Freedom's Battle — Non-Co-Operation, Part 4

_August_ 1920. SPEECH AT BEZWADA

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 help.

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 CONGRESS

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.

WHO IS DISLOYAL?

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.

CRUSADE AGAINST NON-CO-OPERATION

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.

SPEECH AT MUZAFFARABAD

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.

RIDICULE REPLACING REPRESSION

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.

THE VICEREGAL PRONOUNCEMENT

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.