By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

´╗┐Title: Freedom's Battle - Being a Comprehensive Collection of Writings and Speeches on the Present Situation
Author: Gandhi, Mahatma, 1869-1948
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Freedom's Battle - Being a Comprehensive Collection of Writings and Speeches on the Present Situation" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.

[Transcriber's Note: The inconsistent spelling of the original has been
preserved in this etext.]




Second Edition


The Publishers express their indebtedness to the Editor and Publisher
of the "Young India" for allowing the free use of the articles
appeared in that journal under the name of Mahatma Gandhi, and also to
Mr. C. Rajagopalachar for the valuable introduction and help rendered in
bringing out the book.




  Why I have joined the Khilafat Movement

  The Turkish Treaty

  Turkish Peace Terms

  The Suzerainty over Arabia

  Further Questions Answered

  Mr. Candler's Open Letter

  In process of keeping

  Appeal to the Viceroy

  The Premier's reply

  The Muslim Representation

  Criticism of the Manifesto

  The Mahomedan Decision

  Mr. Andrew's Difficulty

  The Khilafat Agitation

  Hijarat and its Meaning


  Political Freemasonry

  The Duty of the Punjabec

  General Dyer

  The Punjab Sentences


  Swaraj in one year

  British Rule an evil

  A movement of purification

  Why was India lost

  Swaraj my ideal

  On the wrong track

  The Congress Constitution

  Swaraj in nine months

  The Attainment of Swaraj


  The Hindus and the Mahomedans

  Hindu Mahomedan unity

  Hindu Muslim unity


  Depressed Classes

  Amelioration of the depressed classes

  The Sin of Untouchability


  Indians abroad

  Indians overseas

  Pariahs of the Empire



  Mr. Montagu on the Khilafat Agitation

  At the call of the country

  Non-co-operation explained

  Religious Authority for non-co-operation

  The inwardness of non-co-operation

  A missionary on non-co-operation

  How to work non-co-operation

  Speech at Madras

      "     Trichinopoly

      "     Calicut

      "     Mangalore

      "     Bexwada

  The Congress

  Who is disloyal

  Crusade against non-co-operation

  Speech at Muxafarbail

  Ridicule replacing Repression

  The Viceregal pronouncement

  From Ridicule to--?

  To every Englishman In India

  One step enough for me

  The need for humility

  Some Questions Answered

  Pledges broken

  More Objections answered

  Mr. Pennington's Objections Answered

  Some doubts


  Two Englishmen Reply

  Letter to the Viceroy--Renunciation of Medals

  Letter to H.R.H. The Duke of Connaught

  The Greatest thing

  Mahatma Gandhi's Statement




After the great war it is difficult, to point out a single nation that
is happy; but this has come out of the war, that there is not a single
nation outside India, that is not either free or striving to be free.

It is said that we, too, are on the road to freedom, that it is better
to be on the certain though slow course of gradual unfoldment of freedom
than to take the troubled and dangerous path of revolution whether
peaceful or violent, and that the new Reforms are a half-way house
to freedom.

The new constitution granted to India keeps all the military forces,
both in the direction and in the financial control, entirely outside the
scope of responsibility to the people of India. What does this mean? It
means that the revenues of India are spent away on what the nation does
not want. But after the mid-Eastern complications and the fresh Asiatic
additions to British Imperial spheres of action. This Indian military
servitude is a clear danger to national interests.

The new constitution gives no scope for retrenchment and therefore no
scope for measures of social reform except by fresh taxation, the heavy
burden of which on the poor will outweigh all the advantages of any
reforms. It maintains all the existing foreign services, and the cost of
the administrative machinery high as it already is, is further

The reformed constitution keeps all the fundamental liberties of person,
property, press, and association completely under bureaucratic control.
All those laws which give to the irresponsible officers of the Executive
Government of India absolute powers to override the popular will, are
still unrepealed. In spite of the tragic price paid in the Punjab for
demonstrating the danger of unrestrained power in the hands of a foreign
bureaucracy and the inhumanity of spirit by which tyranny in a panic
will seek to save itself, we stand just where we were before, at the
mercy of the Executive in respect of all our fundamental liberties.

Not only is Despotism intact in the Law, but unparalleled crimes and
cruelties against the people have been encouraged and even after
boastful admissions and clearest proofs, left unpunished. The spirit of
unrepentant cruelty has thus been allowed to permeate the whole


To understand our present condition it in not enough to realise the
general political servitude. We should add to it the reality and the
extent of the injury inflicted by Britain on Islam, and thereby on the
Mussalmans of India. The articles of Islamic faith which it is necessary
to understand in order to realise why Mussalman India, which was once so
loyal is now so strongly moved to the contrary are easily set out and
understood. Every religion should be interpreted by the professors of
that religion. The sentiments and religious ideas of Muslims founded on
the traditions of long generations cannot be altered now by logic or
cosmopolitanism, as others understand it. Such an attempt is the more
unreasonable when it is made not even as a bonafide and independent
effort of proselytising logic or reason, but only to justify a treaty
entered into for political and worldly purposes.

The Khalifa is the authority that is entrusted with the duty of
defending Islam. He is the successor to Muhammad and the agent of God on
earth. According to Islamic tradition he must possess sufficient
temporal power effectively to protect Islam against non-Islamic powers
and he should be one elected or accepted by the Mussalman world.

The Jazirat-ul-Arab is the area bounded by the Red Sea, the Arabian Sea,
the Persian Gulf, and the waters of the Tigris and the Euphrates. It is
the sacred Home of Islam and the centre towards which Islam throughout
the world turns in prayer. According to the religious injunctions of the
Mussalmans, this entire area should always be under Muslim control, its
scientific border being believed to be a protection for the integrity of
Islamic life and faith. Every Mussalman throughout the world is enjoined
to sacrifice his all, if necessary, for preserving the Jazirat-ul-Arab
under complete Muslim control.

The sacred places of Islam should be in the possession of the Khalifa.
They should not merely be free for the entry of the Mussalmans of the
world by the grace or the license of non-Muslim powers, but should be
the possession and property of Islam in the fullest degree.

It is a religions obligation, on every Mussalman to go forth and help
the Khalifa in every possible way where his unaided efforts in the
defence of the Khilifat have failed.

The grievance of the Indian Mussalmans is that a government that
pretends to protect and spread peace and happiness among them has no
right to ignore or set aside these articles of their cherished faith.

According to the Peace Treaty imposed on the nominal Government at
Constantinople, the Khalifa far from having the temporal authority or
power needed to protect Islam, is a prisoner in his own city. He is to
have no real fighting force, army or navy, and the financial control
over his own territories is vested in other Governments. His capital is
cut off from the rest of his possessions by an intervening permanent
military occupation. It is needless to say that under these conditions
he is absolutely incapable of protecting Islam as the Mussulmans of the
world understand it.

The Jazirat-ul-Arab is split up; a great part of it given to powerful
non-Muslim Powers, the remnant left with petty chiefs dominated all
round by non-Muslim Governments.

The Holy places of Islam are all taken out of the Khalifa's kingdom,
some left in the possession of minor Muslim chiefs of Arabia entirely
dependent on European control, and some relegated to newly-formed
non-Muslim states.

In a word, the Mussalman's free choice of a Khalifa such as Islamic
tradition defines is made an unreality.


The age of misunderstanding and mutual warfare among religions is gone.
If India has a mission of its own to the world, it is to establish the
unity and the truth of all religions. This unity is established by
mutual help and understanding between the various religions. It has come
as a rare privilege to the Hindus in the fulfilment of this mission of
India to stand up in defence of Islam against the onslaught of the
earth-greed of the military powers of the west.

The Dharma of Hinduism in this respect is placed beyond all doubt by the
Bhagavat Gita.

Those who are the votaries of other Gods and worship them with
faith--even they, O Kaunteya, worship me alone, though not as the
Shastra requires--IX, 23.

Whoever being devoted wishes in perfect faith to worship a particular
form, of such a one I maintain the same faith unshaken,--VII 21.

Hinduism will realise its fullest beauty when in the fulfilment of this
cardinal tenet, its followers offer themselves as sacrifice for the
protection of the faith of their brothers, the Mussalmans.

If Hindus and Mussalmans attain the height of courage and sacrifice that
is needed for this battle on behalf of Islam against the greed of the
West, a victory will be won not alone for Islam, but for Christianity
itself. Militarism has robbed the crucified God of his name and his very
cross and the World has been mistaking it to be Christianity. After the
battle of Islam is won, Islam and Hinduism together can emancipate
Christianity itself from the lust for power and wealth which have
strangled it now and the true Christianity of the Gospels will be
established. This battle of non-cooperation with its suffering and
peaceful withdrawal of service will once for all establish its
superiority over the power of brute force and unlimited slaughter.

What a glorious privilege it is to play our part in this history of the
world, when Hinduism and Christianity will unite on behalf of Islam, and
in that strife of mutual love and support each religion will attain its
own truest shape and beauty.


Swaraj for India has two great problems, one internal and the other
external. How can Hindus and Mussalmans so different from each other
form a strong and united nation governing themselves peacefully? This
was the question for years, and no one could believe that the two
communities could suffer for each other till the miracle was actually
worked. The Khilafat has solved the problem. By the magic of suffering,
each has truly touched and captured the other's heart, and the Nation
now is strong and united.

Not internal strength and unity alone has the Khilafat brought to India.
The great block in the way of Indian aspiration for full freedom was
the problem of external defence. How is India, left to herself defend
her frontiers against her Mussalman neighbours? None but emasculated
nations would accept such difficulties and responsibilities as an answer
to the demand for freedom. It is only a people whose mentality has been
perverted that can soothe itself with the domination by one race from a
distant country, as a preventative against the aggression of another, a
permanent and natural neighbour. Instead of developing strength to
protect ourselves against those near whom we are permanently placed, a
feeling of incurable impotence has been generated. Two strong and brave
nations can live side by side, strengthening each other through
enforcing constant vigilance, and maintain in full vigour each its own
national strength, unity, patriotism and resources. If a nation wishes
to be respected by its neighbours it has to develop and enter into
honourable treaties. These are the only natural conditions of national
liberty; but not a surrender to distant military powers to save oneself
from one's neighbours.

The Khilafat has solved the problem of distrust of Asiatic neighbours
out of our future. The Indian struggle for the freedom of Islam has
brought about a more lasting _entente_ and a more binding treaty between
the people of India and the people of the Mussalman states around it
than all the ententes and treaties among the Governments of Europe. No
wars of aggression are possible where the common people on the two sides
have become grateful friends. The faith of the Mussulman is a better
sanction than the seal of the European Diplomats and plenipotentiaries.
Not only has this great friendship between India and the Mussulman
States around it removed for all time the fear of Mussulman aggression
from outside, but it has erected round India, a solid wall of defence
against all aggression from beyond against all greed from Europe, Russia
or elsewhere. No secret diplomacy could establish a better _entente_ or
a stronger federation than what this open and non-governmental treaty
between Islam and India has established. The Indian support of the
Khilafat has, as if by a magic wand, converted what Was once the
Pan-Islamic terror for Europe into a solid wall of friendship and
defence for India.


Every nation like every individual is born free. Absolute freedom is the
birthright of every people. The only limitations are those which a
people may place over themselves. The British connection is invaluable
as long as it is a defence against any worse connection sought to be
imposed by violence. But it is only a means to an end, not a mandate of
Providence of Nature. The alliance of neighbours, born of suffering for
each other's sake, for ends that purify those that suffer, is
necessarily a more natural and more enduring bond than one that has
resulted from pure greed on the one side and weakness on the other.
Where such a natural and enduring alliance has been accomplished among
Asiatic peoples and not only between the respective governments, it may
truly be felt to be more valuable than the British connection itself,
after that connection has denied freedom or equality, and even justice.


Is violence or total surrender the only choice open to any people to
whom Freedom or Justice is denied? Violence at a time when the whole
world has learnt from bitter experience the futility of violence is
unworthy of a country whose ancient people's privilege, it was, to see
this truth long ago.

Violence may rid a nation of its foreign masters but will only enslave
it from inside. No nation can really be free which is at the mercy of
its army and its military heroes. If a people rely for freedom on its
soldiers, the soldiers will rule the country, not the people. Till the
recent awakening of the workers of Europe, this was the only freedom
which the powers of Europe really enjoyed. True freedom can exist only
when those who produce, not those who destroy or know only to live on
other's labour, are the masters.

Even were violence the true road to freedom, is violence possible to a
nation which has been emasculated and deprived of all weapons, and the
whole world is hopelessly in advance of all our possibilities in the
manufacture and the wielding of weapons of destruction.

Submission or withdrawal of co-operation is the real and only
alternative before India. Submission to injustice puts on the tempting
garb of peace and, gradual progress, but there is no surer way to death
than submission to wrong.


Our ancients classified the arts of conquest into four well-known
_Upayas_. Sama, Dana, Uheda, and Danda. A fifth Upuya was recognised
sometimes by our ancients, which they called _Upeshka_. It is this
_Punchamopaya_ that is placed by Mahatma Gandhi before the people of
India in the form of Non-cooperation as an alternative, besides
violence, to surrender.

Where in any case negotiations have failed and the enemy is neither
corruptible nor incapable of being divided, and a resort to violence has
failed or would certainly be futile the method of _Upeshka_ remains to
be applied to the case. Indeed, when the very existence of the power we
seek to defeat really depends on our continuous co-operation with it,
and where our _Upeskha_ its very life, our _Upeskha_ or non-co-operation
is the most natural and most effective expedient that we can employ to
bend it to our will.

No Englishman believes that his nation can rule or keep India for a day
unless the people of India actively co-operate to maintain that rule.
Whether the co-operation be given willingly or through ignorance,
cupidity, habit or fear, the withdrawal of that co-operation means
impossibility of foreign rule in India. Some of us may not realise this,
but those who govern us have long ago known and are now keenly alive to
this truth. The active assistance of the people of this country in the
supply of the money, men, and knowledge of the languages, customs and
laws of the land, is the main-spring of the continuous life of the
foreign administration. Indeed the circumstances of British rule in this
country are such that but for a double supply of co-operation on the
part of the governed, it must have broken down long ago. Any system of
race domination is unnatural, and can be kept up only by active
coercion through a foreign-recruited public, service invested with large
powers, however much it may he helped by the perversion of mentality
shaping the education of the youth of the country. The foreign recruited
service must necessarily be very highly paid. This creates a wrong
standard for the Indian recruited officials also. Military expenditure
has to cover not only the needs of defence against foreign aggression,
but also the possibilities of internal unrest and rebellion. Police
charges have to go beyond the prevention and deletion of ordinary crime,
for though this would be the only expenditure over the police of a
self-governing people where any nation governs another, a large chapter of
artificial crime has to be added to the penal code, and the work of the
police extended accordingly. The military and public organisations must
also be such as not only to result in outside efficiency, but also at
the same time guarantee internal impotency. This is to be achieved by
the adjustment and careful admixture of officers and units from
different races. All this can be and is maintained only by extra cost
and extra-active co-operation on the part of the people. The slightest
withdrawal of assistance must put such machinery out of gear. This is
the basis of the programme of progressive non violent non-co-operation
that has been adopted by the National Congress.


The powerful character of the measure, however, leads some to object to
non-co-operation because of that very reason. Striking as it does at the
very root of Government in India, they fear that non-co-operation must
lead to anarchy, and that the remedy is worse than the disease. This is
an objection arising out of insufficient allowance for human nature. It
is assumed that the British people will allow their connection with
India to cease rather than remedy the wrongs for which we seek justice.
If this assumption be correct, no doubt it must lead to separation and
possibly also anarchy for a time. If the operatives in a factory have
grievances, negotiations having failed, a strike would on a similar
argument be never admissible. Unyielding obstinacy being presumed, it
must end in the closing down of the factory and break up of the men. But
if in ninety-nine out of a hundred cases it is not the case that strikes
end in this manner, it is more unlikely that, instead of righting the
manifest wrongs that India complains about, the British people will
value their Indian Dominion so low as to prefer to allow us to
non-co-operate up to the point of separation. It would be a totally
false reading of British character and British history. But if such
wicked obstinacy be ultimately shown by a government, far be it from us
to prefer peace at the price of abject surrender to wrong. There is no
anarchy greater than the moral anarchy of surrender to unrepentant
wrong. We may, however, be certain that if we show the strength and
unity necessary for non-co-operation, long before we progress with it
far, we shall have developed true order and true self-government wherein
there is no place for anarchy.

Another fear sometimes expressed that, if non-co-operation were to
succeed, the British would have to go, leaving us unable to defend
ourselves against foreign aggression. If we have the self-respect, the
patriotism, the tenacious purpose, and the power of organisation that are
necessary to drive the British out from their entrenched position, no
lesser foreign power will dare after that, undertake the futile task of
conquering or enslaving us.

It is sometimes said that non-co-operation is negative and destructive
of the advantages which a stable government has conferred on us. That
non-co-operation is negative is merely a half-truth. Non-co-operation
with the government means greater co-operation among ourselves, greater
mutual dependence among the many different castes and classes of our
country. Non-co-operation is not mere negation. It will lead to the
recovery of the lost art of co-operation among ourselves. Long
dependence on an outside government which by its interference
suppressed or prevented the consequences of our differences has made us
forget the duty of mutual trust and the art of friendly adjustment.
Having allowed Government to do everything for us, we have gradually
become incapable of doing anything for ourselves. Even if we had no
grievance against this Government, non-co-operation with it for a time
would be desirable so far as it would perforce lead us to trusting and
working with one another and thereby strengthen the bonds of
national unity.

The most tragic consequence of dependence on the complex machinery of a
foreign government is the atrophy of the communal sense. The direct
touch with administrative cause and effect is lost. An outside protector
performs all the necessary functions of the community in a mysterious
manner, and communal duties are not realised by the people. The one
reason addressed by those who deny to us the capacity for self-rule is
the insufficient appreciation by the people of communal duties and
discipline. It is only by actually refraining for a time from dependence
on Government that we can regain self-reliance, learn first-hand the
value of communal duties and build up true national co-operation.
Non-co-operation is a practical and positive training in Swadharma, and
Swadharma alone can lead up to Swaraj.

The negative is the best and most impressive method of enforcing the
value of the positive. Few outside government circles realise in the
present police anything but tyranny and corruption. But if the units of
the present police were withdrawn we would soon perforce set about
organising a substitute, and most people would realise the true social
value of a police force. Few realise in the present taxes anything but
coercion and waste, but most people would soon see that a share of every
man's income is due for common purposes and that there are many
limitations to the economical management of public institutions; we
would begin once again to contribute directly, build up and maintain
national institutions in the place of those that now mysteriously spring
up and live under Government orders.


Freedom is a priceless thing. But it is a stable possession only when it
is acquired by a nation's strenuous effort. What is not by chance or
outward circumstance, or given by the generous impulse of a tyrant
prince or people is not a reality. A nation will truly enjoy freedom
only when in the process of winning or defending its freedom, it has
been purified and consolidated through and through, until liberty has
become a part of its very soul. Otherwise it would be but a change of
the form of government, which might please the fancy of politicians, or
satisfy the classes in power, but could never emancipate a people. An
Act of Parliament can never create citizens in Hindustan. The strength,
spirit, and happiness of a people who have fought and won their liberty
cannot be got by Reform Acts. Effort and sacrifice are the necessary
conditions of real stable emancipation. Liberty unacquired, merely found,
will on the test fail like the Dead-Sea-apple or the magician's plenty.

The war that the people of India have declared and which will purify and
consolidate India, and forge for her a true and stable liberty is a war
with the latest and most effective weapon. In this war, what has
hitherto been in the world an undesirable but necessary incident in
freedom's battles, the killing of innocent men, has been eliminated; and
that which is the true essential for forging liberty, the
self-purification and self-strengthening of men and women has been kept
pure and unalloyed. It is for men, women and youth, every one of them
that lives in and loves India, to do his bit in this battle, not waiting
for others, not calculating the chances of his surviving the battle to
enjoy the fruits of his sacrifice. Soldiers in the old-world wars did
not insure their lives before going to the front. The privilege of youth
in special is for country's sake to exercise their comparative freedom
and give up the yearning for lives and careers built on the slavery of
the people.

That on which a foreign government truly rests whatever may be the
illusions on their or our part is not the strength of its armed forces,
but our own co-operation. Actual service on the part of one generation,
and educational preparation for future service on the part of the next
generation are the two main branches of this co-operation of slaves in
the perpetuation of slavery. The boycott of government service and the
law-courts is aimed at the first, the boycott of government controlled
schools is to stop the second. If either the one or the other of these
two branches of co-operation is withdrawn in sufficient measure, there
will be an automatic and perfectly peaceful change from slavery
to liberty.

The beat preparation for any one who desires to take part in the great
battle now going on is a silent study of the writings and speeches
collected herein, and proposed to be completed in a supplementary volume
to be soon issued.




An esteemed South African friend who is at present living in England has
written to me a letter from which I make the following excerpts:--

   "You will doubtless remember having met me in South Africa at the
   time when the Rev. J.J. Doke was assisting you in your campaign there
   and I subsequently returned to England deeply impressed with the
   rightness of your attitude in that country. During the months before
   war I wrote and lectured and spoke on your behalf in several places
   which I do not regret. Since returning from military service,
   however, I have noticed from the papers that you appear to be
   adopting a more militant attitude... I notice a report in "The Times"
   that you are assisting and countenancing a union between the Hindus
   and Moslems with a view of embarrassing England and the Allied Powers
   in the matter of the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire or the
   ejection of the Turkish Government from Constantinople. Knowing as I
   do your sense of justice and your humane instincts I feel that I am
   entitled, in view of the humble part that I have taken to promote
   your interests on this side, to ask you whether this latter report is
   correct. I cannot believe that you have wrongly countenanced a
   movement to place the cruel and unjust despotism of the Stamboul
   Government above the interests of humanity, for if any country has
   crippled these interests in the East it has surely been Turkey. I am
   personally familiar with the conditions in Syria and Armenia and I
   can only suppose that if the report, which "The Times" has published
   is correct, you have thrown to one side, your moral responsibilities
   and allied yourself with one of the prevailing anarchies. However,
   until I hear that this is not your attitude I cannot prejudice my
   mind. Perhaps you will do me the favour of sending me a reply."

I have sent a reply to the writer. But as the views expressed in the
quotation are likely to be shared by many of my English friends and as I
do not wish, if I can possibly help it, to forfeit their friendship or
their esteem I shall endeavour to state my position as clearly as I can
on the Khilafat question. The letter shows what risk public men run
through irresponsible journalism. I have not seen _The Times_ report,
referred to by my friend. But it is evident that the report has made the
writer to suspect my alliance with "the prevailing anarchies" and to
think that I have "thrown to one side" my "moral responsibilities."

It is just my sense of moral responsibilities which has made me take up
the Khilafat question and to identify myself entirely with the
Mahomedans. It is perfectly true that I am assisting and countenancing
the union between Hindus and Muslims, but certainly not with "a view of
embarrassing England and the Allied Powers in the matter of the
dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire," it is contrary to my creed to
embarrass governments or anybody else. This does not how ever mean that
certain acts of mine may not result in embarrassment. But I should not
hold myself responsible for having caused embarrassment when I resist
the wrong of a wrong-doer by refusing assistance in his wrong-doing. On
the Khilafat question I refuse to be party to a broken pledge. Mr. Lloyd
George's solemn declaration is practically the whole of the case for
Indian Mahomedans and when that case is fortified by scriptural
authority it becomes unanswerable. Moreover, it is incorrect to say that
I have "allied myself to one of the prevailing anarchies" or that I have
wrongly countenanced the movement to place the cruel and unjust
despotism of the Stamboul Government above the interests of humanity.
In the whole of the Mahomedan demand there is no insistance on the
retention of the so-called unjust despotism of the Stamboul Government;
on the contrary the Mahomedans have accepted the principle of taking
full guarantees from that Government for the protection of non-Muslim
minorities. I do not know how far the condition of Armenia and Syria may
be considered an 'anarchy' and how far the Turkish Government may be
held responsible for it. I much suspect that the reports from these
quarters are much exaggerated and that the European powers are
themselves in a measure responsible for what misrule there may be in
Armenia and Syria. But I am in no way interested in supporting Turkish
or any other anarchy. The Allied Powers can easily prevent it by means
other than that of ending Turkish rule or dismembering and weakening the
Ottoman Empire. The Allied Powers are not dealing with a new situation.
If Turkey was to be partitioned, the position should have been made
clear at the commencement of the war. There would then have been no
question of a broken pledge. As it is, no Indian Mahomedan has any
regard for the promises of British Ministers. In his opinion, the cry
against Turkey is that of Christianity _vs._ Islam with England as the
louder in the cry. The latest cablegram from Mr. Mahomed Ali strengthens
the impression, for he says that unlike as in England his deputation is
receiving much support from the French Government and the people.

Thus, if it is true, as I hold it is true that the Indian Mussalmans
have a cause that is just and is supported by scriptural authority, then
for the Hindus not to support them to the utmost would be a cowardly
breach of brotherhood and they would forfeit all claim to consideration
from their Mahomedan countrymen. As a public-server therefore, I would
be unworthy of the position I claim, if I did not support Indian
Mussalmans in their struggle to maintain the Khilafat in accordance with
their religious belief. I believe that in supporting them I am rendering
a service to the Empire, because by assisting my Mahomedan countrymen to
give a disciplined expression to their sentiment it becomes possible to
make the agitation thoroughly, orderly and even successful.


The Turkish treaty will be out on the 10th of May. It is stated to
provide for the internationalisation of the Straits, the occupation of
Gallipoli by the Allies, the maintenance of Allied contingents in
Constantinople and the appointment of a Commission of Control over
Turkish finances. The San Remo Conference has entrusted Britain with
Mandates for Mesopotamia and Palestine and France with the Mandate for
Syria. As regards Smyrna the accounts so far received inform that
Turkish suzerainty over Smyrna will be indicated by the fact that the
population will not be entitled to send delegates to the Greek
Parliament but at the end of five years local Smyrna Parliament will
have the right of voting in favour of union with Greece and in such an
event Turkish suzerainty will cease. Turkish suzerainty will be confined
to the area within the Chatalja lines. With regard to Emir Foisul's
position there is no news except that the Mandates of Britain and France
transform his military title into a civil title.

       *       *       *       *      *

We have given above the terms of the Turkish treaty as indicated in
Router's messages. These reports are incomplete and all of them are not
equally authenticated. But if these terms are true, they are a challenge
to the Muslim demands. Turkish Sovereignty is confined to the Chatalja
lines. This means that the Big Three of the Supreme Council have cut off
Thrace from Turkish dominions. This is a distinct breach of the pledge
given by one of these Three, _viz._, the Premier of the British Empire.
To remain within the Chatalja lines and, we are afraid, as a dependent
of the Allies, is for the Sultan a humiliating position inconsistent
with the Koranic injunctions. Such a restricted position of the Turks is
virtually a success of the bag and baggage school.

It is not yet known how the Supreme Council disposed of the rich and
renowned lands of Asia Minor. If Mr. Lloyd George's views recently
expressed in this respect have received the Allies' sanction--it is
probable--nothing less than a common control is expected. The decision
in the case of Smyrna will be satisfying to none, though the Allies seem
to have made by their arrangement a skillful attempt to please all the
parties concerned. Mr. Lloyd George, in his reply to the Khilafat
Deputation, had talked about the careful investigations by an impartial
committee and had added; "The great majority of the population
undoubtedly prefer Greek rule to Turkish rule, so I understand" But the
decision postpones to carry out his understanding till a period of
five years.

       *       *       *       *      *

When we come to the question of mandates, the Allied Powers' motives
come out more distinctly. The Arabs' claim of independence was used as a
difficulty against keeping Turkish Sovereignty. This was defended in the
of self-determination and by pointing out parallels of Transylvania and
other provinces. When the final moment came, the Allies have ventured to
divide the spoils amongst themselves. Britain is given the mandate over
Mesopotamia and Palestine and France has the mandate over Syria. The
Arab delegation complains in their note lately issued expressing their
disappointment at the Supreme Council's decision with regard to the
Arab liberated countries, which, it declares, is contrary to the
principle of self-determination.

       *       *       *       *       *

So what little news has arrived about the Turkish treaty, is uniformly
disquieting. The Moslems have found sufficient ground to honour Russia,
more than the Allies. Russia has recognised the freedom of Khiva and
Bokhara. The Moslem world, as H. M. the Amir of Afghanistan said in his
speech, will feel grateful towards Russia in spite of all the rumours
abroad about its anarchy and disorder, whereas the whole Moslem world
will resent the action of the other European nations who have allied
with each other to carry out a joint coercion and extinction of Turkey
in the name of self-determination and partly in the guise of the
interest of civilization.

       *       *       *       *      *

The terms of the Turkish treaty are not only a breach of the Premier's
pledge, not only a sin against the principle of self-determination, but
they also show a reckless indifference of the Allied Powers towards the
Koranic injunctions. The terms point out that Mr. Lloyd George's
misinformed ideas of Khilafat have prevailed in the Council. Like Mr.
Lloyd George other statesmen also at San Remo have compared Caliphate
with Popedom and ignored the Koronic idea of associating spiritual
power with temporal power. These misguided statesmen were too much
possessed by haughtiness and so they refused to receive any
enlightenment on the question of Khilafat from the Deputation. They
could have corrected themselves had they heard Mr. Mahomed Ali on this
point. Speaking at the Essex Hall meeting Mr. Mahomed Ali distinguished
between Popedom and Caliphate and clearly explained what Caliphate
means. He said:

   "Islam is supernational and not national, the basis of Islamic
   sympathy is a common outlook on life and common culture.... And it
   has two centres. The personal centre is the island of Arabia. The
   Khalifa is the Commander of the Faithful and his orders must be
   obeyed by all Muslims so long and so long only, as they are not at
   variance with the Commandments of God and the Traditions of the
   Prophet. But since there is no lacerating distinction between things
   temporal and things spiritual, the Khalifa is something more than a
   Pope and cannot be "Vaticanised." But he is also less than a Pope for
   he is not infallible. If he persists in un-Islamic conduct we can
   depose him. And we have deposed him more than once. But so long as he
   orders only that which Islam demands we must support him. He and no
   other ruler is the Defender of _our_ faith."

These few words could have removed the mis-undertakings rooted in the
minds of those that at San Remo, if they were in earnest for a just
solution. But Mr. Mahomed Ali's deputation was not given any hearing by
the Peace Conference. They were told that the Peace Conference had
already heard the official delegation of India on this question. But the
wrong notions the Allies still entertain about Caliphate are a
sufficient indication of the effects of the work of this official
delegation. The result of these wrong notions is the present settlement
and this unjust settlement will unsettle the world. They know not
what they do.


The question of question to-day is the Khilafat question, otherwise
known as that of the Turkish peace terms. His Excellency the Viceroy
deserves our thanks for receiving the joint deputation even at this late
hour, especially when he was busy preparing to receive the head of the
different provinces. His Excellency must be thanked for the unfailing
courtesy with which he received the deputation and the courteous
language in which his reply was couched. But mere courtesy, valuable as
it is at all times, never so valuable as at this, is not enough at this
critical moment. 'Sweet words butter no parsnips' is a proverb more
applicable to-day than ever before. Behind the courtesy there was the
determination to punish Turkey. Punishment of Turkey is a thing which
Muslim sentiment cannot tolerate for a moment. Muslim soldiers are as
responsible for the result of the war as any others. It was to appease
them that Mr. Asquith said when Turkey decided to join the Central
Powers that the British Government had no designs on Turkey and that His
Majesty's Government would never think of punishing the Sultan for the
misdeeds of the Turkish Committee. Examined by that standard the
Viceregal reply is not only disappointing but it is a fall from truth
and justice.

What is this British Empire? It is as much Mahomedan and Hindu as it is
Christian. Its religious neutrality is not a virtue, or if it is, it is
a virtue of necessity. Such a mighty Empire could not be held together
on any other terms. British ministers are therefore bound to protect
Mahomedan interests as any other. Indeed as the Muslim rejoinder says,
they are bound to make the cause their own. What is the use of His
Excellency having presented the Muslim claim before the Conference? If
the cause is lost the Mahomedans will be entitled to think that Britain
did not do her duty by them. And the Viceregal reply confirms the view.
When His Excellency says that Turkey must suffer for her having joined
the Central Powers he but expresses the opinion of British ministers.
We hope, therefore, with the framers of the Muslim rejoinder that His
Majesty's ministers will mend the mistakes if any have been committed
and secure a settlement that would satisfy Mahomedan sentiment.

What does the sentiment demand? The preservation of the Khilafat with
such guarantee as may be necessary for the protection of the interests
of the non-Muslim races living under Turkish rule and the Khalif's
control over Arabia and the Holy Places with such arrangement as may be
required for guaranteeing Arab self-rule, should the Arabs desire it. It
is hardly possible to state the claim more fairly than has been done. It
is a claim backed by justice, by the declarations of British ministers
and by the unanimous Hindu and Muslim opinion. It would be midsummer
madness to reject or whittle down a claim so backed.


   "As I told you in my last letter I think Mr. Gandhi has made a
   serious mistake in the Kailafat business. The Indian Mahomedans base
   their demand on the assertion that their religion requires the
   Turkish rule over Arabia: but when they have against them in this
   matter, the Arabs themselves, it is impossible to regard the theory
   of the Indian Mahomedans as essential to Islam. After all if the
   Arabs do not represent Islam, who does? It is as if the German Roman
   Catholics made a demand in the name of Roman Catholicism with Rome
   and the Italians making a contrary demand. But even if the religion
   of the Indian Mahomedans did require that Turkish rule should be
   imposed upon the Arabs against their will, one could not, now-a-days,
   recognise as a really religious demand, one which required the
   continued oppression of one people by another. When an assurance was
   given at the beginning of the war to the Indian Mahomedans that the
   Mahomedan religion would be respected, that could never have meant
   that a temporal sovereignty which violated the principles of
   self-determination would be upheld. We could not now stand by and see
   the Turks re-conquer the Arabs (for the Arabs would certainly fight
   against them) without grossly betraying the Arabs to whom we have
   given pledges. It is not true that the Arab hostility to the Turks
   was due simply to European suggestion. No doubt, during the war we
   availed ourselves of the Arab hostility to the Turks to get another
   ally, but the hostility had existed long before the war. The
   Non-Turkish Mahomedan subjects of the Sultan in general wanted to get
   rid of his rule. It is the Indian Mahomedans who have no experience
   of that rule who want to impose it on others. As a matter of fact the
   idea of any restoration of Turkish rule in Syria or Arabia, seems so
   remote from all possibilities that to discuss it seems like
   discussing a restoration of the Holy Roman Empire. I cannot conceive
   what series of events could bring it about. The Indian Mahomedans
   certainly could not march into Arabia themselves and conquer the
   Arabs for the Sultan. And no amount of agitation and trouble in India
   would ever induce England to put back Turkish rule in Arabia. In this
   matter it is not English Imperialism which the Indian Mahomedans are
   up against, but the mass of English Liberal and Humanitarian opinion,
   the mass of the better opinion of England, which wants
   self-determination to go forward in India. Supposing the Indian
   Mahomedans could stir up an agitation so violent in India as to sever
   the connection between India and the British Crown, still they would
   not be any nearer to their purpose. For to-day they do have
   considerable influence on British world-policy. Even if in this
   matter of the Turkish question their influence has not been
   sufficient to turn the scale against the very heavy weights on the
   other side, it has weighed in the scale. But apart from the British
   connection, Indian Mahomedans would have no influence at all outside
   India. They would not count for more in world politics than the
   Mahomedans of China. I think it is likely (apart from the pressure
   of America on the other side. I should say certain) that the
   influence of the Indian Mahomedans may at any rate avail to keep the
   Sultan in Constantinople. But I doubt whether they will gain any
   advantage by doing so. For a Turkey cut down to the Turkish parts of
   Asia-Minor, Constantinople would be a very inconvenient capital. I
   think its inconvenience would more than outweigh the sentimental
   gratification of keeping up a phantom of the old Ottoman Empire. But
   if the Indian Mahomedans want the Sultan to retain his place in
   Constantinople I think the assurances given officially by the Viceroy
   in India now binds us to insist on his remaining there and I think he
   will remain there in spite of America."

This is an extract, from the letter of an Englishman enjoying a position
in Great Britain, to a friend in India. It is a typical letter, sober,
honest, to the point and put in such graceful language that whilst it
challenges you, it commands your respect by its very gracefulness. But
it is just this attitude based upon insufficient or false information
which has ruined many a cause in the British Isles. The superficiality,
the one-sidedness the inaccuracy and often even dishonesty that have
crept into modern journalism, continuously mislead honest men who want
to see nothing but justice done. Then there are always interested
groups whose business it is to serve their ends by means of faul or
food. And the honest Englishman wishing to vote for justice but swayed
by conflicting opinions and dominated by distorted versions, often ends
by becoming an instrument of injustice.

The writer of the letter quoted above has built up convincing argument
on imaginary data. He has successfully shown that the Mahomedan case, as
it has been presented to him, is a rotten case. In India, where it is
not quite easy to distort facts about the Khilafat. English friends
admit the utter justice of the Indian-Mahomedan claim. But they plead
helplessness and tell us that the Government of India and Mr. Montagu
have done all it was humanly possible for them to do. And if now the
judgment goes against Islam, Indian Mahomedans should resign themselves
to it. This extraordinary state of things would not be possible except
under this modern rush and preoccupations of all responsible people.

Let us for a moment examine the case as it has been imagined by the
writer. He suggests that Indian Mahomedans want Turkish rule in Arabia
in spite of the opposition of the Arabs themselves, and that, if the
Arabs do not want Turkish rule, the writer argues, no false religions
sentiment can be permitted to interfere with self-determination of the
Arabs when India herself has been pleading for that very status. Now the
fact is that the Mahomedans, as is known to everybody who has at all
studied the case, have never asked for Turkish rule in Arabia in
opposition to the Arabs. On the contrary, they have said that they have
no intention of resisting Arabian self-government. All they ask for is
Turkish suzerainty over Arabia which would guarantee complete self-rule
for the Arabs. They want Khalif's control of the Holy Places of Islam.
In other words they ask for nothing more than what was guaranteed by Mr.
Lloyd George and on the strength of which guarantee Mahomedan soldiers
split their blood on behalf of the Allied Powers. All the elaborate
argument therefore and the cogent reasoning of the above extract fall to
pieces based as they are upon a case that has never existed. I have
thrown myself heart and soul into this question because British pledges
abstract justice, and religious sentiment coincide. I can conceive the
possibility of a blind and fanatical religious sentiment existing in
opposition to pure justice. I should then resist the former and fight
for the latter. Nor would I insist upon pledges given dishonestly to
support an unjust cause as has happened with England in the case of the
secret treaties. Resistance there becomes not only lawful but obligatory
on the part of a nation that prides itself on its righteousness.

It is unnecessary for me to examine the position imagined by the English
friend, viz., how India would have fared had she been an independent
power. It is unnecessary because Indian Mahomedans, and for that matter
India, are fighting for a cause that is admittedly just; a cause in aid
of which they are invoking the whole-hearted support of the British
people. I would however venture to suggest that this is a cause in which
mere sympathy will not suffice. It is a cause which demands support that
is strong enough to bring about substantial justice.


I have been overwhelmed with public criticism and private advice and
even anonymous letters telling me exactly what I should do. Some are
impatient that I do not advise immediate and extensive non-co-operation;
others tell me what harm I am doing the country by throwing it knowingly
in a tempest of violence on either side. It is difficult for me to deal
with the whole of the criticism, but I would summarize some of the
objections and endeavour to answer them to the best of my ability. These
are in addition to those I have already answered:--

(1) Turkish claim is immoral or unjust and how can I, a lover of truth
and justice, support it? (2) Even if the claim be just in theory, the
Turk is hopelessly incapable, weak and cruel. He does not deserve any

(3) Even if Turkey deserves all that is claimed for her, why should I
land India in an international struggle?

(4) It is no part of the Indian Mahomedans' business to meddle in this
affair. If they cherish any political ambition, they have tried, they
have failed and they should now sit still. If it is a religious matter
with them, it cannot appeal to the Hindu reason in the manner it is put
and in any case Hindus ought not to identify themselves with Mahomedans
in their religious quarrel with Christendom.

(5) In no case should I advocate non-co-operation which in its extreme
sense is nothing but a rebellion, no matter how peaceful it may be.

(6) Moreover, my experience of last year must show me that it is beyond
the capacity of any single human being to control the forces of violence
that are lying dormant in the land.

(7) Non-co-operation is futile because people will never respond in
right earnest, and reaction that might afterwards set in will be worse
than the state of hopefulness we are now in.

