Freedom's Battle — Non-Co-Operation, Part 1

VIII. NON-CO-OPERATION

A writer in the "Times of India," the Editor of that wonderful daily and Mrs. Besant have all in their own manner condemned non-co-operation conceived in connection with the Khilafat movement.

All the three writings naturally discuss many side issues which I shall omit for the time being.

I propose to answer two serious objections raised by the writers.

The sobriety with which they are stated entitles them to a greater consideration than if they had been given in violent language.

In non-co-operation, the writers think, it would be difficult if not impossible to avoid violence.

Indeed violence, the "Times of India" editorial says, has already commenced in that ostracism has been resorted to in Calcutta and Delhi.

Now I fear that ostracism to a certain extent is impossible to avoid.

I remember in South Africa in the initial stages of the passive resistance campaign those who had fallen away were ostracised.

Ostracism is violent or peaceful in according to the manner in which it is practised.

A congregation may well refuse to recite prayers after a priest who prizes his title above his honour.

But the ostracism will become violent if the individual life of a person is made unbearable by insults innuendoes or abuse.

The real danger of violence lies in the people resorting to non-co-operation becoming impatient and revengeful.

This may happen, if, for instance, payment of taxes is suddenly withdrawn or if pressure is put upon soldiers to lay down their arms.

I however do not fear any evil consequences, for the simple reason that every responsible Mahomedan understands that non-co-operation to be successful must be totally unattended with violence.

The other objection raised is that those who may give up their service may have to starve.

That is just a possibility but a remote one, for the committee will certainly make due provision for those who may suddenly find themselves out of employment.

I propose however to examine the whole of the difficult question much more fully in a future issue and hope to show that if Indian-Mahomedan feeling is to be respected, there is nothing left but non-co-operation if the decision arrived at is adverse.

MR.

MONTAGU ON THE KHILAFAT AGITATION

Mr. Montagu does not like the Khilafat agitation that is daily gathering force.

In answer to questions put in the House of Commons, he is reported to have said that whilst he acknowledged that I had rendered distinguished services to the country in the past, he could not look upon my present attitude with equanimity and that it was not to be expected that I could now be treated as leniently as I was during the Rowlatt Act agitation.

He added that he had every confidence in the central and the local Governments, that they were carefully watching the movement and that they had full power to deal with the situation.

This statement of Mr. Montagu has been regarded in some quarters as a threat.

It has even been considered to be a blank cheque for the Government of India to re-establish the reign of terror if they chose.

It is certainly inconsistent with his desire to base the Government on the goodwill of the people.

At the same time if the Hunter Committee's finding be true and if I was the cause of the disturbances last year, I was undoubtedly treated with exceptional leniency, I admit too that my activity this year is fraught with greater peril to the Empire as it is being conducted to-day than was last year's activity.

Non-co-operation in itself is more harmless than civil disobedience, but in its effect it is far more dangerous for the Government than civil disobedience.

Non-co-operation is intended so far to paralyse the Government, as to compel justice from it.

If it is carried to the extreme point, it can bring the Government to a standstill.

A friend who has been listening to my speeches once asked me whether I did not come under the sedition section of the Indian Penal Code.

Though I had not fully considered it, I told him that very probably I did and that I could not plead 'not guilty' if I was charged under it.

For I must admit that I can pretend to no 'affection' for the present Government.

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

I draw no distinction between the Imperial and the Indian Government.

The latter has accepted, on the Khilafat, the policy imposed upon it by the former.

And in the Punjab case the former has endorsed the policy of terrorism and emasculation of a brave people initiated by the latter.

British ministers have broken their pledged word and wantonly wounded the feelings of the seventy million Mussulmans of India.

Innocent men and women were insulted by the insolent officers of the Punjab Government.

Their wrongs not only unrighted but the very officers who so cruelly subjected them to barbarous humiliation retain office under the Government.

When at Amritsar last year I pleaded with all the earnestness I could command for co-operation with the Government and for response to the wishes expressed in the Royal Proclamation; I did so because I honestly believed that a new era was about to begin, and that the old spirit of fear, distrust and consequent terrorism was about to give place to the new spirit of respect, trust and good-will.

I sincerely believed that the Mussalman sentiment would be placated and that the officers that had misbehaved during the Martial Law regime in the Punjab would be at least dismissed and the people would be otherwise made to feel that a Government that had always been found quick (and rightly) to punish popular excesses would not fail to punish its agents' misdeeds.

