THE NON-CO-OPERATION COMMITTEE

[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 NON-CO-OPERATION COMMITTEE

 

 

There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding and misconception about the non-co-operation committee appointed by the Khilafat Committee at Allahabad on the 3rd instant. A friend who was present at the meeting writes to say that the committee was formed for the purpose of giving full effect to non-co-operation and to act in all matters in connection with it as if it was representative of the whole Mussulman population of India even in the matter of making representations to the authorities. That this was not the committee’s scope is the purpose of this writing to show. As I stated its objects when I invited the formation of the committee, they were to ascertain and enforce the wish of the nation on non-co-operation. Whilst it is a representative body with full powers to act, it cannot be said it is not intended to represent all the best and the most influential Mohammedan opinion. It does not for instance represent the titled nobility in Islam. It is no fault in the committee. It has been purposely restricted to those who are able to give their whole time and attention to the work of organized non-cooperation and in the process of ensuring obedience to instructions, other discipline and non-violence.

It is therefore a committee of workers. It is not expected that the whole of the Mussulman India will be equally strong in non-co-operation. Some doubt its efficacy; others consider it to be a milk-and-water remedy. Some dread it as being too strong for India in her present stage; they say she has not developed the measure of sacrifice at present to ensure success. The committee does not represent or contain such doubting elements though they may otherwise be much more influential than many Mussulmans who are on the committee. It contains those only who have the largest faith in non-co-operation and who, although they swear by it, yet will not force the pace to the breaking point but will endeavour to carry the nation with its programme, in so far as it is practicable, and who whilst doing so will not themselves be deterred from taking the boldest steps and will seek out those who are prepared to do like- wise. This committee, therefore, starting without any, has to build its reputation upon its work and upon results it may achieve. It will cease to exist if it shows no work or in spite of work shows no results. For outsiders it has the least representative capacity. Shaukat Ali is an amiable man but a rabid fanatic, carrying no weight with anybody; Hasrat Mohani a useless man who thinks of nothing but swadeshi; Dr. Kitchlew a man of yesterday with no experience of the world outside Amritsar. Much the same may be said against the others; I am no doubt a superior person but after all a crank and an interloper at that. Any representation signed by it will carry little weight with the outside world in so far as it depends upon the influence of the signatories. It does not therefore mean that it will never make representations.

It certainly will, when swiftness is of the essence or when others for reasons of expediency or otherwise are not prepared to sign representations. Indeed, canvassing of signatures to weighty representations will be one of the means of gauging public opinion and testing the spirit of sacrifice among the elite of the land. For the masses and for internal work, however, the committee is the most representative. It is difficult perhaps to find two men more representative of Mussulman opinion than Shaukat Ali and Hasrat Mohani. The others though less known have been chosen for the qualities of strength, perseverance, patience, calmness, truthfulness, courage under difficulty and sacrifice believed to be possessed by them.

It has been suggested that I am to lead the movement. The statement is only partially true. I say this not out of humility merely but it is a literal fact. If the belief gains ground that I am leading the movement it may prove fatal to it. I am leading the movement in the sense that I am the adviser whose advice is most acceptable today and who has the determination not surpassed by anybody to carry out the programme of non-co-operation. But I do not pretend to represent Mussulman opinion. I can only try to interpret it. I could not stand alone and expect to carry the Mussulman masses with me. I should be very properly hooted out by a mixed Mussulman audience if I tried to make a point against the best Mussulman opinion in matters of religion. But if I were a Mussulman, I would not mind contesting issues before a Mussulman meeting in the face of heavy odds against me. I consider myself to be a sagacious worker and my sagacity means no more and no less than a fine perception of my limitations. I hope I never travel beyond my limits. Certainly I have never done so consciously. It is necessary for every intelligent Mussulman to bear in mind my limitations and the scope of my function. Ignorance is likely to prove fatal to the success of the movement. My connection with it must not stupefy workers into indolence or indifference.

My connection should means, if it is to be productive of good results, greater watchfulness, greater sense of responsibility, greater capacity and willingness for work and greater efficiency. I can think out plans but execution must ever rest with Mussulman workers. The movement must be worked and led by them with the assistance of friends like me but also without if need be. I must not be expected to make non-co-operators; Mussulman leaders alone can make them. No amount of sacrifice on my part will produce in the Mussulman world the spirit of non-co-operation, i.e., sacrifice in a matter of religion. The Mussulman leaders will have to show it in their own persons before the masses evolve it. And now the question why there are no Hindu leaders on the committee is easily answered. The supreme committee can only be purely Mussulman.

My presence, too, I consider as an evil but it is a necessary evil because of my qualifications. I have specialized in non-co operation. I have successfully experimented with it. The resolution about non-co-operation was conceived by me at the conference at Delhi. I am on the committee therefore as a specialist and not because I am a Hindu. My function is therefore of an adviser merely. That I happen to be a staunch Hindu with the conviction that every Hindu should consider it to be his duty to go with the Mussulmans the full length in non-co-operation is no doubt an advantage to the committee But that advantage was at its disposal whether I was on it or not. Whilst I am considering the Hindu connection with the Khilafat movement, even at the risk of repetition I would like to clear up my own position. As I consider the Muslim claim to be intrinsically (as distinguished from religiously) just, I propose to go with them to the extent of fullest non-co-operation. And I consider it to be perfectly consistent with my loyalty to the British connection. But I would not go with the Mussulmans in any campaign of violence. I could not help them in promoting, for instance, an invasion of India through Afghanistan or otherwise for the purpose of forcing better peace terms. It is, I hold, the duty of every Hindu to resist any inroad on India even for the purpose specified as it is his duty to help his Mussulman brethren to satisfy their just demands by means of non-co- operation or other form of suffering, no matter how great, so long as it does not involve loss of India’s liberty or inflicting of violence on any person. And I have thrown myself whole-heartedly into the non-co-operation movement, if only because I want to prevent any such armed conflict.