjust policy, no half measures will suffice. Candidates must refuse to stand for election and constituencies to send any representatives. Mr. Gandhi next explained why lawyers must suspend their practice and the Prince’s visit must be boycotted and said several steps which he had enumerated and which formed the first stage in Central Khilafat Committee’s non-co-operation programme were so arranged as to enable men in higher rungs of society to lead in the matter by practicing self sacrifice on their own part. The last stage would give opportunity to the masses for practice of non-co-operation. Holders of titles must unhesitatingly renounce them now that they have become badges of dishonor. Concluding with impassioned appeal to the audience Mr. Gandhi said the Jain Sabha in their welcome address has wrongly described him as a Jain. He was a Vaishnavism and Prahlad who non-cooperated with his own father was the prince of non-co-operators showing by his conduct the paramount duty of man if he believed God to be greater than all men to non-co-operate with even one’s own father. All Vaishnavites cannot at this critical juncture fail to non-co-operate without failing to act up to their religion. As Thoreau has said, loss of liberty, wealth and intense suffering were the only course of honourable conduct under unjust government. Mr. Shaukat Ali was whole-heartedly co-operating with him in non-violent non-co-operation because he thought India was weak to offer armed resistance but it was his (Mr. Gandhi’s) firm conviction that it required greater strength to offer non-violent resistance as the proposed non-cooperation. Mr. Shaukat Ali next addressing the meeting . . . appealed for Hindus’ support and pointed to the Muslim choice of Gandhiji as their leader as the greatest triumph of Hindu-Muslim unity. For Muslims, if it was good to kill in the cause of Islam, it was equally good to be killed and to invite self-suffering.” 6 

“Mr. Gandhi said the presence of so many Muslim ladies was a sign of the intensity of Muslim feeling on the khilafat question and it showed how the movement had appealed to the core of their heart. He emphasized the importance of Hindu- Muslim unity and in his opinion it was of more vital importance than the British connection.” 7 Mahatma Gandhi spoke, “I thank you on behalf of my brother Shaukat Ali and myself for the magnificent reception that the citizens of Trichinopoly have given to us. I thank you also for the many addresses that you have been good enough to present to us, but I must come to business. It is a great pleasure to me to renew your acquaintance for reasons that I need not give you. I expect great things from Trichinopoly, Madura and a few places I could name. I take it that you have read my address on the Madras Beach on non-co-operation. Without taking up your time in this great assembly, I wish to deal with one or two matters that arise out of Mr. S. Kasturi Ranga Iyengar’s speech. He says in effect that I should have waited for the Congress mandate on non-co-operation. That was impossible, because the Mussulmans had and still have a duty, irrespective of the Hindus, to perform in reference to their own religion. It was impossible for them to wait for any mandate, says the mandate of their own religion, in a matter that vitally concerned the honour of Islam. It is therefore possible for them only to go to the Congress on bended knees with a clear-cut programme of their own and ask the Congress to pronounce its blessing upon that programme and if they are not so fortunate as to secure the blessings of the national assembly, without meaning any disrespect to that assembly, it is their bounden duty to go on with their programme, and so it is the duty of every Hindu, who considers his Mussulman brother as a brother who has a just cause which he wishes to vindicate, to throw in his lot with his Mussulman brother. Our leader does not quarrel with the principle of non-co-operation by itself, but he objects to the three principal details of non-co-operation.

He considers that it is our duty to seek election to the councils and fight our battle on the floor of the council hall. I do not deny the possibility of a fight and a royal fight on the council floor. We have done it for the last 35 years, but I venture to suggest to you and to him, with all due respect, that it is not non-co-operation and it is not half as successful as non-co-operation can be. You cannot go to a class of people with a view to convince them by any fight call it even obstruction that have got a settled conviction and a settled policy to follow. It is in medical language an incompatible mixture out of which you can gain nothing, but if you totally boycott the council, you create a public opinion in the country with reference to the khilafat wrong and the Punjab wrong, which feeling will become totally irresistible. The first advantage of going to the councils must be goodwill on the part of the rulers. It is absolutely lacking. In the place of goodwill, you have got nothing but injustice, but I must move on. I come now to the second objection of Mr. Kasturi Ranga Iyengar with reference to the suspension by lawyers of their practice.