(8) Non-co-operation will bring about cessation of all other activities,
even working of the Reforms, thus set back the clock of progress. (9)
However pure my motives may be, those of the Mussalmans are obviously

I shall now answer the objections in the order in which they are

(1) In my opinion the Turkish claim is not only not immoral and unjust,
but it is highly equitable, if only because Turkey wants to retain what
is her own. And the Mahomedan manifesto has definitely declared that
whatever guarantees may be necessary to be taken for the protection of
non-Muslim and non-Turkish races, should be taken so as to give the
Christians theirs and the Arabs their self-government under the Turkish

(2) I do not believe the Turk to be weak, incapable or cruel. He is
certainly disorganised and probably without good generalship. He has
been obliged to fight against heavy odds. The argument of weakness,
incapacity and cruelty one often hears quoted in connection with those
from whom power is sought to be taken away. About the alleged massacres
a proper commission has been asked for, but never granted. And in any
case security can be taken against oppression.

(3) I have already stated that if I were not interested in the Indian
Mahomedans, I would not interest myself in the welfare of the Turks any
more than I am in that of the Austrians or the Poles. But I am bound as
an Indian to share the sufferings and trial of fellow-Indians. If I deem
the Mahomedan to be my brother. It is my duty to help him in his hour
of peril to the best of my ability, if his cause commends itself to
me as just.

(4) The fourth refers to the extent Hindus should join hands with the
Mahomedans. It is therefore a matter of feeling and opinion. It is
expedient to suffer for my Mahomedan brother to the utmost in a just
cause and I should therefore travel with him along the whole road so
long as the means employed by him are as honourable as his end. I cannot
regulate the Mahomedan feeling. I must accept his statement that the
Khilafat is with him a religious question in the sense that it binds him
to reach the goal even at the cost of his own life.

(5) I do not consider non-co-operation to be a rebellion, because it is
free from violence. In a larger sense all opposition to a Government
measure is a rebellion. In that sense, rebellion in a just cause is a
duty, the extent of opposition being determined by the measure of the
injustice done and felt.

(6) My experience of last year shows me that in spite of aberrations in
some parts of India, the country was entirely under control that the
influence of Satyagraha was profoundly for its good and that where
violence did break out there were local causes that directly contributed
to it. At the same time I admit that even the violence that did take
place on the part of the people and the spirit of lawlessness that was
undoubtedly shown in some parts should have remained under check. I have
made ample acknowledgment of the miscalculation I then made. But all the
painful experience that I then gained did not any way shake my belief in
Satyagraha or in the possibility of that matchless force being utilised
in India. Ample provision is being made this time to avoid the mistakes
of the past. But I must refuse to be deterred from a clear course;
because it may be attended by violence totally unintended and in spite
of extraordinary efforts that are being made to prevent it. At the same
time I must make my position clear. Nothing can possibly prevent a
Satyagrahi from doing his duty because of the frown of the authorities.
I would risk, if necessary, a million lives so long as they are
voluntary sufferers and are innocent, spotless victims. It is the
mistakes of the people that matter in a Satyagraha campaign. Mistakes,
even insanity must be expected from the strong and the powerful, and the
moment of victory has come when there is no retort to the mad fury of
the powerful, but a voluntary, dignified and quiet submission but not
submission to the will of the authority that has put itself in the
wrong. The secret of success lies therefore in holding every English
life and the life of every officer serving the Government as sacred as
those of our own dear ones. All the wonderful experience I have gained
now during nearly 40 years of conscious existence, has convinced me that
there is no gift so precious as that of life. I make bold to say that
the moment the Englishmen feel that although they are in India in a
hopeless minority, their lives are protected against harm not because of
the matchless weapons of destruction which are at their disposal, but
because Indians refuse to take the lives even of those whom they may
consider to be utterly in the wrong that moment will see a
transformation in the English nature in its relation to India and that
moment will also be the moment when all the destructive cutlery that is
to be had in India will begin to rust. I know that this is a far-off
vision. That cannot matter to me. It is enough for me to see the light
and to act up to it, and it is more than enough when I gain companions
in the onward march. I have claimed in private conversations with
English friends that it is because of my incessant preaching of the
gospel of non-violence and my having successfully demonstrated its
practical utility that so far the forces of violence, which are
undoubtedly in existence in connection with the Khilafat movement, have
remained under complete control.

(7) From a religious standpoint the seventh objection is hardly worth
considering. If people do not respond to the movement of
non-co-operation, it would be a pity, but that can be no reason for a
reformer not to try. It would be to me a demonstration that the present
position of hopefulness is not dependent on any inward strength or
knowledge, but it is hope born of ignorance and superstition.

(8) If non-co-operation is taken up in earnest, it must bring about a
cessation of all other activities including the Reforms, but I decline
to draw therefore the corollary that it will set back the clock of
progress. On the contrary, I consider non-co-operation to be such a
powerful and pure instrument, that if it is enforced in an earnest
spirit, it will be like seeking first the Kingdom of God and everything
else following as a matter of course. People will have then realised
their true power. They would have learnt the value of discipline,
self-control, joint action, non-violence, organisation and everything
else that goes to make a nation great and good, and not merely great.

(9) I do not know that I have a right to arrogate greater purity for
myself than for our Mussalman brethren. But I do admit that they do not
believe in my doctrine of non-violence to the full extent. For them it
is a weapon of the weak, an expedient. They consider non-co-operation
without violence to be the only thing open to them in the war of direct
action. I know that if some of them could offer successful violence,
they would do to-day. But they are convinced that humanly speaking it is
an impossibility. For them, therefore, non-co-operation is a matter not
merely of duty but also of revenge. Whereas I take up non-co-operation
against the Government as I have actually taken it up in practice
against members of my own family. I entertain very high regard for the
British constitution, I have not only no enmity against Englishmen but I
regard much in English character as worthy of my emulation. I count many
as my friends. It is against my religion to regard any one as an enemy.
I entertain similar sentiments with respect to Mahomedans. I find their
cause to be just and pure. Although therefore their viewpoint is
different from mine I do not hesitate to associate with them and invite
them to give my method a trial, for, I believe that the use of a pure
weapon even from a mistaken motive does not fail to produce some good,
even as the telling of truth if only because for the time being it is
the best policy, is at least so much to the good.


Mr. Candler has favoured me with an open letter on this question of
questions. The letter has already appeared in the Press. I can
appreciate Mr. Candler's position as I would like him and other
Englishmen to appreciate mine and that of hundreds of Hindus who feel as
I do. Mr. Candler's letter is an attempt to show that Mr. Lloyd George's
pledge is not in any way broken by the peace terms. I quite agree with
him that Mr. Lloyd George's words ought not to be torn from their
context to support the Mahomedan claim. These are Mr. Lloyd George's
words as quoted in the recent Viceregal message: "Nor are we fighting to
destroy Austria-Hungary or to deprive Turkey of its capital or of the
rich and renowned lands of Asia Minor and Thrace which are predominantly
Turkish in race." Mr. Candler seems to read 'which', as if it meant 'if
they,' whereas I give the pronoun its natural meaning, namely, that the
Prime Minister knew in 1918, that the lands referred to by him were
"predominantly Turkish in race." And if this is the meaning I venture to
suggest that the pledge has been broken in a most barefaced manner, for
there is practically nothing left to the Turk of 'the rich and renowned
lands of Asia Minor and Thrace.'

I have already my view of the retention of the Sultan in Constantinople.
It is an insult to the intelligence of man to suggest that 'the
maintenance of the Turkish Empire in the homeland of the Turkish race
with its capital at Constantinople has been left unimpaired by the terms
of peace. This is the other passage from the speech which I presume Mr.
Candler wants me to read together with the one already quoted:--

   "While we do not challenge the maintenance of the Turkish Empire in
   the home-land of the Turkish race with its capital at Constantinople,
   the passage between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea being
   inter-nationalised, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine are in
   our judgment entitled to a recognition of their separate national

Did that mean entire removal of Turkish influence, extinction of Turkish
suzerainty and the introduction of European-Christian influence under
the guise of Mandates? Have the Moslems of Arabia, Armenia, Mesopotamia,
Syria and Palestine been committed, or is the new arrangement being
superimposed upon them by Powers conscious of their own brute-strength
rather than of justice of their action? I for one would nurse by every
legitimate means the spirit of independence in the brave Arabs, but I
shudder to think what will happen to them under the schemes of
exploitation of their country by the greedy capitalists protected as
they will be by the mandatory Powers. If the pledge is to be fulfilled,
let these places have full self-government with suzerainty to be
retained with Turkey as has been suggested by the _Times of India_. Let
there be all the necessary guarantees taken from Turkey about the
internal independence of the Arabs. But to remove that suzerainty, to
deprive the Khalif of the wardenship of the Holy Places is to render
Khilafat a mockery which no Mahomedan can possibly look upon with
equanimity, I am not alone in my interpretation of the pledge. The Right
Hon'ble Ameer Ali calls the peace terms a breach of faith. Mr. Charles
Roberts reminds the British public that the Indian Mussalman sentiment
regarding the Turkish Treaty is based upon the Prime Minister's pledge
"regarding Thrace, Constantinople and Turkish lands in Asia Minor,
repeated on February 26 last with deliberation by Mr. Lloyd George. Mr.
Roberts holds that the pledge must be treated as a whole, not as binding
only regarding Constantinople but also binding as regards Thrace and
Asia Minor. He describes the pledge as binding upon the nation as a
whole and its breach in any part as a gross breach of faith on the part
of the British Empire. He demands that if there is an unanswerable reply
to the charge of breach of faith it ought to be given and adds the Prime
Minister may regard his own word lightly if he chooses, but he has no
right to break a pledge given on behalf of the nation. He concludes that
it is incredible that such pledge should not have been kept in the
letter and in the spirit." He adds: "I have reason to believe that these
views are fully shared by prominent members of the Cabinet."

I wonder if Mr. Candler knows what is going on to-day in England. Mr.
Pickthall writing in _New Age_ says: "No impartial international enquiry
into the whole question of the Armenian massacres has been instituted in
the ample time which has elapsed since the conclusion of armistice with
Turkey. The Turkish Government has asked for such enquiry. But the
Armenian organisations and the Armenian partisans refuse to hear of such
a thing, declaring that the Bryce and Lepssens reports are quite
sufficient to condemn the Turks. In other words the judgment should be
given on the case for prosecution alone. The inter-allied commission
which investigated the unfortunate events in Smyrna last year, made a
report unfavourable to Greek claims. Therefore, that report has not been
published here in England, though in other countries it has long been
public property." He then goes on to show how money is being scattered
by Armenian and Greek emissaries in order to popularise their cause and
adds: "This conjunction of dense ignorance and cunning falsehood is
fraught with instant danger to the British realm," and concludes: "A
Government and people which prefer propaganda to fact as the ground of
policy--and foreign policy at that--is self-condemned."

I have reproduced the above extract in order to show that the present
British policy has been affected by propaganda of an unscrupulous
nature. Turkey which was dominant over two million square miles of
Asia, Africa and Europe in the 17th century, under the terms of the
treaty, says the _London Chronicle_, has dwindled down to little more
than 1,000 square miles. It says, "All European Turkey could now be
accommodated comfortably between the Landsend and the Tamar, Cornawal
alone exceeding its total area and but for its alliance with Germany,
Turkey could have been assured of retaining at least sixty thousand
square miles of the Eastern Balkans." I do not know whether the
_Chronicle_ view is generally shared. Is it by way of punishment that
Turkey is to undergo such shrinkage, or is it because justice demands
it? If Turkey had not made the mistake of joining Germany, would the
principle of nationality have been still applied to Armenia, Arabia,
Mesopotamia and Palestine?

Let me now remind those who think with Mr. Candler that the promise was
not made by Mr. Lloyd George to the people of India in anticipation of
the supply of recruits continuing. In defending his own statement Mr.
Lloyd George is reported to have said:

   "The effect of the statement in India was that recruiting went up
   appreciably from that very moment. They were not all Mahomedans but
   there were many Mahomedans amongst them. Now we are told that was an
   offer to Turkey. But they rejected it, and therefore we were
   absolutely free. It was not. It is too often forgotten that we are
   the greatest Mahomedan power in the world and one-fourth of the
   population of the British Empire is Mahomedan. There have been no
   more loyal adherents to the throne and no more effective and loyal
   supporters of the Empire in its hour of trial. _We gave a solemn
   pledge and they accepted it_. They are disturbed by the prospect of
   our not abiding by it."

Who shall interpret that pledge and how? How did the Government of India
itself interpret it? Did it or did it not energetically support the
claim for the control of the Holy Places of Islam vesting in the Khalif?
Did the Government of India suggest that the whole of Jazirat-ul-Arab
could he taken away consistently with that pledge from the sphere of
influence of the Khalif, and given over to the Allies as mandatory
Powers? Why does the Government of India sympathise with the Indian
Mussalmans if the terms are all they should be? So much for the pledge.
I would like to guard myself against being understood that I stand or
fall absolutely by Mr. Lloyd George's declaration. I have advisedly used
the adverb 'practically' in connection with it. It is an important

Mr. Candler seems to suggest that my goal is something more than merely
attaining justice on the Khilafat. If so, he is right. Attainment of
justice is undoubtedly the corner-stone, and if I found that I was wrong
in my conception of justice on this question, I hope I shall have the
courage immediately to retrace my steps. But by helping the Mahomedans
of India at a critical moment in their history, I want to buy their
friendship. Moreover, if I can carry the Mahomedans with me I hope to
wean Great Britain from the downward path along which the Prime Minister
seems to me to be taking her. I hope also to show to India and the
Empire at large that given a certain amount of capacity for
self-sacrifice, justice can be secured by peacefullest and cleanest
means without sowing or increasing bitterness between English and
Indians. For, whatever may be the temporary effect of my methods, I know
enough of them to feel certain that they alone are immune from lasting
bitterness. They are untainted with hatred, expedience or untruth.


The writer of 'Current Topics' in the "Times of India" has attempted to
challenge the statement made in my Khilafat article regarding
ministerial pledges, and in doing so cites Mr. Asquith's Guild-Hall
speech of November 10, 1914. When I wrote the articles, I had in mind
Mr. Asquith's speech. I am sorry that he ever made that speech. For, in
my humble opinion, it betrayed to say the least, a confusion of thought.
Could he think of the Turkish people as apart from the Ottoman
Government? And what is the meaning of the death-knell of Ottoman
Dominion in Europe and Asia if it be not the death knell of Turkish
people as a free and governing race? Is it, again, true historically
that the Turkish rule has always been a blight that 'has withered some
of the fairest regions of the earth?' And what is the meaning of his
statement that followed, viz., "Nothing is further from our thoughts
than to imitate or encourage a crusade against their belief?" If words
have any meaning, the qualifications that Mr. Asquith introduced in his
speech should have meant a scrupulous regard for Indian Muslim feeling.
And if that be the meaning of his speech, without anything further to
support me I would claim that even Mr. Asquith's assurance is in danger
of being set at nought if the resolutions of the San Remo Conference are
to be crystallised into action. But I base remarks on a considered
speech made by Mr. Asquith's successor two years later when things had
assumed a more threatening shape than in 1914 and when the need for
Indian help was much greater than in 1914. His pledge would bear
repetition till it is fulfilled. He said: "Nor are we fighting to
deprive Turkey of its capital or of the rich and renowned lands of Asia
Minor and Thrace which are predominantly Turkish in race. We do not
challenge the maintenance of the Turkish Empire in the homelands of the
Turkish race with its capital at Constantinople." If only every word of
this pledge is fulfilled both in letter and in spirit, there would be
little left for quarrelling about. In so far as Mr. Asquith's
declaration can be considered hostile to the Indian Muslim claim, it its
superseded by the later and more considered declaration of Mr. Lloyd
George--a declaration made irrevocable by fulfilment of the
consideration it expected, viz. the enlistment of the brave Mahomedan
soldiery which fought in the very place which is now being partitioned
in spite of the pledge. But the writer of 'Current Topics' says Mr.
Lloyd George "is now in process of keeping his pledge" I hope he is
right. But what has already happened gives little ground for any such
hope. For, imprisonment or internment of the Khalif in his own capital
will be not only a mockery of fulfilment but it would he adding injury
to insult. Either the Turkish Empire is to be maintained in the
homelands of the Turkish race with its capital at Constantinople or it
is not. If it is, let the Indian Mahomedans feel the full glow of it or
if the Empire is to be broken up, let the mask of hypocrisy be lifted
and India see the truth in its nakedness. To join the Khilafat movement
then means to join a movement to keep inviolate the pledge of a British
minister. Surely, such a movement is worth much greater sacrifice than
may be involved in non-co-operation.


Your Excellency.

As one who has enjoyed a certain measure of your Excellency's
confidence, and as one who claims to be a devoted well-wisher of the
British Empire, I owe it to your Excellency, and through your Excellency
to His Majesty's Ministers, to explain my connection with and my conduct
in the Khilafat question.

At the very earliest stages of the war, even whilst I was in London
organising the Indian Volunteer Ambulance Corps, I began to interest
myself in the Khilafat question. I perceived how deeply moved the little
Mussalman World in London was when Turkey decided to throw in her lot
with Germany. On my arrival in India in the January of 1915, I found the
same anxiousness and earnestness among the Mussalmans with whom I came
in contact. Their anxiety became intense when the information about the
Secret Treaties leaked out. Distrust of British intentions filled their
minds, and despair took possession of them. Even at that moment I
advised my Mussalman friends not to give way to despair, but to express
their fear and their hopes in a disciplined manner. It will be admitted
that the whole of Mussalman India has behaved in a singularly restrained
manner during the past five years and that the leaders have been able to
keep the turbulent sections of their community under complete control.

The peace terms and your Excellency's defence of them have given the
Mussalmans of India a shock from which it will be difficult for them to
recover. The terms violate ministerial pledges and utterly disregard
Mussalman sentiment. I consider that as a staunch Hindu wishing to live
on terms of the closest friendship with my Mussalman countrymen. I
should be an unworthy son of India if I did not stand by them in their
hour of trial. In my humble opinion their cause is just. They claim that
Turkey must be _punished_ if their sentiment is to be respected. Muslim
soldiers did fight to inflict punishment on their own Khalifa or to
deprive him of his territories. The Mussalman attitude has been
consistent, throughout these five years.

My duty to the Empire to which I owe my loyalty requires me to resist
the cruel violence that has been done to the Mussalman sentiment. So far
as I am aware, Mussulmans and Hindus have as a whole lost faith in
British justice and honour. The report of the majority of the Hunter
Committee, Your Excellency's despatch thereon and Mr. Montagu's reply
have only aggravated the distrust.

In these circumstances the only course open to one like me is either in
despair to sever all connection with British rule, or, if I still
retained faith in the inherent superiority of the British constitution
to all others at present in vogue to adopt such means as will rectify
the wrong done, and thus restore confidence. I have not lost faith in
such superiority and I am not without hope that somehow or other justice
will yet be rendered if we show the requisite capacity for suffering.
Indeed, my conception of that constitution is that it helps only those
who are ready to help themselves. I do not believe that it protects the
weak. It gives free scope to the strong to maintain their strength and
develop it. The weak under it go to the wall.

It is, then, because I believe in the British constitution that I have
advised my Mussalman friends to withdraw their support from your
Excellency's Government and the Hindus to join them, should the peace
terms not be revised in accordance with the solemn pledges of Ministers
and the Muslim sentiment.

Three courses were open to the Mahomedans in order to mark their
emphatic disapproval of the utter injustice to which His Majesty's
Ministers have become party, if they have not actually been the prime
perpetrators of it. They are:--

(1) To resort to violence,

(2) To advise emigration on a wholesale scale,

(3) Not to be party to the injustice by ceasing to co-operate with the

Your Excellency must be aware that there was a time when the boldest,
though the most thoughtless among the Mussulmans favoured violence, and
the "Hijrat" (emigration) has not yet ceased to be the battle-cry. I
venture to claim that I have succeeded by patient reasoning in weaning
the party of violence from its ways. I confess that I did not--I did not
attempt to succeed in weaning them from violence on moral grounds, but
purely on utilitarian grounds. The result, for the time being at any
has, however, been to stop violence. The School of "Hijrat" has received
a check, if it has not stopped its activity entirely. I hold that no
repression could have prevented a violent eruption, if the people had
not had presented to them a form of direct action involving considerable
sacrifice and ensuring success if such direct action was largely taken
up by the public. Non-co-operation was the only dignified and
constitutional form of such direct action. For it is the right
recognised from times immemorial of the subject to refuse to assist a
ruler who misrules.

At the same time I admit that non-co-operation practised by the mass of
people is attended with grave risks. But, in a crisis such as has
overtaken the Mussalmans of India, no step that is unattended with large
risks, can possibly bring about the desired change. Not to run some
risks now will be to court much greater risks if not virtual destruction
of Law and Order.

But there is yet an escape from non-co-operation. The Mussalman
representation has requested your Excellency to lead the agitation
yourself, as did your distinguished predecessor at the time of the South
African trouble. But if you cannot see your way to do so, and
non-co-operation becomes a dire necessity, I hope that your Excellency
will give those who have accepted my advice and myself the credit for
being actuated by nothing less than a stern sense of duty.

I have the honour to remain,

Your Excellency's faithful servant,

(Sd.) M.K. GANDHI.

Laburnam Road, Gamdevi, Bombay

22nd June 1920


The English mail has brought us a full and official report of the
Premier's speech which he recently made when he received the Khilafat
deputation. Mr. Lloyd George's speech is more definite and therefore
more disappointing than H.E. the Viceroy's reply to the deputation here.
He draws quite unwarranted deductions from the same high principles on
which he had based his own pledge only two years ago. He declares that
Turkey must pay the penalty of defeat. This determination to punish
Turkey does not become one whose immediate predecessor had, in order to
appease Muslim soldiers, promised that the British Government had no
designs on Turkey and that His Majesty's Government would never think of
punishing the Sultan for the misdeeds of the Turkish Committee. Mr.
Lloyd George has expressed his belief that the majority of the
population of Turkey did not really want to quarrel with Great Britain
and that their rulers misled the country. In spite of this conviction
and in spite of Mr. Asquith's promise, he is out to punish Turkey and
punish it in the name of justice.

He expounds the principle of self-determination and justifies the scheme
of depriving Turkey of its territories one after another. While
justifying this scheme he does not exclude even Thrace and this strikes
the reader most, because this very Thrace he had mentioned in his pledge
as predominantly Turkish. Now we are told by him that both the Turkish
census and the Greek census agree in pointing out the Mussulman
population in Thrace is in a considerable minority! Mr. Yakub Hussain
speaking at the Madras Khilafat conference has challenged the truth of
this statement. The Prime Minister cites among others also the example
of Smyrna where, he says, we had a most careful investigation by a very
impartial committee in the whole of the question of Smyrna and it was
found that considerable majority was non-Turkish.' Who will believe the
one-sided "impartial committee's" investigations until it is disproved
that thousands of Musselmans have been murdered and hundreds of
thousands have been driven away from their hearths and homes? Strangely
enough Mr. Lloyd George, believes in the necessity of fresh
investigations by a purposely appointed committee in Smyrna as the most
authenticated and up-to-date report, whereas he would not accept Mr.
Mahomed Ali's proposal for an impartial commission in regard to Armenian
massacre! Doubtful and one-sided facts and figures suffice for him even
to conclude that the Turkish Government is incapable of protecting its
subjects. And he proceeds to suggest foreign interference in ruling over
Asia Minor in the interests of civilization. Here he cuts at the root of
the Sultan's independence. This proposal of appropriating supervision is
distinctly unlike the treatment meted out to other enemy powers.

This detraction of the Sultan's suzerainty is only a corollary of the
Premier's indifference towards the Muslim idea of the Caliphate. The
premier's injustice in treating the Turkish question becomes graver when
he thus lightly handles the Khilafat question. There had been occasions
when the British have used to their advantage the Muslim idea of
associating the Caliph's spiritual power with temporal power. Now this
very association is treated as a controversial question by the great

Will this raise the reputation of Great Britain or stain it? Can this be
tolerated by those who fought against Turkey with full faith in British
honesty? Mere receipts of gratitude cannot console the wounded
Mussalmans. There lies the alternative for England to choose between two
mandates--a mandate over some Turkish territories which is sure to lead
to chaos all over the world and a mandate over the hearts of the
Muhomedans which will redeem the pledged honour of Britain. The prime
minister has an unwise choice. This narrow view registers the latest
temperature of British diplomacy.


Slowly but surely the Mussulmans are preparing for the battle before
them. They have to fight against odds that are undoubtedly heavy but
not half as heavy as the prophet had against him. How often did he not
put his life in danger? But his faith in God was unquenchable. He went
forward with a light heart, for God was on his side, for he represented
truth. If his followers have half the prophet's faith and half his
spirit of sacrifice, the odds will be presently even and will in little
while turn against the despoilers of Turkey. Already the rapacity of the
Allies is telling against themselves. France finds her task difficult.
Greece cannot stomach her ill-gotten gains. And England finds
Mesopotamia a tough job. The oil of Mosul may feed the fire she has so
wantonly lighted and burn her fingers badly. The newspapers say the
Arabs do not like the presence of the Indian soldiery in their midst. I
do not wonder. They are a fierce and a brave people and do not
understand why Indian soldiers should find themselves in Mesopotamia.
Whatever the fate of non-co-operation, I wish that not a single Indian
will offer his services for Mesopotamia whether for the civil or the
military department. We must learn to think for ourselves and before
entering upon any employment find out whether thereby we may not make
ourselves instruments of injustice. Apart from the question of Khilafat
and from the point of abstract justice the English have no right to hold
Mesopotamia. It is no part of our loyalty to help the Imperial
Government in what is in plain language daylight robbery. If therefore
we seek civil or military employment in Mesopotamia we do so for the
sake of earning a livelihood. It is our duty to see that the source is
not tainted.

It surprises me to find so many people shirking over the mention of
non-co-operation. There is no instrument so clean, so harmless and yet
so effective as non-co-operation. Judiciously hauled it need not produce
any evil consequences. And its intensity will depend purely on the
capacity of the people for sacrifice.

The chief thing is to prepare the atmosphere of non-co-operation. "We
are not going to co-operate with you in your injustice," is surely the
right and the duty of every intelligent subject to say. Were it not for
our utter servility, helplessness and want of confidence in ourselves,
we would certainly grasp this clean weapon and make the most effective
use of it. Even the most despotic government cannot stand except for the
consent of the governed which consent is often forcibly procured by the
despot. Immediately the subject ceases to fear the despotic force his
power is gone. But the British government is never and nowhere entirely
or laid upon force. It does make an honest attempt to secure the
goodwill of the governed. But it does not hesitate to adopt unscrupulous
means to compel the consent of the governed. It has not gone beyond the
'Honesty is the best policy' idea. It therefore bribes you into
consenting its will by awarding titles, medals and ribbons, by giving
you employment, by its superior financial ability to open for its
employees avenues for enriching themselves and finally when these fail,
it resorts to force. That is what Sir Michael O'Dwyer did and that is
almost every British administrator will certainly do if he thought it
necessary. If then we would not be greedy, if we would not run after
titles and medals and honorary posts which do the country no good, half
the battle is won.

My advisers are never tired of telling me that even if the Turkish peace
terms are revised it will not be due to non-co-operation. I venture to
suggest to them that non-co-operation has a higher purpose than mere
revision of the terms. If I cannot compel revision I must at least cease
to support a government that becomes party to the usurpation. And if I
succeed in pushing non-co-operation to the extreme limit, I do compel
the Government to choose between India and the usurpation. I have faith
enough in England to know that at that moment England will expel her
present jaded ministers and put in others who will make a clean sweep of
the terms in consultation with an awakened India, draft terms that will
be honourable to her, to Turkey and acceptable to India. But I hear my
critics say "India has not the strength of purpose and the capacity for
the sacrifice to achieve such a noble end. They are partly right. India
has not these qualities now, because we have not--shall we not evolve
them and infect the nation with them? Is not the attempt worth making?
Is my sacrifice too great to gain such a great purpose?"


The Khilafat representation addressed to the Viceroy and my letter on
the same subject have been severely criticised by the Anglo-Indian
press. _The Times of India_ which generally adopts an impartial attitude
has taken strong exception to certain statements made in the Muslim
manifesto and has devoted a paragraph of its article to an advance
criticism of my suggestion that His Excellency should resign if the
peace terms are not revised.

_The Times of India_ excepts to the submission that the British Empire
may not treat Turkey like a departed enemy. The signatories have, I
think, supplied the best of reasons. They say "We respectfully submit
that in the treatment of Turkey the British Government are bound to
respect Indian Muslim sentiment in so far as it is neither unjust nor
unreasonable." If the seven crore Mussulmans are partners in the Empire,
I submit that their wish must be held to be all sufficient for
refraining from punishing Turkey. It is beside the point to quote what
Turkey did during the war. It has suffered for it. _The Times_ inquires
wherein Turkey has been treated worse than the other Powers. I thought
that the fact was self-evident. Neither Germany nor Austria and Hungary
has been treated in the same way that Turkey has been. The whole of the
Empire has been reduced to the retention of a portion of its capital, as
it were, to mock the Sultan and that too has been done under terms so
humiliating that no self-respecting person much less a reigning
sovereign can possibly accept.

_The Times_ has endeavoured to make capital out of the fact that the
representation does not examine the reason for Turkey not joining the
Allies. Well there was no mystery about it. The fact of Russia being one
of the Allies was enough to warn Turkey against joining them. With
Russia knocking at the gate at the time of the war it was not an easy
matter for Turkey to join the Allies. But Turkey had cause to suspect
Great Britain herself. She knew that England had done no friendly turn
to her during the Bulgarian War. She was hardly well served at the time
of the war with Italy. It was still no doubt a bad choice. With the
Musssalmans of India awakened and ready to support her, her statesmen
might have relied upon Britain not being allowed to damage Turkey if she
had remained with the Allies. But this is all wisdom after event. Turkey
made a bad choice and she was punished for it. To humiliate her now is
to ignore the Indian Mussulman sentiment. Britain may not do it and
retain the loyalty of the awakened Mussulmans of India.

For "The Times" to say that the peace terms strictly follow the
principle of self-determination is to throw dust in the eyes of its
readers. Is it the principle of self-determination that has caused the
cessation of Adrianople and Thrace to Greece? By what principle of
self-determination has Smyrna been handed to Greece? Have the
inhabitants of Thrace and Smyrna asked for Grecian tutelege?

I decline to believe that the Arabs like the disposition that has been
made of them. Who is the King of Hedjaj and who is Emir Feisul? Have the
Arabs elected these kings and chiefs? Do the Arabs like the Mandate
being taken by England? By the time the whole thing is finished, the
very name self-determination will stink in one's nostrils. Already signs
are not wanting to show that the Arabs, the Thracians and the Smyrnans
are resenting their disposal. They may not like Turkish rule but they
like the present arrangement less. They could have made their own
honourable terms with Turkey but these self-determining people will now
be held down by the 'matchless might' of the allied _i.e._, British
forces. Britain had the straight course open to her of keeping the
Turkish Empire intact and taking sufficient guarantees for good
government. But her Prime Minister chose the crooked course of secret
treaties, duplicity and hypocritical subterfuges.

There is still a way out. Let her treat India as a real partner. Let her
call the true representatives of the Mussalmans. Let them go to Arabia
and the other parts of the Turkish Empire and let her devise a scheme
that would not humiliate Turkey, that would satisfy the just Muslim
sentiment and that will secure honest self-determination for the races
composing that Empire. If it was Canada, Australia or South Africa that
had to be placated, Mr. Lloyd George would not have dared to ignore
them. They have the power to secede. India has not. Let him no more
insult India by calling her a partner, if her feelings count for naught.
I invite _The Times of India_ to reconsider its position and join an
honourable agitation in which a high-souled people are seeking nothing
but justice.

I do with all deference still suggest that the least that Lord
Chelmsford can do is to resign if the sacred feelings of India's sons
are not to be consulted and respected by the Ministers. _The Times_ is
over-taxing the constitution when it suggests that as a constitutional
Viceroy it is not open to Lord Chelmsford to go against the decision of
his Majesty's Ministers. It is certainly not open to a Viceroy to retain
office and oppose ministerial decisions. But the constitution does allow
a Viceroy to resign his high office when he is called upon to carry out
decisions that are immoral as the peace terms are or like these terms
are calculated to stir to their very depth the feelings of those whose
affair he is administering for the time being.


The Khilafat meeting at Allahabad has unanimously reaffirmed the
principle of non-co-operation and appointed an executive committee to
lay down and enforce a detailed programme. This meeting was preceded by
a joint Hindu-Mahomedan meeting at which Hindu leaders were invited to
give their views. Mrs. Beasant, the Hon'ble Pandit Malaviyuji, the
Hon'ble Dr. Sapru Motilal Nehru Chintamani and others were present at
the meeting. It was a wise step on the part of the Khilafat Committee to
invite Hindus representing all shades of thought to give them the
benefit of their advice. Mrs. Besant and Dr. Sapru strongly dissuaded
the Mahomedans present from the policy of non-co-operation. The other
Hindu speakers made non-committal speeches. Whilst the other Hindu
speakers approved of the principle of non-co-operation in theory, they
saw many practical difficulties and they feared also complications
arising from Mahomedans welcoming an Afghan invasion of India. The
Mahomedan speakers gave the fullest and frankest assurances that they
would fight to a man any invader who wanted to conquer India, but were
equally frank in asserting that any invasion from without undertaken
with a view to uphold the prestige of Islam and to vindicate justice
would have their full sympathy if not their actual support. It is easy
enough to understand and justify the Hindu caution. It is difficult to
resist Mahomedan position. In my opinion, the best way to prevent India
from becoming the battle ground between the forces of Islam and those of
the English is for Hindus to make non-co-operation a complete and
immediate success, and I have little doubt that if the Mahomedans remain
true to their declared intention and are able to exercise
self-restraint, and make sacrifices the Hindus will "play the game" and
join them in the campaign of non-co-operation. I feel equally certain
that the Hindus will not assist Mahomedans in promoting or bringing
about an armed conflict between the British Government and their allies,
and Afghanistan. British forces are too well organised to admit of any
successful invasion of the Indian frontier. The only way, therefore, the
Mahomedans can carry on an effective struggle on behalf of the honour of
Islam is to take up non-co-operation in real earnest. It will not only
be completely effective if it is adopted by the people on an extensive
scale, but it will also provide full scope for individual conscience. If
I cannot bear an injustice done by an individual or a corporation, and
if I am directly or indirectly instrumental in upholding that individual
or corporation, I must answer for it before my Maker, but I have done
all it is humanly possible for me to do consistently with the moral code
that refuses to injure even the wrong-doer, if I cease to support the
injustice in the manner described above. In applying therefore such a
great force there should be no haste, there should be no temper shown.
Non-co-operation must be and remain absolutely a voluntary effort. The
whole thing then depends upon Mahomedans themselves. If they will but
help themselves Hindu help will come and the Government, great and
mighty though it is, will have to bend before this irresistible force.
No Government can possibly withstand the bloodless opposition of a whole


Mr. Andrews whose love for India is equalled only by his love for
England and whose mission in life is to serve God, i.e., humanity
through India, has contributed remarkable articles to the 'Bombay
Chronicle' on the Khilafat movement. He has not spared England, France
or Italy. He has shown how Turkey has been most unjustly dealt with and
how the Prime Minister's pledge has been broken. He has devoted the last
article to an examination of Mr. Mahomed Ali's letter to the Sultan and
has come to the conclusion that Mr. Mahomed Ali's statement of claim is
at variance with the claim set forth in the latest Khilafat
representation to the Viceroy which he wholly approves.

Mr. Andrews and I have discussed the question as fully as it was
possible. He asked me publicly to define my own position more fully than
I have done. His sole object in inviting discussion is to give strength
to a cause which he holds as intrinsically just, and to gather round it
the best opinion of Europe so that the allied powers and especially
England may for very shame be obliged to revise the terms.

I gladly respond to Mr. Andrew's invitation. I should clear the ground
by stating that I reject any religious doctrine that does not appeal to
reason and is in conflict with morality. I tolerate unreasonable
religious sentiment when it is not immoral. I hold the Khilafat claim to
be both just and reasonable and therefore it derives greater force
because it has behind it the religious sentiment of the Mussalman world.

In my opinion Mr. Mahomed Ali's statement is unexceptionable. It is no
doubt clothed in diplomatic language. But I am not prepared to quarrel
with the language so long as it is sound in substance.

Mr. Andrews considers that Mr. Mahomed Ali's language goes to show that
he would resist Armenian independence against the Armenians and the
Arabian against the Arabs. I attach no such meaning to it. What he, the
whole of Mussalmans and therefore I think also the Hindus resist is the
shameless attempt of England and the other Powers under cover of
self-determination to emasculate and dismember Turkey. If I understand
the spirit of Islam properly, it is essentially republican in the truest
sense of the term. Therefore if Armenia or Arabia desired independence
of Turkey they should have it. In the case of Arabia, complete Arabian
independence would mean transference of the Khilafat to an Arab
chieftain. Arabia in that sense is a Mussulman trust, not purely
Arabian. And the Arabs without ceasing to be Mussulman, could not hold
Arabia against Muslim opinion. The Khalifa must be the custodian of the
Holy places and therefore also the routes to them. He must be able to
defend them against the whole world. And if an Arab chief arose who
could better satisfy that test than the Sultan of Turkey, I have no
doubt that he would be recognised as the Khalifa.

I have thus discussed the question academically. The fact is that
neither the Mussulmans nor the Hindus believe in the English Ministerial
word. They do not believe that the Arabs or the Armenians want complete
independence of Turkey. That they want self-government is beyond doubt.
Nobody disputes that claim. But nobody has ever ascertained that either
the Arabs or the Armenians desire to do away with all connection, even
nominal, with Turkey.

The solution of the question lies not in our academic discussion of the
ideal position, it lies in an honest appointment of a mixed commission
of absolutely independent Indian Mussulmans and Hindus and independent
Europeans to investigate the real wish of the Armenians and the Arabs
and then to come to a _modus vivendi_ where by the claims of the
nationality and those of Islam may be adjusted and satisfied.

It is common knowledge that Smyrna and Thrace including Adrianople have
been dishonestly taken away from Turkey and that mandates have been
unscrupulously established in Syria and Mesopotamia and a British
nominee has been set up in Hedjaj under the protection of British guns.
This is a position that is intolerable and unjust. Apart therefore from
the questions of Armenia and Arabia, the dishonesty and hypocrisy that
pollute the peace terms require to be instantaneously removed. It paves
the way to an equitable solution of the question of Armenian and Arabian
independence which in theory no one denies and which in practice may be
easily guaranteed if only the wishes of the people concerned could with
any degree of certainty be ascertained.


A friend who has been listening to my speeches once asked me whether I
did not come under the sedition section of the Indian Penal Code. Though
I had not fully considered it, I told him that very probably I did and
that I could not plead 'not guilty' if I was charged under it. For I
must admit that I can pretend to no 'affection' for the present

And my speeches are intended to create 'dis-affection' such that the
people might consider it a shame to assist or co-operate with a
Government that had forfeited all title to confidence, respect or

I draw no distinction between the Imperial and the Indian Government.
The latter has accepted, on the Khilafat, the policy imposed upon it by
the former. And in the Punjab case the former has endorsed the policy of
terrorism and emasculation of a brave people initiated by the latter.
British ministers have broken their pledged word and wantonly wounded
the feelings of the seventy million Mussulmans of India. Innocent men
and women were insulted by the insolent officers of the Punjab
Government. Their wrongs not only remain unrighted but the very officers
who so cruelly subjected them to barbarous humiliation retain office
under the Government.

When at Amritsar last year I pleaded with all the earnestness I could
command for co-operation with the Government and for response to the
wishes expressed in the Royal Proclamation. I did so because I honestly
believed that, a new era was about to begin, and that the old spirit of
fear, distrust and consequent terrorism was about to give place to the
new spirit of respect, trust and goodwill. I sincerely believed that the
Mussulman sentiment would be placated and that the officers that had
misbehaved during the Martial Law regime in the Punjab would be at least
dismissed and the people would be otherwise made to feel that a
Government that had always been found quick (and mighty) to punish
popular excesses would not fail to punish its agents' misdeeds. But to
my amazement and dismay I have discovered that the present
representatives of the Empire have become dishonest and unscrupulous.
They have no real regard for the wishes of the people of India and they
count Indian honour as of little consequence.

