THE PUNJAB ATROCITIES

"What will the Imperial Government do if France were to attempt to deprive England of Dover and India were secretly to help France or openly to show indifference or hostility to England's struggle to retain Dover? Can Indians be expected to sit idle when the Khilafat is vivisected?"

It is one thing to ask the Empire or India to go to war in favour of an oppressed class—butto ask her to do it in the interests of co-religionists of a community living outside the Empire is very different.

What is the present position? I shall describe it in the words of one of Mr. Gandhi's dupes, a secretary of a District Congress Committee, Mr. K. Madhavan Nair of Calicut, who writes on January 4th as follows:—

Now the position is this:—The Hindus and Mohamedans have been waging a common war with non-violence as the fundamental creed. It has to be noted however, that there is a party led by the Maulana that advocates violence for the achievement of their object. Suppose to-morrow that party takes to violence and the other remains non-violent, what will be the fate of the non-violent party if Maulana's views are pushed to their logical conclusion? Is freedom worth having if in the attainment of it you have to loot, murder and outrage your innocent neighbour who does not agree with you or approve of your methods and is Swaraj possible of achievement and the Khilafat likely to be righted by such means? Maulana's views make those who have absolutely no faith in violence to think over these facts deeply and anxiously.

Now the position is this:—

The Hindus and Mohamedans have been waging a common war with non-violence as the fundamental creed. It has to be noted however, that there is a party led by the Maulana that advocates violence for the achievement of their object. Suppose to-morrow that party takes to violence and the other remains non-violent, what will be the fate of the non-violent party if Maulana's views are pushed to their logical conclusion? Is freedom worth having if in the attainment of it you have to loot, murder and outrage your innocent neighbour who does not agree with you or approve of your methods and is Swaraj possible of achievement and the Khilafat likely to be righted by such means? Maulana's views make those who have absolutely no faith in violence to think over these facts deeply and anxiously.

The Indian Non-Mahomedans, did not trouble themselves about the Khilafat claims. Mr. Gandhi and his followers took it up as an anti-British movement to secure Mahomedan supportto his non-co-operation movement. Even that non-Mahomedan sympathy with the Khilafat movement, has vanished. That movement acquired its strength on account of such unfortunate statements that the Secretary of State and the Government of India are in hearty sympathy with the Moslim demands; statements like those reported to have been made by His Highness Aga Khan that Mr. Montagu is doing as much as it is possible to support the Mahomedan claim and Gandhi himself could not have done more. I doubt whether any influential newspaper or any publicist in America, England or the continent support the Khilafat claim as advanced by Indian Mahomedans or by Gandhi. However, the reputed sentiments of Mr. Montagu and the Government of India have influenced even moderate Mahomedans and Hindus to support them against the cabinet in starting and supporting an agitation, which has now assumed dangerous proportions.

The Khilafat movement does not want, and Mr. Gandhi is not for, any reasonable settlement of the Mahomedan grievance or for Home Rule. They wish to get rid of theBritish Government. Such being the objective naturally the Khilafat Indian agitators have put forward demands which the Turks themselves recognise as outside practical politics. They have hampered the efforts of their friends for a revision of the treaty of Sevres. Everybody now realises that this attitude of the Khilafat movement under the guidance of Gandhi and Mahomed Ali stood in the way of any reasonable settlement. It is a futile endeavour of the Indian and British Governments to satisfy Mr. Gandhi or the Khilafat agitators led by the Ali brothers. Gandhi and his followers have greatly encouraged the growth of Indian Pan Islamism which will in future be always opposed to other Religions and civilizations. I can well understand the adherent of large numbers of Mussulmans to the idea of Pan-Islamism. It must naturally have a fascination for devotees of Islam by reason of the splendour of its promise that Mussulmans the world over shall one day be united under one flag, but we have to take the world as it is and to take into the consideration the forces actually at work in reconstruction. The world has passed the stage of religious empires. Ithas gone beyond the stage of religious crusades. We are on the threshold of an era of a brotherhood transcending religious differences, transcending even national differences and of which one of the dominant notes is a unity of purpose in which religious differences of race and customs are to be merged and harmonised. Pan-Islamism or Pan-Christianity or Pan-Budhism—one can hardly speak of Pan-Hinduism—belong to the world that is dead and not to the world that is living. They mean destruction, proselytisation, the assertion of superiority the world war was waged to destroy. This also shows the dangerous foundation on which the Gandhi movement rests. Home Rule or Swaraj is claimed not as an end in itself but for the purpose of righting the alleged wrongs sustained by foreigners. We know Gandhi's principles which I have set forth above. Swaraj or political independence is not what he really wants. It is not the Caliph grievances that have led him to claim political independence. He wants to destroy the British Government, as a hater of all Governments.