Milk is good in itself, but it becomes absolutely poisonous immediately a little bit of arsenic is added to it. Law-courts are similarly good when justice is distilled through them on behalf of a sovereign power, which wants to do justice to its people. Law-courts are one of the greatest symbols of power and in the battle of non-co-operation, you may not leave law-courts untouched and claim to offer non-cooperation, but if you will read that objection carefully, you will find in that objection the great fear that the lawyers will not respond to the call that the country makes upon them, and it is just there that the beauty of non-co-operation comes in. If one lawyer alone suspends practice, it is so much to the good of the country and so if we are sure to deprive the Government of the power that it possesses through its law-courts, whether one lawyer takes it up or many, we must adopt that step. He objects also to the plan of boycotting Government schools. I can only say what I have said with reference to lawyers that if we mean non-co-operation, we may not receive any favours from the Government, no matter how advantageous by themselves they may be. In a great struggle like this, it is not open to us to count how many schools will respond and how many parents will respond and just as a geometrical problem is difficult, because it does not admit of easy proof, so also because a certain stage in national evolution is difficult, you may not avoid that step without making the whole of that evolution a farce.

At this stage there was some disturbance in one part of the assembly and after a few minutes pause the Mahatma continued. We have had a great lesson in non-co-operation and cooperation. We had a lesson in non-co-operation when some young men began to fight there, and it is a dangerous weapon. I have not the slightest doubt about it. One man with a determined will to non-co-operate can disturb a whole meeting and we had a physical demonstration of it to-night but ours is non-violent non-co-operation in which there can be no mistake whatsoever if the fundamental conditions are observed. If non-co-operation fails, it will not be for want of any inherent strength in it, but it will fail because there is no response to it, or because people have not sufficiently grasped its simple principles. You had also a practical demonstration of co-operation just now. That heavy chair went over the heads of so many people, because all wanted to lift their little hand to move that chair away from them and so was that heavier dome also removed from our sight by the cooperation of man, woman and child. Everybody believes and knows that this Government of ours exists only by the co-operation of the people and not by the force of arms it can wield and every man with a sense of logic will tell you that the converse of that also is equally true that Government cannot stand if this co-operation on which it exists is withdrawn. Difficulties undoubtedly there are, we have hitherto learned how to sacrifice our voice and make speeches. We must also learn to sacrifice ease, money, comfort and that we may learn from the Englishmen themselves. Everyone who has studied English history know that we are now engaged in a battle with a nation which is capable of great sacrifice and the three hundred millions of India cannot make their mark upon the world, or gain their self-respect without any adequate measure of sacrifice.

Our friend has suggested the boycott of British or foreign goods. Boycott of all foreign goods is another name for swadeshi. He thinks that there will be a greater response in the boycott of all foreign goods. With the experience of years behind me and with an intimate knowledge of the mercantile classes, I venture to tell you that boycott of foreign goods, or boycott of merely British goods is more impracticable than any of the steps I have suggested, whereas in all the steps that I have ventured to suggest there is practically no sacrifice of money involved. In the boycott of British or foreign goods you are inviting your merchant princes to sacrifice their millions. It has got to be done, but it is an exceedingly slow process. The same may be said of the steps that I have ventured to suggest, I know, but boycott of goods is conceived as punishment and punishment is only effective when it is inflicted. What I have ventured to suggest is not a punishment, but the performance of a sacred duty, a measure of self-denial from ourselves, and therefore it is effective from its very inception when it is undertaken even by one man and a substantial duty performed even by one single man lays the foundation of a nation’s liberty. I am most anxious for my nation, for my Mussulman brethren also to understand that if they want to vindicate national honour, or the honour of Islam, it will be vindicated without a shadow of doubt, not by conceiving a punishment or a series of punishments, but by an adequate measure of self-sacrifice.