But to my amazement and dismay I have discovered that the present representatives of the Empire have become dishonest and unscrupulous.

They have no real regard for the wishes of the people of India and they count Indian honour as of little consequence.

I can no longer retain affection for a Government so evilly manned as it is now-a-days.

And for me, it is humiliating to retain my freedom and be a witness to the continuing wrong.

Mr. Montagu however is certainly right in threatening me with deprivation of my liberty if I persist in endangering the existence of the Government.

For that must be the result if my activity bears fruit.

My only regret is that inasmuch as Mr. Montagu admits my past services, he might have perceived that there must be something exceptionally bad in the Government if a well-wisher like me could no longer give his affection to it.

It was simpler to insist on justice being done to the Mussulmans and to the Punjab than to threaten me with punishment so that the injustice might be perpetuated.

Indeed I fully expect it will be found that even in promoting disaffection towards an unjust Government I have rendered greater services to the Empire than I am already credited with.

At the present moment, however, the duty of those who approve of my activity is clear.

They ought on no account to resent the deprivation of my liberty, should the Government of India deem it to be their duty to take it away.

A citizen has no right to resist such restriction imposed in accordance with the laws of the State to which he belongs.

Much less have those who sympathize with him.

In my case there can be no question of sympathy.

For I deliberately oppose the Government to the extent of trying to put its very existence in jeopardy.

For my supporters, therefore, it must be a moment of joy when I am imprisoned.

It means the beginning of success if only the supporters continue the policy for which I stand.

If the Government arrest me, they would do so in order to stop the progress of non-co-operation which I preach.

It follows that if non-co-operation continues with unabated vigour, even after my arrest, the Government must imprison others or grant the people's wish in order to gain their co-operation.

Any eruption of violence on the part of the people even under provocation would end in disaster.

Whether therefore it is I or any one else who is arrested during the campaign, the first condition of success is that there must be no resentment shown against it.

We cannot imperil the very existence of a Government and quarrel with its attempt to save itself by punishing those who place it in danger.

AT THE CALL OF THE COUNTRY

Dr. Sapru delivered before the Khilafat Conference at Allahabad an impassioned address sympathising with the Mussulmans in their trouble but dissuaded them from embarking on non-co-operation.

He was frankly unable to suggest a substitute but was emphatically of opinion that whether there was a substitute or not non-co-operation was a remedy worse than the disease.

He said further that Mussulmans will be taking upon their shoulders, a serious responsibility, if whilst they appealed to the ignorant masses to join them, they could not appeal to the Indian judges to resign and if they did they would not succeed.

I acknowledge the force of Dr. Sapru's last argument.

At the back of Dr. Sapru's mind is the fear that non-co-operation by the ignorant people would lead to distress and chaos and would do no good.

In my opinion any non-co-operation is bound to do some good.

Even the Viceragal door-keeper saying, 'Please Sir, I can serve the Government no longer because it has hurt my national honour' and resigning is a step mightier and more effective than the mightiest speech declaiming against the Government for its injustice.

Nevertheless it would be wrong to appeal to the door-keeper until one has appealed to the highest in the land.

And as I propose, if the necessity arose, to ask the door-keepers of the Government to dissociate themselves from an unjust Government I propose now to address, an appeal to the Judges and the Executive Councillors to join the protest that is rising from all over India against the double wrong done to India, on the Khilafat and the Punjab question.

In both, national honour is involved.

I take it that these gentlemen have entered upon their high offices not for the sake of emolument, nor I hope for the sake of fame, but for the sake of serving their country.

It was not for money, for they were earning more than they do now.

It must not be for fame, for they cannot buy fame at the cost of national honour.

The only consideration, that can at the present moment keep them in office must be service of the country.

When the people have faith in the government, when it represents the popular will, the judges and the executive officials possibly serve the country.

But when that government does not represent the will of the people, when it supports dishonesty and terrorism, the judges and the executive officials by retaining office become instrument of dishonesty and terrorism.

And the least therefore that these holders of high offices can do is to cease to become agents of a dishonest and terrorising government.

For the judges, the objection will be raised that they are above politics, and so they are and should be.

But the doctrine is true only in so far as the government is on the whole for the benefit of the people and at least represents the will of the majority.

Not to take part in politics means not to take sides.

But when a whole country has one mind, one will, when a whole country has been denied justice, it is no longer a question of party politics, it is a matter of life and death.

It then becomes the duty of every citizen to refuse to serve a government which misbehaves and flouts national wish.