The attitude of the Government towards the people of the Punjab and the Punjab officialsis stated in the Congress Resolution as the second and the only other reason for this non-co-operation campaign against the Government.

No one feels for the Punjab more than I do. I doubt whether anybody was in a position to know more of it than I was. Even now with all the enquiries made by the Hunter Commission and by the Congress Sub-Committee many deplorable incidents as bad as any, worse perhaps, than any reported have not been disclosed. At this distance of time it is best that they should remain so. It is with a full knowledge of this that I make the following remarks.

The conditions now have entirely changed. Before the Reforms under a Lieutenant-Governor, a single individual, the atrocities in the Punjab which we know only too well, could be committed almost with impunity. Now instead of one man the Government of the Punjab consist not only of a Governor who no doubt is an Englishman, but of an Executive Council consisting of an Englishman and anIndian, who was a non official before appointment to his seat in the Council and for all practical purposes two Indian Ministers who are also consulted in all important matters. Though, therefore, a repetition of the old incidents may be possible, it is unlikely. The Government of India again, which then consisted of only one Indian, now includes three Indian members, a powerful contingent. Above all, it will be remembered that it was necessary to pass an Act of Indemnity to save the delinquents from proceedings in civil and criminal Courts. Such an Act of Indemnity would scarcely be possible now, with a Legislative Assembly consisting of a majority of elected members under the new constitution. The trouble in the Punjab arose out of the Rowlat Act which is repealed. Many high handed proceedings were taken under the Regulations of 1818 the provisions of which were applied for purposes for which they were never intended. The regulations are now repealed so far as the matters are concerned. Many of these proceedings were taken under the Defence of India Act and they also have gone so that for the future at any rate our position is very differentfrom what it was in the past. In such circumstances what is it that one would expect? If it is an honest endeavour that is being made to solve the difficulties which arose out of the Punjab, one would expect a demand for any further guarantees that may be necessary against a repetition of such occurrences and the punishment of those who have acted not under an error of judgment and not in good faith. But the demands now made are of a very different kind. They do not seek for further guarantees, at least none are formulated.

I realise that the eulogium passed by the English Cabinet on Lord Chemsford and Sir Michael O'Dwyer was an outrage on Indian public opinion. I believe also that the Government of India committed a great political blunder in not publishing their proceedings, punishing the subordinate officials in accordance with the orders of the Cabinet. I agree further that it was an egregious mistake to pass the Indemnity Act when India was so excited. The Government should have waited for the result of the proceedings in Civil or Criminal Courts, when they might have pardoned those who acted in good faithreimbursing their expenses. But that is not the question now. Mr. Gandhi and his party want certain persons to be punished on the strength of the report submitted by the Congress Committee who made anex parteenquiry of their own without hearing the other side. This is not right. Moreover every where it is recognised that the security of the subject, person and property, requires that the punishment of the guilty should be in the hands of the Courts and not within the discretion of an Executive Council. If these officers whose punishment is called for are guilty it is the Courts that ought to punish them, and I speak with knowledge when I say that no steps open to them have yet been taken by those who carry on the agitation to vindicate justice. Is it possible, then, to maintain that the Punjab question in any way justifies the tremendous agitation that is being carried on for the dismemberment of the Empire. Besides how is it possible for any reasonable man to say that this affords any justification for not utilizing the Legislative Councils to help the Punjab and to carry out the reforms of which the country is urgently inneed. Besides it must be remembered that some of the Punjab political leaders have failed in their duty. During the crisis they refused to come forward to substantiate their complaints of maladministration of Martial Law, even of those matters within their personal knowledge. They did not give a chance to the Government of India to control the Government of the Punjab or the administration of Martial law.The real truth, of course, is that the Punjab grievances are only a pretext for this agitation, by the violent section headed by Mr. Gandhi. It is really not the redress of the Punjab grievances or prevention of the repetition of atrocities that is sought for, so much as the expulsion of the British Government from India.

The Resolution says that on account of the failure of Government to redress these grievances we must have 'Swaraj.' It is important to remember that long before these occurrences Mr. Gandhi had come to the conclusion that we must have Independence. It would accordingly seem dishonest on his part to say that these events led him to the demand for Swaraj or Home Rule.