I wish to speak of all our leaders in terms of the greatest respect, but whatever respect we wish to pay to them may not stop or arrest the progress of the country, and I am most anxious that the country at this very critical period of its history should make its choice. The choice clearly does not lie before you and me in wresting by force of arms the scepter from the British nation, but the choice lies in suffering this double wrong of the khilafat and the Punjab, in pocketing humiliation and in accepting national emasculation or vindication of India’s honour by sacrifice today by every man, woman and child and those who feel convinced that this is the only choice left open to us may not wait for the verdict of the Congress, of for any other verdict save the verdict of their own conscience. You and I may not wait till the nation itself has made the choice, but if we are convinced of the rightness of things; we should make that choice to-night. So, citizens of Trichinopoly, you may not wait for the whole of India but you can enforce the first step of no-cooperation and begin your operations even from tomorrow, if you have not done so already.

You can surrender all your titles tomorrow; all the lawyers may surrender their practice tomorrow; those who cannot sustain body and soul by any other means can be easily supported by the Khilafat Committee, if they will give their whole time and attention to the work of that Committee, and if the lawyers will kindly do that, you will find that there is no difficulty in settling your disputes by private arbitration. You can nationalize your schools from tomorrow if you have got the will and the determination. It is difficult, I know, when only a few of you think these things. It is as easy as we are sitting here when the whole of this vast audience is of one mind and as it was easy for you to carry that chair, so is it easy for you to enforce this programme from tomorrow if you have one will, one determination and love for your country, love for the honour of your country and religion.” 8

“Mahatmaji spoke in Urdu and at first apologized for his inability to stand. Mr. Gandhi after reiterating the two national grievances and explaining at length various items in the first stage of non-co-operation declared that should India elect to remain forever to be the slave of this Government machinery, should her people continue to frequent law-courts for justice, should they continue to fill Government schools with their children and continue to go to councils, he would no longer be in a position, conscientiously to accept flowers and garlands from them. Until the wrongs remain underdressed the help given to the Government in any shape or form would serve to tighten the chains that bind India at present. He could not consistently utter verses from holy Koran and help the Government at the same time while they were convinced that the Government had imperiled Islam. Muslims consider it their religious duty to draw sword to save the khilafat. He has always been against the doctrine of the sword and Maulana Abdul Bari assured him that non-co-operation had been practiced by the great Prophet. He (the speaker) was convinced that the country was not strong enough to draw the sword. Hence it shrank to the simple item of the first stage of non-co-operation. He felt that Mr. Shaukat Ali had understood that it was a fact that there was sacrifice in lifting the sword but it was also a fact that sacrifice demanded in non-co-operation was greater and yet a child could adopt it. He warned the Mussulmans to deter against such weakness as shown by Pir Mahboob Shah. Indians by their own habits had spoiled Pirs and Pujaris. He therefore did not expect Pirs to perform an amount of sacrifice that he wanted from the people. In his South African struggle one of his first fellow-workers was a Pujari, but the success came through masses.” 9

“Mr. Gandhi in the course of an informal talk with the students of the Law College, referring to the non-Brahmin movement of this Presidency said as follows: I am prepared to say that it is the duty of the Brahmins to surrender at every stage of the fight to the demands of the non- Brahmins and grant them all the seats if demanded, and if it is in my power, I will give them some more. This demand of the non-Brahmins is the result of their distrust towards the Brahmins. The Brahmins have for long contributed their best, but in their arrogance, the distinction they have drawn between themselves and the other castes is most diabolical and is as diabolical as the distinction we are fighting against, i.e., the distinction the European races have drawn between themselves and the darker races.” 10

“Mr. Gandhi spoke in support of his motions. He expressed his utter distrust of the bureaucracy and stated that as British people were past masters in the art of diplomacy he felt convinced now, though he felt otherwise in Amritsar, that these reforms were a dangerous trap which concealed gilded chains that enslaved the country. He warned his hearers not to fall in that trap. He assured them that if they would only start the movement in the right spirit and carry it out as he desired, he was sure that they would secure full independence for the country within a year. He also stated that the masses were still backward in political action and had no initiation in the working of the electoral machinery. The electorate in his view had not yet the ability to discriminate on complicated political issues and was unable to understand the objective they had in view. They would be at the mercy of unscrupulous men and he wound up by saying that boycott of elections was the pivot upon which the programmed in his resolution turned and therefore he was not prepared to yield to any appeal made in the name of unity. On this head, patriots like Mr. Tilak would not have been able to do even the small part of work they had done if they had got into councils. He again reiterated that he was not afraid of Moderates getting into the councils and he wished well to them because they believed that non-co-operation was dangerous.