I can no longer retain affection for a Government so evilly manned as it
is now-a-days. And for me, it is humiliating to retain my freedom and be
witness to the continuing wrong. Mr. Montagu however is certainly right
in threatening me with deprivation of my liberty if I persist in
endangering the existence of the Government. For that must be the result
if my activity bears fruit. My only regret is that inasmuch as Mr.
Montagu admits my past services, he might have perceived that there must
be something exceptionally bad in the Government if a well-wisher like
me could no longer give his affection to it. It was simpler to insist on
justice being done to the Mussalmans and to the Punjab than to threaten
me with punishment so that the injustice might be perpetuated. Indeed I
fully expect it will be found that even in promoting disaffection
towards an unjust Government I had rendered greater services to the
Empire than I am already credited with.

At the present moment, however, the duty of those who approve my
activity is clear. They ought on no account to resent the deprivation of
my liberty, should the Government of India deem it to be their duty to
take it away. A citizen has no right to resist such restriction imposed
in accordance with the laws of the State to which he belongs. Much less
have those who sympathise with him. In my case there can be no question
of sympathy. For I deliberately oppose the Government to the extent of
trying to put its very existence in jeopardy. For my supporters,
therefore, it must be a moment of joy when I am imprisoned. It means the
beginning of success if only the supporters continue the policy for
which I stand. If the Government arrest me, they would do so in order to
stop the progress of Non-co-operation which I preach. It follows that if
Non-co-operation continues with unabated vigour, even after my arrest,
the Government must imprison others or grant the people's wish in order
to gain their co-operation. Any eruption of violence on the part of the
people even under provocation would end in disaster. Whether therefore
it is I or any one else who is arrested during the campaign, the first
condition of success is that there must be no resentment shown against
it. We cannot imperil the very existence of a Government and quarrel
with its attempt to save itself by punishing those who place it in


India is a continent. Its articulate thousands know what its
inarticulate millions are doing or thinking. The Government and the
educated Indians may think that the Khilafat movement is merely a
passing phase. The millions of Mussalmans think otherwise. The flight of
the Mussalmans is growing apace. The newspapers contain paragraphs in
out of the way corners informing the readers that a special train
containing a barrister with sixty women, forty children including twenty
sucklings, all told 765, have left for Afghanistan. They were cheered
_en route_. They were presented with cash, edibles and other things, and
were joined by more Muhajarins on the way. No fanatical preaching by
Shaukatali can make people break up and leave their homes for an unknown
land. There must be an abiding faith in them. That it is better for them
to leave a State which has no regard for their religious sentiment and
face a beggar's life than to remain in it even though it may be in a
princely manner. Nothing but pride of power can blind the Government of
India to the scene that is being enacted before it.

But there is yet another side to the movement. Here are the facts as
stated in the following Government _Communique_ dated 10th July 1920:--

   An unfortunate affair in connection with the Mahajarin occurred on
   the 8th instant at Kacha Garhi between Peshawar and Jamrud. The
   following are the facts as at present reported. Two members of a
   party of the Mahajarins proceeding by train to Jamrud were detected
   by the British military police travelling without tickets.
   Altercation ensued at Islamia College Station, but the train
   proceeded to Kacha Garhi. An attempt was made to evict these
   Mahajarins, whereupon the military police were attacked by a crowd of
   some forty Mahajarins and the British officer who intervened was
   seriously wounded with a spade. A detachment of Indian troops at
   Kacha Garhi thereupon fired two or three shots at the Mahajarin for
   making murderous assault on the British officer. One Mahajarin was
   killed and one wounded and three arrested. Both the military and the
   police were injured. The body of the Mahajarin was despatched to
   Peshawar and buried on the morning of the 9th. This incident has
   caused considerable excitement in Peshawar City, and the Khilafat
   Hijrat Committee are exercising restraining influence. Shops were
   closed on the morning of the 9th. A full enquiry has been instituted.

Now Peshawar to Jamrud is a matter of a few miles. It was clearly the
duty of the military not to attempt to pull out the ticketless
Mahajarins for the sake of a few annas. But they actually attempted
force. Intervention by the rest of the party was a foregone conclusion.
An altercation ensued. A British officer was attacked with a spade.
Firing and a death of a Mahajarin was the result. Has British prestige
been enhanced by the episode? Why have not the Government put tactful
officers in charge at the frontier, whilst a great religious emigration
is in progress? The action of the military will pass from tongue to
tongue throughout India and the Mussalman world around, will not doubt
be unconsciously and even consciously exaggerated in the passage and the
feeling bitter as it already is will grow in bitterness. The
_Communique_ says that the Government are making further inquiry. Let us
hope that it will be full and that better arrangements will be made to
prevent a repetition of what appears to have been a thoughtless act on
the part of the military.

And may I draw the attention of those who are opposing non-co-operation
that unless they find out a substitute they should either join the
non-co-operation movement or prepare to face a disorganised subterranean
upheaval whose effect no one can foresee and whose spread it would be
impossible to check or regulate?



Freemasonry is a secret brotherhood which has more by its secret and
iron rules than by its service to humanity obtained a hold upon some of
the best minds. Similarly there seems to be some secret code of conduct
governing the official class in India before which the flower of the
great British nation fall prostrate and unconsciously become instruments
of injustice which as private individuals they would be ashamed of
perpetrating. In no other way is it possible for one to understand the
majority report of the Hunter Committee, the despatch of the Government
of India, and the reply thereto of the Secretary of State for India. In
spite of the energetic protests of a section of the Press to the
personnel of the committee, it might be said that on the whole the
public were prepared to trust it especially as it contained three Indian
members who could fairly be claimed to be independent. The first rude
shock to this confidence was delivered by the refusal of Lord Hunter's
Committee to accept the very moderate and reasonable demand of the
Congress Committee that the imprisoned Punjab leaders might be allowed
to appear before it to instruct Counsel. Any doubt that might have been
left in the mind of any person has been dispelled by the report of the
majority of that committee. The result has justified the attitude of the
Congress Committee. The evidence collected by it shows what lord
Hunter's Committee purposely denied itself.

The minority report stands out like an oasis in a desert. The Indian
members deserve the congratulation of their countrymen for having dared
to do their duty in the face of heavy odds. I wish that they had refused
to associate themselves even in a modified manner with the condemnation
of the civil disobedience form of Satyagraha. The defiant spirit of the
Delhi mob on the 30th March 1919 can hardly be used for condemning a
great spiritual movement which is admittedly and manifestly intended to
restrain the violent tendencies of mobs and to replace criminal
lawlessness by civil disobedience of authority, when it has forfeited
all title to respect. On the 30th March civil disobedience had not even
been started. Almost every great popular demonstration has been hitherto
attended all the world over by a certain amount of lawlessness. The
demonstration of 30th March and 6th April could have been held under any
other aegis us under that of Satyagrah. I hold that without the advent
of the spirit of civility and orderliness the disobedience would have
taken a much more violent form than it did even at Delhi. It was only
the wonderfully quick acceptance by the people of the principle of
Satyagrah that effectively checked the spread of violence throughout the
length and breadth of India. And even to-day it is not the memory of the
black barbarity of General Dyer that is keeping the undoubted
restlessness among the people from breaking forth into violence. The
hold that Satyagrah has gained on the people--it may be even against
their will--is curbing the forces of disorder and violence. But I must
not detain the reader on a defence of Satyagrah against unjust attacks.
If it has gained a foothold in India, it will survive much fiercer
attacks than the one made by the majority of the Hunter Committee and
somewhat supported by the minority. Had the majority report been
defective only in this direction and correct in every other there would
have been nothing but praise for it. After all Satyagrah is a new
experiment in political field. And a hasty attributing to it of any
popular disorder would have been pardonable.

The universally pronounced adverse judgment upon the report and the
despatches rests upon far more painful revelations. Look at the
manifestly laboured defence of every official act of inhumanity except
where condemnation could not be avoided through the impudent admissions
made by the actors themselves; look at the special pleading introduced
to defend General Dyer even against himself; look at the vain
glorification of Sir Michael O'Dwyer although it was his spirit that
actuated every act of criminality on the part of the subordinates; look
at the deliberate refusal to examine his wild career before the events
of April. His acts were an open book of which the committee ought to
have taken judicial notices. Instead of accepting everything that the
officials had to say, the Committee's obvious duty was to tax itself to
find out the real cause of the disorders. It ought to have gone out of
its way to search out the inwardness of the events. Instead of patiently
going behind the hard crust of official documents, the Committee allowed
itself to be guided with criminal laziness by mere official evidence.
The report and the despatches, in my humble opinion, constitute an
attempt to condone official lawlessness. The cautious and half-hearted
condemnation pronounced upon General Dyer's massacre and the notorious
crawling order only deepens the disappointment of the reader as he goes
through page after page of thinly disguised official whitewash. I need,
however, scarcely attempt any elaborate examination of the report or the
despatches which have been so justly censured by the whole national
press whether of the moderate or the extremist hue. The point to
consider is how to break down this secret--be the secrecy over so
unconscious--conspiracy to uphold official iniquity. A scandal of this
magnitude cannot be tolerated by the nation, if it is to preserve its
self-respect and become a free partner in the Empire. The All-India
Congress Committee has resolved upon convening a special session of the
Congress for the purpose of considering, among other things, the
situation arising from the report. In my opinion the time has arrived
when we must cease to rely upon mere petition to Parliament for
effective action. Petitions will have value, when the nation has behind
it the power to enforce its will. What power then have we? When we are
firmly of opinion that grave wrong has been done us and when after an
appeal to the highest authority we fail to secure redress, there must be
some power available to us for undoing the wrong. It is true that in the
vast majority of cases it is the duty of a subject to submit to wrongs
on failure of the usual procedure, so long as they do not affect his
vital being. But every nation and every individual has the right and it
is their duty, to rise against an intolerable wrong. I do not believe in
armed risings. They are a remedy worse than the disease sought to be
cured. They are a token of the spirit of revenge and impatience and
anger. The method of violence cannot do good in the long run. Witness
the effect of the armed rising of the allied powers against Germany.
Have they not become even like the Germans, as the latter have been
depicted to us by them?

We have a better method. Unlike that of violence it certainly involves
the exercise of restraint and patience: but it requires also
resoluteness of will. This method is to refuse to be party to the wrong.
No tyrant has ever yet succeeded in his purpose without carrying the
victim with him, it may be, as it often is, by force. Most people choose
rather to yield to the will of the tyrant than to suffer for the
consequences of resistance. Hence does terrorism form part of the
stock-in-trade of the tyrant. But we have instances in history where
terrorism has failed to impose the terrorist's will upon his victim.
India has the choice before her now. If then the acts of the Punjab
Government be an insufferable wrong, if the report of Lord Hunter's
Committee and the two despatches be a greater wrong by reason of their
grievous condonation of those acts, it is clear that we must refuse to
submit to this official violence. Appeal the Parliament by all means, if
necessary, but if the Parliament fails us and if we are worthy to call
ourselves a nation, we must refuse to uphold the Government by
withdrawing co-operation from it.


The Allahabad _Leader_ deserves to be congratulated for publishing the
correspondence on Mr. Bosworth Smith who was one of the Martial Law
officers against whom the complaints about persistent and continuous
ill-treatment were among the bitterest. It appears from the
correspondence that Mr. Bosworth Smith has received promotion instead of
dismissal. Sometime before Martial Law Mr. Smith appears to have been
degraded. "He has since been restored," says the _Leader_ correspondent,
"to his position of a Deputy Commissioner of the second grade from which
he was degraded and also been invested with power under section 30 of
the Criminal Procedure Code. Since his arrival, the poor Indian
population of the town of Amhala Cantonment has been living under a
regime of horror and tyranny." The correspondent adds: "I use both these
words deliberately for conveying precisely what they mean." I cull a few
passage from this illuminating letter to illustrate the meaning of
horror and tyranny. "In private complaints he never takes the statement
of the complainant. It is taken down by the reader when the court rises
and got signed by the magistrate the following day. Whether the report
received (upon such complaints) is favourable to the complainant or
unfavourable to him, it is never ready by the magistrate, and
complaints are dismissed without proper trial. This is the fate of
private complaints. Now as regards police chellans. Pleaders for the
accused are not allowed to interview under trial prisoners in police
custody. They are not allowed to cross-examine prosecution witnesses....
Prosecution witnesses are examined with leading questions.... Thus a
whole prosecution story is put into the mouth of police, witnesses for
the defence though called in are not allowed to be examined by the
defence counsel.... The accused is silenced if he picks up courage to
say anything in defence.... Any Cantonment servant can write down the
name of any citizen of the Cantonment on a chit of paper and ask him to
appear the next day in court. This is a summons.... If any one does not
appear in court who is thus ordered, criminal warrants of arrest are
issued against him." There is much more of this style in the letter
which is worth producing, but I have given enough to illustrate the
writer's meaning. Let me turn for a while to this official's record
during Martial Law. He is the official who tried people in batches and
convicted them after a farcical trial. Witnesses have deposed to his
having assembled people, having asked them to give false evidence,
having removed women's veils, called them 'flies, bitches, she-asses'
and having spat upon them. He it was who subjected the innocent pleaders
of Shokhupura indescribable persecution. Mr. Andrews personally
investigated complaints against this official and came to the conclusion
that no official had behaved worse than Mr. Smith. He gathered the
people of Shokhupura, humiliated them in a variety of ways, called them
'suvarlog,' 'gandi mukkhi.' His evidence before the Hunter Commission
betrays his total disregard for truth and this is the officer who, if
the correspondent in question has given correct facts, has been
promoted. The question however is why, he is at all in Government
service and why he has not been tried for assaulting and abusing
innocent men and women.

I notice a desire for the impeachment of General Dyer and Sir Michael
O'Dwyer. I will not stop to examine whether the course is feasible. I
was sorry to find Mr. Shastriar joining this cry for the prosecution of
General Dyer. If the English people will willingly do so, I would
welcome such prosecution as a sign of their strong disapproval of the
Jallianwalla Bagh atrocity, but I would certainly not spend a single
farthing in a vain pursuit after the conviction of this man. Surely the
public has received sufficient experience of the English mind.
Practically the whole English Press has joined the conspiracy to screen
these offenders against humanity. I would not be party to make heroes of
them by joining the cry for prosecution private or public. If I can only
persuade India to insist upon their complete dismissal, I should be
satisfied. But more than the dismissal, of Sir Michael O'Dwyer and
General Dyer, is necessary the peremptory dismissal, if not a trial, of
Colonel O'Brien, Mr. Bosworth Smith, Rai Shri Ram and others mentioned
in the Congress Sub-Committee's Report. Bad as General Dyer is I
consider Mr. Smith to be infinitely worse and his crimes to be far more
serious than the massacre of Jallianwalla Bugh. General Dyer sincerely
believed that it was a soldierly act to terrorise people by shooting
them. But Mr. Smith was wantonly cruel, vulgar and debased. If all the
facts that have been deposed to against him are true, there is not a
spark of humanity about him. Unlike General Dyer he lacks the courage to
confirm what he has done and he wriggles when challenged. This officer
remains free to inflict himself upon people who have done no wrong to
him, and who is permitted to disgrace the rule he represents for the
time being.

What is the Punjab doing? Is it not the duty of the Punjabis not to rest
until they have secured the dismissal of Mr. Smith and the like? The
Punjab leaders have been discharged in vain if they will not utilise the
liberty they have received, in order to purge the administration of
Messrs. Bosworth Smith and Company. I am sure that if they will only
begin a determined agitation they will have the whole India by their
side. I venture to suggest to them that the best way to qualify for
sending General Dyer to the gallows is to perform the easier and the
more urgent duty of arresting the mischief still continued by the
officials against whom they have assisted in collecting
overwhelming evidence.


The Army Council has found General Dyer guilty of error of judgment and
advised that he should not receive any office under the Crown. Mr.
Montagu has been unsparing in his criticism of General Dyer's conduct.
And yet somehow or other I cannot help feeling that General Dyer is by
no means the worst offender. His brutality is unmistakable. His abject
and unsoldier-like cowardice is apparent in every line of his amazing
defence before the Army Council. He has called an unarmed crowd of men
and children--mostly holiday-makers--'a rebel army.' He believes himself
to be the saviour of the Punjab in that he was able to shoot down like
rabbits men who were penned in an inclosure. Such a man is unworthy of
being considered a soldier. There was no bravery in his action. He ran
no risk. He shot without the slightest opposition and without warning.
This is not an 'error of judgement.' It is paralysis of it in the face
of fancied danger. It is proof of criminal incapacity and
heartlessness. But the fury that has been spent upon General Dyer is, I
am sure, largely misdirected. No doubt the shooting was 'frightful,' the
loss of innocent life deplorable. But the slow torture, degradation and
emasculation that followed was much worse, more calculated, malicious
and soul-killing, and the actors who performed the deeds deserve greater
condemnation that General Dyer for the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre. The
latter merely destroyed a few bodies but the others tried to kill the
soul of a nation. Who ever talks of Col. Frank Johnson who was by far
the worst offender? He terrorised guiltless Lahore, and by his merciless
orders set the tone to the whole of the Martial Law officers. But what I
am concerned with is not even Col. Johnson. The first business of the
people of the Punjab and of India is to rid the service of Col O'Brien,
Mr. Bosworth Smith, Rai Shri Ram and Mr. Malik Khan. They are still
retained in the service. Their guilt is as much proved as that of
General Dyer. We shall have failed in our duty if the condemnation
pronounced upon General Dyer produces a sense of satisfaction and the
obvious duty of purging the administration in the Punjab is neglected.
That task will not be performed by platform rhetoric or resolutions
merely. Stern action is required on out part if we are to make any
headway with ourselves and make any impression upon the officials that
they are not to consider themselves as masters of the people but as
their trusties and servants who cannot hold office if they misbehave
themselves and prove unworthy of the trust reposed in them.


The commissioners appointed by the Congress Punjab Sub Committee have in
their report accused His Excellency the Viceroy of criminal want of
imagination. His Excellency's refusal to commute two death sentences out
of five is a fine illustration of the accusation. The rejection of the
appeal by the Privy Council no more proves the guilt of the condemned
than their innocence would have been proved by quashing the proceedings
before the Martial Law Tribunal. Moreover, these cases clearly come
under the Royal Proclamation in accordance with its interpretation by
the Punjab Government. The murders in Amritsar were not due to any
private quarrel between the murderers and their victims. The offence
grave, though it was, was purely political and committed under
excitement. More than full reparation has been taken for the murders and
arson. In the circumstances commonsense dictates reduction of the death
sentences. The popular belief favours the view that the condemned men
are innocent and have not had a fair trial. The execution has been so
long delayed that hanging at this stage would give a rude shock to
Indian society. Any Viceroy with imagination would have at once
announced commutation of the death sentences--not so Lord Chelmsford. In
his estimation, evidently, the demands of justice will not be satisfied
if at least some of the condemned men are not hanged. Public feeling
with him counts for nothing. We shall still hope that, either the
Viceroy or Mr. Montagu will commute the death sentences.

But if the Government will grievously err, if they carry out the
sentences, the people will equally err if they give way to anger or
grief over the hanging if it has unfortunately to take plane. Before we
become a nation possessing an effective voice in the councils of
nations, we must be prepared to contemplate with equanimity, not a
thousand murders of innocent men and women but many thousands before we
attain a status in the world that, shall not be surpassed by any nation.
We hope therefore that all concerned will take rather than lose heart
and treat hanging as an ordinary affair of life.

[Since the above was in type, we have received cruel news. At last H.E.
the Viceroy has mercilessly given the rude shock to Indian society. It
is now for the latter to take heart in spite of the unkindest
cut.--Ed. Y.I.]



Much laughter has been indulged in at my expense for having told the
Congress audience at Calcutta that if there was sufficient response to
my programme of non-co-operation Swaraj would be attained in one year.
Some have ignored my condition and laughed because of the impossibility
of getting Swaraj anyhow within one year. Others have spelt the 'if' in
capitals and suggested that if 'ifs' were permissible in argument, any
absurdity could be proved to be a possibility. My proposition however is
based on a mathematical calculation. And I venture to say that true
Swaraj is a practical impossibility without due fulfilment of my
conditions. Swaraj means a state such that we can maintain our separate
existence without the presence of the English. If it is to be a
partnership, it must be partnership at will. There can be no Swaraj
without our feeling and being the equals of Englishmen. To-day we feel
that we are dependent upon them for our internal and external security,
for an armed peace between the Hindus and the Mussulmans, for our
education and for the supply of daily wants, nay, even for the
settlement of our religious squabbles. The Rajahs are dependent upon the
British for their powers and the millionaires for their millions. The
British know our helplessness and Sir Thomas Holland cracks jokes quite
legitimately at the expense of non-co-operationists. To get Swaraj then
is to get rid of our helplessness. The problem is no doubt stupendous
even as it is for the fabled lion who having been brought up in the
company of goats found it impossible to feel that he was a lion. As
Tolstoy used to put it, mankind often laboured under hypnotism. Under
its spell continuously we feel the feeling of helplessness. The British
themselves cannot be expected to help us out of it. On the contrary,
they din into our ears that we shall be fit to govern ourselves only by
slow educative processes. The "Times" suggested that if we boycott the
councils we shall lose the opportunity of a training in Swaraj. I have
no doubt that there are many who believe what the "Times" says. It even
resorts to a falsehood. It audaciously says that Lord Milner's Mission
listened to the Egyptians only when they were ready to lift the boycott
of the Egyptian Council. For me the only training in Swaraj we need is
the ability to defend ourselves against the whole world and to live our
natural life in perfect freedom even though it may be full of defects.
Good Government is no substitute for self-Government. The Afghans have a
bad Government but it is self-Government. I envy them. The Japanese
learnt the art through a sea of blood. And if we to-day had the power to
drive out the English by superior brute force, we would be counted their
superiors, and in spite of our inexperience in debating at the Council
table or in holding executive offices, we would be held fit to govern
ourselves. For brute force is the only test the west has hitherto
recognised. The Germans were defeated not because they were necessarily
in the wrong, but because the allied Powers were found to possess
greater brute strength. In the end therefore India must either learn the
art of war which the British will not teach her or, she must follow her
own way of discipline and self-sacrifice through non-co-operation. It is
as amazing as it is humiliating that less than one hundred-thousand
white men should be able to rule three hundred and fifteen million
Indians. They do so somewhat undoubtedly by force, but more by securing
our co-operation in a thousand ways and making us more and more helpless
and dependent on them as time goes forward. Let us not mistake reformed
councils, more lawcourts and even governorships for real freedom or
power. They are but subtler methods of emasculation. The British cannot
rule us by mere force. And so they resort to all means, honourable and
dishonourable, in order to retain their hold on India. They want India's
billions and they want India's man power for their imperialistic greed.
If we refuse to supply them with men and money, we achieve our goal,
namely, Swaraj, equality, manliness.

The cup of our humiliation was filled during the closing scenes in the
Viceregal Council. Mr. Shustri could not move his resolution on the
Punjab. The Indian victims of Jullianwala received Rs. 1,250, the
English victims of mob-frenzy received lakhs. The officials who were
guilty of crimes against those whose servants they were, were
reprimanded. And the councillors were satisfied. If India were powerful,
India would not have stood this addition of insult, to her injury.

I do not blame the British. If we were weak in numbers as they are, we
too would perhaps have resorted to the same methods as they are now
employing. Terrorism and deception are weapons not of the strong but of
the weak. The British are weak in numbers we are weak in spite of our
numbers. The result is that each is dragging the other down. It is
common experience that Englishmen lose in character after residence in
India and that Indians lose in courage and manliness by contact with
Englishmen. This process of weakening is good neither for us, two
nations, nor for the world.

But if we Indians take care of ourselves the English and the rest of
the world would take care of themselves. Our contributions to the
world's progress must therefore consist in setting our own house
in order.

Training in arms for the present is out of the question. I go a step
further and believe that India has a better mission for the world. It is
within her to show that she can achieve her destiny by pure
self-sacrifice, i.e., self-purification. This can be done only by
non-co-operation. And non-co-operation is possible only when those who
commenced to co-operate being the process of withdrawal. If we can but
free ourselves from the threefold _maya_ of Government-controlled
schools, Government law-courts and legislative councils, and truly
control our own education regulate our disputes and be indifferent to
their legislation, we are ready to govern ourselves and we are only then
ready to ask the government servants, whether civil or military, to
resign, and the tax-payers to suspend payment of taxes.

And is it such an impracticable proposition to expect parents to
withdraw their children from schools and colleges and establish their
own institutions or to ask lawyers to suspend their practice and devote
their whole time attention to national service against payment where
necessary, of their maintenance, or to ask candidates for councils not
to enter councils and lend their passive or active assistance to the
legislative machinery through which all control is exercised. The
movement of non-co-operation is nothing but an attempt to isolate the
brute force of the British from all the trappings under which it is
hidden and to show that brute force by itself cannot for one single
moment hold India.

But I frankly confess that, until the three conditions mentioned by me
are fulfilled, there is no Swaraj. We may not go on taking our college
degrees, taking thousands of rupees monthly from clients for cases which
can be finished in five minutes and taking the keenest delight in
wasting national time on the council floor and still expect to gain
national self-respect.

The last though not the least important part of the Maya still remains
to be considered. That is Swadeshi. Had we not abandoned Swadeshi, we
need not have been in the present fallen state. If we would get rid of
the economic slavery, we must manufacture our own cloth and at the
present moment only by hand-spinning and hand weaving.

All this means discipline, self-denial, self-sacrifice, organising
ability, confidence and courage. If we show this in one year among the
classes that to-day count, and make public opinion, we certainly gain
Swaraj within one year. If I am told that even we who lead have not
these qualities in us, there certainly will never be Swaraj for India,
but then we shall have no right to blame the English for what they are
doing. Our salvation and its time are solely dependent upon us.


The _Interpreter_ is however more to the point in asking, "Does Mr.
Gandhi hold without hesitation or reserve that British rule in India is
altogether an evil and that the people of India are to be taught so to
regard it? He must hold it to be so evil that the wrongs it does
outweigh the benefit it confers, for only so is non-co-operation to be
justified at the bar of conscience or of Christ." My answer is
emphatically in the affirmative. So long as I believed that the sum
total of the energy of the British Empire was good, I clung to it
despite what I used to regard as temporary aberrations. I am not sorry
for having done so. But having my eyes opened, it would be sin for me to
associate myself with the Empire unless it purges itself of its evil
character. I write this with sorrow and I should be pleased if I
discovered that I was in error and that my present attitude was a
reaction. The continuous financial drain, the emasculation of the Punjab
and the betrayal of the Muslim sentiment constitute, in my humble
opinion, a threefold robbery of India. 'The blessings of _pax
Britanica_' I reckon, therefore, to be a curse. We would have at least
remained like the other nations brave men and women, instead of feeling
as we do so utterly helpless, if we had no British Rule imposing on us
an armed peace. 'The blessing' of roads and railways is a return no
self-respecting nation would accept for its degradation. 'The blessing'
of education is proving one of the greatest obstacles in our progress
towards freedom.


The fact is that non-co-operation by reason of its non-violence has
become a religious and purifying movement. It is daily bringing strength
to the nation, showing it its weak spots and the remedy for removing
them. It is a movement of self-reliance. It is the mightiest force for
revolutionising opinion and stimulating thought. It is a movement of
self-imposed suffering and therefore possesses automatic checks against
extravagance or impatience. The capacity of the nation for suffering
regulates its advance towards freedom. It isolates the force of evil by
refraining from participation in it, in any shape or form.


[A dialog between the Reader and Editor,--_Indian Home Rule_].

Reader: You have said much about civilisation--enough to make me ponder
over it. I do not know what I should adopt and what I should avoid from
the nations of Europe. but one question comes to my lips immediately. If
civilisation is a disease, and if it has attacked England why has she
been able to take India, and why is she able to retain it?

Editor: Your question is not very difficult to answer, and we shall
presently be able to examine the true nature of Swaraj; for I am aware
that I have still to answer that question. I will, however, take up your
previous question. The English have not taken India; we have given it to
them. They are not in India because of their strength, but because we
keep them. Let us now see whether these positions can be sustained. They
came to our country originally for the purpose of trade. Recall the
Company Bahadur. Who made it Bahadur? They had not the slightest
intention at the time of establishing a kingdom. Who assisted the
Company's officers? Who was tempted at the sight of their silver? Who
bought their goods? History testifies that we did all this. In order to
become rich all at once, we welcomed the Company's officers with open
arms. We assisted them. If I am in the habit of drinking Bhang, and a
seller thereof sells it to me, am I to blame him or myself? By blaming
the seller shall I be able to avoid the habit? And, if a particular
retailer is driven away will not another take his place? A true servant
of India will have to go to the root of the matter. If an excess of food
has caused me indigestion I will certainly not avoid it by blaming
water. He is a true physician who probes the cause of disease and, if
you pose as a physician for the disease of India, you will have to find
out its true cause.

Reader: You are right. Now, I think you will not have to argue much with
me to drive your conclusions home. I am impatient to know your further
views. We are now on a most interesting topic. I shall, therefore,
endeavour to follow your thought, and stop you when I am in doubt.

Editor: I am afraid that, in spite of your enthusiasm, as we proceed
further we shall have differences of opinion. Nevertheless, I shall
argue only when you will stop me. We have already seen that the English
merchants were able to get a footing in India because we encouraged
them. When our princes fought among themselves, they sought the
assistance of Company Bahadar. That corporation was versed alike in
commerce and war. It was unhampered by questions of morality. Its object
was to increase its commerce and to make money. It accepted our
assistance, and increased the number of its warehouses. To protect the
latter it employed an army which was utilised by us also. Is it not then
useless to blame the English for what we did at that time? The Hindus
and the Mahomedans were at daggers drawn. This, too, gave the Company
its opportunity, and thus we created the circumstances that gave the
Company its control over India. Hence it is truer to say that we gave
India to the English than that India was lost.

Reader: Will you now tell me how they are able to retain India?

Editor: The causes that gave them India enable them to retain it. Some
Englishmen state that they took, and they hold, India by the sword. Both
these statements are wrong. The sword is entirely useless for holding
India. We alone keep them. Napoleon is said to have described the
English as a nation of shop keepers. It is a fitting description. They
hold whatever dominions they have for the sake of their commerce. Their
army and their navy are intended to protect it. When the Transvaal
offered no such attractions, the late Mr. Gladstone discovered that it
was no right for the English to hold it. When it became a paying
proposition, resistance led to war. Mr. Chamberlain soon discovered that
England enjoyed a suzerainty over the Transvaal. It is related that some
one asked the late President Kruger whether there was gold in the moon?
He replied that it was highly unlikely, because, if there were, the
English would have annexed it. Many problems can be solved by
remembering that money is their God. Then it follows that we keep the
English in India for our base self-interest. We like their commerce,
they please us by their subtle methods, and get what they want from us.
To blame them for this is to perpetuate their power. We further
strengthen their hold by quarrelling amongst ourselves. If you accept
the above statements, it is proved that the English entered India for
the purposes of trade. They remain in it for the same purpose, and we
help them to do so. Their arms and ammunition are perfectly useless. In
this connection, I remind you that it is the British flag which is
waving in Japan, and not the Japanese. The English have a treaty with
Japan for the sake of their commerce and you will see that, if they can
manage it, their commerce will greatly expand in that country. They
wish to convert the whole word into a vast market for their goods. That
they cannot do so is true, but the blame will not be theirs. They will
leave no stone unturned to reach the goal.


The following is a fairly full report of Mr. Gandhi's important speech
at Calcutta on the 13th December 1920:--

The very fact, that so many of you cannot understand Hindi which is
bound to be the National medium of expression throughout Hindustan in
gatherings of Indians belonging to different parts of the land, shows
the depth of the degradation to which we have sunk, and points to the
supreme necessity of the non-co-operation movement which is intended to
lift us out of that condition. This Government has been instrumental in
degrading this great nation in various ways, and it is impossible to be
free from it without co-operation amongst ourselves which is in turn
impossible without a national medium of expression.

But I am not here to day to plead for the medium. I am to plead for the
acceptance by the country of the programme of non-violent, progressive
non-co-operation. Now all the words that I have used here are absolutely
necessary and the two adjectives 'progressive' and 'non-violent' are
integral part of a whole. With me non-violence is part of my religion, a
matter of creed. But with the great number of Mussalmans non-violence is
a policy, with thousand, if not millions of Hindus, it is equally a
matter of policy. But whether it is a creed or a policy, it is utterly
impossible for you to finish the programme for the enfranchisement of
the millions of India, without recognising the necessity and the value
of non-violence. Violence may for a moment avail to secure a certain
measure of success but it could not in the long run achieve any
appreciable result. On the other hand all violence would prove
destructive to the honour and self-respect of the nation. The blue books
issued by the Government of India show that inasmuch as we have used
violence, military expenditure has gone up, not proportionately but in
geometrical progression. The bonds of our slavery have been forged all
the stronger for our having offered violence. And the whole history of
British rule in India is a demonstration of the fact that we have never
been able to offer successful violence. Whilst therefore I say that
rather than have the yoke of a Government that has so emasculated us, I
would welcome violence. I would urge with all the emphasis that I can
command that India will never be able to regain her own by methods
of violence.

Lord Ronaldshay who has done me the honour of reading my booklet on Home
Rule has warned my countrymen against engaging themselves in a struggle
for a Swaraj such as is described in that booklet. Now though I do not
want to withdraw a single word of it, I would say to you on this
occasion that I do not ask India to follow out to-day the methods
prescribed in my booklet. If they could do that they would have Home
Rule not in a year but in a day, and India by realising that ideal wants
to acquire an ascendancy over the rest of the world. But it must remain
a day dream more or less for the time being. What I am doing to-day is
that I am giving the country a pardonable programme not the abolition of
law courts, posts, telegraphs and of railways but for the attainment of
Parliamentary Swarja. I am telling you to do that so long as we do not
isolate ourselves from this Government, we are co-operating with it
through schools, law courts and councils, through service civil and
military and payment of taxes and foreign trade.

The moment this fact is realised and non-co-operation is effected, this
Government must totter to pieces. If I know that the masses were
prepared for the whole programme at once, I would not delay in putting
it at once to work. It is not possible at the present moment, to prevent
the masses from bursting out into wrath against those who come to
execute the law, it is not possible, that the military would lay down
their arms without the slightest violence. If that were possible to-day,
I would propose all the stages of non-co-operation to be worked
simultaneously. But we have not secured that control over the masses, we
have uselessly frittered away precious years of the nation's life in
mastering a language which we need least for winning our liberty; we
have frittered away all those years in learning liberty from Milton and
Shakespeare, in deriving inspiration from the pages of Mill, whilst
liberty could be learnt at our doors. We have thus succeeded in
isolating ourselves from the masses: we have been westernised. We have
failed these 35 years to utilise our education in order to permeate the
masses. We have sat upon the pedestal and from there delivered harangues
to them in a language they do not understand and we see to-day that we
are unable to conduct large gatherings in a disciplined manner. And
discipline is the essence of success. Here is therefore one reason why I
have introduced the word 'progressive' in the non-co-operation
Resolution. Without any impertinence I may say that I understand the
mass mind better than any one amongst the educated Indians. I contend
that the masses are not ready for suspension of payment of taxes. They
have not yet learnt sufficient self-control. If I was sure of
non-violence on their part I would ask them to suspend payment to-day
and not waste a single moment of the nations time. With me the liberty
of India has become a passion. Liberty of Islam is as dear to me. I
would not therefore delay a moment if I found that the whole of the
programme could be enforced at once.

It grieves me to miss the faces of dear and revered leaders in this
assembly. We miss here the trumpet voice of Surendranath Banorji, who
has rendered inestimable service to the country. And though we stand as
poles asunder to-day, though we may have sharp differences with him, we
must express them with becoming restraint. I do not ask you to give up a
single iota of principle. I urge non-violence in language and in deed.
If non-violence is essential in our dealings with Government, it is more
essential in our dealings with our leaders. And it grieves me deeply to
hear of recent instances of violence reported to have been used in East
Bongal against our own people. I was pained to hear that the ears of a
man who had voted at the recent elections had been cut, and night soil
had been thrown into the bed of a man who had stood as a candidate.
Non-co-operation is never going to succeed in this way. It will not
succeed unless we create an atmosphere of perfect freedom, unless we
prize our opponents liberty as much as our own. The liberty of faith,
conscience, thought and action which we claim for ourselves must be
conceded equally to others. Non co-operation is a process of
purification and we must continually try to touch the hearts of those
who differ from us, their minds, and their emotions, but never their
bodies. Discipline and restraint are the cardinal principles of our
conduct and I warn you against any sort of tyrannical social ostracism.
I was deeply grieved therefore to hear of the insult offered to a dead
body in Delhi and feel that if it was the action of non-co-operators
they have disgraced themselves and their creed. I repeat we cannot
deliver our land through violence.

It was not a joke when I said on the congress platform that Swaraj could
be established in one year if there was sufficient response from the
nation. Three months of this year are gone. If we are true to our salt,
true to our nation, true to the songs we sing, if we are true to the
Bhagwad Gita and the Koran, we would finish the programme in the
remaining nine months and deliver Islam the Punjab and India.

I have proposed a limited programme workable within one year, having a
special regard to the educated classes. We seem to be labouring under
the illusion that we cannot possibly live without Councils, law courts
and schools provided by the Government. The moment we are disillusioned
we have Swaraj. It is demoralising both for Government and the governed
that a hundred thousand pilgrims should dictate terms to a nation
composed of three hundred millions. And how is it they can thus dictate
terms. It is because we have been divided and they have ruled. I have
never forgotten Humes' frank confession that the British Government was
sustained by the policy of "Divide and Rule." Therefore it is that I
have laid stress upon Hindu Muslim Unity as one of the important
essentials for the success of Non-co-operation. But, it should be no lip
unity, nor bunia unity it should be a unity broad based on a recognition
of the heart. If we want to save Hinduism, I say for Gods sake, do not
seek to bargain with the Mussalmans. I have been going about with
Maulana Shaukat Ali all these months, but I have not so much as
whispered anything about the protection of the cow. My alliance with the
Ali Brothers is one of honour. I feel that I am on my honour, the whole
of Hinduism is on its honour, and if it will not be found wanting, it
will do its duty towards the Mussalmans of India. Any bargaining would
be degrading to us. Light brings light not darkness, and nobility done
with a noble purpose will be twice rewarded. It will be God alone who
can protect the cow. Ask me not to-day--'what about the cow,' ask me
after Islam is vindicated through India. Ask the Rajas what they do to
entertain their English guests. Do they not provide beef and champagne
for their guests. Persuade them first to stop cow killing and then think
of bargaining with Mussalmans. And how are we Hindus behaving ourselves
towards the cow and her progeny! Do we treat her as our religion
requires us? Not till we have set our own house in order and saved the
cow from the Englishmen have we the right to plead on her behalf with
the Mussalmans. And the best way of saving the cow from them is to give
them unconditional help in their hour of trouble.

Similarly what do we owe the Punjab? The whole of India was made to
crawl on her belly in as much as a single Punjabi was made to crawl in
that dirty lane in Amritsar, the whole womanhood of India was unveiled
in as much as the innocent woman of Manianwalla were unveiled by an
insolent office; and Indian childhood was dishonoured in that, that
school children of tender age were made to walk four times a day to
stated places within the martial area in the Punjab and to salute the
Union Jack, through the effect of which order two children, seven years
old died of sunstroke having been made to wait in the noonday sun. In my
opinion it is a sin to attend the schools and colleges conducted under
the aegis of this Government so long as it has not purged itself of
these crimes by proper repentance. We may not with any sense of
self-respect plead before the courts of the Government when we remember
that it was through the Punjab Courts that innocent men were sentenced
to be imprisoned and hanged. We become participators in the crime of the
Government by voluntarily helping it or being helped by it.

The women of India have intuitively understood the spiritual nature of
the struggle. Thousands have attended to listen to the message of
non-violent non-co-operation and have given me their precious ornaments
for the purpose of advancing the cause of Swaraj. Is it any wonder if I
believe the possibility of gaining Swaraj within a year after all these
wonderful demonstrations? I would be guilty of want of faith in God if I
under-rated the significance of the response from the women of India. I
hope that the students will do their duty. The country certainly expects
the lawyers who have hitherto led public agitation to recognise the new

I have used strong language but I have done so with the greatest
deliberation, I am not actuated by any feeling of revenge. I do not
consider Englishmen as my enemy. I recognise the worth of many. I enjoy
the privilege of having many English friends, but I am a determined
enemy of the English rule as is conducted at present and if the
power--tapasya--of one man could destroy it, I would certainly destroy
it, if it could not be mended. An Empire that stands for injustice and
breach of faith does not deserve to stand if its custodians will not
repent and non-co-operation has been devised in order to enable the
nation to compel justice.