In his scheme of "Home Rule for India" Mr. Gandhi said:—

"Now you will have seen that it is not necessary for us to have as our goal the expulsion of the English. If the English became Indianised we can accommodate them. If they wish to remain in India along with their civilisation, there is no room for them. It lies with us to bring about such a state of things."

Then in reply to the question that it is impossible that Englishmen should ever become Indianised, he says:—

"To say that is equivalent to saying that the Englishhave no humanity in them. And it is really beside the point whether they become so or not. If we keep our own house in order only those who are fit to live in it will remain. Others will leave of their own accord."

It is something that he gives a loophole to the Englishman to remain in India. To the question that there may be chaos and anarchy on account of the Hindu Mahomedan position he states:—

"I would prefer any day anarchy and chaos in India to an armed peace brought about by the bayonet between the Hindus and Musalmans."

When it was pointed out to him that the dissensions amongst the Hindus themselves may cause the same result he is not dismayed. He says:—

"We are not to assume that the English have changed the nature of the Pindarries and the Bhils. It is therefore better to suffer the Pindarri peril than that some one else should protect us from it and thus render us effeminate. I should prefer to be killed by the arrow of the Bhil than to seek nominal protection."

When it was pointed out to him that for Home Rule at this stage we have not got an army for our own protection he said the other day:—

"I am here to confess that we are fully able to take charge of all military dispositions in thecountry and that we feel able to deal with all foreign complications." The worst that may happen is he continued that we may be blotted out from the face of the earth for which he was prepared so long as he can breathe the free atmosphere of India.

The following report is interesting; we give it below from the "Daily Express."

Q:—Are you anxious to take over the whole control of the army at once or would you make an exception of that object?A:—I think we are entirely ready to take up the whole control of the Army which means practically disbanding three fourths of it. I would keep just enough to police India.Q:—If the army were reduced to that extent, do you not apprehend anything aggressive from the frontier territories?A:—No.Q:—My information, derived from Military sources, is that there are over half-a-million armed men on the frontier.A:—You are right, I agree.Q:—These tribes have frequently attacked India hitherto. Why do you think they will refrain from doing so when India possesses Home Rule?A:—In the first instance, the world's views have changed and secondly the preparations that are now made in Afghanistan are really in support of the Khilafat. But when the Khilafat question is out of the way, then the Afghan people will not have any designon India. The warrior tribes who live on loot and plunder are given lakhs of rupees as subsidy. I would also give them a little subsidy. When the Charka comes into force in India, I would introduce the spinning wheel among the Afghan tribes also and thus prevent them from attacking the Indian territories. I feel that the tribesmen are in their own way God-fearing people.

Q:—Are you anxious to take over the whole control of the army at once or would you make an exception of that object?

A:—I think we are entirely ready to take up the whole control of the Army which means practically disbanding three fourths of it. I would keep just enough to police India.

Q:—If the army were reduced to that extent, do you not apprehend anything aggressive from the frontier territories?

A:—No.

Q:—My information, derived from Military sources, is that there are over half-a-million armed men on the frontier.

A:—You are right, I agree.

Q:—These tribes have frequently attacked India hitherto. Why do you think they will refrain from doing so when India possesses Home Rule?

A:—In the first instance, the world's views have changed and secondly the preparations that are now made in Afghanistan are really in support of the Khilafat. But when the Khilafat question is out of the way, then the Afghan people will not have any designon India. The warrior tribes who live on loot and plunder are given lakhs of rupees as subsidy. I would also give them a little subsidy. When the Charka comes into force in India, I would introduce the spinning wheel among the Afghan tribes also and thus prevent them from attacking the Indian territories. I feel that the tribesmen are in their own way God-fearing people.

But for the fact that he is well known to be a Saint and Mahatma, I would have had no hesitation in saying that his last observations about meeting the Afghans show him to be either a fool or a knave.

He said on the 16th February 1921:—

"There must be complete independence, if England's policy is in conflict with the Moslim sentiment on the Khilafat question or with the Indian sentiment in the Punjab."

