THE LAW OF MAJORITIES

[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]

 

 

THE LAW OF MAJORITIES

 

 

 Mrs. Besant having read a report of my speech at the Punjab meeting organized by the Home Rule League and the National Union, Bombay, and having therein seen that I had moved the resolution asking for the prosecution of General Dyer and the impeachment of Sir Michael O’Dwyer, asks how I could move a resolution whose terms I had not approved. Mr. Shastriar has also felt uneasy about the same act. I have not seen any report of my speech. I am unable to say therefore whether I am correctly reported. My speech was in Gujarati and may have suffered at the hands of the translating reporter. I shall endeavour to explain my own position independently of the reports of my speech. And I do so gladly because I recognize that the principle raised by the two great leaders is very important. I have often been charged with having an unyielding nature. I have been told that I would not bow to the decision of the majority. I have been accused of being autocratic. Now on the occasion of the Punjab meeting, I was pressed to move a resolution which did not commend itself to me.

I undertook to do so reserving to myself the right to expressing emphatic opinion to the contrary. And I did so. I have never been able to subscribe to the charge of obstinacy or autocracy. On the contrary I pride myself on my yielding nature in non-vital matters. I detest autocracy. Valuing my freedom and independence I equally cherish them for others. I have no desire to carry a single soul with me, if I cannot appeal to his or her reason. My unconventionality I carry to the point of rejecting the divinity of the oldest Shastras if they cannot convince my reason. But I have found by experience that if I wish to live in society and still retain my independence, I must limit the points of utter independence to matters of first rate importance. In all others which do not involve a departure from one’s personal religion or moral code, one must yield to the majority. In the case in question I had an opportunity of illustrating my position of my so-called unyielding nature the country had abundant illustration. It was happy to find a great occasion where I could safely yield. I believe still that the country wrong in asking for General Dyer’s prosecution and Sir Michael O’Dwyer impeachment. That is purely the business of the British. My purpose is to secure the removal of the wrongdoers from any office under the Crown. Nothing I have seen since has altered my view. And I pressed it before the very meeting at which I moved the resolution in question. Yet I moved it because there is nothing immoral in asking for General Dyer’s prosecution. The country has the right to demand it.

The Congress Sub-committee has advised that waiver of that right can only do well to India. I thought therefore that I had my position quite clear, namely that I still opposed the idea of prosecution and yet I had no objection in moving the resolution that involved prosecution because it was not bad or harmful per se. I admit however that during the crisis we are passing through, my moving the resolution was a dangerous experiment. For, whilst we are evolving new codes of public conduct and trying to instruct, influence or lead the masses, it is not safe to do anything that is likely to confuse the mass mind or to appear to be “truckling to the multitude”. I believe that at the present moment it is better to be “dubbed” obstinate and autocratic than even to appear to be influenced by the multitude for the sake of its approbation. Those who claim to lead the masses must resolutely refuse to be led by them, if we want to avoid mob law and desire ordered progress for the country. I believe that mere protestation of one’s opinion and surrender to the mass opinion is not only not enough but in matters of vital importance, leaders must act contrary to the mass of opinion if it does not commend itself to their reason.