The judges are at that moment bound to follow the nation if they are ultimately its servants.

There remains another argument to be examined.

It applies to both the judges and the members of the executive.

It will be urged that my appeal could only be meant for the Indians and what good can it do by Indians renouncing offices which have been won for the nation by hard struggle.

I wish that I could make an effective appeal to the English as well as the Indians.

But I confess that I have written with the mental reservation that the appeal is addressed only to the Indians.

I must therefore examine the argument just stated.

Whilst it is true that these offices have been secured after a prolonged struggle, they are of use not because of the struggle, but because they are intended to serve the nation.

The moment they cease to possess that quality, they become useless and as in the present case harmful, no matter how hard-earned and therefore valuable they may have been at the outset.

I would submit too to our distinguished countrymen who occupy high offices that their giving up will bring the struggle to a speedy end and would probably obviate the danger attendant upon the masses being called upon to signify their disapproval by withdrawing co-operation.

If the titleholders gave up their titles, if the holders of honorary offices gave up their appointment and if the high officials gave up their posts, and the would-be councillors boycotted the councils, the Government would quickly come to its senses and give effect to the people's will.

For the alternative before the Government then would be nothing but despotic rule pure and simple.

That would probably mean military dictatorship.

The world's opinion has advanced so far that Britain dare not contemplate such dictatorship with equanimity.

The taking of the steps suggested by me will constitute the peacefullest revolution the world has ever seen.

Once the infallibility of non-co-operation is realised, there is an end to all bloodshed and violence in any shape or form.

Undoubtedly a cause must be grave to warrant the drastic method of national non-co-operation.

I do say that the affront such as has been put upon Islam cannot be repeated for a century.

Islam must rise now or 'be fallen' if not for ever, certainly for a century.

And I cannot imagine a graver wrong than the massacre of Jallianwalla and the barbarity that followed it, the whitewash by the Hunter Committee, the dispatch of the Government of India, Mr. Montagu's letter upholding the Viceroy and the then Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab, the refusal to remove officials who made of the lives of the Punjabis 'a hell' during the Martial Law period.

These act constitute a complete series of continuing wrongs against India which if India has any sense of honour, she must right at the sacrifice of all the material wealth she possesses.

If she does not, she will have bartered her soul for a 'mess of pottage.'

NON-CO-OPERATION EXPLAINED

A representative of Madras Mail called on Mr. M. K.

Gandhi at his temporary residence in the Pursewalkam High road for an interview on the subject of non-co-operation.

Mr. Gandhi, who has come to Madras on a tour to some of the principal Muslim centres in Southern India, was busy with a number of workers discussing his programme; but he expressed his readiness to answer questions on the chief topic which is agitating Muslims and Hindus.

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

--"Certainly."

"How do you consider conditions have altered since the Satyagraha movement of last year?"

--"I consider that people are better disciplined now than they were before.

In this I include even the masses who I have had opportunities of seeing in large numbers in various parts of the country."

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

--"Yes."

"And that is why you are pressing on with the programme of non-co-operation?"

--"Yes.

Moreover, the danger that attended the civil disobedience part of Satyagraha does not apply to non-co-operation, because in non-co-operation we are not taking up civil disobedience of laws as a mass movement.

The result hitherto has been most encouraging.

For instance, people in Sindh and Delhi in spite of the irritating restrictions upon their liberty by the authorities have carried out the Committee's instructions in regard to the Seditious Meetings Proclamation and to the prohibition of posting placards on the walls which we hold to be inoffensive but which the authorities consider to be offensive."

"What is the pressure which you expect to bring to bear on the authorities if co-operation is withdrawn?"

--"I believe, and everybody must grant, that no Government can exist for a single moment without the co-operation of the people, willing or forced, and if people suddenly withdraw their co-operation in every detail, the Government will come to a stand-still."

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

--"Certainly there is."

"And how do you propose to succeed against the big 'If'?"

--"In my plan of campaign expediency has no room.

If the Khilafat movement has really permeated the masses and the classes, there must be adequate response from the people."

"But are you not begging the question?"

--"I am not begging the question, because so far as the data before me go, I believe that the Muslims keenly feel the Khilafat grievance.

It remains to be seen whether their feeling is intense enough to evoke in them the measure of sacrifice adequate for successful non-co-operation."

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

--"Yes."

"This non-co-operation, you are satisfied, will extend to complete severance of co-operation with the Government?"

--No; nor is it at the present moment my desire that it should.