And in his recent speech at the congress opposing the resolution for Independence it was said that if the Punjab and Khilafat demands are complied with, Independence is not necessary. Well, he knows or ought to know they are impossible demands. The implication is plain and taken in conjunction with what has been said above as to the Western civilisation and the Indianisation of the English people, the conclusion that he is really aiming atIndependence is inevitable. To certain Boy Scouts on the 23rd March he was quite plain. He said:—

"No Indian could remain loyal in the accepted sense to the Empire as it was at present represented and be loyal to God at the same time. An Empire that could be responsible for the terrorism of the martial law regime, that would not repent of the wrong, that could enter into secret treaties in breach of solemn obligations could only be reckoned as a Godless Empire. Loyalty to such an Empire was disloyalty to God".

These have to be borne in mind when we consider the question of the Swaraj that he has put forward. The Swaraj that he works for is thus described:—

"Swaraj means full Dominion status. The scheme of such swaraj shall be framed by representatives duly elected in terms of the Congress constitution. That means four anna franchise. Every Indian adult, male or female, paying four annas and signing the Congress creed will be entitled to be placed on the electoral list. These would elect delegates who would frame Swaraj constitution. This shall be given effect to without any change by the British Parliament".

A more preposterous demand cannot be imagined. He excludes all those who do not belong to his Congress. Those who do not pay annas four and sign the congress creed form themajority of the population. Again to ask the British Parliament to accept the scheme framed by his party however absurd, without examination of the same is absolute nonsense. If Mr. Gandhi and his party can frame a scheme of Swaraj for the consideration of the rest of India, have it discussed with others modified if necessary after such discussion, it may be, and it ought to be placed before the Government and Parliament. But this is the last thing he will do, for various reasons. Mr. Gandhi himself will never do it because I doubt whether he has any correct idea of the Dominion status and all that it involves. Mr. Gandhi is not a student but an impulsive fanatic indifferent to facts but obsessed by phantasmagoria. He jumps to what he calls conclusions but which have in fact no premises. Again he will not see it done because what he really desires is not an honest settlement which will give India a further instalment of Swaraj but as the preceding extracts show what he wants is really absolute independence according to his professions but really anarchy or soul force. If he were honest in his desire to secure Swaraj he and his followers would not have boycottedthe Councils but would have entered them to take further steps towards its attainment.

I am therefore satisfied that Mr. Gandhi does not aim at a fair settlement of the Punjab difficulties. He does not want an equitable peace satisfying the just claims of the Mahomedans. He does not want Parliamentary Swaraj or Home Rule. But for tactical purposes he is putting them forward to destroy the English Government, in order to attain his object of a society outlined in his "Indian Home Rule," some features of it I have set forth above.—A society without Government, Railways, Hospitals, Schools, Courts, etc. His programme is therefore put forward to clear the way to obtain his object. This Swaraj is to be attained by, in the words of the Resolution, non-violent non-co-operation with Government. And among others the following steps were recommended for adoption: (1) Boycott of Government aided schools and colleges and establishment of National schools and colleges, (2) Boycott of British Courts by Lawyers and Litigants (3) Boycott of Reformed Councils (4) Boycott of Foreign goods and use of spinning wheels. Out of these I shall naturallytake up the question of the boycott of Government and aided institutions and the nature of education sought to be imparted by Mr. Gandhi.

The system of Education which Mr. Gandhi apparently wants to introduce has already been tried in some parts of India. The results of a teaching confined to Eastern classics and vernaculars has already been apparent. It has produced a mentality amongst Hindus and Mahomedans which has divided them from one another. It has separated still further the Brahmins from non-Brahmins, the caste Hindus from the noncaste Hindus. It has again produced amongst those who have received that education a vague longing for speculative theories and a distaste for experiment and research by which, theories may be tested. Of course Mr. Gandhi does not know these results. His speeches and writings do not show that he ever cared to enquire into these questions. He does not want education to be imparted to the masses and Western education to be imparted to anybody for the reason that it would makethem discontented with their present lot in life,i.e.in other words he wants each class to remain in its present condition, the lower castes, slaves of their masters—the higher classes. This consequence follows from his acceptance of the caste system. He says "Varanashram (caste system) is inherent in human nature and Hinduism has simply reduced it to a science. It does attach by birth. A man cannot change his Varna by choice. Prohibition against intermarriage and interdining is essential for a rapid evolution of the soul." He would relegate those Hindus outside the pale of caste, the panchamas or the so-called degraded classes, by whatever name they are called, to degradation for the service of the higher castes. His writings or speeches do not show any knowledge of Indian History and having spent the main portion of his life in a far-off country the evils of the system perhaps never came to his knowledge. Otherwise he would have learnt the following facts. It is this caste system which has brought about the conquest of India by the Mahomedans and the Englishmen, both of whom were always supported by the lower castes against the higher.It is responsible for the large conversions to Christianity and Mahomedanism. It is responsible for a degradation of humanity for which no parallel can be found in slavery, ancient or modern. It is responsible for a good deal of Hindu-Mahomedan, Brahmin non-Brahmin problem and stands in the way of our social, economical and political progress. Yet Mr. Gandhi supports the system, though he advocates the removal of one or two blots which hardly affect the main structure. He enters on an elaborate disquisition on the benefits and necessity of caste which will not do credit to Macaulay's fourth form schoolboy. He shows no knowledge of the vast literature on the subject or of the main arguments against it. He is supporting the caste system to secure the support of the higher castes, without whose financial support his agitation must collapse. One of his own followers would have told him that caste has killed all the arts and science in this country. Sir P. C. Ray points out in his history of Hindu chemistry:—"the fear of losing caste was thus responsible for the loss of the faculty of independent enquiry and hence for the decline and decay ofall the arts and sciences for which India was once so famous." Of course he does not want that education which is indispensable for those who occupy the higher Government offices in the country. He does not want that education which is essential for the development of Indian manufacturing industries and development of mineral resources.

