Freedom's Battle — Swaraj

[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.

] IV. SWARAJ

SWARAJ IN ONE YEAR

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.

BRITISH RULE--AN EVIL

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.

A MOVEMENT OF PURIFICATION

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.

WHY WAS INDIA LOST?

[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.

SWARAJ MY IDEAL

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 awakening.

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.

ON THE WRONG TRACK

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.