Suffering is the mark of the human tribe. It is an eternal law.[55] The
mother suffers so that her child may live. Life comes out of death. The
condition of wheat growing is that the seed grain should perish. No
country has ever risen without being purified through the fire of
suffering.... It is impossible to do away with the law of suffering
which is the one indispensable condition of our being. Progress is to be
measured by the amount of suffering undergone ... the purer the
suffering, the greater is the progress.[56]
Non-violence in its dynamic condition means conscious suffering.... I
have ventured to place before India the ancient law of self-sacrifice,
the law of suffering. The _Rishis_ who discovered the law of
non-violence in the midst of violence were greater geniuses than Newton,
greater warriors than Wellington. Having themselves known the use of
arms they realized their uselessness and taught a weary world that
salvation lay not through violence but through non-violence.... The
religion of non-violence is not meant merely for the _Rishis_ and
saints. It is meant for the common people as well. Non-violence is the
law of our species as violence is the law of the brute. The dignity of
man requires obedience to a higher law--to the strength of the
spirit.... I want India to practise non-violence being conscious of her
strength and power. I want India to recognize that she has a soul that
cannot perish and that can rise triumphant above every physical weakness
and defy the physical combination of a whole world.[57]
Exalted pride, his proud love of India, demands she should scorn
violence as unworthy and be ready to sacrifice herself. Non-violence is
her title of nobility. If she abandons it she falls. Gandhi cannot bear
the thought.
If India made violence her creed I would not care to live in India. She
would cease to evoke any pride in me. My patriotism is subservient to my
religion. I cling to India like a child to its mother's breast because I
feel that she gives me the spiritual nourishment I need. If she were to
fail me, I would feel like an orphan, without hope of ever finding a
guardian. Then the snow altitudes of the Himalayas must give what rest
they can to my bleeding soul....[58]
§ 8
But Gandhi does not doubt India's endurance. In February, 1919, he
decided to start the _Satyagraha_ movement, whose efficacy had already
been tested during the agrarian revolt in 1918.
The campaign is not at all political, as yet: Gandhi is still a
loyalist. And he remains one as long as he retains a grain of faith in
England's loyalty. Until January, 1920, he advocated cooperation with
the empire, even though the nationalists criticized him bitterly
therefore.[59] Gandhi's arguments are inspired by his sincere
conviction, and during the first year of his campaign against the
Government he could truthfully assure Lord Hunter that he believed the
disciples of _Satyagraha_ to be the most loyal supporters of the
Constitution. Only the narrow-minded obstinacy of the Government forced
India's moral guide finally to tear up the contract of loyalty by which
he considered himself hound.
To begin with, therefore, the _Satyagraha_ campaign takes the form of
constitutional opposition to the Government. It is a respectful appeal
for certain urgent reforms. The Government is guilty of passing an
unjust law. The _Satyagrahi_, who are law-abiding people, will disobey
this law deliberately, because they consider it unjust. If their
attitude does not convince the Government of the necessity of repealing
the law, they will extend their disobedience to other laws, and
eventually they may cease all cooperation with the Government. But how
different is the meaning which India gives to this word from that which
we in the West give to it! Such extraordinary religious heroism as is
contained in it!
As the _Satyagrahi_ are not allowed to use violence in advancing their
cause (the idea being that the adversary, too, is sincere, since what
seems truth to one person may seem untruth to another, while violence
never carries conviction),[60] they must rely solely on the love-force
that radiates from their faith and on their willingness to accept
suffering and sacrifice joyously, freely.[61] This constitutes
irresistible propaganda. With it the cross of Christ and his little
flock conquered the Roman Empire.
In order to emphasize the religious character of the people's
willingness to sacrifice themselves for the eternal ideals of justice
and liberty, the Mahatma inaugurated the movement by setting April 6,
1919,[62] aside as a day of prayers and fasting, by imposing a _hartal_
of all India.[63] This was the first step.
This first step went right to the heart of the people, stirred their
inmost consciousness. For the first time all classes of India united in
the same ideal. India found herself.
