Freedom's Battle — Non-Co-Operation, Part 2

THE INWARDNESS OF NON-CO-OPERATION

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 scoundrelism.

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.

A MISSIONARY ON NON-CO-OPERATION

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 non-co-operation.

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.

HOW TO WORK NON-CO-OPERATION

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?

SPEECH AT MADRAS

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.

LOKAMANYA TILAK

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 of our life.

I have come to ask everyone of you whether you are ready and willing to give sufficiently for your country's sake for 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 1903 when I first made acquaintance with the Tamil labourers in South Africa; and I hope that in these hours of our trial, this province will not be second to any other in India, and that it will lead in this spirit of self-sacrifice and will translate every word into action.

NEED FOR NON-CO-OPERATION

What is this non-co-operation, about which you have heard 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 self-respect.

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.

IS IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

I have been told that non-co-operation is unconstitutional.

I venture to deny that it is unconstitutional.

On the contrary, I hold that non-co-operation is a just and religious doctrine; it is the inherent right of every human being and it is perfectly constitutional.

A great lover of the British Empire has said that under the British constitution even a successful rebellion is perfectly constitutional and he quotes historical instances, which I cannot deny, in support of his claim.

I

do not claim any constitutionality for a rebellion successful or otherwise, so long as that rebellion means in the ordinary sense of the term, what it does mean namely wresting justice by violent means.

On the contrary, I have said it repeatedly to my countrymen that violence whatever end it may serve in Europe, will never serve us in India.

My brother and friend Shaukat Ali believes in methods of violence; and if it was in his power to draw the sword against the British Empire, I know that he has got the courage of a man and he has got also the wisdom to see that he should offer that battle to the British Empire.

But because he 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.

NON-CO-OPERATION AND THE SPECIAL CONGRESS

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.