Mr. Gandhi accordingly made his wicked attempt to destroy the National Hindu University of Benares and the Mahomedan University of Aligarh. They combined Eastern and Western learning. The attempt was happily unsuccessful. Strong pressure was put upon the students to leave the Schools and Colleges. Looking to the final results as disclosed in the Report of the Congress Secretary reviewing the work of 1921, Government have reasons to congratulate themselves. By far the majority of the aided institutions in Bengal have been recognised by the Educational Authorities to be very inefficient and they have been attempting either to disaffiliate them or reduce their numbers to give more efficient instruction to those who remain, as a good number of them were institutions started for commercial purpose.It is remarkable that the great majority of the students who obeyed the Congress cause belonged to these aided institutions. Those who left the Government Schools and Colleges with better discipline and more efficient teaching were very few if any. I would refer the reader for further information as to the results of the education campaign to the speech of the President of the Thana conference, a genuine patriot who happens, however, to be one of Gandhi's followers (App. VI).

Mr. Gandhi asked all the boys to withdraw now from the schools on the pretence that until the Government punishes the Punjab offenders in the manner advocated by him and satisfies the claims of the Khilafatists we should no longer associate with the Government, and we can there-by hasten the advent of Swaraj. This is a mere pretext. He advocated the substitution of the national kind of education as outlined by him in favour of the present system of education long before there was any Punjab or Khilafat questions. He advocated them in 1908 in his book "The Indian Home Rule." To say now that he advocated them on account of those reasons is sheer hypocrisy.The step will not hasten but might retard Swaraj. Even if the Punjab wrongs are redressed in the manner suggested and even if the Khilafatists are satisfied and Parliamentary Swaraj obtained, he will still be an advocate of the abstention from English Schools in favour of the system of national education as above set forth.

The same is the case about his propaganda about the Vakils and the Courts. It never had any chance of success. I shall not dwell however upon this but would refer to Thana President's speech to which in connection with education attention has been already drawn (App. VI). He now puts them forth ostensibly for the purpose of compelling the Government to redress the Punjab and other wrongs. As a fact he advocated them long before that in 1908, as I have already pointed out above. Here again it is sheer hypocrisy to say that they are advocated not as an end in themselves but as a means for the redress of the Punjab and Khilafat wrongs. He dare not openly advocate this as desirable in itself as he would then be laughed at.