Order reigned everywhere. At Delhi only there were a few
disturbances.[64] Gandhi set out to quiet them. But the Government had
him arrested and sent him back to Bombay. The news of his arrest caused
riots in Punjab; at Amritsar some houses were looted, and a few people
were killed. In the night of April 11 General Dyer arrived with his
troops and occupied the city. Order reigned everywhere. The fifteenth
was a great Hindu feast-day. A meeting was to take place at an open
space called Jallianwalla Bagh. The crowd was peaceful and numbered many
women and children. The night before General Dyer had sent out an order
forbidding public meetings, but no one had heard about it. The general,
however, came to Jallianwalla Bagh with his machine-guns and without
warning opened fire on the defenseless mass of people. The firing lasted
about ten minutes, till the ammunition was used up. As the grounds were
surrounded by high walls, no one could escape. From five to six hundred
Hindus were killed, and a much larger number wounded. There was no one
to care for the dead and wounded. As the result of the massacre, martial
law was proclaimed, and a reign of terror spread over Punjab.
Aëroplanes threw bombs on the unarmed crowds. The most honorable
citizens were dragged to court, flogged, and forced to crawl on their
knees, and subjected to the most shocking indignities. It was as if a
wind of madness swept over the English rulers. It was as if the law of
non-violence, proclaimed by India, stirred European violence to frenzy.
Gandhi saw bloodshed and suffering were ahead. But he had not promised
to lead his people to victory along a white road. He had warned them
that the path would be washed with blood. Jallianwalla Bagh was only the
beginning:
We must be prepared to contemplate with equanimity not a thousand
murders of innocent men and women but many thousands before we attain a
status in the world that shall not be surpassed by any nation.... We
hope, therefore, that all concerned will take rather than lose heart and
treat hanging as an ordinary affair of life.[65]
Owing to the rigorous military censorship, the news of the horrors of
Punjab did not leak out for several months. But when it did leak out[66]
a wave of indignation swept over India and alarmed even English opinion.
An investigation was ordered, and Lord Hunter presided over the
commission.
In the meantime, the National Indian Congress formed a subcommission to
carry on investigations independently of the Government, but along the
same lines. It was to the obvious interest of the Government, as all
intelligent Englishmen realized, to punish those guilty of the massacre
of Amritsar. Gandhi did not demand as much as that. In his admirable
moderation he did not ask for the punishment of General Dyer and the
guilty officers. While denouncing them, he felt no bitterness and sought
no vengeance. One bears no ill will to a madman. But one must put him
where he can do no damage. Gandhi, therefore, merely asked that General
Dyer be recalled. But _quos vult perdere._... Before the results of the
investigation could be published, the Government passed an indemnity act
to protect official employees. Though Dyer was removed from his post, he
was rewarded with money contributed from private sources.
While India was still in effervescence after the Punjab affair, a second
conflict arose between the Government and the people, a more serious one
this time, because it implied a flagrant violation of solemn promises.
The Government's attitude shattered whatever confidence India still had
in the good faith of the English rulers, and brought on the great
revolt.
The European War had placed the Moslems of India in a very painful
dilemma. They were torn between their duty as loyal citizens of the
empire and faithful followers of their religious chief. They agreed to
help England when she promised not to attack the sultan's or the
caliph's sovereignty. It was the sense of Moslem opinion in India that
the Turks should remain in Turkey in Europe and that the sultan should
retain not only authority over the Holy Places of Islam, but over Arabia
as delimited by Mohammedan scholars with the enclaves of Mesopotamia,
Syria, and Palestine. This Lloyd George and the viceroy solemnly
promised. When the war was over, however, all pledges were forgotten.
And when the rumors of the peace terms to be imposed on Turkey began to
circulate in 1919, the Moslems in India began to grow restless, and
their discontent finally started the Khilafat or Califat movement.