I hope that Bengal will take her proper place in this movement of
self-purification. Bengal began Swadeshi and national education when the
rest of India was sleeping. I hope that Bengal will come to the front
in this movement for gaining Swaraj and gaining justice for the Khilafat
and the Punjab through purification and self-sacrifice.


Lord Ronaldshay has been doing me the favour of reading my booklet on
Indian Home Rule which is a translation of Hind Swaraj. His Lordship
told his audience that if Swaraj meant what I had described it to be in
the booklet, the Bengalis would have none of it. I am sorry that Swaraj
of the Congress resolution does not mean the Swaraj depicted in the
booklet; Swaraj according to the Congress means Swaraj that the people
of India want, not what the British Government may condescend to give.
In so far as I can see, Swaraj will be a Parliament chosen by the people
with the fullest power over the finance, the police, the military, the
navy, the courts, and the educational institutions.

I am free to confess that the Swaraj I expect to gain within one year,
if India responds will be such Swaraj as will make practically
impossible the repetition of the Khilafat and the Punjab wrongs, and
will enable the nation to do good or evil as it chooses, and not he
'good' at the dictation of an irresponsible, insolent, and godless
bureaucracy. Under that Swaraj the nation will have the power to impose
a heavy protective tariff on such foreign goods as are capable of being
manufactured in India, as also the power to refuse to send a single
soldier outside India for the purpose of enslaving the surrounding or
remote nationalities. The Swaraj that I dream of will be a possibility
only, when the nation is free to make its choice both of good and evil.

      *      *      *      *       *

I adhere to all I have said in that booklet and I would certainly
recommend it to the reader. Government over self is the truest Swaraj,
it is synonymous with _moksha_ or salvation, and I have seen nothing to
alter the view that doctors, lawyers, and railways are no help, and are
often a hindrance, to the one thing worth striving after. But I know
that association, a satanic activity, such as the Government is engaged
in, makes even an effort for such freedom a practical impossibility. I
cannot tender allegiance to God and Satan at the same time.

      *      *      *      *       *

The surest sign of the satanic nature of the present system is that even
a nobleman of the type of Lord Ronaldshay is obliged to put us off the
track. He will not deal with the one thing needful. Why is he silent
about the Punjab? Why does he evade the Khilafat? Can ointments soothe
a patient who is suffering from corroding consumption? Does his lordship
not see that it is not the inadequacy of the reforms that has set India
aflame but that it is the infliction of the two wrongs and the wicked
attempt to make us forget them? Does he not see that a complete change
of heart is required before reconciliation?

       *       *       *       *       *

But it has become the fashion nowadays to ascribe hatred to
non-co-operationism. And I regret to find that even Col. Wedgewood has
fallen into the trap. I make bold to say that the only way to remove
hatred is to give it disciplined vent. No man can--I cannot--perform the
impossible task of removing hatred so long as contempt and despise for
the feelings of India are sedulously nursed. It is a mockery to ask
India not to hate when in the same breath India's most sacred feelings
are contemptuously brushed aside. India feels weak and helpless and so
expresses her helplessness by hating the tyrant who despises her and
makes her crawl on the belly, lifts the veils of her innocent women and
compels her tender children to acknowledge his power by saluting his
flag four times a day. The gospel of Non-co-operation addresses itself
to the task of making the people strong and self-reliant. It is an
attempt to transform hatred into pity. A strong and self-reliant India
will cease to hate Bosworth Smiths and Frank Johnsons, for she will have
the power to punish them and therefore the power also to pity and
forgive them. To-day she can neither punish nor forgive, and therefore
helplessly nurses hatred. If the Mussalmans were strong, they would not
hate the English but would fight and wrest from them the dearest
possessions of Islam. I know that the Ali Brothers who live only for the
honour and the prestige of Islam, and are prepared any moment to die for
it, will to-day make friends with the latter Englishmen, if they were to
do justice to the Khilafat which it is in their power to do.

      *      *      *      *       *

I am positively certain that there is no personal element in this fight.
Both the Hindus and the Mahomedans would to-day invoke blessings on the
English if they would but give proof positive of their goodness,
faithfulness, and loyalty to India. Non-co-operation then is a godsend;
it will purify and strengthen India; and a strong India will be a
strength to the world as an Indian weak and helpless is a curse to
mankind. Indian soldiers have involuntarily helped to destroy Turkey and
are now destroying the flower of the Arabian nation. I cannot recall a
single campaign in which the Indian soldier has been employed by the
British Government for the good of mankind. And yet, (Oh! the shame of
it!) Indian Maharajas are never tired of priding themselves on the loyal
help they have rendered the English! Could degradation sink any lower?


The belated report of the Congress Constitution Committee has now been
published for general information and opinion has been invited from all
public bodies in order to assist the deliberations of the All India
Congress Committee. It is a pity that, small though the Constitution
Committee was, all the members never met at any one time in spite of
efforts, to have a meeting of them all. It is perhaps no body's fault
that all the members could not meet. At the same time the draft report
has passed through the searching examination of all but one member and
the report represents the mature deliberations of four out of the five
members. It must be stated at the same time that it does not pretend to
be the unanimous opinion of the members. Rather than present a
dissenting minute, a workable scheme has been brought out leaving each
member free to press his own views on the several matters in which they
are not quite unanimous. The most important part of the constitution,
however, is the alteration of the creed. So far as I am aware there is
no fundamental difference of opinion between the members. In my opinion
the altered creed represents the exact feeling of the country at the
present moment.

I know that the proposed alteration has been subjected to hostile
criticism in several newspapers of note. But the extraordinary situation
that faces the country is that popular opinion is far in advance of
several newspapers which have hitherto commanded influence and have
undoubtedly moulded public opinion. The fact is that the formation of
opinion to-day is by no means confined to the educated classes, but the
masses have taken it upon themselves not only to formulate opinion but
to enforce it. It would be a mistake to belittle or ignore this opinion,
or to ascribe it to a temporary upheaval. It would be equally a mistake
to suppose that this awakening amongst the masses is due either to the
activity of the Ali Brothers or myself. For the time being we have the
ear of the masses because we voice their sentiments. The masses are by
no means so foolish or unintelligent as we sometimes imagine. They often
perceive things with their intuition, which we ourselves fail to see
with our intellect. But whilst the masses know what they want, they
often do not know how to express their wants and, less often, how to get
what they want. Herein comes the use of leadership, and disastrous
results can easily follow a bad, hasty, or what is worse, selfish lead.

The first part of the proposed creed expresses the present desire of
the nation, and the second shows the way that desire can be fulfilled.
In my humble opinion the Congress creed with the proposed alteration is
but an extension of the original. And so long as no break with the
British connection is attempted, it is strictly within even the existing
article that defines the Congress creed. The extension lies in the
contemplated possibility of a break with the British connection. In my
humble opinion, if India is to make unhampered progress, we must make it
clear to the British people that whilst we desire to retain the British
connection, if we can rise to our full height with it we are determined
to dispense with, and even to get rid of that connection, if that is
necessary for full national development. I hold that it is not only
derogatory to national dignity but it actually impedes national progress
superstitiously to believe that our progress towards our goal is
impossible without British connection. It is this superstition which
makes some of the best of us tolerate the Punjab wrong and the Khilafat
insult. This blind adherence to that connection makes us feel helpless.
The proposed alteration in the creed enables us to rid ourselves of our
helpless condition. I personally hold that it is perfectly
constitutional openly to strive after independence, but lest there may
be dispute as to the constitutional character of any movement for
complete independence, the doubtful and highly technical adjective
"constitutional" has been removed from the altered creed in the draft.
Surely it should be enough to ensure that the methods for achieving our
end are legitimate, honourable, and peaceful, I believe that this was
the reasoning that guided my colleagues in accepting the proposed creed.
In any case, such was certainly my view of the whole alteration. There
is no desire on my part to adopt any means that are subversive of law
and order. I know, however, that I am treading on delicate ground when I
write about law and order for, to some of our distinguished leaders even
my present methods appear to be lawless and conducive to disorder. But
even they will perhaps grant that the retention of the word
'constitutional' cannot protect the country against methods such as I am
employing. It gives rise, no doubt, to a luminous legal discussion, but
any such discussion is fruitless when the nation means business. The
other important alteration refers to the limitation of the number of
delegates. I believe that the advantages of such a limitation are
obvious. We are fast reaching a time when without any such limitation
the Congress will become an unwieldy body. It is difficult even to have
an unlimited number of visitors; it is impossible to transact national
business if we have an unlimited number of delegates.

The next important alteration is about the election of the members of
the All-India Congress Committee, making that committee practically the
Subjects Committee, and the redistribution of India for the purposes of
the Congress on a linguistic basis. It is not necessary to comment on
these alterations, but I wish to add that if the Congress accepts the
principle of limiting the number of delegates it would be advisable to
introduce the principle of proportional representation. That would
enable all parties who wish to be represented at the Congress.

I observe that _the Servant of India_ sees an inconsistency between my
implied acceptance of the British Committee, so far as the published
draft constitution is concerned, and my recent article in _Young India_
on that Committee and the newspaper _India_. But it is well known that
for several years I have held my present views about the existence of
that body. It would have been irrelevant for me, perhaps, to suggest to
my colleagues the extinction of that committee. It was not our function
to report on the usefulness or otherwise of the Committee. We were
commissioned only for preparing a new constitution. Moreover I knew that
my colleagues were not averse to the existence of the British Committee.
And the drawing up of a new constitution enabled me to show that where
there was no question of principle I was desirous of agreeing quickly
with my opponents in opinions. But I propose certainly to press for
abolition of the committee as it is at present continued, and the
stopping of its organ _India_.


Asked by the _Times_ representative as to his impressions formed as a
result of his activities during the last three months, Mr. Gandhi
said:--"My own impression of these three months' extensive experience is
that this movement of non-co-operation has come to stay, and it is most
decidedly a purifying movement, in spite of isolated instances of
rowdyism, as for instance at Mrs. Besant's meeting in Bombay, at some
places in Delhi, Bengal, and even in Gujarat. The people are
assimilating day after day the spirit of non-violence, not necessarily
as a creed, but as an inevitable policy. I expect most startling
results, more startling than, say, the discoveries of Sir J.C. Bose, or
the acceptance by the people of non-violence. If the Government could be
assured beyond any possibility of doubt that no violence would ever be
offered by us the Government would from that moment alter its character,
unconsciously and involuntarily, but nonetheless surely on that

"Alter its character,--in what, direction?" asked the _Times_

"Certainly in the direction which we ask it should move--that being in
the direction of Government becoming responsive to every call of
the nation."

"Will you kindly explain further?" asked the representative.

"By that I mean," said Mr. Gandhi, "people will be able by asserting
themselves through fixed determination and self-sacrifice to gain the
redress of the Khilafat wrong, the Punjab wrong, and attain the Swaraj
of their choice."

"But what is your Swaraj, and where does the Government come in
there--the Government which, you say will alter its character

"My Swaraj," said Mr. Gandhi, "is the Parliamentary Government of India
in the modern sense of the term for the time being, and that Government
would be secured to us either through the friendly offices of the
British people or without them."

"What do you mean by the phrase, 'without them!'" questioned the

"This movement," continued Mr. Gandhi, "is an endeavour to purge the
present Government of selfishness and greed which determine almost every
one of their activities. Suppose that we have made it impossible by
disassociation from them to feed their greed. They might not wish to
remain in India, as happened in the case of Somaliland, where the moment
its administration ceased to be a paying proposition they evacuated it."

"How do you think," queried the representative, "in practice this will
work out?"

"What I have sketched before you," said Mr. Gandhi, "is the final
possibility. What I expect is that nothing of that kind will happen. In
so far as I understand the British people I will recognise the force of
public opinion when it has become real and patent. Then, and only then,
will they realise the hideous injustice which in their name the Imperial
ministers and their representatives in India have perpetrated. They will
therefore remedy the two wrongs in accordance with the wishes of the
people, and they will also offer a constitution exactly in accordance
with the wishes of the people of India, as represented by their
chosen leaders.

"Supposing that the British Government wish to retire because India is
not a paying concern, what do you think will then be the position
of India?"

Mr. Gandhi answered: "At that stage surely it is easy to understand that
India will then have evolved either outstanding spiritual height or the
ability to offer violence, against violence. She will have evolved an
organising ability of a high order, and will therefore be in every way
able to cope with any emergency that might arise." "In other words,"
observed the _Times_ representative, "you expect the moment of the
British evacuation, if such a contingency arises, will coincide with the
moment of India's preparedness and ability and conditions favourable for
India to take over the Indian administration as a going concern and work
it for the benefit and advancement of the Nation?"

Mr. Gandhi answered the question with an emphatic affirmative. "My
experience during the last months fills me with the hope," continued Mr.
Gandhi, "that within the nine months that remain of the year in which I
have expected Swaraj for India we shall redress the two wrongs and we
shall see Swaraj established in accordance with the wishes of the people
of India."

"Where will the present Government be at the end of the nine months?"
Asked the _Times_ representative.

Mr. Gandhi, with a significant smile, said: "The lion will then lie with
the lamb."

_Young India, December, 1920._


Mr. Gandhi in moving his resolution on the creed before the Congress,
said, "The resolution which I have the honour to move is as follows: The
object of the Indian National Congress is the attainment of Swarajya by
the people of India by all legitimate and peaceful means."

There are only two kinds of objections, so far as I understand, that
will be advanced from this platform. One is that we may not to-day think
of dissolving the British connection. What I say is that it is
derogatory to national dignity to think of permanence of British
connection at any cost. We are labouring under a grievous wrong, which
it is the personal duty of every Indian to get redressed. This British
Government not only refused to redress the wrong, but it refuses to
acknowledge _its_ mistake and so long as it retains its attitude, it is
not possible for us to say all that we want to be or all that we want to
get, retaining British connection. No matter what difficulties be in our
path, we must make the clearest possible declaration to the world and to
the whole of India, that we may not possibly have British connection, if
the British people will not do this elementary justice. I do not, for
one moment, suggest that we want to end at the British connection at all
costs, unconditionally. If the British connection is for the advancement
of India, we do not want to destroy it. But if it is inconsistent with
our national self respect, then it is our bounden duty to destroy it.
There is room in this resolution for both--those who believe that, by
retaining British connection, we can purify ourselves and purify British
people, and those who have no belief. As for instance, take the extreme
case of Mr. Andrews. He says all hope for India is gone for keeping the
British connection. He says there must be complete severance--complete
independence. There is room enough in this creed for a man like Mr.
Andrews also. Take another illustration, a man like myself or my brother
Shaukat Ali. There is certainly no room for us, if we have eternally to
subscribe to the doctrine, whether these wrongs are redressed or not, we
shall have to evolve ourselves within the British Empire; there is no
room for me in that creed. Therefore this creed is elastic enough to
take in both shades of opinions and the British people will have to
beware that, if they do not want to do justice, it will be the bounden
duty of every Indian to destroy the Empire.

I want just now to wind up my remarks with a personal appeal, drawing
your attention to an object lesson that was presented in the Bengal
camp yesterday. If you want Swaraj, you have got a demonstration of how
to get Swaraj. There was a little bit of skirmish, a little bit of
squabble, and a little bit of difference in the Bengal camp, as there
will always be differences so long as the world lasts. I have known
differences between husband and wife, because I am still a husband; I
have noticed differences between parents and children, because I am
still a father of four boys, and they are all strong enough to destroy
their father so far as bodily struggle is concerned; I possess that
varied experience of husband and parent; I know that we shall always
have squabbles, we shall always have differences but the lesson that I
want to draw your attention to is that I had the honour and privilege of
addressing both the parties. They gave me their undivided attention and
what is more they showed their attachment, their affection and their
fellowship for me by accepting the humble advice that I had the honour
of tendering to them, and I told them I am not here to distribute
justice that can be awarded only through our worthy president. But I ask
you not to go to the president, you need not worry him. If you are
strong, if you are brave, if you are intent upon getting Swaraj, and if
you really want to revise the creed, then you will bottle up your rage,
you will bottle up all the feelings of injustice that may rankle in
your hearts and forget these things here under this very roof and I told
them to forget their differences, to forgot the wrongs. I don't want to
tell you or go into the history of that incident. Probably most of you
know. I simply want to invite your attention to the fact. I don't say
they have settled up their differences. I hope they have but I do know
that they undertook to forget the differences. They undertook not to
worry the President, they undertook not to make any demonstration here
or in the Subjects Committee. All honour to those who listened to
that advice.

I only wanted my Bengali friends and all the other friends who have come
to this great assembly with a fixed determination to seek nothing but
the settlement of their country, to seek nothing but the advancement of
their respective rights, to seek nothing but the conservation of the
national honour. I appeal to every one of you to copy the example set by
those who felt aggrieved and who felt that their heads were broken. I
know, before we have done with this great battle on which we have
embarked at the special sessions of the Congress, we have to go
probably, possibly through a sea of blood, but let it not be said of us
or any one of us that we are guilty of shedding blood, but let it be
said by generations yet to be born that we suffered, that we shed not
somebody's blood but our own, and so I have no hesitation in saying that
I do not want to show much sympathy for those who had their heads
broken or who were said to be even in danger of losing their lives. What
does it matter? It is much better to die at the hands, at least, of our
own countrymen. What is there to revenge ourselves about or upon. So I
ask everyone of you that if at any time there is blood-boiling within
you against some fellow countrymen of yours, even though he may be in
the employ of Government, though he may be in the Secret Service, you
will take care not to be offended and not to return blow for blow.
Understand that the very moment you return the blow from the detective,
your cause is lost. This is your non-violent campaign. And so I ask
everyone of you not to retaliate but to bottle up all your rage, to
dismiss your rage from you and you will rise graver men. I am here to
congratulate those who have restrained themselves from going to the
President and bringing the dispute before him.

Therefore I appeal to those who feel aggrieved to feel that they have
done the right thing in forgetting it and if they have not forgotten I
ask them to try to forget the thing; and that is the object lesson to
which I wanted to draw your attention if you want to carry this
resolution. Do not carry this resolution only by an acclamation for this
resolution, but I want you to accompany the carrying out of this
resolution with a faith and resolve which nothing on earth can move.
That you are intent upon getting Swaraj at the earliest possible moment
and that you are intent upon getting Swaraj by means that are
legitimate, that are honourable and by means that are non-violent, that
are peaceful, you have resolved upon, so far you can say to-day. We
cannot give battle to this Government by means of steel, but we can give
battle by exercising, what I have so often called, "soul force" and soul
force is not the prerogative of one man of a Sanyasi or even a so-called
saint. Soul force is the prerogative of every human being, female or
male and therefore I ask my countrymen, if they want to accept this
resolution, to accept it with that firm determination and to understand
that it is inaugurated under such good and favourable auspices as I have
described to you.

In my humble opinion, the Congress will have done the rightest thing, if
it unanimously adopts this resolution. May God grant that you will pass
this resolution unanimously, may God grant that you will also have the
courage and the ability to carry out the resolution and that within one


[A dialogue between Editor and reader on the Hindu-Moslem Unity--_Indian
Home Rule_.]


EDITOR: Your last question is a serious one, and yet, on careful
consideration, it will be found to be easy of solution. The question
arises because of the presence of the railways of the lawyers, and of
the doctors. We shall presently examine the last two. We have already
considered the railways. I should, however, like to add that man is so
made by nature as to require him to restrict his movements as far as his
hands and feet will take him. If we did not rush about from place to
place by means of railways such other maddening conveniences, much of
the confusion that arises would be obviated. Our difficulties are of our
own creation. God set a limit to a man's locomotive ambition in the
construction of his body. Man immediately proceeded to discover means of
overriding the limit. God gifted man with intellect that he might know
his Maker. Man abused it, so that he might forget his Maker. I am so
constructed that I can only serve my immediate neighbours, but, in my
conceit, I pretend to have discovered that I must with my body serve
every individual in the Universe. In thus attempting the impossible, man
comes in contact with different natures, different religions, and is
utterly confounded. According to this reasoning, it must be apparent to
you that railways are a most dangerous institution. Man has therefore
gone further away from his Maker.

READER: But I am impatient to hear your answer to my question. Has the
introduction of Mahomedanism not unmade the nation?

EDITOR: India cannot cease to be one nation because people belonging to
different religions live in it. The introduction of foreigners does not
necessarily destroy the nation, they merge in it. A country is one
nation only when such a condition obtains in it. That country must have
a faculty for assimilation. India has ever been such a country. In
reality, there are as many religions as there are individuals, but those
who are conscious of the spirit of nationality do not interfere with one
another's religion. If they do, they are not fit to be considered a
nation. If the Hindus believe that India should be peopled only by
Hindus, they are living in dreamland. The Hindus, the Mahomedans, the
Parsees and the Christians who have made India their country are fellow
countrymen, and they will have to live in unity if only for their own
interest. In no part of the world are one nationality and one religion
synonymous terms: nor has it ever been so in India.

READER: But what about the inborn enmity between Hindus and Mahomedans?

EDITOR: That phrase has been invented by our mutual enemy. When the
Hindus and Mahomedans fought against one another, they certainly spoke
in that strain. They have long since ceased to fight. How, then, can
there be any inborn enmity? Pray remember this, too, that we did not
cease to fight only after British occupation. The Hindus flourished
under Moslem sovereigns, and Moslems under the Hindu. Each party
recognised that mutual fighting was suicidal, and that neither party
would abandon its religion by force of arms. Both parties, therefore,
decided to live in peace. With the English advent the quarrels

The proverbs you have quoted were coined when both were fighting; to
quote them now is obviously harmful. Should we not remember that many
Hindus and Mahomedans own the same ancestors, and the same blood runs
through their veins? Do people become enemies because they change their
religion? Is the God of the Mahomedan different from the God of the
Hindu? Religions are different roads converging to the same point. What
does it matter that we take different roads, so long as we reach the
same goal? Wherein is the cause for quarrelling?

Moreover, there are deadly proverbs as between the followers of Shiva
and those of Vishnu, yet nobody suggests that these two do not belong to
the same nation. It is said that the Vedic religion is different from
Jainism, but the followers of the respective faiths are not different
nations. The fact is that we have become enslaved, and, therefore,
quarrel and like to have our quarrels decided by a third party. There
are Hindu iconoclasts as there are Mahomedan. The more we advance in
true knowledge, the better we shall understand that we need not be at
war with those whose religion we may not follow.

READER: Now I would like to know your views about cow protection.

EDITOR: I myself respect the cow, that is, I look upon her with
affectionate reverence. The cow is the protector of India, because, it
being an agricultural country, is dependent on the cow's progeny. She is
a most useful animal in hundreds of ways. Our Mahomedan brethren will
admit this.

But, just as I respect the cow so do I respect my fellow-men. A man is
just as useful as a cow, no matter whether he be a Mahomedan or a Hindu.
Am I, then to fight with or kill a Mahomedan in order to save a cow? In
doing so, I would become an enemy as well of the cow as of the
Mahomedan. Therefore, the only method I know of protecting the cow is
that I should approach my Mahomedan brother and urge him for the sake of
the country to join me in protecting her. If he would not listen to me,
I should let the cow go for the simple reason that the matter is beyond
my ability. If I were over full of pity for the cow, I should sacrifice
my life to save her, but not take my brother's. This, I hold, is the law
of our religion.

When men become obstinate, it is a difficult thing. If I pull one way,
my Moslem brother will pull another. If I put on a superior air, he will
return the compliment. If I bow to him gently, he will do it much, more
so, and if he does not, I shall not be considered to have done wrong in
having bowed. When the Hindus became insistent, the killing of cows
increased. In my opinion, cow protection societies may be considered cow
killing societies. It is a disgrace to us that we should need such
societies. When we forgot how to protect cows, I suppose we needed such

What am I to do when a blood-brother is on the point of killing a cow?
Am I to kill him, or to fall down at his feet and implore him? If you
admit that I should adopt the latter course I must do the same to my
Moslem brother. Who protects the cow from destruction by Hindus when
they cruelly ill-treat her? Whoever reasons with the Hindus when they
mercilessly belabour the progeny of the cow with their sticks? But this
has not prevented us from remaining one nation.

Lastly, if it be true that the Hindus believe in the doctrine of
non-killing, and the Mahomedans do not, what, I pray, is the duty of the
former? It is not written that a follower of the religion of Ahimsa
(non-killing) may kill a fellow-man. For him the way is straight. In
order to save one being, he may not kill another. He can only
plead--therein lies his sole duty.

But does every Hindu believe in Ahimsa? Going to the root of the matter,
not one man really practises such a religion, because we do destroy
life. We are said to follow that religion because we want to obtain
freedom from liability to kill any kind of life. Generally speaking, we
may observe that many Hindus partake of meat and are not, therefore,
followers of Ahimsa. It is, therefore, preposterous to suggest that the
two cannot live together amicably because the Hindus believe in Ahimsa
and the Mahomedans do not.

These thoughts are put into our minds by selfish and false religious
teachers. The English put the finishing touch. They have a habit of
writing history; they pretend to study the manners and customs of all
peoples, God has given us a limited mental capacity, but they usurp the
function of the Godhead and indulge in novel experiments. They write
about their own researches in most laudatory terms and hypnotise us into
believing them. We in our ignorance, then fall at their feet.

Those who do not wish to misunderstand things may read up the Koran, and
will find therein hundreds of passages acceptable to the Hindus; and the
Bhagavad Gita contains passages to which not a Mahomedan can take
exception. Am I to dislike a Mahomedan because there are passages in the
Koran I do not understand or like? It takes two to make a quarrel. If I
do not want to quarrel with a Mahomedan, the latter will be powerless to
foist a quarrel on me, and, similarly, I should be powerless if a
Mahomedan refuses his assistance to quarrel with me. An arm striking the
air will become disjointed. If everyone will try to understand the core
of his own religion and adhere to it, and will not allow false teachers
to dictate to him, there will be no room left for quarrelling.

READER: But, will the English ever allow the two bodies to join hands?

EDITOR: This question arises out of your timidity. It betrays our
shallowness. If two brothers want to live in peace, is it possible for a
third party to separate them? If they were to listen to evil counsels,
we would consider them to be foolish. Similarly, we Hindus and
Mahomedans would have to blame our folly rather than the English, if we
allowed them to put asunder. A clay pot would break through impact; if
not with one stone, thou with another. The way to save the pot is not to
keep it away from the danger point, but to bake it so that no stone
would break it. We have then to make our hearts of perfectly baked clay.
Then we shall be steeled against all danger. This can be easily done by
the Hindus. They are superior in numbers, they pretend that they are
more educated, they are, therefore, better able to shield themselves
from attack on their amicable relations with the Mahomedans.

There is a mutual distrust between the two communities. The Mahomedans,
therefore, ask for certain concessions from Lord Morley. Why should the
Hindus oppose this? If the Hindus desisted, the English would notice it,
the Mahomedans would gradually begin to trust the Hindus, and
brotherliness would be the outcome. We should be ashamed to take our
quarrels to the English. Everyone can find out for himself that the
Hindus can lose nothing be desisting. The man who has inspired
confidence in another has never lost anything in this world.

I do not suggest that the Hindus and the Mahomedans will never fight.
Two brothers living together often do so. We shall sometimes have our
heads broken. Such a thing ought not to be necessary, but all men are
not equi-minded. When people are in a rage, they do many foolish things.
These we have to put up with. But, when we do quarrel, we certainly do
not want to engage counsel and to resort to English or any law-courts.
Two men fight; both have their heads broken, or one only. How shall a
third party distribute justice amongst them? Those who fight may expect
to be injured.


Mr. Candler some time ago asked me in an imaginary interview whether if
I was sincere in my professions of Hindu-Mahomedan Unity. I would eat
and drink with a Mahomedean and give my daughter in marriage to a
Mahomedan. This question has been asked again by some friends in another
form. Is it necessary for Hindu Mahomedan Unity that there should he
interdining and intermarrying? The questioners say that if the two are
necessary, real unity can never take place because crores of _Sanatanis_
would never reconcile themselves to interdining, much less to

I am one of those who do not consider caste to be a harmful institution.
In its origin caste was a wholesome custom and promoted national
well-being. In my opinion the idea that interdining or intermarrying is
necessary for national growth, is a superstition borrowed from the West.
Eating is a process just as vital as the other sanitary necessities of
life. And if mankind had not, much to its harm, made of eating a fetish
and indulgence we would have performed the operation of eating in
private even as one performs the other necessary functions of life in
private. Indeed the highest culture in Hinduism regards eating in that
light and there are thousands of Hindus still living who will not eat
their food in the presence of anybody. I can recall the names of several
cultured men and women who ate their food in entire privacy but who
never had any illwill against anybody and who lived on the friendliest
terms with all.

Intermarriage is a still more difficult question. If brothers and
sisters can live on the friendliest footing without ever thinking of
marrying each other, I can see no difficulty in my daughter regarding
every Mahomedan brother and _vice versa_. I hold strong views on
religion and on marriage. The greater the restraint we exercise with
regard to our appetites whether about eating or marrying, the better we
become from a religious standpoint. I should despair of ever cultivating
amicable relations with the world, if I had to recognise the right or
the propriety of any young man offering his hand in marriage to my
daughter or to regard it as necessary for me to dine with anybody and
everybody. I claim that I am living on terms of friendliness with the
whole world. I have never quarrelled with a single Mahomedan or
Christian but for years I have taken nothing but fruit in Mahomedan or
Christian households. I would most certainly decline to eat food cooked
from the same plate with my son or to drink water out of a cup which his
lips have touched and which has not been washed. But the restraint or
the exclusiveness exercised in these matters by me has never affected
the closest companionship with the Mahomedan or the Christian friends
or my sons.

But interdining and intermarriage have never been a bar to disunion,
quarrels and worse. The Pandavas and the Kauravas flew at one another's
throats without compunction although they interdined and intermarried.
The bitterness between the English and the Germans has not yet died out.

The fact is that intermarriage and interdining are not necessary factors
in friendship and unity though they are often emblems thereof. But
insistence on either the one or the other can easily become and is
to-day a bar to Hindu-Mahomedan Unity. If we make ourselves believe that
Hindus and Mahomedans cannot be one unless they interdine or intermarry,
we would be creating an artificial barrier between us which it might be
almost impossible to remove. And it would seriously interfere with the
flowing unity between Hindus and Mahomedans if, for example, Mahomedan
youths consider it lawful to court Hindu girls. The Hindu parents will
not, even if they suspected any such thing, freely admit Mahomedans to
their homes as they have begun to do now. In my opinion it is necessary
for Hindu and Mahomedan young men to recognise this limitation.

I hold it to be utterly impossible for Hindus and Mahomedans to
intermarry and yet retain intact each other's religion. And the true
beauty of Hindu-Mahomedan Unity lies in each remaining true to his own
religion and yet being true to each other. For, we are thinking of
Hindus and Mahomedans even of the most orthodox type being able to
regard one another as natural friends instead of regarding one another
as natural enemies as they have done hitherto.

What then does the Hindu-Mahomedan Unity consist in and how can it be
best promoted? The answer is simple. It consists in our having a common
purpose, a common goal and common sorrows. It is best promoted by
co-operating to reach the common goal, by sharing one another's sorrow
and by mutual toleration. A common goal we have. We wish this great
country of ours to be greater and self-governing.[4] We have enough
sorrows to share and to-day seeing that the Mahomedans are deeply
touched on the question of Khilafat and their case is just, nothing can
be so powerful for winning Mahomedans friendship for the Hindu as to
give his whole-hearted support to the Mahomedan claim. No amount of
drinking out of the same cup or dining out of the same bowl can bind the
two as this help in the Khilafat question.

And mutual toleration is a necessity for all time and for all races. We
cannot live in peace if the Hindu will not tolerate the Mahomedan form
of worship of God and his manners and customs or if the mahomedans will
be impatient of Hindu idolatory, cow-worship. It is not necessary for
toleration that I must approve of what I tolerate. I heartily dislike
drinking, meat eating and smoking, but I tolerate all these in Hindus,
Mahomedans and Christians even as I expect them to tolerate my
abstinence from all these, although they may dislike it. All the
quarrels between the Hindus and the Mahomedans have arisen from each
wanting to _force_ the other his view.


There can be no doubt that successful non-co-operation depends as much
on Hindu-Muslim Unity as on non-violence. Greatest strain will be put
upon both in the course of the struggle and if it survives that strain,
victory is a certainty.

A severe strain was put upon it in Agra and it has been stated that when
either party went to the authorities they were referred to Maulana
Shaukat Ali and me. Fortunately there was a far better man at hand.
Hakimji Ajmal khan is a devout Muslim who commands the confidence and
the respect of both the parties. He with his band of workers hastened to
Agra, settled the dispute and the parties became friends as they were
never before. An incident occurred nearer Delhi and the same influence
worked successfully to avoid what might have become an explosion.

But Hakimji Ajmal khan cannot be everywhere appearing at the exact hour
as an angel of peace. Nor can Maulana Shankat Ali or I go everywhere.
And yet perfect peace must be observed between the two communities in
spite of attempts to divide them.

Why was there any appeal made to the authorities at all at Agra? If we
are to work out non-co-operation with any degree of success we must be
able to dispense with the protection of the Government when we quarrel
among ourselves. The whole scheme of non-co-operation must break to
pieces, if our final reliance is to be upon British intervention for the
adjustment of our quarrels or the punishment of the guilty ones. In
every village and hamlet there must be at least one Hindu and one
Muslim, whose primary business must be to prevent quarrels between the
two. Some times however, even blood-brothers come to blows. In the
initial stages we are bound to do so here and there. Unfortunately we
who are public workers have made little attempt to understand and
influence the masses and least of all the most turbulent among them.
During the process of insinuating ourselves in the estimation of the
masses and until we have gained control over the unruly, there are bound
to be exhibitions of hasty temper now and then. We must learn at such
times to do without an appeal to the Government. Hakimji Ajmal Khan has
shown us how to do it.

The union that we want is not a patched up thing but a union of hearts
based upon a definite recognition of the indubitable proposition that
Swaraj for India must be an impossible dream without an indissoluble
union between the Hindus and the Muslims of India. It must not be a mere
truce. It cannot be based upon mutual fear. It must be a partnership
between equals each respecting the religion of the other.

I would frankly despair of reaching such union if there was anything in
the holy Quran enjoining upon the followers of Islam to treat Hindus as
their natural enemies or if there was anything in Hinduism to warrant a
belief in the eternal enmity between the two.

We would ill learn our history if we conclude that because we have
quarrelled in the past, we are destined so to continue unless some such
strong power like the British keep us by force of arms from flying at
each other's throats. But I am convinced that there is no warrant in
Islam or Hinduism for any such belief. True it is that interested
fanatical priests in both religions have set the one against the other.
It is equally true that Muslim rulers like Christian rulers have used
the sword for the propagation of their respective faiths. But in spite
of many dark things of the modern times, the world's opinion to-day will
as little tolerate forcible conversions as it will tolerate forcible
slavery. That probably is the most effective contribution of the
scientific spirit of the age. That spirit has revolutionised many a
false notion about Christianity as it has about Islam. I do not know a
single writer on Islam who defends the use of force in the proselytising
process. The influences exerted in our times are far more subtle than
that of the sword.

I believe that in the midst of all the bloodshed, chicane and fraud
being resorted to on a colossal scale in the west, the whole humanity is
silently but surely making progress towards a better age. And India by
finding true independence and self-expression through an imperishable
Hindu-Muslim unity and through non-violent means, i.e., unadulterated
self sacrifice can point a way out of the prevailing darkness.



Vivekanand used to call the Panchamas 'suppressed classes.' There is no
doubt that Vivekanand's is a more accurate adjective. We have suppressed
them and have consequently become ourselves depressed. That we have
become the 'Pariahs of the Empire' is, in Gokhale's language, the
retributive justice meted out to us by a just God. A correspondent
indignantly asks me in a pathetic letter reproduced elsewhere, what I am
doing for them. I have given the letter with the correspondent's own
heading. Should not we the Hindus wash our bloodstained hands before we
ask the English to wash theirs? This is a proper question reasonably
put. And if a member of a slave nation could deliver the suppressed
classes from their slavery without freeing myself from my own, I would
do so to day. But it is an impossible task. A slave has not the freedom
even to do the right thing. It is a right for me to prohibit the
importation of foreign goods, but I have no power to bring it about. It
was right for Maulana Mahomed Ali to go to Turkey and to tell the Turks
personally that India was with them in their righteous struggle. He was
not free to do so. If I had a truly national legislative I would answer
Hindu insolence by creating special and better wells for the exclusive
use of suppressed classes and by erecting better and more numerous
schools for them, so that there would be not a single member of the
suppressed classes left without a school to teach their children. But I
must wait for that better day.

Meanwhile are the depressed classes to be loft to their own resources?
Nothing of the sort. In my own humble manner I have done and am doing
all I can for my Panchama brother.

There are three courses open to those downtrodden members of the nation.
For their impatience they may call in the assistance of the slave owning
Government. They will get it but they will fall from the frying pan into
the fire. To-day they are slaves of slaves. By seeking Government aid,
they will be used for suppressing their kith and kin. Instead of being
sinned against, they will themselves be the sinners. The Mussalmans
tried it and failed. They found that they were worse off than before.
The Sikhs did it unwittingly and failed. To-day there is no more
discontented community in India than the Sikhs. Government aid is
therefore no solution.

The second is rejection of Hinduism and wholesale conversion to Islam or
Christianity. And if a change of religion could be justified for worldly
betterment, I would advise it without hesitation. But religion is a
matter of the heart. No physical inconvenience can warrant abandonment
of one's own religion. If the inhuman treatment of the Panchamas were a
part of Hinduism, its rejection would be a paramount duty both for them
and for those like me who would not make a fetish even of religion and
condone every evil in its sacred name. But, I believe that
untouchability is no part of Hinduism. It is rather its excrescence to
be removed by every effort. And there is quite an army of Hindu
reformers who have set their heart upon ridding Hinduism of this blot.
Conversion, therefore, I hold, is no remedy whatsoever.

Then there remains, finally, self-help and self-dependence, with such
aid as the non-Panchama Hindus will render of their own motion, not as a
matter of patronage but as a matter of duty. And herein comes the use of
non-co-operation. My correspondent was correctly informed by Mr.
Rajagopaluchari and Mr. Hanumantarao that I would favour well-regulated
non-co-operation for this acknowledged evil. But non-co-operation means
independence of outside help, it means effort from within. It would not
be non-co-operation to insist on visiting prohibited areas. That may be
civil disobedience if it is peacefully carried out. But I have found to
my cost that civil disobedience requires far greater preliminary
training and self-control. All can non-co-operate, but few only can
offer civil disobedience. Therefore, by way of protest against Hinduism,
the Panchamas can certainly stop all contact and connection with the
other Hindus so long as special grievances are maintained. But this
means organised intelligent effort. And so far as I can see, there is no
leader among the Panchamas who can lead them to victory through

The better way, therefore, perhaps, is for the Panchamas heartily to
join the great national movement that is now going on for throwing off
the slavery of the present Government. It is easy enough for the
Panchama friends to see that non-co-operation against this evil
government presupposes co-operation between the different sections
forming the Indian nation. The Hindus must realise that if they wish to
offer successful non-co-operation against the Government, they must make
common cause with the Panchamas, even as they have made common cause
with the Mussalmans. Non-co-operation with it is free from violence, is
essentially a movement of intensive self-purification. That process has
commenced and whether the Panchamas deliberately take part in it or
not, the rest of the Hindus dare not neglect them without hampering
their own progress. Hence though the Panchama problem is as dear to me
as life itself, I rest satisfied with the exclusive attention to
national non-co-operation. I feel sure that the greater includes
the less.

Closely allied to this question is the non-Brahmin question. I wish I
had studied it more closely than I have been able to. A quotation from
my speech delivered at a private meeting in Madras has been torn from
its context and misused to further the antagonism between the so-called
Brahmins and the so-called non-Brahmins. I do not wish to retract a word
of what I said at that meeting, I was appealing to those who are
accepted as Brahmins. I told them that in my opinion the treatment of
non-Brahmins by the Brahmins was as satanic as the treatment of us by
the British. I added that the non-Brahmins should be placated without
any ado or bargaining. But my remarks were never intended to encourage
the powerful non-Brahmins of Maharashira or Madras, or the mischievous
element among them, to overawe the so-called Brahmins. I use the word
'so-called' advisedly. For the Brahmins who have freed themselves from
the thraldom of superstitious orthodoxy have not only no quarrel with
non-Brahmins as such, but are in every way eager to advance
non-Brahmins wherever they are weak. No lover of his country can
possibly achieve its general advance if he dared to neglect the least of
his countrymen. Those non-Brahmins therefore who are coqueting with the
Government are selling themselves and the nation to which they belong.
By all means let those who have faith in the Government help to sustain
it, but let no Indian worthy of his birth cut off his nose to spite
the face.