The other step that he advocates is abstention from the new councils. His followers generally have not voted at the elections or have stood for election. His reason given at the Calcutta Congress in September 1920 when he moved his resolution on non-co-operation is this. "I now come to the burning topicviz.the boycott of the councils. Sharpest difference of opinion existed regarding this and if the house was to divide on it, it must divide on oneviz.whether Swaraj has to be gained through the councils or without the councils. If we utterly distrust the British Government and we know that they are to-day unrepentant now can you believe that the councils will lead to Swaraj and not tighten the British hold on India"? I can only ask him to read the history of the Parliamentary struggle for freedom in England which will show how freedom is won from reluctant monarchs and privilegedclasses. Even in India the subsequent history of the Legislative councils has shown that the Government is willing to meet the councils half way and almost every question taken up by the councils has been advanced nearer solution. But I doubt whether there is any use of arguing with Mr. Gandhi. The real truth is as he has candidly avowed in his "Indian Home Rule" that Parliamentary Government is in itself bad and India should not strive after it as it will stand in the way of his spiritual Swaraj. I need not argue this point so far as the followers of Gandhi are concerned as they are heartily sorry that they boycotted the councils. I refer on this point also to the Thana Conference President's speech (App. VII). They feel ashamed of themselves the majority of them desire the dissolution of the present councils and a re-election so that they might utilize these councils for more powerful Parliaments. Perhaps I should add that considering the undisciplined fanaticism of the non-co-operator and his total ignorance of development of political organization, it is probably just as well that the councils werein their inception preserved from such a calamitous invasion. The council and the assembly have even in the short duration of their existence, achieved good results which are carrying us far and quietly on that true road to Home Rule from which Mr. Gandhi seeks to divert us. Had the Non-Co-operators been members of these councils and had they acted in their present temper, they might well have wrecked the Reforms and have set back the clock of India's progress even more than they have done already. The boycotting is therefore in all probability a blessing though designed as a curse. Still the fact remains that the Councils might have done even more had Mr. Gandhi been endowed with the wisdom to see that India's interests would best be served by using the councils and the assembly as levers to obtain further freedom on sane, safe, and constitutional lines.

There is not only no objection to the Charka but it is very much to be commended. It is very useful as a cottage or home industry and will find an occupation to many who might otherwise be idle. But it will not displace foreign goods at least without the aid of mills by foreign machinery.

All these with other minor ones are only steps to be taken to carry out the policy of non-violent non-co-operation for the attainment of Swaraj and Mr. Gandhi asks every body, in fact the people of India, to carry on non-violent non-co-operation with the Government so as ostensibly to attain Swaraj but really I have no doubt as an end in itself.

I have already pointed out that non-violent submission to suffering and the consequent attainment of self-control over oneself which he called Swaraj was the end which he had in view. He found that there was no use indirectly advocating it. He therefore puts it forward as the chief instrument for obtaining the Parliamentary Swaraj which the people of India wanted. He based his appeal to the Hindus on the well known doctrine of "Ahimsa". I will not stop here to discuss how far suffering for the purpose of inducing another to follow a particular line of conduct is included in the scope of Ahimsa. I myself believe it is not only not so included but is totally inconsistent with it. I will merely point out that this principle has already been condemned by the Penal Code which makes it a crime for a creditor to realise his debt by Dharna. For my purpose it is only necessary to say that this principle of non-violence if accepted in practice generally will lead to chaos and anarchy. If applied to Government alone by refusal to recognise the jurisdiction of the courts it will lead to the same results. How it will lead to 'Parliamentary Swaraj' it is impossible to see. Mr. Gandhi says if all the people of India adopted it the machinery of Government is bound to come to a standstill. But that all will adopt it without leaving sufficient men with the aid of those who will be importedfrom England and elsewhere to carry out the administration is only the fantasy of a diseased imagination. Non-violence is a guarantee on the part of those who carry it out that the Government has nothing to fear from physical force. If they use force then they abandon the weapon of non-violence. Mr. Gandhi and his followers, are agreed that physical force is now out of the question on ground, according to Mr. Gandhi, that we will be crushed. I cannot help thinking that when we take this aspect of the matter along with others already mentioned that Mr. Gandhi himself does not consider this as any effective step towards the attainment of the 'Parliamentary Swaraj,' but only to attain his "Spiritual Swaraj." This explains what he is so fond of reiterating that when Lajpatrai, Motilal Nehru, and C. R. Das and others were arrested and went to Jail without complaint, or resistance denying the jurisdiction of the courts, in pursuance of the policy of non-violent non-co-operation, though Parliamentary Swaraj was not attained, the spiritual 'Swaraj' of which he was in search has been attained to his intense satisfaction. If he had advocated abstention from schools, boycott ofCouncils and Courts, non-violence as a means of attaining his (spiritual) Swaraj, giving up Punjab Khilafat and Parliamentary Home Rule, no one would perhaps have any right to complain, and it would have been a straightforward and honest course. But he has adopted underhand methods which appear to me, unless a satisfactory explanation is given, little short of dishonest and fraudulent.