It began October 17,1919 (Khilafat day), with an imposing peaceful
demonstration, which was followed, about a month later (November 24), by
the opening of an All-India Khilafat Conference at Delhi. Gandhi
presided. With his quick glance he had realized that the Islamic
agitation might be made into the instrument of Indian unity. The problem
of uniting the various races in India was a most difficult one. The
English had always taken advantage of the natural enmity between Hindus
and Moslems; Gandhi even accuses them of having fostered it. At any
rate, they had never tried to conciliate the two peoples, who challenged
each other childishly. To annoy the Mohammedans, for instance, the
Hindus used to make a point of singing when they passed the mosques
where silence should reign, while the Mohammedans lost no opportunity of
jeering the Hindus' cow-worship. Mutual ill will and persistent
animosity reigned between the two races, who never associated with each
other and were not allowed to intermarry or even eat in common. The
English Government rested sweetly on the cushion of implicit trust in
the impossibility of the two ever agreeing and adopting a common policy.
When Gandhi's voice, therefore, proclaimed the identity of the Hindu and
the Moslem cause, it awoke with a start. In an outburst of generosity,
which happened to be sound politics, Gandhi urged the Hindus to do all
in their power to advance Mohammedan claims.
Hindus, Parsees, Christians, or Jews, if we wish to live as one nation,
the interest of any one of us must be the interest of all. The only
deciding consideration can be the justice of a particular cause.
Mohammedan blood had already mixed with that of the Hindus in the tragic
massacre of Amritsar. The two people now had to seal their alliance, an
unconditional alliance. The Moslems were the most advanced and audacious
element in India. And they were the first to announce, at this Khilafat
Conference, that they would refuse to cooperate with the Government if
their demands were not met. Gandhi approved of this measure, but in his
innate horror of going to extremes he refused at the time to advocate
the boycott of British goods, for he looked upon the boycott as an
expression of weakness or thirst for vengeance. A second Khilafat
Conference met at Amritsar in the end of December, 1919, and decided to
send a deputation to Europe to inform the English Government and the
Supreme Council of India's attitude. It also voted for the sending of an
ultimatum to the viceroy, warning him of trouble if the peace terms
should prove unsatisfactory. Finally a third conference, meeting in
Bombay in February, 1920, issued a manifesto which, in its violent
arraignment of Great Britain's policy, was a forerunner of the coming
storm.
Gandhi realized the storm was brewing, and instead of trying to call it
forth he did all in his power to break its violence.
It seemed as if England also realized the danger. By belated
concessions she seemed to be making desperate efforts to avert the
consequences of her former attitude. An Indian Reform Act based on the
Montagu-Chelmsford report gave the people in India more influence in the
Central Government as well as in local administrations. The king
approved the act by a proclamation of December 24, 1919, in which he
invited the people of India and the functionaries to cooperate with the
Government in every way, while he also urged the viceroy to pardon
political offenses and recommended a general amnesty. Gandhi, always
ready to believe in the adversary's good faith, interpreted these
measures as signifying a sort of tacit agreement to deal more justly
with India, and he called upon the people to welcome the reforms. He
confessed that they were insufficient, but he said they should be
accepted as the starting-point for greater victories. He urged the
conference to approve them unreservedly. After a heated debate the
National Indian Congress adopted his view.
But soon it became evident that Gandhi's hopes were built on illusions.
The viceroy did not heed the king's appeal for clemency, and instead of
setting prisoners free, the doors of the jails opened only for
executions. It became evident that the promised reforms would remain
inoperative.
On top of this came the news of the peace conditions imposed on Turkey,
May 14, 1920. In a message to the people the viceroy admitted they would
prove disappointing, but he advised the Moslems to resign themselves to
the inevitable.
Then came the publication of the official report on the Amritsar
massacres. It was the last straw.
India's national consciousness was aroused. All ties were broken.
The Khilafat Committee, meeting at Bombay, May 28, 1920, passed a
resolution adopting Gandhi's non-cooperation policy, and this resolution
was ratified unanimously by the Moslem Conference of Allahabad, June 80,
1920.