The resolution of the Senate of the Gujarat National University in
regard to Mr. Andrews' question about the admission of children of the
'depressed' classes to the schools affiliated to that University is
reported to have raised a flutter in Ahmedabad. Not only has the flutter
given satisfaction to a 'Times of India' correspondent, but the occasion
has led to the discovery by him of another defect in the constitution of
the Senate in that it does not contain a single Muslim member. The
discovery, however, I may inform the reader, is no proof of the want of
national character of the University. The Hindu-Muslim unity is no mere
lip expression. It requires no artificial proofs. The simple reason why
there is no Mussalman representative on the Senate is that no higher
educated Mussalman, able to give his time, has been found to take
sufficient interest in the national education movement. I merely refer
to this matter to show that we must reckon with attempts to discredit
the movement even misinterpretation of motives. That is a difficulty
from without and easier to deal with.

The 'depressed' classes difficulty is internal and therefore far more
serious because it may give rise to a split and weaken the cause--no
cause can survive internal difficulties if they are indefinitely
multiplied. Yet there can be no surrender in the matter of principles
for the avoidance of splits. You cannot promote a cause when you are
undermining it by surrendering its vital parts. The depressed classes
problem is a vital part of the cause. _Swaraj_ is as inconceivable
without full reparation to the 'depressed' classes as it is impossible
without real Hindu-Muslim unity. In my opinion we have become 'pariahs
of the Empire' because we have created 'pariahs' in our midst. The slave
owner is always more hurt than the slave. We shall be unfit to gain
Swaraj so long as we would keep in bondage a fifth of the population of
Hindustan. Have we not made the 'pariah' crawl on his belly? Have we not
segregated him? And if it is religion so to treat the 'pariah.' It is
the religion of the white race to segregate us. And if it is no argument
for the white races to say that we are satisfied with the badge of our
inferiority, it is less for us to say that the 'pariah' is satisfied
with his. Our slavery is complete when we begin to hug it.

The Gujarat Senate therefore counted the cost when it refused to bend
before the storm. This non-co-operation is a process of
self-purification. We may not cling to putrid customs and claim the pure
boon of _Swaraj_. Untouchability I hold is a custom, not an integral
part of Hinduism. The world advanced in thought, though it is still
barbarous in action. And no religion can stand that which is not based
on fundamental truths. Any glorification of error will destroy a
religion as surely as disregard of a disease is bound to destroy a body.

This government of ours is an unscrupulous corporation. It has ruled by
dividing Mussalmans from Hindus. It is quite capable of taking advantage
of the internal weaknesses of Hinduism. It will set the 'depressed'
classes against the rest of the Hindus, non-Brahmins against Brahmins.
The Gujarat Senate resolution does not end the trouble. It merely points
out the difficulty. The trouble will end only when the masses and
classes of Hindus have rid themselves of the sin of untouchability. A
Hindu lover of Swaraj will as assiduously work for the amelioration of
the lot of the 'depressed' classes as he works for Hindu-Muslim unity.
We must treat them as our brothers and give them the same rights that we
claim for ourselves.


It is worthy of note that the subjects Committee accepted without any
opposition the clause regarding the sin of untouchability. It is well
that the National assembly passed the resolution stating that the
removal of this blot on Hinduism was necessary for the attainment of
Swaraj. The Devil succeeds only by receiving help from his fellows. He
always takes advantage of the weakest spots in our natures in order to
gain mastery over us. Even so does the Government retain its control
over us through our weaknesses or vices. And if we would render
ourselves proof against its machination, we must remove our weaknesses.
It is for that reason that I have called non-co-operation a process of
purification. As soon as that process is completed, this government must
fall to pieces for want of the necessary environment, just as mosquitos
cease to haunt a place whose cess-pools are filled up and dried.

Has not a just Nemesis overtaken us for the crime of untouchability?
Have we not reaped as we have sown? Have we not practised Dwyerism and
O'Dwyerism on our own kith and kin? We have segregated the 'pariah' and
we are in turn segregated in the British Colonies. We deny him the use
of public wells; we throw the leavings of our plates at him. His very
shadow pollutes us. Indeed there is no charge that the 'pariah' cannot
fling in our faces and which we do not fling in the faces of Englishmen.

How is this blot on Hinduism to be removed? 'Do unto others as you would
that others should do unto you.' I have often told English officials
that, if they are friends and servants of India, they should come down
from their pedestal, cease to be patrons, demonstrate by their loving
deeds that they are in every respect our friends, and believe us to be
equals in the same sense they believe fellow Englishmen to be their
equals. After the experiences of the Punjab and the Khilafat, I have
gone a step further and asked them to repent and to change their hearts.
Even so is it necessary for us Hindus to repent of the wrong we have
done, to alter our behaviour towards those whom we have 'suppressed' by
a system as devilish as we believe the English system of the Government
of India to be. We must not throw a few miserable schools at them; we
must not adopt the air of superiority towards them. We must treat them
as our blood brothers as they are in fact. We must return to them the
inheritance of which we have robbed them. And this must not be the act
of a few English-knowing reformers merely, but it must be a conscious
voluntary effort on the part of the masses. We may not wait till
eternity for this much belated reformation. We must aim at bringing it
about within this year of grace, probation, preparation and _tapasya_.
It is a reform not to follow _Swaraj_ but to precede it.

Untouchability is not a sanction of religion, it is a devise of Satan.
The devil has always quoted scriptures. But scriptures cannot transcend
reason and truth. They are intended to purify reason and illuminate
truth. I am not going to burn a spotless horse because the Vedas are
reported to have advised, tolerated, or sanctioned the sacrifice. For me
the Vedas are divine and unwritten. 'The letter killeth.' It is the
spirit that giveth the light. And the spirit of the Vedas is purity,
truth, innocence, chastity, humility, simplicity, forgiveness,
godliness, and all that makes a man or woman noble and brave. There is
neither nobility nor bravery in treating the great and uncomplaining
scavengers of the nation as worse than dogs to be despised and spat
upon. Would that God gave us the strength and the wisdom to become
voluntary scavengers of the nation as the 'suppressed' classes are
forced to be. There are Augean stables enough and to spare for us to



The prejudice against Indian settlers outside India is showing itself in
a variety of ways: Under the impudent suggestion of sedition the Fiji
Government has deported Mr. Manilal Doctor who with his brave and
cultured wife has been rendering assistance to the poor indentured
Indians of Fiji in a variety of ways. The whole trouble has arisen over
the strike of the labourers in Fiji. Indentures have been canceled, but
the spirit of slavery is by no means dead. We do not know the genesis of
the strike; we do not know that the strikers have done no wrong. But we
do know what is behind when a charge of sedition is brought against the
strikers and their friends. The readers must remember that the
Government that has scented sedition in the recent upheaval in Fiji is
the Government that had the hardihood to libel Mr. Andrew's character.
What can be the meaning of sedition in connection with the Fiji strikers
and Mr. Manilal Doctor? Did they and he want to seize the reins of
Government? Did they want any power in that country? They struck for
elementary freedom. And it is a prostitution of terms to use the word
sedition in such connection. The strikers may have been overhasty. Mr.
Manilal Doctor may have misled them. If his advice bordered on the
criminal he should have been tried. The information in our possession
goes to show that he has been strictly constitutional. Our point,
however, is that it is an abuse of power for the Fiji Government to have
deported Mr. Manilal Doctor without a trial. It is wrong in principle to
deprive a person of his liberty on mere suspicion and without giving him
an opportunity of clearing his character. Mr. Manilal Doctor, be it
remembered, has for years past made Fiji his home. He has, we believe,
bought property there. He has children born in Fiji. Have the children
no rights? Has the wife none? May a promising career be ruined at the
bidding of a lawless Government? Has Mr. Manilal Doctor been compensated
for the losses he must sustain? We trust that the Government of India
which has endeavoured to protect the rights of Indian settlers abroad
will take up the question of Mr. Doctor's deportation.

Nor is Fiji the only place where the spirit of lawlessness among the
powerful has come to the surface. Indians of (the late) German East
Africa find themselves in a worse position than heretofore. They state
that even their property is not safe. They have to pay all kinds of dues
on passports. They are hampered in their trade. They are not able even
to send money orders.

In British East Africa the cloud is perhaps the thickest. The European
settlers there are doing their utmost to deprive the Indian settlers of
practically every right they have hitherto possessed. An attempt is
being made to compass their ruin both by legislative enactment and
administrative action.

In South Africa every Indian who has anything to do with that part of
the British Dominions is watching with bated breath the progress of
commission that is now sitting.

The Government of India have no easy job in protecting the interests of
Indian settlers in these various parts of His Majesty's dominions. They
will be able to do so only by following the firmest and the most
consistent policy. Justice is admittedly on the side of the Indian
settlers. But they are the weak party. A strong agitation in India
followed by strong action by the Government of India can alone save the


The meeting held at the Excelsior Theatre in Bombay to pass resolutions
regarding East Africa and Fiji, and presided over by Sir Narayan
Chandavarkar, was an impressive gathering. The Theatre was filled to
overflowing. Mr. Andrews' speech made clear what is needed. Both the
political and the civil rights of Indians of East Africa are at stake.
Mr. Anantani, himself an East African settler, showed in a forceful
speech that the Indians were the pioneer settlers. An Indian sailor
named Kano directed the celebrated Vasco De Gama to India. He added amid
applause that Stanley's expedition for the search and relief of Dr.
Livingstone was also fitted out by Indians. Indian workmen had built the
Uganda Railway at much peril to their lives. An Indian contractor had
taken the contract. Indian artisans had supplied the skill. And now
their countrymen were in danger of being debarred from its use.

The uplands of East Africa have been declared a Colony and the lowlands
a Protectorate. There is a sinister significance attached to the
declaration. The Colonial system gives the Europeans larger powers. It
will tax all the resources of the Government of India to prevent the
healthy uplands from becoming a whiteman's preserve and the Indians
from being relegated to the swampy lowlands.

The question of franchise will soon become a burning one. It will be
suicidal to divide the electorate or to appoint Indians by nomination.
There must be one general electoral roll applying the same
qualifications to all the voters. This principle, as Mr. Andrews
reminded the meeting, had worked well at the Cape.

The second part of the East African resolution shows the condition of
our countrymen in the late German East Africa. Indian soldiers fought
there and now the position of Indians is worse than under German rule.
H.H. the Agakhan suggested that German East Africa should be
administered from India. Sir Theodore Morison would have couped up all
Indians in German East Africa. The result was that both the proposals
went by the board and the expected has happened. The greed of the
English speculator has prevailed and he is trying to squeeze out the
Indian. What will the Government of India protect? Has it the will to do
so? Is not India itself being exploited? Mr. Jehangir Petit recalled the
late Mr. Gokhale's views that we were not to expect a full satisfaction
regarding the status of our countrymen across the seas until we had put
our own house in order. Helots in our own country, how could we do
better outside? Mr. Petit wants systematic and severe retaliation. In
my opinion, retaliation is a double-edged weapon. It does not fail to
hurt the user if it also hurts the party against whom it is used. And
who is to give effect to retaliation? It is too much to expect an
English Government to adopt effective retaliation against their own
people. They will expostulate, they will remonstrate, but they will not
go to war with their own Colonies. For the logical outcome of
retaliation must mean war, if retaliation will not answer.

Let us face the facts frankly. The problem is difficult alike for
Englishmen and for us. The Englishmen and Indians do not agree in the
Colonies. The Englishmen do not want us where they can live. Their
civilisation is different from ours. The two cannot coalesce until there
is mutual respect. The Englishman considers himself to belong to the
ruling race. The Indian struggles to think that he does not belong to
the subject race and in the very act of thinking admits his subjection.
We must then attain equality at home before we can make any real
impression abroad.

This is not to say that we must not strive to do better abroad whilst we
are ill at ease in our own home. We must preserve, we must help our
countrymen who have settled outside India. Only if we recognise the true
situation, we and our countrymen abroad will learn to be patient and
know that our chief energy must be concentrated on a betterment of our
position at home. If we can raise our status here to that of equal
partners not in name but in reality so that every Indian might feel it,
all else must follow as a matter of course.


The memorable Conference at Gujrat in its resolution on the status of
Indians abroad has given it as its opinion that even this question may
become one more reason for non-co-operation. And so it may. Nowhere has
there been such open defiance of every canon of justice and propriety as
in the shameless decision of confiscation of Indian rights in the Kenia
Colony announced by its Governor. This decision has been supported by
Lord Milnor and Mr. Montagu. And his Indian colleagues are satisfied
with the decision. Indians, who have made East Africa, who out-number
the English, are deprived practically of the right of representation on
the Council. They are to be segregated in parts not habitable by the
English. They are to have neither the political nor the material
comfort. They are to become 'Pariahs' in a country made by their own
labour, wealth and intelligence. The Viceroy is pleased to say that he
does not like the outlook and is considering the steps to be taken to
vindicate the justice. He is not met with a new situation. The Indians
of East Africa had warned him of the impending doom. And if His
Excellency has not yet found the means of ensuring redress, he is not
likely to do it in future. I would respectfully ask his Indian
colleagues whether they can stand this robbery of their
countrymen rights.

In South Africa the situation is not less disquieting. My misgivings
seem to be proving true, and repatriation is more likely to prove
compulsory than voluntary. It is a response to the anti-Asiatic
agitation, not a measure of relief for indigent Indians. It looks very
like a trap laid for the unwary Indian. The Union Government appears to
be taking an unlawful advantage of a section of a relieving law designed
for a purpose totally different from the one now intended.

As for Fiji, the crime against humanity is evidently to be hushed up. I
do hope that unless an inquiry is to be made into the Fiji Martial Law
doings, no Indian member will undertake to go to Fiji. The Government of
India appear to have given an undertaking to send Indian labour to Fiji
provided the commission that was to proceed there in order to
investigate the condition on the spot returns with a favourable report.

For British Guiana I observe from the papers received from that
quarter, that the mission that came here is already declaring that
Indian labour will be forthcoming from India. There seems to me to be no
real prospect for Indian enterprise in that part of the world. We are
not wanted in any part of the British Dominion except as Pariahs to do
the scavenging for the European settlers.

The situation is clear. We are Pariahs in our own home. We get only what
Government intend to give, not what we demand and have a right to. We
may get the crumbs, never the loaf. I have seen large and tempting
crumbs from a lavish table. And I have seen the eyes of our Pariahs--the
shame of Hinduism--brightening to see those heavy crumbs filling their
baskets. But the superior Hindu, who is filling the basket from a safe
distance, knows that they are unfit for his own consumption. And so we
in our turn may receive even Governorships which the real rulers no
longer require or which they cannot retain with safety for their
material interest--the political and material hold on India. It is time
we realised our true status.


A writer in the "Times of India," the Editor of that wonderful daily and
Mrs. Besant have all in their own manner condemned non-co-operation
conceived in connection with the Khilafat movement. All the three
writings naturally discuss many side issues which I shall omit for the
time being. I propose to answer two serious objections raised by the
writers. The sobriety with which they are stated entitles them to a
greater consideration than if they had been given in violent language.
In non-co-operation, the writers think, it would be difficult if not
impossible to avoid violence. Indeed violence, the "Times of India"
editorial says, has already commenced in that ostracism has been
resorted to in Calcutta and Delhi. Now I fear that ostracism to a
certain extent is impossible to avoid. I remember in South Africa in the
initial stages of the passive resistance campaign those who had fallen
away were ostracised. Ostracism is violent or peaceful in according to
the manner in which it is practised. A congregation may well refuse to
recite prayers after a priest who prizes his title above his honour. But
the ostracism will become violent if the individual life of a person is
made unbearable by insults innuendoes or abuse. The real danger of
violence lies in the people resorting to non-co-operation becoming
impatient and revengeful. This may happen, if, for instance, payment of
taxes is suddenly withdrawn or if pressure is put upon soldiers to lay
down their arms. I however do not fear any evil consequences, for the
simple reason that every responsible Mahomedan understands that
non-co-operation to be successful must be totally unattended with
violence. The other objection raised is that those who may give up their
service may have to starve. That is just a possibility but a remote one,
for the committee will certainly make due provision for those who may
suddenly find themselves out of employment. I propose however to examine
the whole of the difficult question much more fully in a future issue
and hope to show that if Indian-Mahomedan feeling is to be respected,
there is nothing left but non-co-operation if the decision arrived at
is adverse.


Mr. Montagu does not like the Khilafat agitation that is daily gathering
force. In answer to questions put in the House of Commons, he is
reported to have said that whilst he acknowledged that I had rendered
distinguished services to the country in the past, he could not look
upon my present attitude with equanimity and that it was not to be
expected that I could now be treated as leniently as I was during the
Rowlatt Act agitation. He added that he had every confidence in the
central and the local Governments, that they were carefully watching the
movement and that they had full power to deal with the situation.

This statement of Mr. Montagu has been regarded in some quarters as a
threat. It has even been considered to be a blank cheque for the
Government of India to re-establish the reign of terror if they chose.
It is certainly inconsistent with his desire to base the Government on
the goodwill of the people. At the same time if the Hunter Committee's
finding be true and if I was the cause of the disturbances last year, I
was undoubtedly treated with exceptional leniency, I admit too that my
activity this year is fraught with greater peril to the Empire as it is
being conducted to-day than was last year's activity. Non-co-operation
in itself is more harmless than civil disobedience, but in its effect it
is far more dangerous for the Government than civil disobedience.
Non-co-operation is intended so far to paralyse the Government, as to
compel justice from it. If it is carried to the extreme point, it can
bring the Government to a standstill.

A friend who has been listening to my speeches once asked me whether I
did not come under the sedition section of the Indian Penal Code. Though
I had not fully considered it, I told him that very probably I did and
that I could not plead 'not guilty' if I was charged under it. For I
must admit that I can pretend to no 'affection' for the present
Government. And my speeches are intended to create 'disaffection' such
that the people might consider it a shame to assist or co-operate with a
Government that had forfeited all title to confidence, respect
or support.

I draw no distinction between the Imperial and the Indian Government.
The latter has accepted, on the Khilafat, the policy imposed upon it by
the former. And in the Punjab case the former has endorsed the policy of
terrorism and emasculation of a brave people initiated by the latter.
British ministers have broken their pledged word and wantonly wounded
the feelings of the seventy million Mussulmans of India. Innocent men
and women were insulted by the insolent officers of the Punjab
Government. Their wrongs not only unrighted but the very officers who so
cruelly subjected them to barbarous humiliation retain office under the

When at Amritsar last year I pleaded with all the earnestness I could
command for co-operation with the Government and for response to the
wishes expressed in the Royal Proclamation; I did so because I honestly
believed that a new era was about to begin, and that the old spirit of
fear, distrust and consequent terrorism was about to give place to the
new spirit of respect, trust and good-will. I sincerely believed that
the Mussalman sentiment would be placated and that the officers that had
misbehaved during the Martial Law regime in the Punjab would be at least
dismissed and the people would be otherwise made to feel that a
Government that had always been found quick (and rightly) to punish
popular excesses would not fail to punish its agents' misdeeds. But to
my amazement and dismay I have discovered that the present
representatives of the Empire have become dishonest and unscrupulous.
They have no real regard for the wishes of the people of India and they
count Indian honour as of little consequence.

I can no longer retain affection for a Government so evilly manned as it
is now-a-days. And for me, it is humiliating to retain my freedom and be
a witness to the continuing wrong. Mr. Montagu however is certainly
right in threatening me with deprivation of my liberty if I persist in
endangering the existence of the Government. For that must be the result
if my activity bears fruit. My only regret is that inasmuch as Mr.
Montagu admits my past services, he might have perceived that there
must be something exceptionally bad in the Government if a well-wisher
like me could no longer give his affection to it. It was simpler to
insist on justice being done to the Mussulmans and to the Punjab than to
threaten me with punishment so that the injustice might be perpetuated.
Indeed I fully expect it will be found that even in promoting
disaffection towards an unjust Government I have rendered greater
services to the Empire than I am already credited with.

At the present moment, however, the duty of those who approve of my
activity is clear. They ought on no account to resent the deprivation of
my liberty, should the Government of India deem it to be their duty to
take it away. A citizen has no right to resist such restriction imposed
in accordance with the laws of the State to which he belongs. Much less
have those who sympathize with him. In my case there can be no question
of sympathy. For I deliberately oppose the Government to the extent of
trying to put its very existence in jeopardy. For my supporters,
therefore, it must be a moment of joy when I am imprisoned. It means the
beginning of success if only the supporters continue the policy for
which I stand. If the Government arrest me, they would do so in order to
stop the progress of non-co-operation which I preach. It follows that if
non-co-operation continues with unabated vigour, even after my arrest,
the Government must imprison others or grant the people's wish in order
to gain their co-operation. Any eruption of violence on the part of the
people even under provocation would end in disaster. Whether therefore
it is I or any one else who is arrested during the campaign, the first
condition of success is that there must be no resentment shown against
it. We cannot imperil the very existence of a Government and quarrel
with its attempt to save itself by punishing those who place it
in danger.


Dr. Sapru delivered before the Khilafat Conference at Allahabad an
impassioned address sympathising with the Mussulmans in their trouble
but dissuaded them from embarking on non-co-operation. He was frankly
unable to suggest a substitute but was emphatically of opinion that
whether there was a substitute or not non-co-operation was a remedy
worse than the disease. He said further that Mussulmans will be taking
upon their shoulders, a serious responsibility, if whilst they appealed
to the ignorant masses to join them, they could not appeal to the Indian
judges to resign and if they did they would not succeed.

I acknowledge the force of Dr. Sapru's last argument. At the back of
Dr. Sapru's mind is the fear that non-co-operation by the ignorant
people would lead to distress and chaos and would do no good. In my
opinion any non-co-operation is bound to do some good. Even the
Viceragal door-keeper saying, 'Please Sir, I can serve the Government no
longer because it has hurt my national honour' and resigning is a step
mightier and more effective than the mightiest speech declaiming against
the Government for its injustice.

Nevertheless it would be wrong to appeal to the door-keeper until one
has appealed to the highest in the land. And as I propose, if the
necessity arose, to ask the door-keepers of the Government to dissociate
themselves from an unjust Government I propose now to address, an appeal
to the Judges and the Executive Councillors to join the protest that is
rising from all over India against the double wrong done to India, on
the Khilafat and the Punjab question. In both, national honour
is involved.

I take it that these gentlemen have entered upon their high offices not
for the sake of emolument, nor I hope for the sake of fame, but for the
sake of serving their country. It was not for money, for they were
earning more than they do now. It must not be for fame, for they cannot
buy fame at the cost of national honour. The only consideration, that
can at the present moment keep them in office must be service of the

When the people have faith in the government, when it represents the
popular will, the judges and the executive officials possibly serve the
country. But when that government does not represent the will of the
people, when it supports dishonesty and terrorism, the judges and the
executive officials by retaining office become instrument of dishonesty
and terrorism. And the least therefore that these holders of high
offices can do is to cease to become agents of a dishonest and
terrorising government.

For the judges, the objection will be raised that they are above
politics, and so they are and should be. But the doctrine is true only
in so far us the government is on the whole for the benefit of the
people and at least represents the will of the majority. Not to take
part in politics means not to take sides. But when a whole country has
one mind, one will, when a whole country has been denied justice, it is
no longer a question of party politics, it is a matter of life and
death. It then becomes the duty of every citizen to refuse to serve a
government which misbehaves and flouts national wish. The judges are at
that moment bound to follow the nation if they are ultimately
its servants.

There remains another argument to be examined. It applies to both the
judges and the members of the executive. It will be urged that my appeal
could only be meant for the Indians and what good can it do by Indians
renouncing offices which have been won for the nation by hard struggle.
I wish that I could make an effective appeal to the English as well as
the Indians. But I confess that I have written with the mental
reservation that the appeal is addressed only to the Indians. I must
therefore examine the argument just stated. Whilst it is true that these
offices have been secured after a prolonged struggle, they are of use
not because of the struggle, but because they are intended to serve the
nation. The moment they cease to possess that quality, they become
useless and as in the present case harmful, no matter how hard-earned
and therefore valuable they may have been at the outset.

I would submit too to our distinguished countrymen who occupy high
offices that their giving up will bring the struggle to a speedy end and
would probably obviate the danger attendant upon the masses being called
upon to signify their disapproval by withdrawing co-operation. If the
titleholders gave up their titles, if the holders of honorary offices
gave up their appointment and if the high officials gave up their posts,
and the would-be councillors boycotted the councils, the Government
would quickly come to its senses and give effect to the people's will.
For the alternative before the Government then would be nothing but
despotic rule pure and simple. That would probably mean military
dictatorship. The world's opinion has advanced so far that Britain dare
not contemplate such dictatorship with equanimity. The taking of the
steps suggested by me will constitute the peacefullest revolution the
world has ever seen. Once the infallibility of non-co-operation is
realised, there is an end to all bloodshed and violence in any shape
or form.

Undoubtedly a cause must be grave to warrant the drastic method of
national non-co-operation. I do say that the affront such as has been
put upon Islam cannot be repeated for a century. Islam must rise now or
'be fallen' if not for ever, certainly for a century. And I cannot
imagine a graver wrong than the massacre of Jallianwalla and the
barbarity that followed it, the whitewash by the Hunter Committee, the
dispatch of the Government of India, Mr. Montagu's letter upholding the
Viceroy and the then Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab, the refusal to
remove officials who made of the lives of the Punjabis 'a hell' during
the Martial Law period. These act constitute a complete series of
continuing wrongs against India which if India has any sense of honour,
she must right at the sacrifice of all the material wealth she
possesses. If she does not, she will have bartered her soul for a 'mess
of pottage.'


   A representative of Madras Mail called on Mr. M.K. Gandhi at his
   temporary residence in the Pursewalkam High road for an interview on
   the subject of non-co-operation. Mr. Gandhi, who has come to Madras
   on a tour to some of the principal Muslim centres in Southern India,
   was busy with a number of workers discussing his programme; but he
   expressed his readiness to answer questions on the chief topic which
   is agitating Muslims and Hindus.

"After your experience of the Satyagraha agitation last year, Mr.
Gandhi, are you still hopeful and convinced of the wisdom of advising

"How do you consider conditions have altered since the Satyagraha
movement of last year?"--"I consider that people are better disciplined
now than they were before. In this I include even the masses who I have
had opportunities of seeing in large numbers in various parts of
the country."

"And you are satisfied that the masses understand the spirit of

"And that is why you are pressing on with the programme of
non-co-operation?"--"Yes. Moreover, the danger that attended the civil
disobedience part of Satyagraha does not apply to non-co-operation,
because in non-co-operation we are not taking up civil disobedience of
laws as a mass movement. The result hitherto has been most encouraging.
For instance, people in Sindh and Delhi in spite of the irritating
restrictions upon their liberty by the authorities have carried out the
Committee's instructions in regard to the Seditious Meetings
Proclamation and to the prohibition of posting placards on the walls
which we hold to be inoffensive but which the authorities consider to be

"What is the pressure which you expect to bring to bear on the
authorities if co-operation is withdrawn?"--"I believe, and everybody
must grant, that no Government can exist for a single moment without the
co-operation of the people, willing or forced, and if people suddenly
withdraw their co-operation in every detail, the Government will come to
a stand-still."

"But is there not a big 'If' in it?"--"Certainly there is."

"And how do you propose to succeed against the big 'If'?"--"In my plan
of campaign expediency has no room. If the Khilafat movement has really
permeated the masses and the classes, there must be adequate response
from the people."

"But are you not begging the question?"--"I am not begging the question,
because so far as the data before me go, I believe that the Muslims
keenly feel the Khilafat grievance. It remains to be seen whether their
feeling is intense enough to evoke in them the measure of sacrifice
adequate for successful non-co-operation."

"That is, your survey of the conditions, you think, justifies your
advising non-co-operation in the full conviction that you have behind
you the support of the vast masses of the Mussalman population?"--"Yes."

"This non-co-operation, you are satisfied, will extend to complete
severance of co-operation with the Government?"--No; nor is it at the
present moment my desire that it should. I am simply practising
non-co-operation to the extent that is necessary to make the Government
realise the depth of popular feeling in the matter and the
dissatisfaction with the Government that all that could be done has not
been done either by the Government of India or by the Imperial
Government, whether on the Khilafat question or on the "Punjab

"Do you Mr. Gandhi, realise that even amongst Mahomedans there are
sections of people who are not enthusiastic over non-co-operation
however much they may feel the wrong that has been done to their
community?"--"Yes. But their number is smaller than those who are
prepared to adopt non-co-operation."

"And yet does not the fact that there has not been an adequate response
to your appeal for resignation of titles and offices and for boycott of
elections of the Councils indicate that you may be placing more faith
in their strength of conviction than is warranted?"--"I think not; for
the reason that the stage has only just come into operation and our
people are always most cautious and slow to move. Moreover, the first
stage largely affects the uppermost strata of society, who represent a
microscopic minority though they are undoubtedly an influential body
of people."

"This upper class, you think, has sufficiently responded to your
appeal?"--"I am unable to say either one way or the other at present. I
shall be able to give a definite answer at the end of this month."...

"Do you think that without one's loyalty to the King and the Royal
Family being questioned, one can advocate non-co-operation in connection
with the Royal visit?" "Most decidedly; for the simple reason that if
there is any disloyalty about the proposed boycott of the Prince's
visit, it is disloyalty to the Government of the day and not to the
person of His Royal highness."

"What do you think is to be gained by promoting this boycott in
connection with the Royal visit?"--"Because I want to show that the
people of India are not in sympathy with the Government of the day and
that they strongly disapprove of the policy of the Government in regard
to the Punjab and Khilafat, and even in respect of other important
administrative measures. I consider that the visit of the Prince of
Wales is a singularly good opportunity to the people to show their
disapproval of the present Government. After all, the visit is
calculated to have tremendous political results. It is not to be a
non-political event, and seeing that the Government of India and the
Imperial Government want to make the visit a political event of first
class importance, namely, for the purpose of strengthening their hold
upon India, I for one, consider that it is the bounden duty of the
people to boycott the visit which is being engineered by the two
Governments in their own interest which at the present moment is totally
antagonistic to the people."

"Do you mean that you want this boycott promoted because you feel that
the strengthening of the hold upon India is not desirable in the best
interests of the country?"--"Yes. The strengthening of the hold of a
Government so wicked us the present one is not desirable for the best
interests of the people. Not that I want the bond between England and
India to become loosened for the sake of loosening it but I want that
bond to become strengthened only in so far as it adds to the welfare
of India."

"Do you think that non-co-operation and the non-boycott of the
Legislative Councils consistent?"--"No; because a person who takes up
the programme of non-co-operation cannot consistently stand for

"Is non-co-operation, in your opinion, an end in itself or a means to an
end, and if so, what is the end?" "It is a means to an end, the end
being to make the present Government just, whereas it has become mostly
unjust. Co-operation with a just Government is a duty; non-co-operation
with an unjust Government is equally a duty."

"Will you look with favour upon the proposal to enter the Councils and
to carry on either obstructive tactics or to decline to take the oath of
allegiance consistent with your non-co-operation?"--"No; as an accurate
student of non-co-operation, I consider that such a proposal is
inconsistent with the true spirit of non-co-operation. I have often said
that a Government really thrives on obstruction and so far as the
proposal not to take the oath of allegiance is concerned, I can really
see no meaning in it; it amounts to a useless waste of valuable time
and money."

"In other words, obstruction is no stage in non-co-operation?"

"Are you satisfied that all efforts at constitutional agitation have
been exhausted and that non-co-operation is the only course left us?" "I
do not consider non-co-operation to be unconstitutional remedies now
left open to us, non-co-operation is the only one left for us." "Do you
consider it constitutional to adopt it with a view merely to paralyse
Government?"--"Certainly, it is not unconstitutional, but a prudent man
will not take all the steps that are constitutional if they are
otherwise undesirable, nor do I advise that course. I am resorting to
non-co-operation in progressive stages because I want to evolve true
order out of untrue order. I am not going to take a single step in
non-co-operation unless I am satisfied that the country is ready for
that step, namely, non-co-operation will not be followed by anarchy or

"How will you satisfy yourself anarchy will not follow?"

"For instance, if I advise the police to lay down their arms, I shall
have satisfied myself that we are able by voluntary assistance to
protect ourselves against thieves and robbers. That was precisely what
was done in Lahore and Amritsar last year by the citizens by means of
volunteers when the Military and the police had withdrawn. Even where
Government had not taken such measures in a place, for want of adequate
force, I know people have successfully protected themselves."

"You have advised lawyers to non-co-operate by suspending their
practice. What is your experience? Has the lawyers' response to your
appeal encouraged you to hope that you will be able to carry through
all stages of non-co-operation with the help of such people?"

"I cannot say that a large number has yet responded to my appeal. It is
too early to say how many will respond. But I may say that I do not rely
merely upon the lawyer class or highly educated men to enable the
Committee to carry out all the stages of non-co-operation. My hope lies
more with the masses so far as the later stages of non-co-operation are

_August 1920_.


It is not without the greatest reluctance that I engage in a controversy
with so learned a leader like Sir Narayan Chandavarkar. But in view of
the fact that I am the author of the movement of non-co-operation, it
becomes my painful duty to state my views even though they are opposed
to those of the leaders whom I look upon with respect. I have just read
during my travels in Malabar Sir Narayan's rejoinder to my answer to the
Bombay manifesto against non-co-operation. I regret to have to say that
the rejoinder leaves me unconvinced. He and I seem to read the teachings
of the Bible, the Gita and the Koran from different standpoints or we
put different interpretations on them. We seem to understand the words
Ahimsa, politics and religion differently. I shall try my best to make
clear my meaning of the common terms and my reading of the different

At the outset let me assure Sir Narayan that I have not changed my views
on Ahimsa. I still believe that man not having been given the power of
creation does not possess the right of destroying the meanest creature
that lives. The prerogative of destruction belongs solely to the creator
of all that lives. I accept the interpretation of Ahimsa, namely, that
it is not merely a negative State of harmlessness, but it is a positive
state of love, of doing good even to the evil-doer. But it does not mean
helping the evil-doer to continue the wrong or tolerating it by passive
acquiescence. On the contrary love, the active state of Ahimsa, requires
you to resist the wrong-doer by dissociating yourself from him even
though it may offend him or injure him physically. Thus if my son lives
a life of shame, I may not help him to do so by continuing to support
him; on the contrary, my love for him requires me to withdraw all
support from him although it may mean even his death. And the same love
imposes on me the obligation of welcoming him to my bosom when he
repents. But I may not by physical force compel my son to become good.
That in my opinion is the moral of the story of the Prodigal Son.

Non-co-operation is not a passive state, it is an intensely active
state--more active than physical resistance or violence. Passive
resistance is a misnomer. Non-co-operation in the sense used by me must
be non-violent and therefore neither punitive nor vindictive nor based
on malice ill-will or hatred. It follows therefore that it would be sin
for me to serve General Dyer and co-operate with him to shoot innocent
men. But it will be an exercise of forgiveness or love for me to nurse
him back to life, if he was suffering from a physical malady. I cannot
use in this context the word co-operation as Sir Narayan would perhaps
use it. I would co-operate a thousand times with this Government to wean
it from its career of crime but I will not for a single moment
co-operate with it to continue that career. And I would be guilty of
wrong doing if I retained a title from it or "a service under it or
supported its law-courts or schools." Better for me a beggar's bowl
than the richest possession from hands stained with the blood of the
innocents of Jallianwala. Better by far a warrant of imprisonment than
honeyed words from those who have wantonly wounded the religious
sentiment of my seventy million brothers.

My reading of the Gita is diametrically opposed to Sir Narayan's. I do
not believe that the Gita teaches violence for doing good. It is
pre-eminently a description of the duel that goes on in our own hearts.
The divine author has used a historical incident for inculcating the
lesson of doing one's duty even at the peril of one's life. It
inculcates performance of duty irrespective of the consequences, for, we
mortals, limited by our physical frames, are incapable of controlling
actions save our own. The Gita distinguishes between the powers of light
and darkness and demonstrates their incompatibility.

Jesus, in my humble opinion, was a prince among politicians. He did
render unto Caesar that which was Caesar's. He gave the devil his due.
He ever shunned him and is reported never once to have yielded to his
incantations. The politics of his time consisted in securing the welfare
of the people by teaching them not to be seduced by the trinkets of the
priests and the pharisees. The latter then controlled and moulded the
life of the people. To-day the system of government is so devised as to
affect every department of our life. It threatens our very existence. If
therefore we want to conserve the welfare of the nation, we must
religiously interest ourselves in the doing of the governors and exert a
moral influence on them by insisting on their obeying the laws of
morality. General Dyer did produce a 'moral effect' by an act of
butchery. Those who are engaged in forwarding the movement of
non-co-operation, hope to produce a moral effect by a process of
self-denial, self-sacrifice and self-purification. It surprises me that
Sir Narayan should speak of General Dyer's massacre in the same breath
as acts of non-co-operation. I have done my best to understand his
meaning, but I am sorry to confess that I have failed.


I commend to the attention of the readers the thoughtful letter received
from Miss Anne Marie Peterson. Miss Peterson is a lady who has been in
India for some years and has closely followed Indian affairs. She is
about the sever her connection with her mission for the purpose of
giving herself to education that is truly national.

I have not given the letter in full. I have omitted all personal
references. But her argument has been left entirely untouched. The
letter was not meant to be printed. It was written just after my Vellore
speech. But it being intrinsically important, I asked the writer for her
permission, which she gladly gave, for printing it.

I publish it all the more gladly in that it enables me to show that the
movement of non-co-operation is neither anti-Christian nor anti-English
nor anti-European. It is a struggle between religion and irreligion,
powers of light and powers of darkness.

It is my firm opinion that Europe to-day represents not the spirit of
God or Christianity but the spirit of Satan. And Satan's successes are
the greatest when he appears with the name of God on his lips. Europe is
to-day only nominally Christian. In reality it is worshipping Mammon.
'It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a
rich man to enter the kingdom.' Thus really spoke Jesus Christ. His
so-called followers measure their moral progress by their material
possessions. The very national anthem of England is anti-Christian.
Jesus who asked his followers to love their enemies even as themselves,
could not have sung of his enemies, 'confound his enemies frustrate
their knavish tricks.' The last book that Dr. Wallace wrote set forth
his deliberate conviction that the much vaunted advance of science had
added not an inch to the moral stature of Europe. The last war however
has shown, as nothing else has, the Satanic nature of the civilization
that dominates Europe to day. Every canon of public morality has been
broken by the victors in the name of virtue. No lie has been considered
too foul to be uttered. The motive behind every crime is not religious
or spiritual but grossly material. But the Mussalmans and the Hindus who
are struggling against the Government have religion and honour as their
motive. Even the cruel assassination which has just shocked the country
is reported to have a religious motive behind it. It is certainly
necessary to purge religion of its excrescences, but it is equally
necessary to expose the hollowness of moral pretensions on the part of
those who prefer material wealth to moral gain. It is easier to wean an
ignorant fanatic from his error than a confirmed scoundrel from his

This however is no indictment against individuals or even nations.
Thousands of individual Europeans are rising above their environment. I
write of the tendency in Europe as reflected in her present leaders.
England through her leaders is insolently crushing Indian religious and
national sentiment under her heels. England under the false plea of
self-determination is trying to exploit the oil fields of Mesopotamia
which she is almost to leave because she has probably no choice. France
through her leaders is lending her name to training Cannibals as
soldiers and is shamelessly betraying her trust as a mandatory power by
trying to kill the spirit of the Syrians. President Wilson has thrown on
the scrap heap his precious fourteen points.

It is this combination of evil forces which India is really fighting
through non-violent non-cooperation. And those like Miss Peterson
whether Christian or European, who feel that this error must be
dethroned can exercise the privilege of doing so by joining the
non-co-operation movement. With the honour of Islam is bound up the
safety of religion itself and with the honour of India is bound up the
honour of every nation known to be weak.


   The following letter has been received by Mr. Gandhi from Miss Anne
   Marie Peterson of the Danish Mission in Madras:--

Dear Mr. Gandhi,

I cannot thank you enough for your kindness and the way in which you
received me and I feel that meeting more or less decided my future. I
have thrown myself at the feet of India. At the same time I know that in
Christ alone is my abode and I have no longing and no desire but to live
Him, my crucified Saviour, and reveal Him for those with whom I come in
contact. I just cling to his feet and pray with tears that I may not
disgrace him as we Christians have been doing by our behaviour in India.
We go on crucifying Christ while we long to proclaim the Power of His
resurrection by which He has conquered untruth and unrighteousness. If
we who bear His name were true to Him, we would never bow ourselves
before the Powers of this world, but we would always be on the side of
the poor, the suffering and the oppressed. But we are not and therefore
I feel myself under obligation and only to Christ but to India for His
sake at this time of momentous importance for her future.