I am simply practising non-co-operation to the extent that is necessary to make the Government realise the depth of popular feeling in the matter and the dissatisfaction with the Government that all that could be done has not been done either by the Government of India or by the Imperial Government, whether on the Khilafat question or on the "Punjab question."

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

--"Yes.

But their number is smaller than those who are prepared to adopt non-co-operation."

"And yet does not the fact that there has not been an adequate response to your appeal for resignation of titles and offices and for boycott of elections of the Councils indicate that you may be placing more faith in their strength of conviction than is warranted?"

--"I think not; for the reason that the stage has only just come into operation and our people are always most cautious and slow to move.

Moreover, the first stage largely affects the uppermost strata of society, who represent a microscopic minority though they are undoubtedly an influential body of people."

"This upper class, you think, has sufficiently responded to your appeal?"

--"I am unable to say either one way or the other at present.

I

shall be able to give a definite answer at the end of this month."

"Do you think that without one's loyalty to the King and the Royal Family being questioned, one can advocate non-co-operation in connection with the Royal visit?"

"Most decidedly; for the simple reason that if there is any disloyalty about the proposed boycott of the Prince's visit, it is disloyalty to the Government of the day and not to the person of His Royal highness."

"What do you think is to be gained by promoting this boycott in connection with the Royal visit?"

--"Because I want to show that the people of India are not in sympathy with the Government of the day and that they strongly disapprove of the policy of the Government in regard to the Punjab and Khilafat, and even in respect of other important administrative measures.

I consider that the visit of the Prince of Wales is a singularly good opportunity to the people to show their disapproval of the present Government.

After all, the visit is calculated to have tremendous political results.

It is not to be a non-political event, and seeing that the Government of India and the Imperial Government want to make the visit a political event of first class importance, namely, for the purpose of strengthening their hold upon India, I for one, consider that it is the bounden duty of the people to boycott the visit which is being engineered by the two Governments in their own interest which at the present moment is totally antagonistic to the people."

"Do you mean that you want this boycott promoted because you feel that the strengthening of the hold upon India is not desirable in the best interests of the country?"

--"Yes.

The strengthening of the hold of a Government so wicked as the present one is not desirable for the best interests of the people.

Not that I want the bond between England and India to become loosened for the sake of loosening it but I want that bond to become strengthened only in so far as it adds to the welfare of India."

"Do you think that non-co-operation and the non-boycott of the Legislative Councils consistent?"

--"No; because a person who takes up the programme of non-co-operation cannot consistently stand for Councils."

"Is non-co-operation, in your opinion, an end in itself or a means to an end, and if so, what is the end?"

"It is a means to an end, the end being to make the present Government just, whereas it has become mostly unjust.

Co-operation with a just Government is a duty; non-co-operation with an unjust Government is equally a duty."

"Will you look with favour upon the proposal to enter the Councils and to carry on either obstructive tactics or to decline to take the oath of allegiance consistent with your non-co-operation?"

--"No; as an accurate student of non-co-operation, I consider that such a proposal is inconsistent with the true spirit of non-co-operation.

I have often said that a Government really thrives on obstruction and so far as the proposal not to take the oath of allegiance is concerned, I can really see no meaning in it; it amounts to a useless waste of valuable time and money."

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

--"No,"....

"Are you satisfied that all efforts at constitutional agitation have been exhausted and that non-co-operation is the only course left us?"

"I do not consider non-co-operation to be unconstitutional remedies now left open to us, non-co-operation is the only one left for us."

"Do you consider it constitutional to adopt it with a view merely to paralyse Government?"

--"Certainly, it is not unconstitutional, but a prudent man will not take all the steps that are constitutional if they are otherwise undesirable, nor do I advise that course.

I am resorting to non-co-operation in progressive stages because I want to evolve true order out of untrue order.

I am not going to take a single step in non-co-operation unless I am satisfied that the country is ready for that step, namely, non-co-operation will not be followed by anarchy or disorder."

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

"For instance, if I advise the police to lay down their arms, I shall have satisfied myself that we are able by voluntary assistance to protect ourselves against thieves and robbers.

That was precisely what was done in Lahore and Amritsar last year by the citizens by means of volunteers when the Military and the police had withdrawn.

Even where Government had not taken such measures in a place, for want of adequate force, I know people have successfully protected themselves."

"You have advised lawyers to non-co-operate by suspending their practice.

What is your experience?

Has the lawyers' response to your appeal encouraged you to hope that you will be able to carry through all stages of non-co-operation with the help of such people?"