Gandhi, in the meantime, wrote an open letter to the viceroy informing
him that the movement of non-cooperation would begin. He explained why
he had recourse to it, and his arguments are worth studying, for they
prove that even then Gandhi was hoping to avoid a break with England. In
the bottom of his heart he still hoped that the Government might be
brought to mend its ways by purely legal methods:
The only course open to me is either in despair to sever all connection
with British rule or, if I still retain faith in the inherent
superiority of the British Constitution, to adopt such means as will
rectify the wrong done and thus restore confidence. I have not lost
faith in the superiority of the British Constitution and it is because I
believe in it that I have advised my Moslem friends to withdraw their
support from Your Excellency's Government, and advised the Hindus to
join them.
And this noble citizen of the empire the blind pride of the empire
spurned.
[Footnote 1: As C. F. Andrews says, "He laughs like a child and
adores children."]
[Footnote 2: "Few can resist the charm of his personality. His bitterest
enemies become courteous when confronted with his beautiful courtesy."
(Joseph J. Doke.)]
[Footnote 3: "Every departure from truth, no matter how trifling, is
intolerable to him." (C. F. Andrews.)]
[Footnote 4: "He is not a passionate orator; his manner is calm and
serene and he appeals particularly to the intelligence. But his serenity
places the subject he discusses in the clearest light. The inflexions of
his voice are not varied but they are intensely sincere. He never makes
any gestures with his arms, in fact he rarely even moves a finger. But
his luminous words, expressed in terse, concise sentences, carry
conviction. He never abandons a subject before he feels that he has made
it perfectly clear." (Joseph J. Doke.)]
[Footnote 5: "Young India," March 2, 1922. The dates cited in the motes
of this volume refer to the date of publication of Gandhi’s articles
in "Young India."]
[Footnote 6: _A_, privative, _himsa_, to do evil. Hence, _ahimsa_,
principle of not harming any form of life, nonviolence. It is one of
Hinduism's most ancient precepts, proclaimed by Mahavira, the founder of
Jaïnism, by Buddha, as well as by the disciples of Vishnu.]
[Footnote 7: He attended the elementary school of Porbandar till the age
of seven and then the public school of Rajkot till ten. After that he
went to the high school of Katyavar until, at the age of seventeen, he
entered the University of Ahmedabad.]
[Footnote 8: He described his childhood in a speech at the Pariah
Conference, April 13, 1921.]
[Footnote 9: Long afterward he told Joseph Doke of the anguish he had
suffered after eating meat. He was unable to sleep; he felt like a
murderer.]
[Footnote 10: He is not in favor of child marriages, however, and made a
campaign against them, on the ground that they weaken the race. In
exceptional cases, however, he says that such unions, sealed before the
individual's character is molded, may build up between husband and wife
an exceptionally beautiful relationship of sympathy and harmony.
Gandhi's own wife is an admirable example of this. Mrs. Gandhi shared
all her husband's trials and adversities with unfailing steadfastness of
purpose and indomitable courage.]
[Footnote 11: Speech of April 13, 1921.]
[Footnote 12: These two men, precursors, have suffered from the
ingratitude and forgetfulness of younger generations. Their political
ideal having been surpassed, their efforts in paving the way have been
deprecated. Gandhi, however, always realized their contribution to the
cause and remained true to them, particularly to Gokhale, for whom he
felt a deep and almost religious affection. He frequently speaks of
Gokhale and Dadabhai as men whom Young India should venerate. (See "Hind
Swaraj, Letter to the Parsecs, Young India," March 23, 1921, and the
Confession of Faith, July 13, 1921.)]
[Footnote 13: A long letter from Tolstoi to Gandhi is published in the
"Golden Number" of "Indian Opinion." It was written September 7, 1910,
shortly before Tolstoi's death. Tolstoi had read "Indian Opinion," and
he was gratified to hear of the Indian non-resisters. He praised their
campaign and says that non-resistance is the law of love, an aspiration
to form part of the communion of human souls. It is the law of Christ
and of all the spiritual leaders of the world.
My friend Paul Biroukoff found several other letters from Tolstoi to
Gandhi in the Tolstoi archives at Moscow. He is planning to publish them
in a volume entitled "Tolstoi and the Orient," adding them to several
other letters written by Tolstoi to various great men of the East.]