He claimed that his was a religious movement, that to true Mohammedans, non-co-operation including boycott of councils was an obligation enjoined as their faith, which they may not break. He described the state of excitement in the Mussulman community, such that, for very safety and peace, no less for brotherhood and unity, they should go with them non-co-operating with Government and that Mr. Das’ plan won’t do. By this time a number of amendments were handed to the president including amendments by Mr. Vijayaraghavachariar to both motions, by Swami Shraddhananda, by Shri Prakasa, by Pandit Nehru and others. Mr. Jinnah then enquired as to the procedure to be adopted in further discussion of motion and amendments, pointing out the issues raised in deciding between the two principles of the motions of Mr. Das and Mr. Gandhi. Mr. Gandhi at this stage agreed, so far as the preamble was concerned, he was prepared to accept the Das preamble defining the aim of non-co-operation to be the attainment of complete swaraj.” 11

“This is the full text of Mr. Gandhi’s speech in reply to the criticisms of the opposite party. I know that I have got to perform a duty by you and answer some of the many objections that have been raised against the points in the proposition. You have now listened to all speeches but one, with respectful attention. I am exceedingly sorry that you refused to hear Mr. Jamnadas Dwarakadas. You have heard Pandit Malaviya, Mr. Jinnah, and Mrs. Besant a host in them. You have heard the arguments advanced by Mrs. Besant and several other speakers. They have all a splendid record of service behind them. They have hitherto led the Congress for a number of years and have given you their best services and I know that you will give all arguments that have been advanced against my resolution the respect that they are entitled to. But at the same time I am here to tell you that with all my anxiety to be convinced of any error of judgment or otherwise that I have committed, I stand unconvinced. It has been suggested by Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Das that this programme is impracticable. Is it not capable of being practiced? I venture to suggest to you that it is capable of being practiced today by everyone who is affected by the several items. There is the introduction of the word “gradual” and Mr. Das has very properly laid emphasis upon that word in order to show that it is in recognition of the impracticable nature of at least two items, those relating to schools and law-courts. I respectfully differ from him.

The introduction of that adjective is a concession to our weakness and recognition of our unreadiness. I admit that with the introduction of the adjective, these two items may be absolutely whittled down. It would depend largely upon the sense of indignation that has really fired the nation and it will still more largely depend upon the work that may be put into the programme by real workers. You may depend upon it that so long as the Non-co-operation Committee started by the Central Khilafat Committee is in existence, so long will you find these items, and many more, continuously placed before you for acceptance and every argument and every inducement will be held out to you not pecuniary but every inducement in the interest of the nation and every appeal will be made to your patriotic spirit in order that you may be stimulated to action. I have not the slightest doubt, even with the experience of only one and a half months behind me, that we shall have a fairly good response from the country. I contend that this programme is not unpractical, in the sense that anybody who wishes to enforce those items can do so today. It is not a physical impossibility with him as it is practical if he wanted really to enforce complete boycott of foreign goods. In my humble opinion this item is a practical impossibility as other items are undoubtedly not. I have given you my reasons for accepting this item in my programme though in theory this is sound. I was most anxious to place before the nation only those things which the nation, if it was willing and ready, could put it into practice today. Let me not conceal one great fact from you. I do suggest to you that if you want to carry out the programme of non-co-operation as sketched by me it is expected of you and you will find in the course of our peregrinations that we shall be continually dinning the thing into your ears, it is expected of you that if it is at all possible for you, you will withdraw your children from schools tomorrow and lawyers will suspend their practice from tomorrow.