But it may be asked whether anybody would have accepted a policy of non-violent non-co-operation in the circumstances of the case unless there was some reasonable prospect of success within any measurable time. Here we come to the most sinister aspect of the matter. In moving his resolution on non-co-operation in the National Congress held at Calcutta in September 1920, he said, "If there is sufficient response to my scheme I make bold to reiterate my statement that you can gain Swarajya in the course of an year" and he laid down certain conditions, the more important of which have been mentioned. That period has been extended subsequently by a few months. Even that extended period has elapsed. When charged with his failure to attain Parliamentary Swarajwithin the period asked for by him he had effrontery to state that the conditions mentioned by him have not been complied with. A political leader has no right to put forward before the country any scheme under conditions which he has no reasonable belief of being likely to be complied with. Did he honestly believe that those conditions named by him would be complied with and Parliamentary Swaraj obtained within the time mentioned by him? Looking to the nature of the conditions I do not think he believed that they would be complied with, not only in one year but at any time; and even if complied with I have no doubt he did not believe that Swaraj would come though he might assert the contrary. He put the lure forward simply for the purpose of persuading the Congress to make an important change in the policy which the country had hitherto adopted. The National Congress, carried away by its hostility towards Government, accepted his programme. Some of the younger men may have believed in it. The older and the most experienced I have no doubt never believed in its possibility but considered it a means, of rousing the people of the country from theirpolitical lethargy, to put pressure on the Government for further and more extensive reforms. They may also have felt that this might be a means of Mahomedan co-operation for their policy. I do not deny that according to English political life this is a perfectly legitimate manoeuvre though none of those leaders believed in the soundness of the policy put forward by Mr. Gandhi and many of them said so.

Having attained his purpose by a representation, the truth of which I cannot help thinking he did not believe, and could not have believed, and having committed the Congress to a certain course of action, he is now able to carry the Congress with him for revolutionary action, as it finds it has gone too far on this course to revert to its own natural methods of progress. But as a matter of fact he went further than this.

On 29th December, 1920,i.e.three months after the change of programme, he said, "my experience during the last months fills me with the hope that within the nine months that remain of the year in which I have expected Swaraj for India we shall redress the twowrongs and we shall see Swaraj (Parliamentary) established in accordance with the wishes of the people of India." But I do not think for a moment he believed what he said. He used these words to dupe the people of India to follow him yet a step further and to pay him money. After about a month on the 21st of January 1921—he again confirmed his previous statement. He said: "Four months of this one year have already gone by and my faith has never burnt as brightly as it burns tonight as I am talking to the young men of Bengal." And he added "that in case of his death before the expiry of eight months he is satisfied that the people of India will secure Swaraj before the year is out." Is this not a definite statement that the Indian people are going to get Swaraj? A few days later the purpose comes out. In a public address to the merchants of Calcutta on the 30th January, 1921, he said:—

"What I purposed to do I can accomplish in a certain line. I Must attain Swaraj. If thirty crores of people say that they are not with me yet I shall do my work and win Swaraj.... If you wish to accomplish work of thirty crores of men then come out with your money. Try to have money and ask me to give an account ofthe same. I appoint some one treasurer.... If you know that you yourself can not attain Swarajthen help one with money. If you do not help with money Swaraj will be difficult but not impossible to attain. If the students of India do not help, me it does not matter. If the pleaders do not help, it does not matter."

The old conditions of the boycott of schools and of the courts as conditions indispensable for the attainment of Swaraj are dropped. And he promises Swaraj and asks for money for getting it in nine months. He collected money on the faith of that representation. Earlier on the same day he got ten thousand rupees, and on the spot a large sum is said to have been collected. On the same date in addressing the students he said: "If the response continues as it has begun there is no doubt of Swaraj coming within the time prescribed". On the 23rd February 1921 he again said: "Last five months experience has confirmed me in the opinion. I am convinced that the country has never been so ready for establishing Swaraj as now." To me only one conclusion is possible that he was collecting the money from the people who understood him to say that Swaraj will be attained within the period mentioned by him. In March he said:—

"The last Congress has given a constitution whose working in itself calculated to lead to Swaraj. It is intended to secure in every part of India representative committees working in conjunction with, and under willing and voluntary submission to a central organisation—The all India Congress Committee. It establishes an adult suffrage open to men and women subject only to two qualifications signing of the creed and a nominal payment of four annas. It is intended to secure due representation of the parties and communities, if then, it is honestly worked, and commands confidence and respect, it can oust the present Government without the slightest difficulty. For, the latter has no power except through the co-operation willing or forced, of the people. The force it exercises is almost through our own people. One lac of Europeans, without our help, can only hold less than one seventh of our villages each and it would be difficult for a man even when physically present, to impose his will on, say four hundred men and women—the average population of Indian village."