Truly it matters little what I, a lonely and insignificant person, may
say or do. What is my protest against the common current, the race to
which I belong is taking and (what grieves me more), which the
missionary societies seem to follow? Even if a respectable number
protested it would not be of any use. Yet were I alone against the whole
world, I must follow my conscience and my God.

I therefore cannot but smile when I see people saying, you should have
awaited the decision of the National Congress before starting the
non-co-operation movement. You have a message for the country, and the
Congress is the voice of the nation--its servant and not its master. A
majority has no right simply because it is a majority.

But we must try to win the majority. And it is easy to see that now that
Congress is going to be with you. Would it have done so if you had kept
quiet and not lent your voice to the feelings of the people? Would the
Congress have known its mind? I think not.

I myself was in much doubt before I heard you. But you convinced me. Not
that I can feel much on the question of the Khilafat. I cannot. I can
see what service you are doing to India, if you can prevent the
Mahomedans from using the sword in order to take revenge and get their
rights. I can see that if you unite the Hindus and the Mahomedans, it
will be a master stroke. How I wish the Christian would also come
forward and unite with you for the sake of their country and the honour
not only of their Motherland but of Christ. I may not feel much for
Turkey, but I feel for India, and I can see she (India) has no other way
to protest against being trampled down and crushed than

I also want you to know that many in Denmark and all over the world,
yes, I am sure every true Christian, will feel with and be in sympathy
with India in the struggle which is now going on. God forbid that in the
struggle between might and right, truth and untruth, the spirit and the
flesh, there should be a division of races. There is not. The same
struggle is going on all over the world. What does it matter then that
we are a few? God is on our side.

Brute force often seems to get the upper hand but righteousness always
has and always shall conquer, be it even through much suffering, and
what may even appear to be a defeat. Christ conquered, when the world
crucified Him. Blessed are the meek; they shall inherit the earth.

When I read your speech given at Madras it struck me that it should be
printed as a pamphlet in English, Tamil, Hindustani and all the most
used languages and then spread to every nook and corner of India.

The non-co-operation movement once started must be worked so as to
become successful. If it is not, I dread to think of the consequences.
But you cannot expect it to win in a day or two. It must take time and
you will not despair if you do not reach your goal in a hurry. For those
who have faith there is no haste.

Now for the withdrawal of the children and students from Government
schools, I think, it a most important step. Taking the Government help
(even if it be your money they pay you back), we must submit to its
scheme, its rules and regulation. India and we who love her have come to
the conclusion that the education the foreign Government has given you
is not healthy for India and can certainly never make for her real
growth. This movement would lead to a spontaneous rise of national
schools. Let them be a few but let them spring up through
self-sacrifice. Only by indigenous education can India be truly
uplifted. Why this appeals so much to me is perhaps because I belong to
the part of the Danish people who started their own independent,
indigenous national schools. The Danish Free Schools and
Folk-High-Schools, of which you may have heard, were started against
the opposition and persecution of the State. The organisers won and
thus have regenerated the nation. With my truly heartfelt thanks and
prayers for you.

I am,
Your sincerely,
Anne Marie.


Perhaps the best way of answering the fears and criticism as to
non-co-operation is to elaborate more fully the scheme of
non-co-operation. The critics seem to imagine that the organisers
propose to give effect to the whole scheme at once. The fact however is
that the organisers have fixed definite, progressive four stages. The
first is the giving up of titles and resignation of honorary posts. If
there is no response or if the response received is not effective,
recourse will be had to the second stage. The second stage involves much
previous arrangement. Certainly not a single servant will be called out
unless he is either capable of supporting himself and his dependents or
the Khilafat Committee is able to bear the burden. All the classes of
servants will not be called out at once and never will any pressure be
put upon a single servant to withdraw himself from the Government
service. Nor will a single private employee be touched for the simple
reason that the movement is not anti-English. It is not even
anti-Government. Co-operation is to be withdrawn because the people must
not be party to a wrong--a broken pledge--a violation of deep religious
sentiment. Naturally, the movement will receive a check, if there is any
undue influence brought to bear upon any Government servant or if any
violence is used or countenanced by any member of the Khilafat
Committee. The second stage must be entirely successful, if the response
is at all on an adequate scale. For no Government--much less the Indian
Government--can subsist if the people cease to serve it. The withdrawal
therefore of the police and the military--the third stage--is a distant
goal. The organisers however wanted to be fair, open and above
suspicion. They did not want to keep back from the Government or the
public a single step they had in contemplation even as a remote
contingency. The fourth, _i.e.,_ suspension of taxes is still more
remote. The organisers recognise that suspension of general taxation is
fraught with the greatest danger. It is likely to bring a sensitive
class in conflict with the police. They are therefore not likely to
embark upon it, unless they can do so with the assurance that there will
be no violence offered by the people.

I admit as I have already done that non-co-operation is not unattended
with risk, but the risk of supineness in the face of a grave issue is
infinitely greater than the danger of violence ensuing form organizing
non-co-operation. To do nothing is to invite violence for a certainty.

It is easy enough to pass resolutions or write articles condemning
non-co-operation. But it is no easy task to restrain the fury of a
people incensed by a deep sense of wrong. I urge those who talk or work
against non-co-operation to descend from their chairs and go down to the
people, learn their feelings and write, if they have the heart against
non-co-operation. They will find, as I have found that the only way to
avoid violence is to enable them to give such expression to their
feelings as to compel redress. I have found nothing save
non-co-operation. It is logical and harmless. It is the inherent right
of a subject to refuse to assist a Government that will not listen
to him.

Non-co-operation as a voluntary movement can only succeed, if the
feeling is genuine and strong enough to make people suffer to the
utmost. If the religious sentiment of the Mahomedans is deeply hurt and
if the Hindus entertain neighbourly regard towards their Muslim
brethren, they will both count no cost too great for achieving the end.
Non-co-operation will not only be an effective remedy but will also be
an effective test of the sincerity of the Muslim claim and the Hindu
profession of friendship.

There is however one formidable argument urged by friends against my
joining the Khilafat movement. They say that it ill-becomes me, a friend
of the English and an admirer of the British constitution, to join hands
with those who are to-day filled with nothing but ill-will against the
English. I am sorry to have to confess that the ordinary Mahomedan
entertains to-day no affection for Englishmen. He considers, not without
some cause, that they have not played the game. But if I am friendly
towards Englishmen, I am no less so towards my countrymen, the
Mahomedans. And as such they have a greater claim upon my attention than
Englishmen. My personal religion however enables me to serve my
countrymen without hurting Englishmen or for that matter anybody else.
What I am not prepared to do to my blood-brother I would not do to an
Englishman, I would not injure him to gain a kingdom. But I would
withdraw co-operation from him if it becomes necessary as I had
withdrawn from my own brother (now deceased) when it became necessary. I
serve the Empire by refusing to partake in its wrong. William Stead
offered public prayers for British reverses at the time of the Boer war
because he considered that the nation to which he belonged was engaged
in an unrighteous war. The present Prime Minister risked his life in
opposing that war and did everything he could to obstruct his own
Government in its prosecution. And to-day if I have thrown in my lot
with the Mahomedans, a large number of whom, bear no friendly feelings
towards the British, I have done so frankly as a friend of the British
and with the object of gaining justice and of thereby showing the
capacity of the British constitution to respond to every honest
determination when it is coupled with suffering, I hope by my 'alliance'
with the Mahomedans to achieve a threefold end--to obtain justice in the
face of odds with the method of Satyagrah and to show its efficacy over
all other methods, to secure Mahomedan friendship for the Hindus and
thereby internal peace also, and last but not least to transform
ill-will into affection for the British and their constitution which in
spite of the imperfections weathered many a storm. I may fail in
achieving any of the ends. I can but attempt. God alone can grant
success. It will not be denied that the ends are all worthy. I invite
Hindus and Englishman to join me in a full-hearted manner in shouldering
the burden the Mahomedans of India are carrying. Theirs is admittedly a
just fight. The Viceroy, the Secretary of State, the Maharaja of
Bikuner and Lord Sinha have testified to it. Time has arrived to make
good the testimony. People with a just cause are never satisfied with a
mere protest. They have been known to die for it. Are a high-spirited
people like the Mahomedans expected to do less?


   Addressing a huge concourse of people of the city of Madras Hindus
   and Mahomedans numbering over 50,000, assembled on the South Beach
   opposite to the Presidency College, Madras, on the 12th August 1920,
   Mahatma Gandhi spoke as follows:--

Mr. Chairman and Friends,--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 (loud and prolonged cheers). I would
ask this great assembly to listen to me in silence. I have come to make
an appeal to your hearts 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 realise 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 death-bed 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 act
if 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 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 1983 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.


What is this non-co-operation, about which you have heard so much, and
why do we want to offer this non-co-operation? I wish to go for the time
being into the why. here are two things before this country: the first
and the foremost is the Khilafat question. On this the heart of the
Mussalmans of India has become lascerated. 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 Moslem India on the strength of which, the consideration that
was expected by the British nation was exacted, have been broken, and
the great religion of Islam has been placed in danger. The Mussalmans
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 Mussalman 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
Mussalmans say frankly openly and honourably 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 neighbourly duty by their Mussalman countrymen,
and if they do, they have an opportunity of a lifetime which will not
occur for another hundred years, to show their good-will, fellowship and
friendship and to prove what they have been saying for all these long
years that the Mussalman 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 back ground is this great religious feeling,
you cannot do otherwise than help the Mussalman 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 Mussalmans have accepted; and it
was when they saw that they could accept the proferred aid of the
Hindus, that they could always justify the cause and the means before
the whole world, that they decided to accept the proferred hand of
fellowship. It is then for the Hindus and Mahomedans 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, she still knows how to die for her religion and for her

That is the Khilafat in a nut-shell; 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
Rowlatt 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 know 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 measure 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 and
unanswerable method of non-co-operation.


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 recognises 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
jungles 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 Yagna and
Kurbani,--I cling to that doctrine and I shall cling to it for ever,--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 non-violence as a
weapon of the weak, I believe in the doctrine of non-violence 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 that 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 his own countrymen? Is
it unconstitutional for me to go to the 'krishan,' 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 7 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
Mohamedans 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-co-operate 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 anti any Government;
but I am anti-untruth--anti-humbug and anti-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 bended 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 Mussalman sentiment
that they would do full justice in the matter of the Punjab atrocities;
and therefore, I said:--let us return good-will 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 to-day that faith having gone and
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 paralyse the mightiest
Government on earth. That is what I stand for to-day. Until we have
wrung justice, and until we have wrung 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-co-operation 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 mouth piece 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 Mussalman 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 Mussalmans 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 Mussalmans to stand single handed
and fight rather than yield to the attempted dishonour to their
religion. It is therefore given to the Mussalmans 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 wait 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.


Among the details of non-co-operation I have placed in the foremost rank
the boycott of the councils. Friends have quarrelled 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, 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 method 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. To-day 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 Greek but especially beware of them when they
bring gifts to you." To-day 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 council 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 amongst 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 any one 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.


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 to-day 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 paralysing the activity of the Government I know
that the Government always look 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 on operation 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.


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 Mahomodans 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.


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 honour bestowed
by the Government? They were at one time badges of honours when we
believed that national honour was safe in their hands. But now they are
no longer badges of honour but badges of dishonour and disgrace when we
really believe that we cannot get justice from this Government. Every
title holder holds his titles 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 Mahomedan 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 realise 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.


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 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 that British connection.
If I have to let the British people go and import temporary disorder and
dislocation of national business, I will 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 suggest the boycott, not of His Royal Highness the
principle of Wales, but of boycott of a visit engineered by 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, earthy, a common gardener man as much as
any one of you, probably much more than you are. 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 most fiery 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-co-operation is the duty not merely of the saint but it
is the duty of every ordinary citizen, who not know much, not caring to
know much but wants to perform his ordinary household functions. The
people of Europe touch even their masses, the poor people the doctrine
of the sword. But the Rishis of India, those who have held the tradition
of India have preached to the masses of India this doctrine, not of the
sword, not of violence but of suffering, of self-suffering. And unless
you and I am prepared to go through this primary lesson we are not
ready even to offer the sword and that is the lesson my brother Shaukal
Ali has imbibed to teach and that is why he to-day 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 their 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.


   Mahatma Gandhi made the following speech at Trichinopoly on the 18th
   August 1920:--

I think 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. Kasturiranga Iyongar'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 save 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 blessings 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 Mussalman brother as a brother who has a just cause
which he wishes to vindicate, to throw in his lot with his Mussalman
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--who 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 will become totally irresistible. The first
advantage of going to the Councils must be good-will on the part of the
rulers. It is absolutely lacking. In the place of good-will you have got
nothing but injustice but I must move on.


I come now to the second objection of Mr. Kasturiranga Iyengar with
reference to the suspension by lawyers of their practice. Milk is good
in itself but it comes 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-co-operation, 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 possess 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 the evolution a farce.

       *       *       *       *       *

We have had a great lesson in non-co-operation and co-operation. 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 in 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 fall 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 co-operation of man, woman and
child. Everybody believes and knows that this Government of our exists
only by the co-operation of the people and not by the force of arms it
can wield and everyman 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 form the Englishmen themselves. Every one
who has studied English history knows 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 an 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 stops 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 low process. The same may be said
of the steps that I have ventured to suggest, I know, but boycott of
goods in conceived as a punishment and the 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 nations liberty.


I am most anxious for my nation, for my Mussalman 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 be
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 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 sceptre form 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 to-day by every man, woman
and child and those who feel 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
non-co-operation and begin your operations even from to-morrow, if you
have not done so already. You can surrender all your titles to-morrow
all the lawyers may surrender their practice to-morrow; 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 layers will kindly do that, you
will find that there is no difficulty in settling your disputes by
private arbitration. You can nationalise your schools from to-morrow 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 to-morrow if you have one will, one determination
and love for your country, love for the honour of your country and
religion. (Loud and prolonged cheers.)


Mr. Chairman and friends.--On behalf of my brother Shaukut Ali and
myself I wish to thank you most sincerely for the warm welcome you have
extended to us. Before I begin to explain the purpose of our mission I
have to give you the information that Pir Mahboob Shah who was being
tried in Sindh for sedition has been sentenced to two years' simple
imprisonment. I do not know exactly what the offence was with which the
Pir was charged. I do not know whether the words attributed to him were
ever spoken by him. But I do know that the Pirsaheb declined to offer
any defence and with perfect resignation he has accepted his penalty.
For me it is a matter of sincere pleasure that the Pirsaheb who
exercises great influence over his followers has understood the spirit
of the struggle upon which we have embarked. It is not by resisting the
authority of Government that we expect to succeed in the great task
before us. But I do expect that we shall succeed if we understand the
spirit of non-co-operation. The Lieutenant-Governor of Burma himself has
told us that the British retain their hold on India not by the force of
arms but by the force of co-operation of the people. Thus he has given
us the remedy for any wrong that the Government may do to the people,
whether knowingly or unknowingly. And so long as we co-operate with the
Government, so long as we support that Government, we become to that
extent sharers in the wrong. I admit that in ordinary circumstances a
wise subject will tolerate the wrongs of a Government, but a wise
subject never tolerates a wrong that a Government imposes on the
declared will of a people. And I venture to submit to this great meeting
that the Government of India and the Imperial Government have done a
double wrong to India, and if we are a nation of self-respecting people
conscious of its dignity, conscious of its right, it is not just and
proper that we should stand the double humiliation that the Government
has heaped upon us. By shaping and by becoming a predominant partner in
the peace terms imposed on the helpless Sultan of Turkey, the Imperial
Government have intentionally flouted the cherished sentiment of the
Mussalman subjects of the Empire. The present Prime Minister gave a
deliberate pledge after consultation with his colleagues when it was
necessary for him to conciliate the Mussalmans of India. I claim to have
studied this Khilafat question in a special manner. I claim to
understand the Mussalman feeling on the Khilafat question and I am here
to declare for the tenth time that on the Khilafat matter the Government
has wounded the Mussalman sentiment as they had never done before. And I
say without fear of contradiction that if the Mussalmans of India had
not exercised great self-restraint and if there was not the gospel of
non-co-operation preached to them and if they had not accepted it, there
would have been bloodshed in India by this time. I am free to confess
that spilling of blood would not have availed their cause. But a man
who is in a state of rage whose heart has become lacerated does not
count the cost of his action. So much for the Khilafat wrong.

I propose to take you for a minute to the Punjab, the northern end of
India. And what have both Governments done for the Punjab? I am free to
confess again that the crowds in Amritsar went mad for a moment. They
were goaded to madness by a wicked administration. But no madness on the
part of a people can justify the shedding of innocent blood, and what
have they paid for it? I venture to submit that no civilised Government
could ever have made the people pay the penalty and retribution that
they have paid. Innocent men were tried through mock-tribunals and
imprisoned for life. Amnesty granted to them after; I count of no
consequence. Innocent, unarmed men, who knew nothing of what was to
happen, were butchered in cold blood without the slightest notice.
Modesty of women in Manianwalla, women who had done no wrong to any
individual, was outraged by insolent officers. I want you to understand
what I mean by outrage of their modesty. Their veils were opened with
his stick by an officer. Men who were declared to be utterly innocent by
the Hunter Committee were made to crawl on their bellies. And all these
wrongs totally undeserved remain unavenged. If it was the duty of the
Government of India to punish those who were guilty of incendiarism and
murder, as I hold it was their duty, it was doubly their duty to punish
officers who insulted and oppressed innocent people. But in the face of
these official wrongs we have the debate in the house of lords
supporting official terrorism, it is this double wrong, the affront to
Islam and the injury to the manhood of the Punjab, that we feel bound to
wipe out by non-co-operation. We have prayed, petitioned, agitated, we
have passed resolutions. Mr. Mahomed Ali supported by his friends is now
waiting on the British public. He has pleaded the cause of Islam in a
most manful manner, but his pleading has fallen on deaf ears and we have
his word for it that whilst France and Italy have shown great sympathy
for the cause of Islam, it is the British Ministers who have shown no
sympathy. This shows which way the British Ministers and the present
holders of office in India mean to deal by the people. There is no
goodwill, there is no desire to placate the people of India. The people
of India must therefore have a remedy to redress the double wrong. The
method of the west is violence. Wherever the people of the west have
felt a wrong either justly or unjustly, they have rebelled and shed
blood. As I have said in my letter to the Viceroy of India, half of
India does not believe in the remedy of violence. The other half is too
weak to offer it. But the whole of India is deeply hurt and stirred by
this wrong, and it is for that reason that I have suggested to the
people of India the remedy of non-co-operation. I consider it perfectly
harmless, absolutely constitutional and yet perfectly efficacious. It is
a remedy in which, if it is properly adopted, victory is certain, and it
is the age-old remedy of self-sacrifice. Are the Mussalmans of India who
feel the great wrong done to Islam ready to make an adequate
self-sacrifice? All the scriptures of the world teach us that there can
be no compromise between justice and injustice. Co-operation on the part
of a justice-loving man with an unjust man is a crime. And if we desire
to compel this great Government to the will of the people, as we must,
we must adopt this great remedy of non-co-operation. And if the
Mussalmans of India offer non-co-operation to Government in order to
secure justice in the Khilafat matter, I believe it is duty of the
Hindus to help them so long as their moans are just. I consider the
eternal friendship between the Hindus and Mussalmans is more important
than the British connection. I would prefer any day anarchy and chaos in
India to an armed peace brought about by the bayonet between the Hindus
and Mussalmans. I have therefore ventured to suggest to my Hindu
brethren that if they wanted to live at peace with Mussalmans, there is
an opportunity which is not going to recur for the next hundred years.
And I venture to assure you that if the Government of India and the
Imperial Government come to know that there is a determination on the
part of the people to redress this double wrong they would not hesitate
to do what is needed. But in the Mussalmans of India will have to take
the lead in the matter. You will have to commence the first stage of
non-co-operation in right earnest. And if you may not help this
Government, you may not receive help from it. Titles which were the
other day titles of honour are to-day in my opinion badges of our
disgrace. We must therefore surrender all titles of honour, all honorary
offices. It will constitute an emphatic demonstration of the disapproval
by the leaders of the people of the acts of the Government. Lawyers must
suspend their practice and must resist the power of the Government which
has chosen to flout public opinion. Nor may we receive instruction from
schools controlled by Government and aided by it. Emptying of the
schools will constitute a demonstration of the will of the middle class
of India. It is far better for the nation even to neglect the literary
instruction of the children than to co-operate with a Government that
has striven to maintain an injustice and untruth on the Khilafat and
Punjab matters. Similarly have I ventured to suggest a complete boycott
of reformed councils. That will be an emphatic declaration of the part
of the representatives of the people that they do not desire to
associate with the Government so long as the two wrongs continue. We
must equally decline to offer ourselves as recruits for the police or
the military. It is impossible for us to go to Mesopotamia or to offer
to police that country or to offer military assistance and to help the
Government in that blood guiltiness. The last plank in the first stage is
Swadeshi. Swadeshi is intended not so much to bring pressure upon the
Government as to demonstrate the capacity for sacrifice on the part of
the men and women of India. When one-fourth of India has its religion at
stake and when the whole of India has its honour at stake, we can be in
no mood to bedeck ourselves with French calico or silks from Japan. We
must resolve to be satisfied with cloth woven by the humble weavers of
India in their own cottages out of yarn spun by their sisters in their
own homes. When a hundred years ago our tastes were not debased and we
were not lured by all the fineries from the foreign countries, we were
satisfied with the cloth produced by the men and women in India, and if
I could but in a moment revolutionize the tastes of India and make it
return to its original simplicity, I assure you that the Gods would
descent to rejoice at the great act of renunciation. That is the first
stage in non-co-operation. I hope it is as easy for you as it is easy
for me to see that if India is capable of taking the first step in
anything like a full measure that step will bring the redress we want. I
therefore do not intend to take you to the other stages of
non-co-operation. I would like you to rivet your attention upon the
plans in the first stage. You will have noticed that but two things are
necessary in going through the first stage: (1) Prefect spirit of
non-violence is indispensable for non-co-operation, (2) only a little
self-sacrifice, I pray to God that He will give the people of India
sufficient courage and wisdom and patience to go through this experiment
of non-co-operation. I think you for the great reception that you have
given us. And I also thank you for the great patience and exemplary
silence with which you have listened to my remarks.

_August_ 1920.


Mr. Chairman and friends,--To my brother Shaukat Ali and me it was a
pleasure to go through this beautiful garden of India. The great
reception that you gave us this afternoon, and this great assembly are
most welcome to us, if they are a demonstration of your sympathy with
the cause which you have the honour to represent. I assure you that we
have not undertaken this incessant travelling in order to have
receptions and addresses, no matter how cordial they may be. But we have
undertaken this travelling throughout the length and breadth of this
dear Motherland to place before you the position that faces us to-day.
It is our privilege, as it is our duty, to place that position before
the country and let her make the choice.

Throughout our tour we have received many addresses, but in my humble
opinion no address was more truly worded than the address that was
presented to us at Kasargod. It addressed both of us as 'dear revered
brothers.' I am unable to accept the second adjective 'revered.' The
word 'dear' is dear to me I must confess. But dearer than that is the
expression 'brothers.' The signatories to that address recognized the
true significance of this travel. No blood brothers can possibly be more
intimately related, can possibly be more united in one purpose, one aim
than my brother Shaukat Ali and I. And I considered it a proud privilege
and honour to be addressed as blood brother to Shaukat Ali. The contents
of that address were as equally significant. It stated that in our
united work was represented the essence of the unity between the
Mussalmans and Hindus in India. If we two cannot represent that very
desirable unity, if we two cannot cement the relation between the two
communities, I do not know who can. Then without any rhetoric and
without any flowery language the address went on to describe the
inwardness of the Punjab and the Khilafat struggle; and then in simple
and beautiful language it described the spiritual significance of
Satyagrah and Non-co-operation. This was followed by a frank and simple
promise. Although the signatories to the address realised the momentous
nature of the struggle on which we have embarked, and although they
sympathise with the struggle with their whole heart, they wound up by
saying that even if they could not follow non-co-operation in all its
details, they would do as much as they could to help the struggle. And
lastly, in eloquent, and true language, they said 'if we cannot rise
equal to the occasion it will not be due to want of effort but to want
of ability.' I can desire no better address, no better promise, and if
you, the citizens of Mangalore, can come up to the level of the
signatories, and give us just the assurance that you consider the
struggle to be right and that it commands your entire approval, I am
certain you will make all sacrifice that lies in your power. For we are
face to face with a peril greater than plagues, greater than influenza,
greater than earthquakes and mighty floods, which sometimes overwhelm
this land. These physical calamities can rob us of so many Indian
bodies. But the calamity that has at the present moment overtaken India
touches the religious honour of a fourth of her children and the
self-respect of the whole nation. The Khilafat wrong affects the
Mussalmans of India, and the Punjab calamity very nearly overwhelms the
manhood of India. Shall we in the face of this danger be weak or rise to
our full height. The remedy for both the wrongs is the spiritual solvent
of non-co-operation. I call it a spiritual weapon, because it demands
discipline and sacrifice from us. It demands sacrifice from every
individual irrespective of the rest. And the promise that is behind this
performance of duty, the promise given by every religion that I have
studied is sure and certain. It is that there is no spotless sacrifice
that has been yet offered on earth, which has not carried with it its
absolute adequate reward. It is a spiritual weapon, because it waits for
no mandate from anybody except one's own conscience. It is a spiritual
weapon, because it brings out the best in the nation and it absolutely
satisfies individual honour if a single individual takes it, and it will
satisfy national honour if the whole nation takes it up. And therefore
it is that I have called non-co-operation in opposition to the opinion
of many of my distinguished countrymen and leaders--a weapon that is
infallible and absolutely practicable. It is infallible and practicable,
because it satisfies the demands of individual conscience. God above
cannot, will not expect Maulana Shaukat Ali to do more than he has been
doing, for he has surrendered and placed at the disposal of God whom he
believes to be the Almighty ruler of everyone, he has delivered all in
the service of God. And we stand before the citizens of Mangalore and
ask them to make their choice either to accept this precious gift that
we lay at their feet or to reject it. And after having listened to my
message if you come to the come to the conclusion that you have no other
remedy than non-co-operation for the conservation of Islam and the
honour of India, you will accept that remedy. I ask you not to be
confused by so many bewildering issues that are placed before you, nor
to be shaken from your purpose because you see divided counsels amongst
your leaders. This is one of the necessary limitations of any spiritual
or any other struggle that has ever been fought on this earth. It is
because it comes so suddenly that it confuses the mind if the heart is
not tuned properly. And we would be perfect human beings on this earth
if in all of us was found absolutely perfect correspondence between the
mind and the heart. But those of you who have been following the
newspaper controversy, will find that no matter what division of opinion
exists amongst our journals and leaders there is unanimity that the
remedy is efficacious if it can be kept free from violence, and if it is
adopted on a large scale. I admit the difficulty the virtue however lies
in surmounting it. We cannot possibly combine violence with a spiritual
weapon like non-co-operation. We do not offer spotless sacrifice if we
take the lives of others in offering our own. Absolute freedom from
violence is therefore it condition precedent to non-co-operation. But I
have faith in my country to know that when it has assimilated the
principle of the doctrine In the fullest extent, it will respond to it.
And in no case will India make any headway whatsoever until she has
learnt the lesson of self-sacrifice. Even if this country were to take
up the doctrine of the sword, which God forbid, it will have to learn
the lesson of self-sacrifice. The second difficulty suggested is the
want of solidarity of the nation. I accept it too. But that difficulty I
have already answered by saying that it is a remedy that can be taken up
by individuals for individual and by the nation for national
satisfaction; and therefore even if the whole nation does not take up
non-co-operation, the individual successes, which may be obtained by
individuals taking up non-co-operation will stand to their own credit as
of the nation to which they belong.

The first stage in my humble opinion is incredibly easy inasmuch as it
does not involve any very great sacrifice. If your Khan bahadurs and
other title-holders were to renounce their titles I venture to submit
that whilst the renunciation will stand to the credit and honour of the
nation it will involve a little or no sacrifice. On the contrary, they
will not only have surrendered no earthly riches but they will have
gained the applause of the nation. Let us see what it means, this first
step. The able editor of _Hindu_, Mr. Kastariranga Iyengar, and almost
every journalist in the country are agreed that the renunciation of
titles is a necessary and a desirable step. And if these chosen people
of the Government were without exception to surrender their titles to
Government giving notice that the heart of India is doubly wounded in
that the honour of India and of muslim religion is at stake and that
therefore they can no longer retain their titles, I venture to suggest,
that this their step which costs not a single penny either to them or to
the nation will be an effective demonstration of the national will.

Take the second step or the second item of non-co-operation. I know
there is strong opposition to the boycott of councils. The opposition
when you begin to analyse it means not that the step is faulty or that
it is not likely to succeed, but it is due to the belief that the whole
country will not respond to it and that the Moderates will steal into
the councils. I ask the citizens of Mangalore to dispel that fear from
your hearts. United the voters of Mangalore can make it impossible for
either a moderate or an extremist or any other form of leader to enter
the councils as your representative. This step involves no sacrifice of
money, no sacrifice of honour but the gaining of prestige for the whole
nation. And I venture to suggest to you that this one step alone if it
is taken with any degree of unanimity even by the extremists can bring
about the desired relief, but if all do not respond the individual need
not be afraid. He at least will have laid the foundation for true self
progress, let him have the comfort that he at least has washed his hands
clean of the guilt of the Government.

Then I come to the members of the profession which one time I used to
carry on. I have ventured to ask the lawyers of India to suspend their
practice and withdraw their support from a Government which no longer
stands for justice, pure and unadulterated, for the nation. And the step
is good for the individual lawyer who takes it and is good for the
nation if all the lawyers take it.

And so for the Government and the Government aided schools, I must
confess that I cannot reconcile my conscience to my children going to
Government schools and to the programme of non-co-operation is intended
to withdraw all support from Government, and to decline all help
from it.

I will not tax your patience by taking you through the other items of
non-co-operation important as they are. But I have ventured to place
before you four very important and forcible steps any one of which if
fully taken up contains in it possibilities of success. Swadeshi is
preached as an item of non-co-operation, as a demonstration of the
spirit of sacrifice, and it is an item which every man, woman and child
can take up.

_August_ 1920.


As I said this morning one essential condition for the progress of India
is Hindu-Muslim Unity. I understand that there was a little bit of
bickering between Hindus and Mussalmans to-day in Bezwada. My brother
Maulana Shaukat Ali adjusted the dispute between the two communities and
he illustrated in his own person the entire efficacy of one item in the
first stage of Non-co-operation. He sat without any vakils appearing
before him for either parties to arbitrate on the dispute between them.
He required no postponement for the consideration of the question from
time to time. His fees consisted in a broken lead pencil. That is what
we should do, if all the lawyers suspended practice and set up
arbitration for the settlement of private disputes. But why was there
any quarrel at all? It is laughable in the extreme when you come to
think of it. Because the Hindus seem to have played music whilst passing
the mosque. I think it was improper for them to do so. Hindu Moslem
Unity does not mean that Hindus should cease to respect the prejudices
and sentiments cherished by Mussalmans. And as this question of music
has given rise to many a quarrel between the two communities it behoves
the Hindus, if they want to cultivate true Hindu-Moslem Unity, to
refrain from acts which they know injure the sentiments of their
Mussalman brethren. We may not take undue advantage of the great spirit
of toleration that is developing in Mussalmans and do things likely to
irritate them. It is never a matter of principle for a Hindu procession
to continue playing music before mosques. And now that we desire
voluntarily to respect Mussalman sentiment, we should be doubly careful
at a time when Hindus are offering assistance to Mussalmans in their
troubles. That assistance should be given in all humility and without
any arrogation of rights. To my Mussalman brethren I would say that it
would become their dignity to restrain themselves and not feel irritated
when any Hindu had done anything to irritate their religious sentiment.
But in any event, you have today presented to you a remedy for the
settlement of any such issue. We must settle our disputes by arbitration
as was done this after-noon. You cannot always get a Moulana Shankat
Ali, exercising unrivalled influence on the community. But we can always
get people enough in our own villages, towns and districts who exercise
influence over such villages and towns and command the confidence of
both the communities. The offended party should consider it its duty to
approach them and not to take the law in its own hands.

It gives me much pleasure to announce to you that, Mr. Kaleswar Rao has
consented to refrain from standing for election to the new Legislative
Councils. You will be also pleased to know that Mr. Gulam Nohiuddin has
resigned his Honorary Magistrateship, I hope that both these patriots
will not consider that they have done their last duty by their acts of
renunciation, but I hope they will regard their acts as a prelude to
acts of greater purpose and greater energy and I hope they will take in
hand the work of educating the electorate in their districts regarding
boycott of councils. I have said elsewhere that never for another
century will India be faced with a conjunction of events that faces it
to-day. The cloud that has descended upon Islam has solidified the
Moslem world as nothing else could have. It has awakened the men and
women of Mussulman India from their deep sleep. Inasmuch as a single
Panjabi was made to crawl on his belly in the famous street of Amitsar,
I hold that the whole of was made to crawl on its belly. And if we want
to straighten up ourselves from that crawling position and stand erect
before the whole world, it requires, a tremendous effort. H.E. the
Viceroy in his Viceregal pronouncement at the opening of the Council was
pleased to say that he did not desire to make any remarks on the Punjab
events. He treated them as a closed chapter and referred us to the
future verdict of history. I venture to tell you the citizens of Bezwada
that India will have deserved to crawl in that lane if she accepts this
pronouncement as the final answer, and if we want to stand erect before
the whole world, it is impossible for a single child, man or woman in
India to rest until fullest reparation has been done for the Punjab
wrong. Similarly with reference to the Khilafat grievance the Mussalmans
of India in my humble opinion will forfeit all title to consider
themselves the followers of the great Prophet in whose name they recite
the Kalama, day in and day out, they will forfeit their title if they do
not put their shoulders to the wheel and lift this cloud that is hanging
on them. But we shall make a serious blunder. India will commit suicide,
if we do not understand and appreciate the forces that are arrayed
against us. We have got to face a mighty Government with all its power
ranged against us. This composed of men who are able, courageous,
capable of making sacrifices. It is a Government which does not scruple
to use means, fair or foul, in order to gain its end. No craft is above
that Government. It resorts to frightfulness, terrorism. It resorts to
bribery, in the shape of titles, honour and high offices. It administers
opiates in the shape of Reforms. In essence then it is an autocracy
double distilled in the guise of democracy. The greatest gift of a
crafty cunning man are worthless so long as cunning resides in his
heart. It is a Government representing a civilisation which is purely
material and godless. I have given to you these qualities of this
government in order not to excite your angry passions, but in order that
you may appreciate the forces that are matched against you. Anger will
serve no purpose. We shall have to meet ungodliness by godliness. We
shall have to meet their untruth by truth; we shall have to meet their
cunning and their craft by openness and simplicity; we shall have to
meet their terrorism and frightfulness by bravery. And it is an
unbending bravery which is demanded of every man, woman and child. We
must meet their organisation by greater organising ability. We must meet
their discipline by grater discipline, and we must meet their sacrifices
by infinitely greater sacrifices, and if we are in a position to show
these qualities in a full measure I have not the slightest doubt that we
shall win this battle. If really we have fear of God in us, our prayers
will give us the strength to secure victory. God has always come to the
help of the helpless and we need not go before any earthly power for

You heard this morning of the bravery of the sword, and the bravery of
suffering. For me personally I have forever rejected the bravery of the
sword. But, to-day it is not my purpose to demonstrate to you the final
ineffectiveness of the sword. But he who runs may see that before India
possesses itself a sword which will be more than a match for the forces
of Europe, it will he generations. India may resort to the destruction
of life and property here and there but such destructive cases serve no
purpose. I have therefore presented to you a weapon called the bravery
of suffering, otherwise called Non-co-operation. It is a bravery which
is open to the weakest among the weak. It is open to women and children.
The power of suffering is the prerogative of nobody, and if only 300
millions of Indians could show the power of suffering in order to
redress a grievous wrong done to the nation or to its religion, I make
bold to say that, India will never require to draw the sword. And unless
we are able to show an adequate measure of sacrifice we shall lose this
battle. No one need tell me that India has not got this power of
suffering. Every father and mother is witness to what I am about to say,
viz., that every father and mother have shown in the domestic affairs
matchless power of suffering. And if we have only developed national
consciousness, if we have developed sufficient regard for our religion,
we shall have developed power of suffering in the national and religious
field. Considered in these terms the first stage in Non-co-operation is
the simplest and the easiest state. If the title-holders of India
consider that India is suffering from a grievous wrong both as regards
the Punjab and the Khilafat is it any suffering on their part to
renounce their titles to-day? What is the measure of the suffering
awaiting the lawyers who are called upon to suspend practice when
compared to the great benefit which is in store for the nation? And if
thy parents of India will summon up courage to sacrifice secular
education, they will have given their children the real education of a
life-time. For they will have learnt the value of religion and national
honour. And I ask you, the citizens of Bezwada, to think well before you
accept the loaves and fishes in the form of Government offices set them
on one side and set national honour on the other and make your service.
What sacrifice is there involved in the individual renouncing his
candidature for legislative councils. The councils are a tempting bait.
All kinds of arguments are being advanced in favour of joining the
councils. India will sacrifice the opportunity of gaining her liberty if
she touches them. It passes comprehension how we, who have known this
Government, who have read the Viceregal pronouncement, how we who have
known their determination not to give justice in the Punjab and the
Khilafat matters, can gain any benefit by co-operation, constructive or
obstructive, with this Government? But the Nationalists, belonging to a
great popular party, tell us that if they do not contest these scats,
the moderates will get in. Surely, it is nothing but an exhibition of
want of courage and faith in our own cause to feel that we must enter
the councils lest moderates should get in. Moderates believe in the
possibility of obtaining justice at the hands of the Government.
Nationalists have on the other hand filled the platforms with
denunciations of the Government and its measures. How can the
Nationalists ever hope to gain anything by entering the councils,
holding the belief that they do? They will better represent the popular
will if they wring justice from the Government by means of
Non-co-operation. A calculating spirit at the present moment in the
history of India will prove its ruin. I, therefore, tender my hearty
congratulation to those who have announced their resignations of
candidature or honorary offices, and I hope that their example will
prove infectious. I have been told, and I believe it myself from what I
have seen, that the Andhrus are a brave, courageous and
spiritually-inclined people. I venture therefore to ask my Andhra
brethren whether they have understood the spirituality of this beautiful
doctrine of Non-co-operation. If they have, I hope they will not wait
for a single moment for a mandate from the Congress or the Moslem
League. They will understand that a spiritual weapon is god whether it
is wielded by one or many. I, therefore, invite you to go to Calcutta
with a united will and a united purpose, sanctified by a spirit of
sacrifice, with a will of your own to convert those who are still
undecided about the spirituality or the practicability of the weapon.

I thank you for the attention and patience with which you have listened
to me. I pray to the Almighty that He may give you wisdom and courage
that are so necessary at the present moment.--

_August 1920_.


The largest and the most important Congress ever held has come and gone,
It was the biggest demonstration ever held against the present system of
Government. The President uttered the whole truth when he said that it
was a Congress in which, instead of the President and the leaders
driving the people, the people drove him and the latter. It was clear to
every one on the platform that the people had taken the reins in their
own hands. The platform would gladly have moved at a slower pace.

The Congress gave one day to a full discussion of the creed and voted
solidly for it with but two dissentients after two nights' sleep over
the discussion. It gave one day to a discussion of non-co-operation
resolution and voted for it with unparalleled enthusiasm. It gave the
last day to listening to the whole of the remaining thirty-two Articles
of the Constitution which were read and translated word for word by
Maulana Mahomed Ali in a loud and clear voice. It showed that it was
intelligently following the reading of it, for there was dissent when
Article Eight was reached. It referred to non-interference by the
Congress in the internal affairs of the Native States. The Congress
would not have passed the proviso if it had meant that it could even
voice the feelings of the people residing in the territories ruled by
the princes. Happily it resolution suggesting the advisability of
establishing Responsible Government in their territories enabled me to
illustrate to the audience that the proviso did not preclude the
Congress from ventilating the grievances and aspirations of the subjects
of these states, whilst it clearly prevented the Congress from taking
any executive action in connection with them; as for instance holding a
hostile demonstration in the Native States against any action of theirs.
The Congress claims to dictate to the Government but it cannot do so by
the very nature of its constitution in respect of the Native States.