But, as I have said, if you have not the ability, if you have not immediate readiness, the introduction of the adjective gives you thinking time. I declined to accept the interpretation that some in the audience placed upon these two items, when they questioned that they are to withdraw their children only when national schools are ready, and that lawyers should suspend practice when arbitration courts are established. That in my opinion is building before foundation. I cannot put a handsome pile of buildings or ever erect a straw cottage without having children to educate. When a nation is at war, whether non-violent, or violent, it is an indispensable condition that it stops its schools and law-courts. I have gone through two wars myself. In them schools remained in suspended animation and so were the law-courts closed, rather because litigants had no time to think of their private quarrels and parents came to the conclusion that the best education that their children could receive at a critical time in their history was that they should understand that it was better for them to have their children’s education suspended for a time than that they should remain in a state of evil. These two items are undoubtedly tests of our feelings in the matter and if the nation feels it will act up to these two things. Much has been made of want of notice and, if facts were as they are supposed to be, I think, it would be a sound argument. But perhaps this has escaped even Mr. Pal’s notice, even Mr. Jinnah’s notice that really this question of notice arises only because of the introduction of new elements in the programme, namely the demand for swaraj. If we were making a new demand for swaraj, the argument will be final; they, as an honourable nation, ought to give a clear emphatic notice to the British people, but in my programme it is not put in that fashion. I have said that without swaraj it would be impossible to prevent repetition of wrongs such as have been inflicted in the Punjab and therefore in this programme swaraj is no independent demand but has been made a demand because in the opinion of the Congress it is necessary in order to guard against a future contingency to have swaraj. In my humble opinion, there is absolutely nothing wrong in it. But I go forward.

Both Messrs Jinnah and Malaviya have accepted Mr. Pal’s programme. You will find therein that some of the items are to be enforced from tomorrow and what the amendment states is that the other items will be reduced to practice later on and that while the mission is conducting its affairs, some operation of non-co-operation programme is to be enforced from the population of India. I think the Congress may well hold that notice sufficient for its purpose without in any way damaging the prestige of the whole nation which is convertible terms. I come to the final point namely boycott of councils. I must confess that I have not yet heard a single argument in favour of going to councils. All the argument that has up to now been advanced is seeing that we have done something through these councils during 35 years, seeing that the reformed council is really in response to our agitation which I admit and seeing that there is greater scope for obstruction as we can command a majority by influencing voters which too I admit, we may be able by going to councils, to paralyze Government, or the administration, as the case may be. In my humble opinion, as student of English history, I have found, and it is a practical maxim adopted in English public life, that every institution thrives on obstruction. When we seek elections to councils, I assure you that Government will not be pleased to see Nationalists outside the councils.

Government is eager today to have Nationalists in the councils. You will take my evidence for what it is worth. It may be bad evidence, but it is there. It is my firm opinion that the services public men want to render can be rendered outside the councils, rather than inside and such services will be infinitely greater than the services they render in the councils. What is the secret of the great power of the late and the only Lokamanya of the country? Do you suppose that if he had gone to the council he would have exercised the unrivalled influence that he exercised over all the millions of India? You have had evidence given before you in connection with his opinion. I am exceedingly sorry that you had not evidence brought before you as to what he considered in connection with the programme. But as the matter has been brought before you, it has become my painful duty to give you evidence, that is in my possession. I happened at his wish to wait upon him in company with Mr. Shaukat Ali a fortnight before his demise and he said: “I personally believe that it will be better to go to councils and obstruct where it was necessary and co-operate where also it was necessary.” But when Mr. Shaukat Ali told him, “What about your promise to Mussulmans in Delhi?” at which also I was present, he immediately added, “Oh, yes, if the Mussulmans do the thing”. He laid emphasis on it and did not merely speak, of the boycott of councils. He said: “I give you my word that my party will stand with you.”