He said that we have therefore to concentrate our attention up to the 30th of June on getting:—

(1) One crore of rupees for Tilak Swaraj Fund.

(2) One crore members on the Congress register.

(3) The spinning wheel introduced in twenty lacs of homes.

He added, however:—

"This programme does not mean cessation of the other activities of Non-co-operation. They go on. Drink and untouchability must vanish. The education movement is steadily going forward. The National institutions that have sprung up will, if they are efficiently managed make headway and attract students who are still hesitating. The pleaders, always a cautious and calculating class by training, will, as they see the movement progressing more and more, fall in line with the rest of the country. Boycott of law courts by the public is making fair progress. These things do not now require concentration of universal effort. They apply to special classes. But the three things mentioned by me are the most essential: they must be done now and without them the movement, as a mass movement must be pronounced a failure.""Young India" 30th March.

After this it is impossible to rely upon boycott of schools &c. as conditions for Swaraj within a year. It is now admitted and the Secretaries report that the money demanded has been collected. Such money was paid on the fraudulent representation of Swaraj within the year. Judged by ordinary standards Mr. Gandhi's whole procedure with the promises, the persuasions, the evasions, the subterfuges and all the other manœuvres, would be characterised by men of the world andof sane judgment in language, I hesitate to reproduce, for the simple reason that I believe that Mr. Gandhi is honest in his self hypnotisation. I believe he does not really know what he is doing. At least this is the only possible charitable assumption when we watch his feats of political acrobatics which have the power of deluding such vast numbers of people making them passionately intolerant, violently intolerant often, of the slightest criticism of their hero.

When the Congress was asked in September to change its policy, Mr. Gandhi's idea to start an organisation to supercede the existing Government was not brought before them. It is the first direct step in the path of revolution. His followers have been by this time brought to a proper frame of mind. The use of the money to be collected was, as stated on the 13th April, to be as follows; "The only activity involving financial obligations is that of spinning, organising national service, in some cases supporting lawyers, who might have suspended practice and cannot be included in the national service as for supporting national educational institutions."It will now be understood why some lawyers were willing to suspend practice. Before the expiry of one year period however other conditions were imposed which would put off Swaraj practically for a very long time to come, the removal of untouchability of the lower classes in India without which it was said Swaraj would be a meaningless term. This means, as I have no doubt, Mr. Gandhi knew, he was putting off Swaraj indefinitely. If this had been mentioned as condition when the Congress was asked to change its policy it is very doubtful whether he would have got the Congress to agree with him. As to these two conditions themselves they are admirable. With a little tact the Government might turn the tables on Mr. Gandhi. If proof of untouchability consists only in the admission of the boys of these classes to schools of higher classes, it does not mean much, though it is a notable advance. If a contact with a low class person is placed on the same footing as contact with caste man it may be said that we have got rid of untouchability. But this will not come throughout the greater portion of India for years. Onthese questions the education of Mr. Gandhi has only commenced. He will find that without abrogating the ceremonial law on which the caste system rests there will be no practical reform. He is apparently not aware of the far more heinous custom of distance pollution,i.e.not only pollution by touch but by approach within a certain distance. This far from being a move against Government would support the Government contention against reform.

About temperance also the move is salutary. If the system of picketing adopted by the volunteers is abandoned and peaceful persuasion alone is attempted no one has any right to complain. What all this has to do with Parliamentary Swaraj or Home Rule one finds it difficult to understand. But they are necessary for the 'Gandhi Swaraj' advocated in his 'Indian Home Rule', and I have little doubt that like his other proposals they were intended to attain that object.

It is admitted in the Report of the Secretaries that the crore of Rupees which was required to be collected, as stated above, has been realised. About the middle of Julyhe said he still looked forward before the next meeting of the Congress for the satisfaction of his demands about the Punjab and the Khilafat and full immediate Swaraj in accordance with the wishes of her chosen representatives. August and September were devoted to the campaign of burning foreign cloth which in his view was an act of non-violent non-co-operation with the Government. This step appeared unintelligible and inaccurate to his followers who believed bona fide that he was striving for political control. But it is quite consistent with and in pursuance of his scheme of spiritual swaraj of sacrifice and self-control. On the 27th of October Mr. Gandhi speaks of his "threat to seek the shelter of the Himalayas should violence become universal in India, and should it not have engulfed me."

Back to Index Next