Thus the Congress has taken three important steps after the greatest
deliberation. It has expressed its determination in the clearest
possible terms to attain complete null-government, if possible still in
association with the British people, but even without, if necessary. It
proposes to do so only by means that are honourable and non-violent. It
has introduced fundamental changes in the constitution regulating its
activities and has performed an act of self-denial in voluntarily
restricting the number of delegates to one for every fifty thousand of
the population of India and has insisted upon the delegates being the
real representatives of those who want to take any part in the political
life of the country. And with a view to ensuring the representation of
all political parties it has accepted the principle of "single
transferable vote." It has reaffirmed the non-co-operation resolution of
the Special Session and amplified it in every respect. It has emphasised
the necessity of non-violence and laid down that the attainment of
Swaraj is conditional upon the complete harmony between the component
parts of India, and has therefore inculcated Hindu-Muslim unity. The
Hindu delegates have called upon their leaders to settle disputes
between Brahmins and non-Brahmins and have urged upon the religious
heads the necessity of getting rid of the poison of untouchability. The
Congress has told the parents of school-going children, and the lawyers
that they have not responded sufficiently to the call of the nation and
and that they must make greater effort in doing so. It therefore follows
that the lawyers who do not respond quickly to the call for suspension
and the parents who persist in keeping their children in Government and
aided institutions must find themselves dropping out from the public
life of the country. The country calls upon every man and woman in India
to do their full share. But of the details of the non-co-operation
resolution I must write later.


Mr. Montagu has discovered a new definition of disloyalty. He considers
my suggestion to boycott the visit of the Prince of Wales to be disloyal
and some newspapers taking the cue from him have called persons who have
made the suggestion 'unmannerly'. They have even attributed to these
'unmannerly' persons the suggestion of boycotting the Prince. I draw a
sharp and fundamental distinction between boycotting the Prince and
boycotting any welcome arranged for him. Personally I would extend the
heartiest welcome to His Royal Highness if he came or could come without
official patronage and the protecting wings of the Government of the
day. Being the heir to a constitutional monarch, the Prince's movements
are regulated and dictated by the ministers, no matter how much the
dictation may be concealed beneath diplomatically polite language. In
suggesting the boycott therefore the promoters have suggested boycott of
an insolent bureaucracy and dishonest ministers of his Majesty.

You cannot have it both ways. It is true that under a constitutional
monarchy, the royalty is above politics. But you cannot send the Prince
on a political visit for the purpose of making political capital out of
him, and then complain that those who will not play your game and in
order to checkmate you, proclaim boycott of the Royal visit do not know
constitutional usage. For the Prince's visit is not for pleasure. His
Royal Highness is to come in Mr. Lloyd George's words, as the
"ambassador of the British nation," in other words, his own ambassador
in order to issue a certificate of merit to him and possibly to give the
ministers a new lease of life. The wish is designed to consolidate and
strengthen a power that spells mischief for India. Even us it is, Mr.
Montagu has foreseen, that the welcome will probably be excelled by any
hitherto extended to Royalty, meaning that the people are not really and
deeply affected and stirred by the official atrocities in the Punjab and
the manifestly dishonest breach of official declarations on the
Khilafat. With the knowledge that India was bleeding at heart, the
Government of India should have told His Majesty's ministers that the
moment was inopportune for sending the Prince. I venture to submit that
it is adding insult to injury to bring the Prince and through his visit
to steal honours and further prestige for a Government that deserves to
be dismissed with disgrace. I claim that I prove my loyalty by saying
that India is in no mood, is too deeply in mourning, to take part in and
to welcome His Royal Highness, and that the ministers and the Indian
Government show their disloyalty by making the Prince a catspaw of their
deep political game. If they persist, it is the clear duty of India to
have nothing to do with the visit.


I have most carefully read the manifesto addressed by Sir Narayan
Chandavarkar and others dissuading the people from joining the non
co-operation movement. I had expected to find some solid argument
against non-co-operation, but to my great regret I have found in it
nothing but distortion (no doubt unconscious) of the great religions and
history. The manifesto says that 'non-co-operation is deprecated by the
religious tenets and traditions of our motherland, nay, of all the
religions that have saved and elevated the human race.' I venture to
submit that the Bhagwad Gita is a gospel of non-co-operation between
forces of darkness and those of light. If it is to be literally
interpreted Arjun representing a just cause was enjoined to engage in
bloody warfare with the unjust Kauravas. Tulsidas advises the Sant (the
good) to shun the Asant (the evil-doers). The Zendavesta represents a
perpetual dual between Ormuzd and Ahriman, between whom there is no
compromise. To say of the Bible that it taboos non-co-operation is not
to know Jesus, a Prince among passive resisters, who uncompromisingly
challenged the might of the Sadducees and the Pharisees and for the sake
of truth did not hesitate to divide sons from their parents. And what
did the Prophet of Islam do? He non-co-operated in Mecca in a most
active manner so long as his life was not in danger and wiped the dust
of Mecca off his feet when he found that he and his followers might have
uselessly to perish, and fled to Medina and returned when he was strong
enough to give battle to his opponents. The duty of non-co-operation
with unjust men and kings is as strictly enjoined by all the religions
as is the duty of co-operation with just men and kings. Indeed most of
the scriptures of the world seem even to go beyond non-co-operation and
prefer a violence to effeminate submission to a wrong. The Hindu
religious tradition of which the manifesto speaks, clearly proves the
duty of non-co-operation. Prahlad dissociated himself from his father,
Meerabai from her husband, Bibhishan from his brutal brother.

The manifesto speaking of the secular aspect says, 'The history of
nations affords no instance to show that it (meaning non-co-operation)
has, when employed, succeeded and done good,' One most recent instance
of brilliant success of non-co-operation is that of General Botha who
boycotted Lord Milner's reformed councils and thereby procured a perfect
constitution for his country. The Dukhobours of Russia offered
non-co-operation, and a handful though they were, their grievances so
deeply moved the civilized world that Canada offered them a home where
they form a prosperous community. In India instances can be given by the
dozen, in which in little principalities the raiyats when deeply grieved
by their chiefs have cut off all connection with them and bent them to
their will. I know of no instance in history where well-managed
non-co-operation has failed.

Hitherto I have given historical instances of bloodless
non-co-operation, I will not insult the intelligence of the reader by
citing historical instances of non-co-operation combined with,
violence, but I am free to confess that there are on record as many
successes as failures in violent non-co-operation. And it is because I
know this fact that I have placed before the country a non-violent
scheme in which, if at all worked satisfactorily, success is a certainty
and in which non-response means no harm. For if even one man
non-co-operates, say, by resigning some office, he has gained, not lost.
That is its ethical or religious aspect. For its political result
naturally it requires polymerous support. I fear therefore no disastrous
result from non-co-operation save for an outbreak of violence on the
part of the people whether under provocation or otherwise. I would risk
violence a thousand times than risk the emasculation of a whole race.


Before a crowded meeting of Mussalmans in the Muzaffarabad, Bombay, held
on the 29th July 1920, speaking on the impending non-co-operation which
commenced on the 1st of August, Mr. Gandhi said: The time for speeches
on non-co-operation was past and the time for practice had arrived. But
two things were needful for complete success. An environment free from
any violence on the part of the people and a spirit of self-sacrifice.
Non-co-operation, as the speaker had conceived it, was an impossibility
in an atmosphere surcharged with the spirit of violence. Violence was an
exhibition of anger and any such exhibition was dissipation of valuable
energy. Subduing of one's anger was a storing up of national energy,
which, when set free in an ordered manner, would produce astounding
results. His conception of non-co-operation did not involve rapine,
plunder, incendiarism and all the concomitants of mass madness. His
scheme presupposed ability on their part to control all the forces of
evil. If, therefore, any disorderliness was found on the part of the
people which they could not control, he for one would certainly help the
Government to control them. In the presence of disorder it would be for
him a choice of evil, and evil through he considered the present
Government to be, he would not hesitate for the time being to help the
Government to control disorder. But he had faith in the people. He
believed that they knew that the cause could only be won by non-violent
methods. To put it at the lowest, the people had not the power, even if
they had the will, to resist with brute strength the unjust Governments
of Europe who had, in the intoxication of their success disregarding
every canon of justice dealt so cruelly by the only Islamic Power
in Europe.

In non-co-operation they had a matchless and powerful weapon. It was a
sign of religious atrophy to sustain an unjust Government that supported
an injustice by resorting to untruth and camouflage. So long therefore
as the Government did not purge itself of the canker of injustice and
untruth, it was their duty to withdraw all help from it consistently
with their ability to preserve order in the social structure. The first
stage of non-co-operation was therefore arranged so as to involve
minimum of danger to public peace and minimum of sacrifice on the part
of those who participated in the movement. And if they might not help an
evil Government nor receive any favours from it, it followed that they
must give up all titles of honour which were no longer a proud
possession. Lawyers, who were in reality honorary officers of the Court,
should cease to support Courts that uphold the prestige of an unjust
Government and the people must be able to settle their disputes and
quarrels by private arbitration. Similarly parents should withdraw their
children from the public schools and they must evolve a system of
national education or private education totally independent of the
Government. An insolent Government conscious of its brute strength,
might laugh at such withdrawals by the people especially as the Law
courts and schools were supposed to help the people, but he had not a
shadow of doubt that the moral effect of such a step could not possibly
be lost even upon a Government whose conscience had become stifled by
the intoxication of power.

He had hesitation in accepting Swadeshi as a plank in non-co-operation.
To him Swadeshi was as dear as life itself. But he had no desire to
smuggle in Swadeshi through the Khilafat movement, if it could not
legitimately help that movement, but conceived as non-co-operation was,
in a spirit of self-sacrifice, Swadeshi had a legitimate place in the
movement. Pure Swadeshi meant sacrifice of the liking for fineries. He
asked the nation to sacrifice its liking for the fineries of Europe and
Japan and be satisfied with the coarse but beautiful fabrics woven on
their handlooms out of yarns spun by millions of their sisters. If the
nation had become really awakened to a sense of the danger to its
religions and its self-respect, it could not but perceive the absolute
and immediate necessity of the adoption of Swadeshi in its intense form
and if the people of India adopted Swadeshi with the religious zeal he
begged to assure them that its adoption would arm them with a new power
and would produce an unmistakable impression throughout the whole world.
He, therefore, expected the Mussalmans to give the lead by giving up all
the fineries they were so fond of and adopt the simple cloth that could
be produced by the manual labour of their sisters and brethren in their
own cottages. And he hoped that the Hindus would follow suit. It was a
sacrifice in which the whole nation, every man, woman and child could
take part.


Had His Excellency the Viceroy not made it impossible by his defiant
attitude on the Punjab and the Khilafat, I would have tendered him
hearty congratulations for substituting ridicule for repression in order
to kill a movement distasteful to him. For, torn from its context and
read by itself His Excellency's discourse on non-co-operation is
unexceptionable. It is a symptom of translation from savagery to
civilization. Pouring ridicule on one's opponent is an approved method
in civilised politics. And if the method is consistently continued, it
will mark an important improvement upon the official barbarity of the
Punjab. His interpretation of Mr. Montagu's statement about the movement
is also not open to any objection whatsoever. Without doubt a government
has the right to use sufficient force to put down an actual outbreak
of violence.

But I regret to have to confess that this attempt to pour ridicule on
the movement, read in conjunction with the sentiments on the Punjab and
the Khilafat, preceding the ridicule, seems to show that His Excellency
has made it a virtue of necessity. He has not finally abandoned the
method of terrorism and frightfulness, but he finds the movement being
conducted in such an open and truthful manner that any attempt to kill
it by violent repression would not expose him not only to ridicule but
contempt of all right-thinking men.

Let us however examine the adjectives used by His Excellency to kill the
movement by laughing at it. It is 'futile,' 'ill-advised,'
'intrinsically insane,' 'unpractical,' 'visionary.' He has rounded off
the adjectives by describing the movement as 'most foolish of all
foolish schemes.' His Excellency has become so impatient of it that he
has used all his vocabulary for showing the magnitude of the ridiculous
nature of non-co-operation.

Unfortunately for His Excellency the movement is likely to grow with
ridicule as it is certain to flourish on repression. No vital movement
can be killed except by the impatience, ignorance or laziness of its
authors. A movement cannot be 'insane' that is conducted by men of
action as I claim the members of the Non-co-operation Committee are. It
is hardly 'unpractical,' seeing that if the people respond, every one
admits that it will achieve the end. At the same time it is perfectly
true that if there is no response from the people, the movement will be
popularly described as 'visionary.' It is for the nation to return an
effective answer by organised non-co-operation and change ridicule into
respect. Ridicule is like repression. Both give place to respect when
they fail to produce the intended effect.


It may be that having lost faith in His Excellency's probity and
capacity to hold the high office of Viceroy of India, I now read his
speeches with a biased mind, but the speech His Excellency delivered at
the time of opening of the council shows to me a mental attitude which
makes association with him or his Government impossible for
self-respecting men.

The remarks on the Punjab mean a flat refusal to grant redress. He would
have us to 'concentrate on the problems of the immediate future!' The
immediate future is to compel repentance on the part of the Government
on the Punjab matter. Of this there is no sign. On the contrary, His
Excellency resists the temptation to reply to his critics, meaning
thereby that he has not changed his opinion on the many vital matters
affecting the honour of India. He is 'content to leave the issues to the
verdict of history.' Now this kind of language, in my opinion, is
calculated further to inflame the Indian mind. Of what use can a
favourable verdict of history be to men who have been wronged and who
are still under the heels of officers who have shown themselves utterly
unfit to hold offices of trust and responsibility? The plea for
co-operation is, to say the least, hypocritical in the face of the
determination to refuse justice to the Punjab. Can a patient who is
suffering from an intolerable ache be soothed by the most tempting
dishes placed before him? Will he not consider it mockery on the part of
the physician who so tempted him without curing him of his pain?

His Excellency is, if possible, even less happy on the Khilafat. "So far
as any Government could," says this trustee for the nation, "we pressed
upon the Peace Conference the views of Indian Moslems. But
notwithstanding our efforts on their behalf we are threatened with a
campaign of non-co-operation because, forsooth, the allied Powers found
themselves unable to accept the contentions advanced by Indian Moslems."
This is most misleading if not untruthful. His Excellency knows that the
peace terms are not the work of the allied Powers. He knows that Mr.
Lloyd George is the prime author of terms and that the latter has never
repudiated his responsibility for them. He has with amazing audacity
justified them in spite of his considered pledge to the Moslems of India
regarding Constantinople, Thrace and the rich and renowned lands of Asia
minor. It is not truthful to saddle responsibility for the terms on the
allied Powers when Great Britain alone has promoted them. The offence of
the Viceroy becomes greater when we remember that he admits the justness
of the Muslim claim. He could not have 'pressed' it if he did not admit
its justice.

I venture to think that His Excellency by his pronouncement on the
Punjab has strengthened the nation in its efforts to seek a remedy to
compel redress of the two wrongs before it can make anything of the
so-called Reforms.


It will be admitted that non-co-operation has passed the stage ridicule.
Whether it will now be met by repression or respect remains to be seen.
Opinion has already been expressed in these columns that ridicule is an
approved and civilized method of opposition. The viceregal ridicule
though expressed in unnecessarily impolite terms was not open to

But the testing time has now arrived. In a civilized country when
ridicule fails to kill a movement it begins to command respect.
Opponents meet it by respectful and cogent argument and the mutual
behaviour of rival parties never becomes violent. Each party seeks to
convert the other or draw the uncertain element towards its side by pure
argument and reasoning.

There is little doubt now that the boycott of the councils will be
extensive if it is not complete. The students have become disturbed.
Important institutions may any day become truly national. Pandit Motilal
Nehru's great renunciation of a legal practice which was probably second
to nobody's is by itself an event calculated to change ridicule into
respect. It ought to set people thinking seriously about their own
attitude. There must be something very wrong about our Government--to
warrant the step Pundit Motilal Nehru has taken. Post graduate students
have given up their fellowships. Medical students have refused to appear
for their final examination. Non-co-operation in these circumstances
cannot be called an inane movement.

Either the Government must bend to the will of the people which is being
expressed in no unmistakable terms through non-co-operation, or it must
attempt to crush the movement by repression.

Any force used by a government under any circumstance is not repression.
An open trial of a person accused of having advocated methods of
violence is not repression. Every State has the right to put down or
prevent violence by force. But the trial of Mr. Zafar Ali Khan and two
Moulvis of Panipat shows that the Government is seeking not to put down
or prevent violence but to suppress expression of opinion, to prevent
the spread of disaffection. This is repression. The trials are the
beginning of it. It has not still assumed a virulent form but if these
trials do not result in stilling the propaganda, it is highly likely
that severe repression will be resorted to by the Government.

The only other way to prevent the spread of disaffection is to remove
the causes thereof. And that would be to respect the growing response of
the country to the programme of non-co-operation. It is too much to
expect repentance and humility from a government intoxicated with
success and power.

We must therefore assume that the second stage in the Government
programme will be repression growing in violence in the same ratio as
the progress of non-co-operation. And if the movement survives
repression, the day of victory of truth is near. We must then be
prepared for prosecutions, punishments even up to deportations. We must
evolve the capacity for going on with our programme without the leaders.
That means capacity for self-government. And as no government in the
world can possibly put a whole nation in prison, it must yield to its
demand or abdication in favour of a government suited to that nation.

It is clear that abstention from violence and persistence in the
programme are our only and surest chance of attaining our end.

The government has its choice, either to respect the movement or to try
to repress it by barbarous methods. Our choice is either to succumb to
repression or to continue in spite of repression.


Dear Friend,

I wish that every Englishman will see this appeal and give thoughtful
attention to it.

Let me introduce myself to you. In my humble opinion no Indian has
co-operated with the British Government more than I have for an unbroken
period of twenty-nine years of public life in the face of circumstances
that might well have turned any other man into a rebel. I ask you to
believe me when I tell you that my co-operation was not based on the
fear of the punishments provided by your laws or any other selfish
motives. It was free and voluntary co-operation based on the belief that
the sum total of the activity of the British Government was for the
benefit of India. I put my life in peril four times for the sake of the
Empire,--at the time of the Boer war when I was in charge of the
Ambulance corps whose work was mentioned in General Buller's dispatches,
at the time of the Zulu revolt in Natal when I was in charge of a
similar corps at the time of the commencement of the late war when I
raised an Ambulance corps and as a result of the strenuous training had
a severe attack of pleurisy, and lastly, in fulfilment of my promise to
Lord Chelmsford at the War Conference in Delhi. I threw myself in such
an active recruiting campaign in Kuira District involving long and
trying marches that I had an attack of dysentry which proved almost
fatal. I did all this in the full belief that acts such as mine must
gain for my country an equal status in the Empire. So late as last
December I pleaded hard for a trustful co-operation, I fully believed
that Mr. Lloyd George would redeem his promise to the Mussalmans and
that the revelations of the official atrocities in the Punjab would
secure full reparation for the Punjabis. But the treachery of Mr. Lloyd
George and its appreciation by you, and the condonation of the Punjab
atrocities have completely shattered my faith in the good intentions of
the Government and the nation which is supporting it.

But though, my faith in your good intentions is gone, I recognise your
bravery and I know that what you will not yield to justice and reason,
you will gladly yield to bravery.

_See what this Empire means to India_

Exploitation of India's resources for the benefit of Great Britain.

An ever-increasing military expenditure, and a civil service the most
expensive in the world.

Extravagant working of every department in utter disregard of India's

Disarmament and consequent emasculation of a whole nation lest an armed
nation might imperil the lives of a handful of you in our midst.
Traffic in intoxicating liquors and drugs for the purposes of
sustaining a top heavy administration.

Progressively representative legislation in order to suppress an
evergrowing agitation seeking to give expression to a nation's agony.

Degrading treatment of Indians residing in your dominions, and

You have shown total disregard of our feelings by glorifying the Punjab
administration and flouting the Mosulman sentiment.

I know you would not mind if we could fight and wrest the sceptre form
your hands. You know that we are powerless to do that, for you have
ensured our incapacity to fight in open and honourable battle. Bravery
on the battlefield is thus impossible for us. Bravery of the soul still
remains open to us. I know you will respond to that also. I am engaged
in evoking that bravery. Non-co-operation means nothing less than
training in self-sacrifice. Why should we co-operate with you when we
know that by your administration of this great country we are lifting
daily enslaved in an increasing degree. This response of the people to
my appeal is not due to my personality. I would like you to dismiss me,
and for that matter the Ali Brothers too, from your consideration. My
personality will fail to evoke any response to anti-Muslim cry if I were
foolish enough to rise it, as the magic name of the Ali Brothers would
fail to inspire the Mussalmans with enthusiasm if they were madly to
raise in anti-Hindu cry. People flock in their thousands to listen to us
because we to-day represent the voice of a nation groaning under iron
heels. The Ali Brothers were your friends as I was, and still am. My
religion forbids me to bear any ill-will towards you. I would not raise
my hand against you even if I had the power. I expect to conquer you
only by my suffering. The Ali Brothers will certainly draw the sword, if
they could, in defence of their religion and their country. But they and
I have made common cause with the people of India in their attempt to
voice their feelings and to find a remedy for their distress.

You are in search of a remedy to suppress this rising ebullition of
national feeling. I venture to suggest to you that the only way to
suppress it is to remove the causes. You have yet the power. You can
repent of the wrongs done to Indians. You can compel Mr. Lloyd George to
redeem his promises. I assure you he has kept many escape doors. You can
compel the Viceroy to retire in favour of a better one, you can revise
your ideas about Sir Michael O'Dwyer and General Dyer. You can compel
the Government to summon a conference of the recognised lenders of the
people, duly elected by them and representing all shades of opinion so
as to devise means for granting _Swaraj_ in accordance with the wishes
of the people of India. But this you cannot do unless you consider
every Indian to be in reality your equal and brother. I ask for no
patronage, I merely point out to you, as a friend, as honourable
solution of a grave problem. The other solution, namely repression is
open to YOU. I prophesy that it will fail. It has begun already. The
Government has already imprisoned two brave men of Panipat for holding
and expressing their opinions freely. Another is on his trial in Lahore
for having expressed similar opinion. One in the Oudh District is
already imprisoned. Another awaits judgment. You should know what is
going on in your midst. Our propaganda is being carried on in
anticipation of repression. I invite you respectfully to choose the
better way and make common cause with the people of India whose salt you
are eating. To seek to thwart their inspirations is disloyalty to
the country.

I am,
Your faithful friend,


Mr. Stokes is a Christian, who wants to follow the light that God gives
him. He has adopted India as his home. He is watching the
non-co-operation movement from the Kotgarh hills where he is living in
isolation from the India of the plains and serving the hillmen. He has
contributed three articles on non-co-operation to the columns of the
Servant of Calcutta and other papers. I had the pleasure of reading them
during my Bengal tour. Mr. Stokes approves of non-co-operation but
dreads the consequences that may follow complete success _i.e.,_
evacuation of India by the British. He conjures up before his mind a
picture of India invaded by the Afghans from the North-West, plundered
by the Gurkhas from the Hills. For me I say with Cardinal Newman: 'I do
not ask to see the distant scene; one step enough for me.' The movement
is essentially religious. The business of every god-fearing man is to
dissociate himself from evil in total disregard of consequences. He must
have faith in a good deed producing only a good result: that in my
opinion is the Gita doctrine of work without attachment. God does not
permit him to peep into the future. He follows truth although the
following of it may endanger his very life. He knows that it is better
to die in the way of God than to live in the way of Satan. Therefore who
ever is satisfied that this Government represents the activity of Satan
has no choice left to him but to dissociate himself from it.

However, let us consider the worst that can happen to India on a sudden
evacuation of India by the British. What does it matter that the Gurkhas
and the Pathans attack us? Surely we would be better able to deal with
their violence than we are with the continued violence, moral and
physical, perpetrated by the present Government. Mr. Stokes does not
seem to eschew the use of physical force. Surely the combined labour of
the Rajput, the Sikh and the Mussalman warriors in a united India may be
trusted to deal with plunderers from any or all the sides. Imagine
however the worst: Japan overwhelming us from the Bay of Bengal, the
Gurkhas from the Hills, and the Pathans from the North-West. If we not
succeed in driving them out we make terms with them and drive them at
the first opportunity. This will be a more manly course than a hopeless
submission to an admittedly wrongful State.

But I refuse to contemplate the dismal out-look. If the movement
succeeds through non-violent non-co-operation, and that is the
supposition Mr. Stokes has started with, the English whether they remain
or retire, they will do so as friends and under a well-ordered agreement
as between partners. I still believe in the goodness of human nature,
whether it is English or any other. I therefore do not believe that the
English will leave in a night.

And do I consider the Gurkha and the Afghan being incorrigible thieves
and robbers without ability to respond to purifying influences? I do
not. If India returns to her spirituality, it will react upon the
neighbouring tribes, she will interest herself in the welfare of these
hardy but poor people, and even support them if necessary, not out of
fear but as a matter of neighbourly duty. She will have dealt with Japan
simultaneously with the British. Japan will not want to invade India, if
India has learnt to consider it a sin to use a single foreign article
that she can manufacture within her own borders. She produces enough to
eat and her men and women can without difficulty manufacture enough to
clothe to cover their nakedness and protect themselves from heat and
cold. We become prey to invasion if we excite the greed of foreign
nation, by dealing with them under a feeling dependence on them. We must
learn to be independent of every one of them.

Whether therefore we finally succeed through violence or non-violence in
my opinion, the prospect is by no means so gloomy as Mr. Stokes has
imagined. Any conceivable prospect is, in my opinion, less black than
the present unmanly and helpless condition. And we cannot do better than
following out fearlessly and with confidence the open and honourable
programme of non-violence and sacrifice that we have mapped for


The spirit of non-violence necessarily leads to humility. Non-violence
means reliance on God, the Rocks of ages. If we would seek His aid, we
must approach Him with a humble and a contrite heart.
Non-co-operationists may not trade upon their amazing success at the
Congress. We must act, even as the mango tree which drops as it bears
fruit. Its grandeur lies in its majestic lowliness. But one hears of
non-co-operationists being insolent and intolerant in their behaviour
towards those who differ from them. I know that they will lose all their
majesty and glory, if they betray any inflation. Whilst we may not be
dissatisfied with the progress made so far, we have little to our
credit to make us feel proud. We have to sacrifice much more than we
have done to justify pride, much less elation. Thousands, who flocked to
the Congress pandal, have undoubtedly given their intellectual assent to
the doctrine but few have followed it out in practice. Leaving aside the
pleaders, how many parents have withdrawn their children from schools?
How many of those who registered their vote in favour of
non-co-operation have taken to hand-spinning or discarded the use of all
foreign cloth?

Non-co-operation is not a movement of brag, bluster, or bluff. It is a
test of our sincerity. It requires solid and silent self-sacrifice. It
challenges our honesty and our capacity for national work. It is a
movement that aims at translating ideas into action. And the more we do,
the more we find that much more must be done than we have expected. And
this thought of our imperfection must make us humble.

A non-co-operationist strives to compel attention and to set an example
not by his violence but by his unobtrusive humility. He allows his solid
action to speak for his creed. His strength lies in his reliance upon
the correctness of his position. And the conviction of it grows most in
his opponent when he least interposes his speech between his action and
his opponent. Speech, especially when it is haughty, betrays want of
confidence and it makes one's opponent sceptical about the reality of
the act itself. Humility therefore is the key to quick success. I hope
that every non-co-operationist will recognise the necessity of being
humble and self-restrained. It is because so little is really required
to be done because all of that little depends entirely upon ourselves
that I have ventured the belief that Swaraj is attainable in less
than one year.


"I write to thank you for yours of the 7th instant and especially for
your request that I should after reading your writings in "Young India"
on non-co-operation, give a full and frank criticism of them. I know
that your sole desire is to find out the truth and to act accordingly,
and hence I venture to make the following remarks. In the issue of May
5th you say that non-co-operation is "not even anti-Government." But
surely to refuse to have anything to do with the Government to the
extent of not serving it and of not paying its taxes is actually, if not
theoretically anti-Government; and such a course must ultimately make
all Government impossible. Again, you say, "It is the inherent right of
a subject to refuse to assist a government that will not listen to him."
Leaving aside the question of the ethical soundness of this
proposition, may I ask which Government, in the present case? Has not
the Indian Government done all it possibly can in the matter? Then if
its attempts to voice the request of India should fail, would it be fair
and just to do anything against it? Would not the proper course be
non-co-operation with the Supreme Council of the Allies, including Great
Britain, if it be found that the latter has failed properly to support
the demand of the Indian Government and people? It seems to me that in
all your writings and speeches you forget that in the present question
both Government and people are as one, and if they fail to get what they
justly want, how does the question of non-co-operation arise? Hindus
and Englishmen and the Government are all at present "shouldering in a
full-hearted manner the burden that Muhomedans of India are carrying
etc. etc." But supposing we fail of our object--what then? Are we all to
refuse to co-operate and with whom?

Might I recommend the consideration of the following course of conduct?

(1) "Wait and see" what the actual terms of the Treaty with Turkey are?

(2) If they are not in accordance with the aspirations and
recommendations of the Government and the people of India, the every
legitimate effort should be made to have the terms revised.

(3) To the bitter end, co-operate with a Government that co-operates
with us, and only when it refuses co-operation, go in for

So far I personally see no reason whatsoever for non-co-operation with
the Indian Government, and till it fails to voice the needs and demands
of India as a whole there can be no reason. The Indian Government does
some times make mistakes, but in the Khilafat matter it is sound and
therefore deserves or ought to have the sympathetic and whole-hearted
co-operation of every one in India. I hope that you will kindly consider
the above and perhaps you will be able to find time for a reply in
_Young India_."

I gladly make room for the above letter and respond to the suggestion
to give a public reply as no doubt the difficulty experienced by the
English friend is experienced by many. Causes are generally lost, not
owing to the determined opposition of men who will not see the truth as
they want to perpetuate an injustice but because they are able to enlist
in their favour the allegiance of those who are anxious to understand a
particular cause and take sides after mature judgment. It is only by
patient argument with such honest men that one is able to check oneself,
correct one's own errors of judgment and at times to wean them from
their error and bring them over to one's side. This Khilafat question is
specially difficult because there are so many side-issues. It is
therefore no wonder that many have more or less difficulty in making up
their minds. It is further complicated because the painful necessity for
some direct action has arisen in connection with it. But whatever the
difficulty, I am convinced that there is no question so important as
this one if we want harmony and peace in India.

My friend objects to my statement that non-co-operation is not
anti-Government, because he considers that refusal to serve it and pay
its taxes is actually anti-Government. I respectfully dissent from the
view. If a brother has fundamental differences with his brother, and
association with the latter involves his partaking of what in his
opinion is an injustice. I hold that it is brotherly duty to refrain
from serving his brother and sharing his earnings with him. This happens
in everyday life. Prahalad did not act against his father, when he
declined to associate himself with the latter's blasphemies. Nor was
Jesus anti-Jewish when he declaimed against the Pharisees and the
hypocrites, and would have none of them. In such matters, is it not
intention that determines the character of a particular act? It is
hardly correct as the friend suggests that withdrawal of association
under general circumstances would make all government impossible. But it
is true that such withdrawal would make all injustice impossible.

My correspondent considers that the Government of India having done all
it possibly could, non-co-operation could not be applicable to that
Government. In my opinion, whilst it is true that the Government of
India has done a great deal, it has not done half as much as it might
have done, and might even now do. No Government can absolve itself from
further action beyond protesting, when it realises that the people whom
it represents feel as keenly as do lakhs of Indian Mussalmans in the
Khilafat question. No amount of sympathy with a starving man can possibly
avail. He must have bread or he dies, and what is wanted at that
critical moment is some exertion to fetch the wherewithal to feed the
dying man. The Government of India can to-day heed the agitation and
ask, to the point of insistence for full vindication of the pledged word
of a British Minister. Has the Government of India resigned by way of
protest against the threatened, shameful betrayal of trust on the part
of Mr. Lloyd George? Why does the Government of India hide itself behind
secret despatches? At a less critical moment Lord Hardiage committed a
constitutional indiscretion, openly sympathised with South African
Passive Resistance movement and stemmed the surging tide of public
indignation in India, though at the same time he incurred the wrath of
the then South African Cabinet and some public men in Great Britain.
After all, the utmost that the Government of India has done is on its
own showing to transmit and press the Mahomedan claim. Was that not the
least it could have done? Could it have done anything less without
covering itself with disgrace? What Indian Mahomedans and the Indian
public expect the Government of India to do at this critical juncture is
not the least, but the utmost that it could do. Viceroys have been known
to tender resignations for much smaller causes. Wounded pride brought
forth not very long ago the resignation of a Lieutenant Governor. On the
Khilafat question, a sacred cause dear to the hearts of several million
Mahomedans is in danger of being wounded. I would therefore invite the
English friend, and every Englishman in India, and every Hindu, be he
moderate or extremist, to make common cause with the Mahomedans and
thereby compel the Government of India to do its duty, and thereby
compel His Majesty's Ministers to do theirs.

There has been much talk of violence ensuing from active
non-co-operation. I venture to suggest that the Mussalmans of India, if
they had nothing in the shape of non-co-operation in view, would have
long ago yielded to counsels of despair. I admit that non-co-operation
is not unattended with danger. But violence is a certainty without,
violence is only a possibility with non-co-operation. And it will he a
greater possibility if all the important men, English, Hindu and others
of the country discountenance it.

I think, that the recommendation made by the friend is being literally
followed by the Mahomedans. Although they practically know the fate,
they are waiting for the actual terms of the treaty with Turkey. They
are certainly going to try every means at their disposal to have the
terms revised before beginning non-co-operation. And there will
certainly be no non-co-operation commenced so long as there is even hope
of active co-operation on the part of the Government of India with the
Mahomedans, that is, co-operation strong enough to secure a revision of
the terms should they be found to be in conflict with the pledges of
British statesmen. But if all these things fail, can Mahomedans as men
of honour who hold their religion dearer than their lives do anything
less than wash their hands clean of the guilt of British Ministers and
the Government of India by refusing to co-operate with them? And can
Hindus and Englishmen, if they value Mahomedan friendship, and if they
admit then full justice of the Mahomaden friendship and if they admit
the full justice of the Mahomedan claim do otherwise than heartily
support the Mahomedans by word and deed.


After the forgoing was printed the long-expected peace terms regarding
Turkey were received. In my humble opinion they are humiliating to the
Supreme Council, to the British ministers, and if as a Hindu with deep
reverence for Christianity I may say so, a denial of Christ's teachings.
Turkey broken down and torn with dissentions within may submit to the
arrogant disposal of herself, and Indian Mahomedans may out of fear do
likewise. Hindus out of fear, apathy or want of appreciation of the
situation, may refuse to help their Mahomedan brethren in their hour of
peril. The fact remains that a solemn promise of the Prime Minister of
England has been wantonly broken. I will say nothing about President
Wilson's fourteen points, for they seem now to be entirely forgotten as
a day's wonder. It is a matter of deep sorrow that the Government of
India _communique_ offers a defence of the terms, calls them a
fulfilment of Mr. Lloyd George's pledge of 5th January 1918 and yet
apologises for their defective nature and appeals to the Mahomedans of
India as if to mock them that they would accept the terms with quiet
resignation. The mask that veils the hypocrisy is too thin to deceive
anybody. It would have been dignified if the _communique_ had boldly
admitted Mr. Lloyd George's mistake in having made the promise referred
to. As it is, the claim of fulfilment of the promise only adds to the
irritation caused by its glaring breach. What is the use of the Viceroy
saying, "The question of the Khilafat is one for the Mahomedans and
Mahomedans only and that with their free choice in the matter Government
have no desire to interfere," while the Khalif's dominions are
ruthlessly dismembered, his control of the Holy places of Islam
shamelessly taken away from him and he himself reduced to utter
impotence in his own palace which can no longer be called a palace but
which can he more fitly described us a prison? No wonder, His Excellency
fears that the peace includes "terms which must be painful to all
Moslems." Why should he insult Muslim intelligence by sending the
Mussalmans of India a of encouragement and sympathy? Are they expected
to find encouragement in the cruel recital of the arrogant terms or in a
remembrance of 'the splendid response' made by them to the call of the
King 'in the day of the Empire's need.' It ill becomes His Excellency to
talk of the triumph of those ideals of justice and humanity for which
the Allies fought. Indeed, the terms of the so called peace with Turkey
if they are to last, will be a monument of human arrogance and man-made
injustice. To attempt to crush the spirit of a brave and gallant race,
because it has lost in the fortunes of war, is a triumph not of humanity
but a demonstration of inhumanity. And if Turkey enjoyed the closest
ties of friendship with Great Britain before the war, Great Britain has
certainly made ample reparation for her mistake by having made the
largest contribution to the humiliation of Turkey. It is insufferable
therefore when the Viceroy feels confident that with the conclusion of
this new treaty that friendship will quickly take life again and a
Turkey regenerate full of hope and strength, will stand forth in the
future as in the past a pillar of the Islamic faith. The Viceregal
message audaciously concludes, "This thought will I trust strengthen you
to accept the peace terms with resignation, courage and fortitude and to
keep your loyalty towards the Crown bright and untarnished as it has
been for so many generations." If Muslim loyalty remains untarnished it
will certainly not be for want of effort on the part of the Government
of India to put the heaviest strain upon it, but it will remain so
because the Mahomedans realise their own strength--the strength in the
knowledge that their cause is just and that they have got the power to
vindicate justice in spite of the aberration suffered by Great Britain
under a Prime Minister whom continued power has made as reckless in
making promises as in breaking them.

Whilst therefore I admit that there is nothing either in the peace terms
or in the Viceregal message covering them to inspire the Mahomedans and
Indians in general with confidence or hope, I venture to suggest that
there is no cause for despair and anger. Now is the time for Mahomedans
to retain absolute self-control, to unite their forces and, weak though
they are, with firm faith in God to carry on the struggle with redoubled
vigour till justice is done. If India--both Hindu and Mahomedan--can act
as one man and can withdraw her partnership in this crime against
humanity which the peace terms represent, she will soon secure a
revision of the treaty and give herself and the Empire at least, if not
the world, a lasting peace. There is no doubt that the struggle would be
bitter sharp and possibly prolonged, but it is worth all the sacrifice
that it is likely to call forth. Both the Mussalmans and the Hindus are
on their trial. Is the humiliation of the Khilafat a matter of concern
to the former? And if it is, are they prepared to exercise restraint,
religiously refrain from violence and practise non-co-operation without
counting the material loss it may entail upon the community? Do the
Hindus honestly feel for their Mahomedan brethren to the extent of
sharing their sufferings to the fullest extent? The answer to these
questions and not the peace terms, will finally decide the fate of
the Khilafat.


_Swadeshmitran_ is one of the most influential Tamil dailies of Madras.
It is widely read. Everything appearing in its columns is entitled to
respect. The Editor has suggested some practical difficulty in the way
of non-co-operation. I would therefore like, to the best of my ability,
to deal with them.

I do not know where the information has been derived from that I have
given up the last two stages of non-co-operation. What I have said is
that they are a distant goal. I abide by it. I admit that all the stages
are fraught with some danger, but the last two are fraught with the
greatest--the last most of all. The stages have been fixed with a view
to running the least possible risk. The last two stages will not be
taken up unless the committee has attained sufficient control over the
people to warrant the beliefs that the laying down of arms or suspension
of taxes will, humanly speaking, be free from an outbreak of violence on
the part of the people. I do entertain the belief that it is possible
for the people to attain the discipline necessary for taking the two
steps. When once they realise that violence is totally unnecessary to
bend an unwilling government to their will and that the result can be
obtained with certainty by dignified non-co-operation, they will cease
to think of violence even by way of retaliation. The fact is that
hitherto we have not attempted to take concerted and disciplined action
from the masses. Some day, if we are to become truly a self-governing
nation, that attempt has to be made. The present, in my opinion, is a
propitious movement. Every Indian feels the insult to the Punjab as a
personal wrong, every Mussalman resents the wrong done to the Khilafat.
There is therefore a favourable atmosphere for expecting cohesive and
restrained movement on the part of the masses.

So far as response is concerned, I agree with the Editor that the
quickest and the largest response is to be expected in the matter of
suspension of payment of taxes, but as I have said so long as the masses
are not educated to appreciate the value of non-violence even whilst
their holding are being sold, so long must it be difficult to take up
the last stage into any appreciable extent.