I do not want you to exaggerate the value of this evidence. As I know his name is a name to conjure with and his opinion must carry great weight with those of us who believe that he was unrivalled in his continued prosecutions for the attainment of swaraj and naturally any opinion that might be cited as having come from him must carry weight. What do these councils mean? A simple test I venture to present to you and leaders is that these two wrongs that we are come to consider are the khilafat and the Punjab. Do you believe that by going to the council and engaging in debates there, you can produce a direct impression upon British ministers and secure a revision of the Turkish Terms and repentance on account of the Punjab affair? Our revered brother and leader Pandit Malaviya has said that very soon all that the Congress Sub-committee asked for will be granted, because some or most of the officers are already gone or will be presently going and in April even the Viceroy will have gone. I respectfully suggest that it is not what I at least intended when I put my pen to that report. I said emphatically, even at our discussion, that the dismissal of the officers be based upon their incapacity and the atrocity, that they were guilty of and not by efflux of time and that the Viceroy should be compulsorily retired if he does not tender his resignation before his time. It does not serve my purpose when the Viceroy goes by efflux of time; and so also the officers. If the officers are retired compulsorily but not retired on these specific grounds, it does not serve my purpose at all. I want a repentant clean heart, a change of heart, and I miss any repentance, any change of heart and the hand of fellowship which I had thought was extended at the time of the Amritsar Congress and that is my reason for having then suggested co-operation with Government, but having found out afterwards that there was no redress of the khilafat and the Punjab wrongs, the painful revelation has dawned on me that the British ministers or the Government of India never meant well by the people of India. Instead of repentance, a challenge is given to India, that if you want to be ruled by British, the price is terrorism.

Therefore I want to make this party of terrorists, a present of these law-courts, a present of the education of my children if I cannot bring them into national schools. But I certainly decline to wait for establishment of these schools. Necessity is the mother of invention. When there are children without schools, I promise that our revered leader Pandit Malaviya will himself go from place to place and collect subscriptions for opening national schools. I do not want to starve the Indian mind. I want every Indian to be educated along proper lines, educated to understand the dignity of his nation and not receive the education that makes him a slave. There are many other points but I would reiterate two things. The public will not understand our fine distinctions. It will mean that non-co-operation must commence at the top, viz, in a body miscalled representative body, namely the reformed council and, if the best mind of the country refuses to associate with that Government, I promise that that Government’s eyes will be opened. The condition is that those who refrain will not go to sleep, but move from one end of the country to the other and bring every grievance to the notice not of Government but of the public and, if my programme is carried out, the Congress will be going on growing from year to year and give public expression to those grievances, so that the volume of wrong, ever increasing as it rolls, will inflame the great nation and enable the nation to harbour, to conserve all its anger and its heat and transmute it into irresistible energy. Please recognize one fundamental settled fact, that the Muslim League has passed a resolution that they are going to boycott councils entirely. Do you believe that one fourth of our body may pull one way and three fourths in another way? If these were running along parallel lines I can understand it, but here they will be pulling in opposite ways and is it right they should do so? Can Hindus gain anything even by a policy of obstruction, if every believer in Islam boycotts the council, as he could boycott sin? That is the religious position in Islam. They consider it is sinful for them to go to the councils and take the oath of allegiance.

Let not practical India and practical politicians who gather here from year to year forget this settled fact. If they believe that they will be able to change the Mussulman mind and that those resolutions of the Mussulmans are pious wishes then certainly the argument that I have now advanced falls to pieces. But if you believe that Mussulmans are in earnest, that they feel the wrong, and as time goes on, the wrong instead of dying out, and being forgotten, will gather force day after day, and then you will understand that as time goes forward, the energy of Mussulmans will increase, whether Hindus help them or do not help them. That is the choice that lies before the whole of this national assembly. I, therefore respectfully submit to you that I have not embarked upon this thing without careful thought and it is not a matter of pleasure or joy to me to put myself, a humble, single individual, always liable to err, against the best leaders of the country. But here it is a matter of duty. Whereas I see clearly before me that if we want to cement the relations between Hindus and Mussulmans, and we want them to endure forever, there is no escape for us but a complete association with them, so long as they remain on the right path and adopt honourable means and do not over-reach themselves in forming their demands and so long as they do not resort to violence. There are many other things which have been said and to which I might have given a reply. But I have tried your patience unduly. My business is finished when I have placed every argument in a dispassionate manner and not as an advocate, but if it is at all possible for me to speak as a judge, and I assure you I have endeavoured to place the whole argument pure and simple as a judge, I owe a great deal to Pandit Malaviya. The relations that subsist between him and me the country does not know.

