THE ROWLETT ACT

[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 ROWLETT ACT

 

 

 Mr. Montagu has spoken. He “believes that the powers given to the executive by the Rowlett Act are necessary”. And many friends ask whether, in view of this statement, the Act will be repealed. My answer is that the Rowlett Act will be repealed in the same manner as Mrs. Morley’s “Settled fact” the Bengal Partition was unsettled. General Smuts had emphatically declared more than once that the Asiatic Registration Act would never be repealed. It had to go in the year 1914. Whilst, therefore, I am certain that the Rowlett Act will go because of my belief in the power of suffering, i.e., civil resistance, to overcome mountains, I cannot help feeling sad that even Mr. Montagu should have to support what is clearly insupportable, alike from the view of the evil in it and for the reason that public opinion has condemned it in unmeasured terms.

Mr. Montagu has to resort to bad logic and distortion of facts to sustain his position. Surely the powers given to the executive are not necessary at present, for the simple reason that the Defence of India Act is still in operation and will be for some months to come. And if the powers are really necessary, they can be given in another and less offensive and more restricted manner. Mr. Montagu is the joint author with Lord Chelmsford of the reforms scheme such as it is. It lies ill in his mouth to defend a measure which can only neutralize what good the reforms may be intended to produce. But the purpose of writing this is not to argue about the untenability of the position taken up by Mr. Montagu. My purpose is to show that if the Rowlett Act is to be persisted in, the Government must prepare for civil resistance which shall be perfectly respectful but which shall be unbending. The issue is remarkably simple: Is the will of the people to prevail or that of the Government? I venture to urge that a government, be it ever so powerful and autocratic, is bound to yield to unanimous public opinion. It is a bad outlook before us if truth and justice have to surrender to mere physical force, whether it is wielded by an individual or a government. My purpose in life is to demonstrate that the strongest physical force bends before moral force when it is used in defence of truth. If violence had not been offered by the people in April, notwithstanding provocation, the Rowlett Act would have been withdrawn by now, as certainly as that I am penning these remarks. I still hope that Mr. Montagu, Lord Chelmsford and those who have the power, will perceive that true prestige lies in doing justice and respecting public opinion. But it may happen that they will think otherwise.

In that event, I would like those who are interested in the speedy success of civil resistance to prepare the atmosphere for its smooth working. It will be a great trial of strength if we must engage in it. But the result is a certainty. That is the matchless beauty of civil resistance. Person that has no remedy in the last resort for securing redress perishes. The surest and the safest remedy is civil resistance. Europe furnishes a living warning against the method of violence. Peace has brought no rest to that continent. Wherever you look, there are strikes, there is violence and looting. England, the greatest perhaps of all the victors, is not free from turmoil. Victory has brought no satisfaction to the great mass of the people. India has her choice between the broken reed of violence and the unbreakable, peaceful and elevating weapon of civil resistance, i.e., resistance by self-suffering.