"I cannot say that a large number has yet responded to my appeal.

It is too early to say how many will respond.

But I may say that I do not rely merely upon the lawyer class or highly educated men to enable the Committee to carry out all the stages of non-co-operation.

My hope lies more with the masses so far as the later stages of non-co-operation are concerned."

_August 1920_.

RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY FOR NON-CO-OPERATION

It is not without the greatest reluctance that I engage in a controversy with so learned a leader like Sir Narayan Chandavarkar.

But in view of the fact that I am the author of the movement of non-co-operation, it becomes my painful duty to state my views even though they are opposed to those of the leaders whom I look upon with respect.

I have just read during my travels in Malabar Sir Narayan's rejoinder to my answer to the Bombay manifesto against non-co-operation.

I regret to have to say that the rejoinder leaves me unconvinced.

He and I seem to read the teachings of the Bible, the Gita and the Koran from different standpoints or we put different interpretations on them.

We seem to understand the words Ahimsa, politics and religion differently.

I shall try my best to make clear my meaning of the common terms and my reading of the different religious.

At the outset let me assure Sir Narayan that I have not changed my views on Ahimsa.

I still believe that man not having been given the power of creation does not possess the right of destroying the meanest creature that lives.

The prerogative of destruction belongs solely to the creator of all that lives.

I accept the interpretation of Ahimsa, namely, that it is not merely a negative State of harmlessness, but it is a positive state of love, of doing good even to the evil-doer.

But it does not mean helping the evil-doer to continue the wrong or tolerating it by passive acquiescence.

On the contrary love, the active state of Ahimsa, requires you to resist the wrong-doer by dissociating yourself from him even though it may offend him or injure him physically.

Thus if my son lives a life of shame, I may not help him to do so by continuing to support him; on the contrary, my love for him requires me to withdraw all support from him although it may mean even his death.

And the same love imposes on me the obligation of welcoming him to my bosom when he repents.

But I may not by physical force compel my son to become good.

That in my opinion is the moral of the story of the Prodigal Son.

Non-co-operation is not a passive state, it is an intensely active state--more active than physical resistance or violence.

Passive resistance is a misnomer.

Non-co-operation in the sense used by me must be non-violent and therefore neither punitive nor vindictive nor based on malice ill-will or hatred.

It follows therefore that it would be sin for me to serve General Dyer and co-operate with him to shoot innocent men.

But it will be an exercise of forgiveness or love for me to nurse him back to life, if he was suffering from a physical malady.

I cannot use in this context the word co-operation as Sir Narayan would perhaps use it.

I would co-operate a thousand times with this Government to wean it from its career of crime but I will not for a single moment co-operate with it to continue that career.

And I would be guilty of wrong doing if I retained a title from it or "a service under it or supported its law-courts or schools."

Better for me a beggar's bowl than the richest possession from hands stained with the blood of the innocents of Jallianwala.

Better by far a warrant of imprisonment than honeyed words from those who have wantonly wounded the religious sentiment of my seventy million brothers.

My reading of the Gita is diametrically opposed to Sir Narayan's. I do not believe that the Gita teaches violence for doing good.

It is pre-eminently a description of the duel that goes on in our own hearts.

The divine author has used a historical incident for inculcating the lesson of doing one's duty even at the peril of one's life.

It inculcates performance of duty irrespective of the consequences, for, we mortals, limited by our physical frames, are incapable of controlling actions save our own.

The Gita distinguishes between the powers of light and darkness and demonstrates their incompatibility.

Jesus, in my humble opinion, was a prince among politicians.

He did render unto Caesar that which was Caesar's. He gave the devil his due.

He ever shunned him and is reported never once to have yielded to his incantations.

The politics of his time consisted in securing the welfare of the people by teaching them not to be seduced by the trinkets of the priests and the pharisees.

The latter then controlled and moulded the life of the people.

To-day the system of government is so devised as to affect every department of our life.

It threatens our very existence.

If therefore we want to conserve the welfare of the nation, we must religiously interest ourselves in the doing of the governors and exert a moral influence on them by insisting on their obeying the laws of morality.

General Dyer did produce a 'moral effect' by an act of butchery.

Those who are engaged in forwarding the movement of non-co-operation, hope to produce a moral effect by a process of self-denial, self-sacrifice and self-purification.

It surprises me that Sir Narayan should speak of General Dyer's massacre in the same breath as acts of non-co-operation.

I have done my best to understand his meaning, but I am sorry to confess that I have failed.