I would give life to placate him, to please him and follow him, at a respectful distance. But when it becomes a matter of sacred duty and conviction I hold that I am absolved from any obligation to follow him. I know that he absolves me from any such obligation of following him and if I, who venerate him, adopt a course different from his, you will understand that I am absolutely serious and sincere when I ask everyone in this pandal to use his own individual judgment and not to be carried away in the slightest degree by my personality. Finally, if you pass this resolution, you will do so with your eyes open. If you think everyone of you individually has the capacity and willingness to offer this small measure of sacrifice in the name of the nation, for the name of the nation and for the sake of securing lasting friendship with Mussulmans you will not hesitate to adopt the resolution, but if you cannot satisfy these conditions you will not hesitate to reject this resolution.” 12

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “I am glad you have written about the lawyers. We shall never fight our way to swaraj without taking any risks and without causing some disturbance in the ordinary life. I agree with you that we lawyers have been the bête noir of the magistracy, but that was when in their opinion, we caused the greatest trouble. But you will see that when we ourselves abandon the courts, the process will not be relished by the bureaucracy. What does it matter if temporarily the Santhals Parganas and such other districts are deprived of the assistance the lawyers have only just begun to render to them, and I can conceive hundreds of ways of helping them without pleading their cause before biased or ignorant magistrates. The lawyers today lead public opinion, and conduct all political activity. This they do during the few leisure hours they get from their tennis and billiards. I do not expect that by dividing their leisure hours between billiards and politics, lawyers will bring us substantially near swaraj. I want at least the public workers among them to be whole-timers, and when that happy day comes, I promise a different outlook before the country.” 13

Mahatma Gandhi gave interview to Press Representative, “Messrs Gandhi, Mahomed Ali and Shaukat Ali arrived by Bombay Mail this morning . . . Replying to a question by a representative as to why he did not put himself at the head of the reform and support the Government, Mr. Gandhi said: That would be a death-trap to me. I would rather command this rabble. I have tried to work with the Government for the past 30 years, but can do so no longer. It is a devilish, wicked Government which has broken treaties and I would tell Mr. Lloyd George that myself if I could speak to him. Asked why he used the English language, also Posts and Telegraphs, Mr. Gandhi said he used the former because he would not be understood if he spoke in Hindi. As regards Posts and Telegraphs, he considered them his own property and if the Government took them away from him he would be only too glad.” 14

Mahatma Gandhi gave interview to Associated Press of India, “Asked whether he thought he would be able to run all the educational institutions in this country without taking any financial aid from the Government, Mr. Gandhi replied: Yes, if I can carry the country with me, I think it is quite possible to run all the present institutions without any Government aid. In reply to the enquiry whether the success hitherto achieved by non-co-operation made him confident of its ultimate triumph, Mr. Gandhi said: Yes, certainly. To the question, “Are the non-co-operation and the Khilafat agitation really two separate movements or have they been merged into one another for the realization of any particular object”, Mr. Gandhi said: Non-co-operation has been adopted by the country as a means to an end. It has been adopted for the rectification of the Khilafat wrongs, the Punjab wrongs and the attainment of swaraj. When Mr. Gandhi was asked if, in spite of all that was happening, he was still as sanguine as ever in the belief that India would attain self-government within a year or so, he said: I still consider it possible to attain swaraj in India within one year if India responds sufficiently, but whilst I think that the response is not quite as adequate as it might have been, it is adequate enough to make me not to despair of more in the near future.” 15

 

References:

 

1. The Hindu 9-8-1919
2. The Hindu, 14-6-1920
3. The Hindu, 20-7-1920  
4. The Hindu, 13-8-1920
5. The Hindu, 16-8-1920  
6. The Hindu, 18-8-1920
7. The Hindu, 18-8-1920
8. The Hindu, 19-8-1920
9. The Hindu, 27-8-1920
10. The Hindu, 23-8-1920
11. The Hindu, 6-9-1920  
12. The Hindu, 11-9-1920
13. The Hindu, 29-9-1920
14. The Hindu, 16-10-1920
15. The Hindu, 23-11-1920