I agree too that a sudden withdrawal of the military and the police will
be a disaster if we have not acquired the ability to protect ourselves
against robbers and thieves. But I suggest that when we are ready to
call out the military and the police on an extensive scale we would find
ourselves in a position to defend ourselves. If the police and the
military resign from patriotic motives, I would certainly expect them to
perform the same duty as national volunteers, not has hirelings but as
willing protectors of the life and liberty of their countrymen. The
movement of non-co-operation is one of automatic adjustment. If the
Government schools are emptied, I would certainly expect national
schools to come into being. If the lawyers as a whole suspended
practice, they would devise arbitration courts and the nation will have
expeditions and cheaper method of setting private disputes and awarding
punishment to the wrong-doer. I may add that the Khilafat Committee is
fully alive to the difficulty of the task and is taking all the
necessary steps to meet the contingencies as they arise.

Regarding the leaving of civil employment, no danger is feared, because
no one will leave his employment, unless he is in a position to find
support for himself and family either through friends or otherwise.

Disapproval of the proposed withdrawal of students betrays, in my
humble opinion, lack of appreciation of the true nature of
non-co-operation. It is true enough that we pay the money wherewith our
children are educated. But, when the agency imparting the education has
become corrupt, we may not employ it without partaking of the agents,
corruption. When students leave schools or colleges I hardly imagine
that the teachers will fail to perceive the advisability of themselves
resigning. But even if they do not, money can hardly be allowed to count
where honour or religion are at the stake.

As to the boycott of the councils, it is not the entry of the Moderates
or any other persons that matters so much as the entry of those who
believe in non-co-operation. You may not co-operate at the top and
non-co-operate at the bottom. A councillor cannot remain in the council
and ask the _gumasta_ who cleans the council-table to resign.


I gladly publish Mr. Pennington's letter with its enclosure just as I
have received them. Evidently Mr. Pennington is not a regular reader of
'Young India,' or he would have noticed that no one has condemned mob
outrages more than I have. He seems to think that the article he has
objected to was the only thing I have ever written on General Dyer. He
does not seem to know that I have endeavoured with the utmost
impartiality to examine the Jallianwala massacre. And he can see any day
all the proof adduced by my fellow-commissioners and myself in support
of our findings on the massacre. The ordinary readers of 'Young India'
knew all the facts and therefore it was unnecessary for me to support my
assertion otherwise. But unfortunately Mr. Pennington represents the
typical Englishman. He does not want to be unjust, nevertheless he is
rarely just in his appreciation of world events because he has no time
to study them except cursorily and that through a press whose business
is to air only party views. The average Englishman therefore except in
parochial matters is perhaps the least informed though he claims to be
well-informed about every variety of interest. Mr. Pennington's
ignorance is thus typical of the others and affords the best reason for
securing control of our own affairs in our own hands. Ability will come
with use and not by waiting to be trained by those whose natural
interest is to prolong the period of tutelage as much as possible.

But to return to Mr. Pennington's letter he complains that there has
been no 'proper trial of any one.' The fault is not ours. India has
consistently and insistently demanded a trial of all the officers
concerned in the crimes against the Punjab.

He next objects to be 'violence' of my language. If truth is violent, I
plead guilty to the charge of violence of language. But I could not,
without doing violence to truth, refrain from using the language, I
have, regarding General Dyer's action. It has been proved out of his own
mouth or hostile witnesses:

(1) That the crowd was unarmed.

(2) That it contained children.

(3) That the 13th was the day of Vaisakhi fair.

(4) That thousands had come to the fair.

(5) That there was no rebellion.

(6) That during the intervening two days before the 'massacre' there was
peace in Amritsar.

(7) That the proclamation of the meeting was made the same day as
General Dyer's proclamation.

(8) That General Dyer's proclamation prohibited not meetings but
processions or gatherings of four men on the streets and not in private
or public places.

(9) That General Dyer ran no risk whether outside or inside the city.

(10) That he admitted himself that many in the crowd did not know
anything of his proclamation.

(11) That he fired without warning the crowd and even after it had
begun to disperse. He fired on the backs of the people who were
in flight.

(12) That the men were practically penned in an enclosure.

In the face of these admitted facts I do call the deed a 'massacre.' The
action amounted not to 'an error of judgment' but its 'paralysis in the
face of fancied danger.'

I am sorry to have to say that Mr. Pennington's notes, which too the
reader will find published elsewhere, betray as much ignorance as
his letter.

Whatever was adopted on paper in the days of Canning was certainly not
translated into action in its full sense. 'Promises made to the ear were
broken to the hope,' was said by a reactionary Viceroy. Military
expenditure has grown enormously since the days of Canning.

The demonstration in favour of General Dyer is practically a myth.

No trace was found of the so-called Danda Fauj dignified by the name of
bludgeon-army by Mr. Pennington. There was no rebel army in Amritsar.
The crown that committed the horrible murders and incendiarism contained
no one community exclusively. The sheet was found posted only in Lahore
and not in Amritsar. Mr. Pennington should moreover have known by this
time that the meeting held on the 13th was held, among other things, for
the purpose of condemning mob excesses. This was brought out at the
Amritsar trial. Those who surrounded him could not stop General Dyer. He
says he made up his mind to shoot in a moment. He consulted nobody. When
the correspondent says that the troops would have objected to being
concerned in 'what might in that case be not unfairly called a
'massacre,' he writes as if he had never lived in India. I wish the
Indian troops had the moral courage to refuse to shoot innocent, unarmed
men in full flight. But the Indian troops have been brought in too
slavish an atmosphere to dare do any such correct act.

I hope Mr. Pennington will not accuse me again of making unverified
assertions because I have not quoted from the books. The evidence is
there for him to use. I can only assure him that the assertions are
based on positive proofs mostly obtained from official sources.

Mr. Pennington wants me to publish an exact account of what happened on
the 10th April. He can find it in the reports, and if he will patiently
go through them he will discover that Sir Michael O'Dwyer and his
officials goaded the people into frenzied fury--a fury which nobody, as
I have already said, has condemned more than I have. The account of the
following days is summed up in one word, _viz._ 'peace' on the part of
the crowd disturbed by indiscriminate arrests, the massacre and the
series of official crimes that followed.

I am prepared to give Mr. Pennington credit for seeking after the truth.
But he has gone about it in the wrong manner. I suggest his reading the
evidence before the Hunter Committee and the Congress Committee. He need
not read the reports. But the evidence will convince him that I have
understated the case against General Dyer.

When however I read his description of himself as "for 12 years Chief
Magistrate of Districts in the South of India before reform, by
assassination and otherwise, became so fashionable." I despair of his
being able to find the truth. An angry or a biased man renders himself
incapable of finding it. And Mr. Pennington is evidently both angry and
biased. What does he mean by saying, "before reform by assassination and
otherwise became so fashionable?" It ill becomes him to talk of
assassination when the school of assassination seems happily to have
become extinct. Englishmen will never see the truth so long as they
permit their vision to be blinded by arrogant assumption of superiority
or ignorant assumptions of infallibility.


   Dear Sir,

   I do not like your scheme for "boycotting" the Government of India
   under what seems to be the somewhat less offensive (though more
   cumbrous) name of non-co-operation; but have always given you credit
   for a genuine desire to carry out revolution by peaceful means and am
   astonished at the violence of the language you use in describing
   General Dyer on page 4 of your issue of the 14th July last. You begin
   by saying that he is "by no means the worst offender," and, so far, I
   am inclined to agree, though as there has been no proper trial of
   anyone it is impossible to apportion their guilt; but then you say
   "his brutality is unmistakable," "his abject and unsoldierlike
   cowardice is apparent, he has called an _unarmed crowd_ of men and
   children--mostly holiday makers--a rebel army." "He believes himself
   to be the saviour of the Punjab in that he was able to shoot down
   like rabbits men who were _penned_ in an enclosure; such a man is
   unworthy to be considered a soldier. There was no bravery in his
   action. He ran no risk. He shot without the slightest opposition and
   without warning. This is not an error of judgement. It is paralysis
   of it in the face of _fancied_ danger. It is proof of criminal
   incapacity and heartlessness," etc.

   You must excuse me for saying that all this is mere rhetoric
   unsupported by any proof, even where proof was possible. To begin
   with, neither you nor I were present at the Jallianwalla Bagh on that
   dreadful day--dreadful especially for General Dyer for whom you show
   no sympathy,--and therefore cannot know for certain whether the crowd
   was or was not unarmed.' That it was an 'illegal,' because a
   'prohibited,' assembly is evident; for it is absurd to suppose that
   General Dyer's 4-1/2 hours march, through the city that very morning,
   during the whole of which he was warning the inhabitants against the
   danger of any sort of gathering, was not thoroughly well-known. You
   say they were 'mostly holiday makers,' but you give nor proof; and
   the idea of holiday gathering in Amritsar just then in incredible. I
   cannot understand your making such a suggestion. General Dyer was not
   the only officer present on the occasion and it is impossible to
   suppose that he would have been allowed to go on shooting into an
   innocent body of holiday-makers. Even the troops would have refused
   to carry out what might then have been not unfairly called a

   I notice that you never even allude to the frightful brutality of the
   mob which was immediately responsible for the punitive measure
   reluctantly adopted by General Dyer. Your sympathies seem to be only
   with the murderers, and I am not sanguine enough to suppose that my
   view of the case will have much influence with you. Still I am bound
   to do what I can to get at the truth, and enclose a copy of some
   notes I have had occasion to make. If you can publish an _exact_
   account of what happened at Amritsar on the 10th of April, 1919 and
   the following days, especially on the 13th, including the
   demonstration in favour of General Dyer, (if there was one), I for
   one, as a mere seeker after the truth, should be very much obliged to
   you. Mere abuse is not convincing, as you so often observe in your
   generally reasonable paper,

   Yours faithfully,
   J. R. PENNINGTON, I.O.S. (Retd.)
   27th Aug. 1920.

   For 12 years Chief Magistrate of Districts in the south of India
   before reform, by assassination and otherwise, became so fashionable.

   P.S. Let us get the case in this way. General Dyer, acting as the
   only representative of Government on the spot shot some hundreds of
   people (some of them _perhaps_ innocently mixed up in an illegal
   assembly), in the _bona fide_ belief that he was dealing with the
   remains of a very dangerous rebellion and was thereby saving the
   lives of very many thousands, and in the opinion of a great many
   people did actually save the city from falling in the hands of a
   dangerous mob.


Babu Janakdhari Prasad was a staunch coworker with me in Champaran. He
has written a long letter setting forth his reasons for his belief that
India has a great mission before her, and that she can achieve her
purpose only by non-violent non-co-operation. But he has doubts which he
would have me answer publicly. The letter being long, I am withholding.
But the doubts are entitled to respect and I must endeavour to answer
them. Here they are us framed by Bubu Janakdhari Prasad.

(a) Is not the non-co-operation movement creating a sort of race-hatred
between Englishmen and Indians, and is it in accordance with the Divine
plan of universal love and brotherhood?

(b) Does not the use of words "devilish," "satanic," etc., savour of
unbrotherly sentiment and incite feelings of hatred?

(c) Should not the non-co-operation movement be conducted on strictly
non-violent and non-emotional lines both in speech and action?

(d) Is there no danger of the movement going out of control and lending
to violence?

As to (a), I must say that the movement is not 'creating' race-hatred.
It certainly gives, as I have already said, disciplined expression to
it. You cannot eradicate evil by ignoring it. It is because I want to
promote universal brotherhood that I have taken up non-co-operation so
that, by self-purification, India may make the world better than it is.

As to (b), I know that the words 'satanic' and 'devilish' are strong,
but they relate the exact truth. They describe a system not persons: We
are bound to hate evil, if we would shun it. But by means of
non-co-operation we are able to distinguish between the evil and the
evil-doer. I have found no difficulty in describing a particular
activity of a brother of mine to be devilish, but I am not aware of
having harboured any hatred about him. Non-co-operation teaches us to
love our fellowmen in spite of their faults, not by ignoring or
over-looking them.

As to (c), the movement is certainly being conducted on strictly
non-violent lines. That all non-co-operators have not yet thoroughly
imbibed the doctrine is true. But that just shows what an evil legacy we
have inherited. Emotion there is in the movement. And it will remain. A
man without emotion is a man without feeling.

As to (d), there certainly is danger of the movement becoming violent.
But we may no more drop non-violent non-co-operation because of its
dangers, than we may stop freedom because of the danger of its abuse.


Messrs. Popley and Philips have been good enough to reply to my letter
"To Every Englishman in India." I recognise and appreciate the friendly
spirit of their letter. But I see that there are fundamental differences
which must for the time being divide them and me. So long as I felt
that, in spite of grievous lapses the British Empire represented an
activity for the worlds and India's good, I clung to it like a child to
its mother's breast. But that faith is gone. The British nation has
endorsed the Punjab and Khilsfat crimes. The is no doubt a dissenting
minority. But a dissenting minority that satisfies itself with a mere
expression of its opinion and continues to help the wrong-doer partakes
in wrong-doing.

And when the sum total of his energy represents a minus quantity one may
not pick out the plus quantities, hold them up for admiration, and ask
an admiring public to help regarding them. It is a favourite design of
Satan to temper evil with a show of good and thus lure the unwary into
the trap. The only way the world has known of defeating Satan is by
shunning him. I invite Englishmen, who could work out the ideal the
believe in, to join the ranks of the non-co-operationists. W.T. Stead
prayed for the reverse of the British arms during the Boer war. Miss
Hobbhouse invited the Boers to keep up the fight. The betrayal of India
is much worse than the injustice done to the Boers. The Boers fought and
bled for their rights. When therefore, we are prepared to bleed, the
right will have become embodied, and idolatrous world will perceive it
and do homage to it.

But Messers. Popley and Phillips object that I have allied myself with
those who would draw the sword if they could. I see nothing wrong in
it. They represent the right no less than I do. And is it not worth
while trying to prevent an unsheathing of the sword by helping to win
the bloodless battle? Those who recognise the truth of the Indian
position can only do God's work by assisting this non-violent campaign.

The second objection raised by these English friends is more to the
point. I would be guilty of wrong-doing myself if the Muslim cause was
not just. The fact is that the Muslim claim is not to perpetuate foreign
domination of non-Muslim or Turkish races. The Indian Mussalmans do not
resist self-determination, but they would fight to the last the
nefarious plan of exploiting Mesopotamia under the plea of
self-determination. They must resist the studied attempt to humiliate
Turkey and therefore Islam, under the false pretext of ensuring Armenian

The third objection has reference to schools. I do object to missionary
or any schools being carried on with Government money. It is true that
it was at one time our money. Will these good missionaries be justified
in educating me with funds given to them by a robber who has robbed me
of my money, religion and honour because the money was originally mine.

I personally tolerated the financial robbery of India, but it would
have been a sin to have tolerated the robbery of honour through the
Punjab, and of religion through Turkey. This is strong language. But
nothing less would truly describe my deep conviction. Needless to add
that the emptying of Government aided, or affiliated, schools does not
mean starving the young mind National Schools are coming into being as
fast as the others are emptied.

Messrs. Popley and Phillips think that my sense of justice has been
blurred by the knowledge of the Punjab and the Khilafat wrongs. I hope
not. I have asked friends to show me some good fruit (intended and
deliberately produced) of the British occupation of India. And I assure
them that I shall make the amplest amends if I find that I have erred in
my eagerness about the Khilafat and the Punjab wrongs.


Dear Mr. Gandhi,

Thank you for your letter to every Englishman in India, with its
hard-hitting and its generous tone. Something within us responds to the
note which you have struck. We are not representatives of any corporate
body, but we think that millions of our countrymen in England, and not
a few in India, feel as we do. The reading of your letter convinces us
that you and we cannot be real enemies.

May we say at once that in so far as the British Empire stands for the
domination and exploitation of other races for Britain's benefit, for
degrading treatment of any, for traffic in intoxicating liquors, for
repressive legislation, for administration such as that which to the
Amritsar incidents, we desire the end of it as much as you do? We quite
understand that in the excitement of the present crisis, owing to
certain acts of the British Administration, which we join with you in
condemning, the Empire presents itself to you under this aspect along.
But from personal contact with our countrymen, we know that working like
leaven in the midst of such tendencies, as you and we deplore, is the
faith in a better ideal--the ideal of a commonwealth of free peoples
voluntarily linked together by the ties of common experience in the past
and common aspirations for the future, a commonwealth which may hope to
spread liberty and progress through the whole earth. With vast numbers
of our countrymen we value the British Empire mainly as affording the
possibility of the realization of such an idea and on the ground give it
our loyal allegiance.

Meanwhile we do repent of that arrogant attitude to Indians which has
been all too common among our countrymen, we do hold Indians to be our
brothers and equals, many of them our superiors, and we would rather be
servants than rulers of India. We desire an administration which cannot
he intimated either by the selfish element in Anglo-Indian political
opinion or by any other sectional interest and which shall govern in
accordance with the best democratic principles. We should welcome the
convening of a National assembly of recognized leaders of the people,
representing all shades of political opinion of every caste, race and
creed, to frame a constitution for Swaraj. In all the things that matter
most we are with you. Surely you and we can co-operate in the service of
India, in such matters for example as education. It seems to us nothing
short of a tragedy that you should be rallying Indian Patriotism to
inaugurate a new era of good will under a watchword that divides,
instead of uniting all.

We have spoken of the large amount of common ground upon which you and
we can stand. But frankness demands that we express our anxiety about
some items in your programme. Leaving aside smaller questions on which
your letter seems to us to do the British side less than justice, may we
mention three main points? Your insistence on spiritual forces alone we
deeply respect and desire to emulate, but we cannot understand your
combining into it with a close alliance with those who, as you frankly
say, would draw the sword as soon as they could.

Your desire for an education truly national commands our whole-hearted
approval. But instead of Indianizing the present system, as you could
begin to do from the beginning of next year, or instead of creating a
hundred institutions such as that at Bolpur and turning into them the
stream of India's young intellectual life, you appear to be turning that
stream out of its present channel into open sands where it may dry up.
In other words, you seem to us to be risking the complete cessation, for
a period possibly, of years, of all education, for a large number of
boys and young men. Is it best, for those young men or for India that
the present imperfect education should cease before a better education
is ready to take its place?

Your desire to unite Mohammedan and Hindu and to share with your
Mohammedan brethren in seeking the satisfaction of Mohammedan
aspirations, we can understand and sympathize with. But is there no
danger, in the course which some of your party have urged upon the
Government, that certain races in the former Ottoman Empire might be
fixed under a foreign yoke, for worse than that which you hold the
English yoke to be? You could not wish to purchase freedom in India at
the price of enslavement in the middle East.

To sum up, we thank you for the spirit of your letter, to which we have
tried to respond in the same spirit. We are with you in the desire for
an India genuinely free to develop the best that is in her and in the
belief that best is something wonderful of which the world to-day
stands in need.

We are ready to co-operate with you and with every other man of any race
or nationality who will help India to realize her best. Are you going to
insist that you can have nothing to do with us if we receive a
government grant (i.e., Indian money), for an Indian School. Surely some
more inspiring battle cry than non-co-operation can be discovered. We
have ventured quite frankly to point out three items in your present
programme, which seem to us likely to hinder the attainment of your true
ideals for Indian greatness. But those ideals themselves command our
warm sympathy, and we desire to work, so far as we have opportunity, for
their attainment. In fact, it is only thus that we can interpret our
British citizenship.

Yours sincerely,
(Sd.) H.A. POPLEY,
November 15, 1920.


Mr. Gandhi has addressed the following letter to the Viceroy:--

It is not without a pang that I return the Kaisar-i-Hind gold medal
granted to me by your predecessor for my humanitarian work in South
Africa, the Zulu war medal granted in South Africa for my services as
officer in charge of the Indian volunteer ambulance corps in 1906 and
the Boer war medal fur my services as assistant superintendent of the
Indian volunteer stretcher bearer corps during the Boer war of
1899-1900. I venture to return these medals in pursuance of the scheme
of non-co-operation inaugurated to-day in connection with the Khilafat
movement. Valuable as those honours have been to me, I cannot wear them
with an easy conscience so long as my Mussalman countrymen have to
labour under a wrong done to their religious sentiment. Events that have
happened during the past month have confirmed me in the opinion that the
Imperial Government have acted in the Khilafat matter in an
unscrupulous, immoral and unjust manner and have been moving from wrong
to wrong in order to defend their immorality. I can retain neither
respect nor affection for such a Government.

The attitude of the Imperial and Your Excellency's Governments on the
Punjab question has given me additional cause for grave dissatisfaction.
I had the honour, as Your Excellency is aware, as one of the congress
commissioners to investigate the causes of the disorders in the Punjab
during the April of 1919. And it is my deliberate conviction that Sir
Michael O'Dwyer was totally unfit to hold the office of Lieutenant
Governor of Punjab and that his policy was primarily responsible for
infuriating the mob at Amritsar. Do doubt the mob excesses were
unpardonable; incendiarism, murder of five innocent Englishmen and the
cowardly assault on Miss Sherwood were most deplorable and uncalled for.
But the punitive measures taken by General Dyer, Col. Frank Johnson,
Col. O'Brien, Mr. Bosworth Smith, Rai Shri Ram Sud, Mr. Malik Khan and
other officers were out of all proportional to the crime of the people
and amounted to wanton cruelty and inhumanity and almost unparalleled in
modern times. Your excellency's light-hearted treatment of the official
crime, your, exoneration of Sir Michael O'Dwyer, Mr. Montagu's dispatch
and above all the shameful ignorance of the Punjab events and callous
disregard of the feelings of Indians betrayed by the House of Lords,
have filled me with the gravest misgivings regarding the future of the
Empire, have estranged me completely from the present Government and
have disabled me from tendering, as I have hitherto whole-heartedly
tendered, my loyal co-operation.

In my humble opinion the ordinary method of agitating by way of
petitions, deputations and the like is no remedy for moving to
repentence a Government so hopelessly indifferent to the welfare of its
charges as the Government of India has proved to me. In European
countries, condonation of such grievous wrongs as the Khilafat and the
Punjab would have resulted in a bloody revolution by the people. They
would have resisted at all costs national emasculation such as the said
wrongs imply. But half of India is to weak to offer violent resistance
and the other half is unwilling to do so.

I have therefore ventured to suggest the remedy of non-co-operation which
enables those who wish, to dissociate themselves from the Government and
which, if it is unattended by violence and undertaken in an ordered
manner, must compel it to retrace its steps and undo the wrongs
committed. But whilst I shall pursue the policy of non-co-operation in
so far as I can carry the people with me, I shall not lose hope that you
will yet see your way to do justice. I therefore respectfully ask Your
Excellency to summon a conference of the recognised leaders of the
people and in consultation with them find a way that would placate the
Mussalmans and do reparation to the unhappy Punjab.

_August 4, 1920._


The following letter has been addressed by Mr. Gandhi to his Royal
Highness the Duke of Connaught;--


Your Royal Highness must have heard a great deal about non-co-operation,
non-co-operationists and their methods and incidentally of me its humble
author. I fear that the information given to Your Royal Highness must
have been in its nature one-sided. I owe it to you and to my friends and
myself that I should place before you what I conceive to be the scope of
non-co-operation as followed not only be me but my closest associates
such as Messrs. Shaukat Ali and Mahomed Ali.

For me it is no joy and pleasure to be actively associated in the
boycott of your Royal Highness' visit--I have tendered loyal and
voluntary association to the Government for an unbroken period of nearly
30 years in the full belief that through that way lay the path of
freedom for my country. It was therefore no slight thing for me to
suggest to my countrymen that we should take no part in welcoming Your
Royal Highness. Not one among us has anything against you as an English
gentleman. We hold your person as sacred as that of a dearest friend. I
do not know any of my friends who would not guard it with his life, if
he found it in danger. We are not at war with individual Englishmen we
seek not to destroy English life. We do desire to destroy a system that
has emasculated our country in body, mind and soul. We are determined to
battle with all our might against that in the English nature which has
made O'Dwyerism and Dyerism possible in the Punjab and has resulted in a
wanton affront upon Islam a faith professed by seven crores of our
countrymen. The affront has been put in breach of the letter and the
spirit of the solemn declaration of the Prime Minister. We consider it
to be inconsistent with our self respect any longer to brook the spirit
of superiority and dominance which has systematically ignored and
disregarded the sentiments of thirty crores of the innocent people of
India on many a vital matter. It is humiliating to us, it cannot be a
matter of pride to you, that thirty crores of Indians should live day in
and day out in the fear of their lives from one hundred thousand
Englishmen and therefore be under subjection to them.

Your Royal Highness has come not to end the system I have described but
to sustain it by upholding its prestige. Your first pronouncement was a
laudation of Lord Wellingdon. I have the privilege of knowing him. I
believe him to be an honest and amiable gentleman who will not willingly
hurt even a fly. But, he has certainly failed as a ruler. He allowed
himself to be guided by those whose interest it was to support their
power. He is reading the mind of the Dravidian province. Here in Bengal
you are issuing a certificate of merit to a Governor who is again from
all I have heard an estimable gentleman. But he knows nothing of the
heart of Bengal and its yearnings. Bengal is not Calcutta. Fort William
and the palaces of Calcutta represent an insolent exploitation of the
unmurmuring and highly cultured peasantry of this fair province.
Non-co-operationists have come to the conclusion that they must not be
deceived by the reforms that tinker with the problem of India's distress
and humiliation. Nor must they be impatient and angry. We must not in
our impatient anger resort, to stupid violence. We freely admit that we
must take our due share of the blame for the existing state. It is not
so much the British guns that are responsible fur our subjection, as our
voluntary co-operation. Our non-participation in a hearty welcome to
your Royal Highness is thus in no sense a demonstration against your
high personage but it is against the system you have come to uphold. I
know that individual Englishmen cannot even if they will alter the
English nature all of a sudden. If we would be equals of Englishmen we
must cast off fear. We must learn to be self-reliant and independent of
the schools, courts, protection, and patronage of a Government, we seek
to end, if it will not mend. Hence this non-violent non-co-operation. I
know that we have not all yet become non-violent in speech and deed. But
the results so far achieved have I assure Your Royal Highness, been
amazing. The people have understood the secret and the value of
non-violence as they have never done before. He who runs may see that
this a religious, purifying movement. We are leaving off drink, we are
trying to rid India of the curse of untouchability. We are trying to
throw off foreign tinsel splendour and by reverting to the spinning
wheel reviving the ancient and the poetic simplicity of life. We hope
thereby to sterilize the existing harmful institution. I ask Your Royal
Highness as an Englishman to study this movement and its possibilities
for the Empire and the world. We are at war with nothing that is good in
the world. In protecting Islam in the manner we are, we are protecting
all religions. In protecting the honour of India we are protecting the
honour of humanity. For our means are hurtful to none. We desire to live
on terms of friendship with Englishmen but that friendship must be
friendship of equals in both theory and practice. And we must continue
to non-co-operate, i.e. to purify ourselves till the goal is achieved.

I ask Your Royal Highness and through you every Englishman to
appreciate the view-point of the non-co-operationists.

I beg to remain,
Your Royal Highness's faithful servant,
(Sd.) M.K. GANDHI.
_February_, 1921


It is to be wished that non-co-operationists will clearly recognise that
nothing can stop the onward march of the nation as violence. Ireland may
gain its freedom by violence. Turkey may regain her lost possessions by
violence within measurable distance of time. But India cannot win her
freedom by violence for a century, because her people are not built in
the manner of other nations. They have been nurtured in the traditions
of suffering. Rightly or wrongly, for good or ill, Islam too has evolved
along peaceful lines in India. And I make bold to say that, if the
honour of Islam is to be vindicated through its followers in India, it
will only be by methods of peaceful, silent, dignified, conscious, and
courageous suffering. The more I study that wonderful faith, the more
convinced I become that the glory of Islam is due not to the sword but
to the sufferings, the renunciation, and the nobility of its early
Caliphs. Islam decayed when its followers, mistaking the evil for the
good, dangled the sword in the face of man, and lost sight of the
godliness, the humility, and austerity of its founder and his disciples.
But, I am not at the present moment, concerned with showing that the
basis of Islam, as of all religions, is not violence but suffering not
the taking of life but the giving of it.

What I am anxious to show is that non-co-operationists must be true as
well to the spirit as to the letter of their vow if they would gain
Swaraj within one year. They may forget non-co-operation but they dare
not forget non-violence. Indeed, non-co-operation is non-violence. We
are violent when we sustain a government whose creed is violence. It
bases itself finally not on right but on might. Its last appeal is not
to reason, nor the heart, but to the sword. We are tired of this creed
and we have risen against it. Let us not ourselves belie our profession
by being violent. Though the English are very few, they are organised
for violence. Though we are many we cannot be organised for violence for
a long time to come. Violence for us is a gospel or despair.

I have seen a pathetic letter from a god-fearing English woman who
defends Dyerism for she thinks that, if General Dyer had not enacted
Jallianwala, women and children would have been murdered by us. If we
are such brutes as to desire the blood of innocent women and children,
we deserve to be blotted out from the face of the earth. There is the
other side. It did not strike this good lady that, if we were friends,
the price that her countrymen paid at Jallianwala for buying their
safety was too great. They gained their safety at the cost of their
humanity. General Dyer has been haltingly blamed, and his evil genius
Sir Michael O'Dwyer entirely exonerated because Englishmen do not want
to leave this country of fields even if everyone of us has to be killed.
If we go mad again as we did at Amritsar, let there be no mistake that a
blacker Jallianwala will be enacted.

Shall we copy Dyerism and O'Dwyerism even whilst we are condemning it?
Let not our rock be violence and devilry. Our rock must be non-violence
and godliness. Let us, workers, be clear as to what we are about.
_Swaraj depends upon our ability to control all the forces of violence
on our side._ Therefore there is no Swaraj within one year, if there is
violence on the part of the people.

We must then refrain from sitting _dhurna_, we must refrain from crying
'shame, shame' to anybody, we must not use any coercion to persuade our
people to adopt our way. We must guarantee to them the same freedom we
claim for ourselves. We must not tamper with the masses. It is dangerous
to make political use of factory labourers or the peasantry--not that we
are not entitled to do so, but we are not ready for it. We have
neglected their political (as distinguished from literary) education all
these long years. We have not got enough honest, intelligent, reliable,
and brave workers to enable us to act upon these countrymen of ours.


[The following is the Statement of Mahatma Gandhi made before the Court
during his Trial in Ahmedabad on the 18th March 1921.]

Before reading his written statement Mahatma Gandhi spoke a few words as
introductory remarks to the whole statement. He said: Before I read this
statement, I would like to state that I entirely endorse the learned
Advocate-General's remarks in connection with my humble self. I think
that he was entirely fair to me in all the statements that he has made,
because it is very true and I have no desire whatsoever to conceal from
this Court the fact that to preach disaffection towards the existing
system of Government has become almost a passion with me. And the
learned Advocate-General is also entirely in the right when he says that
my preaching of disaffection did not commence with my connection with
"Young India" but that it commenced much earlier and in the statement
that I am about to read it will be my painful duty to admit before this
Court that it commenced much earlier than the period stated by the
Advocate-General. It is the most painful duty with me but I have to
discharge that duty knowing the responsibility that rested upon my
shoulders. And I wish to endorse all the blame that the
Advocate-General has thrown on my shoulders in connection with the
Bombay occurrence, Madras occurrences, and the Chouri Choura occurrences
thinking over these things deeply, and sleeping over them night after
night and examining my heart I have come to the conclusion that it is
impossible for me to dissociate myself from the diabolical crimes of
Chouri Choura or the mad outrages of Bombay. He is quite right when he
says that as a man of responsibility, a man having received a fair share
of education, having had a fair share of experience of this world, I
should know them. I knew that I was playing with fire. I ran the risk
and if I was set free I would still do the same. I would be failing in
my duty if I do not do so. I have felt it this morning that I would have
failed in my duty if I did not say all what I said here just now. I
wanted to avoid violence. Non-violence is the first article of my faith.
It is the last article of my faith. But I had to make my choice. I had
either to submit to a system which I considered has done an irreparable
harm to my country or incur the risk of the mad fury of my people
bursting forth when they understood the truth from my lips. I know that
my people have sometimes gone mad. I am deeply sorry for it; and I am,
therefore, here to submit not to a light penalty but to the highest
penalty. I do not ask for mercy. I do not plead any extenuating act. I
am here, therefore, to invite and submit to the highest penalty that can
be inflicted upon me for what in law is a deliberate crime and what
appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen. The only course open
to you, Mr. Judge, is, as I am just going to say in my statement, either
to resign your post or inflict on me the severest penalty if you believe
that the system and law you are assisting to administer are good for the
people. I do not expect that kind of conversion. But by the time I have
finished with my statement you will, perhaps, have a glimpse of what is
raging within my breast to run this maddest risk which a sane man
can run.


I owe it perhaps to the Indian public and to the public in England to
placate which this prosecution is mainly taken up that I should explain
why from a staunch loyalist and co-operator I have become an
uncompromising disaffectionist and non-co-operator. To the Court too I
should say why I plead guilty to the charge of promoting disaffection
towards the Government established by law in India. My public life
began in 1893 in South Africa in troubled weather. My first contact with
British authority in that country was not of a happy character. I
discovered that as a man and as an Indian I had no rights. On the
contrary I discovered that I had no rights as a man because I was
an Indian.

But I was not baffled. I thought that this treatment of Indians was an
excrescence upon a system that was intrinsically and mainly good. I gave
the Government my voluntary and hearty co-operation, criticising it
fully where I felt it was faulty but never wishing its destruction.

Consequently when the existence of the Empire was threatened in 1899 by
the Boer challenge, I offered my services to it, raised a volunteer
ambulance corps and served at several actions that took place for the
relief of Ladysmith. Similarly in 1906 at the time of the Zulu revolt I
raised a stretcher-bearer party and served till the end of the
'rebellion'. On both these occasions I received medals and was even
mentioned in despatches. For my work in South Africa I was given by Lord
Hardinge a Kaiser-i-Hind Gold Medal. When the war broke out in 1914
between England and Germany I raised a volunteer ambulance corps in
London consisting of the then resident Indians in London, chiefly
students. Its work was acknowledged by the authorities to be valuable.
Lastly in India when a special appeal was made at the War Conference
in Delhi in 1917 by Lord Chelmsford for recruits, I struggled at the
cost of my health to raise a corps in Kheda and the response was being
made when the hostilities ceased and orders were received that no more
recruits were wanted. In all those efforts at service I was actuated by
the belief that it was possible by such services to gain a status of
full equality in the Empire for my countrymen.

The first shock came in the shape of the Rowlalt Act a law designed to
rob the people of all real freedom. I felt called upon to lead an
intensive agitation against it. Then followed the Punjab horrors
beginning with the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh and culminating in
brawling orders, public floggings and other indescribable humiliations,
I discovered too that the plighted word of the Prime Minister to the
Mussalmans of India regarding the integrity of Turkey and the holy
places of Islam was not likely to be fulfilled. But in spite of the
foreboding and the grave warnings of friends, at the Amritsar Congress
in 1919 I fought for co-operation and working the Montagu-Chelmsford
reforms, hoping that the Prime Minister would redeem his promise to the
Indian Mussalmans, that the Punjab wound would be healed and that the
reforms inadequate and unsatisfactory though they were, marked a new era
of hope in the life of India. But all that hope was shattered. The
Khilafat promise was not to be redeemed. The Punjab crime was
white-washed and most culprits went not only unpunished but remained in
service and some continued to draw pensions from the Indian revenue, and
in some cases were even rewarded. I saw too that not only did the
reforms not mark a change of heart, but they were only a method of
further draining India of her wealth and of prolonging her servitude.

I came reluctantly to the conclusion that the British connection had
made India more helpless than she ever was before, politically and
economically. A disarmed India has no power of resistance against any
aggressor if she wanted to engage in an armed conflict with him. So much
is this the case that some of our best men consider that India must take
generations before she can achieve the Dominion status. She has become
so poor that she has little power of resisting famines. Before the
British advent India spun and wove in her millions of cottages just the
supplement she needed for adding to her meagre agricultural resources.
The cottage industry, so vital for India's existence, has been ruined by
incredibly heartless and inhuman processes as described by English
witnesses. Little do town-dwellers know how the semi-starved masses of
Indians are slowly sinking to lifelessness. Little do they know that
their miserable comfort represents the brokerage they get for the work
they do for the foreign exploiter, that the profits and the brokerage
are sucked from the masses. Little do they realise that the Government
established by law in British India is carried on for this exploitation
of the masses. No sophistry, no jugglery in figures can explain away the
evidence the skeletons in many villages present to the naked eye. I have
no doubt whatsoever that both England and the town dwellers of India
will have to answer, if there is a God above, for this crime against
humanity which is perhaps unequalled in history. The law itself in this
country has been used to serve the foreign exploiter. My unbiased,
examination of the Punjab Martial Law cases had led me to believe that
at least ninety-five per cent. of convictions were wholly bad. My
experience of political cases in India leads me to the conclusion that
in nine out of every ten the condemned men were totally innocent. Their
crime consisted in love of their country. In ninety-nine cases out of
hundred justice has been denied to Indians as against Europeans in the
Court of India. This is not an exaggerated picture. It is the experience
of almost every Indian who has had anything to do such cases. In my
opinion the administration of the law is thus prostituted consciously or
unconsciously for the benefit of the exploiter. The greatest misfortune
is that Englishmen and their Indian associates in the administration of
the country do not know that they are engaged in the crime I have
attempted to describe. I am satisfied that many English and Indian
officials honestly believe that they are administering one of the best
systems devised in the world and that India is making steady though slow
progress. They do not know that a subtle but effective system of
terrorism and an organised display of force on the one hand and the
deprivation of all powers of retaliation of self-defence on the other
have emasculated the people and induced in them the habit of simulation.
This awful habit has added to the ignorance and the self-deception of
the administrators. Section 124-A under which I am happily charged is
perhaps the prince among the political sections of the Indian Penal Code
designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen. Affection cannot be
manufactured or regulated by law. If one has no affection for a person
or thing one should be free to give the fullest expression to his
disaffection so long as he does not contemplate, promote or incite to
violence. But the section under which mere promotion of disaffection is
a crime. I have studied some of the cases tried under it, and I know
that some of the most loved of India's patriots have been convicted
under it. I consider it a privilege therefore, to be charged under it.
I have endeavoured to give in their briefest outline the reasons for my
disaffection. I have no personal ill-will against any single
administrator, much less can I have any disaffection towards the King's
person. But I hold it to be a virtue to be disaffected towards a
Government which in its totality has done more harm to India than any
previous system. India is less manly under the British rule than she
ever was before. Holding such a belief, I consider it to be a sin to
have affection for the system. And it has been a precious privilege for
me to be able to write what I have in the various articles tendered in
evidence against me.

In fact I believe that I have rendered a service to India and England by
showing in non-co-operation the way out of the unnatural state in which
both are living. In my humble opinion, non-co-operation with evil is as
much a duty as is co-operation with good. But in the past,
non-co-operation has been deliberately expressed in violence to the evil
doer. I am endeavouring to show to my countrymen that violent
non-co-operation only multiplies evil and that as evil can only be
sustained by violence, withdrawal of support of evil requires complete
abstention from violence. Non-violent implies voluntary submission to
the penalty for non-co-operation with evil. I am here, therefore, to
invite and submit cheerfully to the highest penalty that can he
inflicted upon me for what in law is a deliberate crime and what appears
to me to be the highest duty of a citizen. The only course open to you,
the Judge and the Assessors, is either to resign your posts and thus
dissociate yourselves from evil if you feel that the law you are called
upon to administer is an evil and that in reality I am innocent, or to
inflict on me the severest penalty if you believe that the system and
the law you are assisting to administer are good for the people of this
country and that my activity is therefore injurious to the public weal.


*** End of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Freedom's Battle - Being a Comprehensive Collection of Writings and Speeches on the Present Situation" ***

Doctrine Publishing Corporation provides digitized public domain materials.
Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians.
This effort is time consuming and expensive, so in order to keep providing
this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties,
including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Doctrine Publishing
Corporation's ISYS search for use by individuals, and we request that you
use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort
to Doctrine Publishing's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a
large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of
public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Keep it legal -  Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for
ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because
we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States,
that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries.
Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we
can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is
allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Doctrine Publishing
ISYS search  means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world.
Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About ISYS® Search Software
Established in 1988, ISYS Search Software is a global supplier of enterprise
search solutions for business and government.  The company's award-winning
software suite offers a broad range of search, navigation and discovery
solutions for desktop search, intranet search, SharePoint search and embedded
search applications.  ISYS has been deployed by thousands of organizations
operating in a variety of industries, including government, legal, law
enforcement, financial services, healthcare and recruitment.