[Footnote 14: Gandhi himself tells in his quiet humorous way of his
experiences in prison in a curious article printed in the volume,
"Speeches and Writings of M. K. Gandhi," Natesan, Madras, pp. 152-178.]
[Footnote 15: In 1907 Gandhi was the victim of the violence of his own
compatriots, for his moderation was eyed with suspicion by certain
Indians, while, the Government, on the other hand, did all in its power
to compromise him. Gandhi, therefore, suffered from the violence of the
oppressed as well as of the oppressors.]
[Footnote 16: I will dwell on "Hind Swaraj" a little more at length,
later on.]
[Footnote 17: Joseph J. Doke, interesting because of his interviews with
Gandhi, tells in the last chapter of his book how, in 1908, Gandhi was
led to the fort of Johannesburg in prison garb and thrown into a cell
with Chinese common-law criminals of the worst sort.]
[Footnote 18: Two high-minded Englishmen, C. F. Andrews and W. W.
Pearson, seconded Gandhi's efforts by all means within their power.]
[Footnote 19: Gandhi refers to this in an article dated May 12, 1920.]
[Footnote 20: Shortly before he died, Gokhale, Gandhi's beloved master,
had suggested that Gandhi make a trip through India and study conditions
at first hand, before going into politics. And Gandhi had promised not
to take an active part in the political life of India for a year.]
[Footnote 21: The Satyagraha movement may be said to have begun
February 28, 1919.]
[Footnote 22: Gandhi explained his attitude toward Bolshevism on
November 24, 1921.]
[Footnote 23: August 11, 1920: Gandhi protests against the doctrine
of the sword.]
[Footnote 24: "Humanity is one. There are different races, but the
higher a race the greater its duties." ("Ethical Religion")]
[Footnote 25: November 5, 1919.]
[Footnote 26: October 27, 1920.]
[Footnote 27: October 6, 1921.]
[Footnote 28: All religions are like different roads leading to the same
goal. ("Hind Swaraj.") "All religions are founded on the same moral
laws. My ethical religion is made up of laws which bind men all over the
world." ("Ethical Religion.")]
[Footnote 29: October 6, 1921.]
[Footnote 30: Etymologically, _varna_, color, class or caste; _ashrama_,
place of discipline; _dharma_, religion. Society, in other words, stands
for "discipline of the castes."]
[Footnote 31: February 25, 1920. In a second line Gandhi adds, "Ruskin
and Tolstoi."]
[Footnote 32: "Seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness and all
these things shall be added unto you."]
[Footnote 33: "Young India," February 25, 1920.]
[Footnote 34: He says to Joseph J. Doke in 1908 that God has been
incarnate throughout the ages, in different forms, because, as explained
in the Gitâ, Krishna says: "When religion falls into decadence and
unbelief prevails, I manifest myself. For the protection of all that is
good, and the destruction of all that is evil, for the establishment of
Dharma, I must be born and reborn, for ever and ever." Christianism is
part of Gandhi's theology. Christ is a radiant revelation of God. But
not the only revelation. He is not seated on the throne alone.]
[Footnote 35: The "Hind Swaraj" contains a list of about sixty of
Tolstoi's works which Gandhi recommends to his followers, among them,
"The Kingdom of God Is within You, What Is Art?" and "What Shall We Do?"
He tells Joseph Doke that Tolstoi influenced him deeply, but that he
does not agree with Tolstoi's political ideals. To a question asked him
in 1921 as to his feeling for and opinion of Count Tolstoi, Gandhi
replies (in "Young India" of October 25, 1921), "My relation to him was
that of a devoted admirer who owes him much in life."]
[Footnote 36: He was particularly fond of Ruskin's "Crown of Wild
Olives."]
[Footnote 37: "Apologia and Death of Socrates," translated by Gandhi,
was one of the books confiscated by the Indian Government in 1919.]
[Footnote 38: In regard to cow-worship see "Young India," March 16, June
8, June 29, August 4, 1920, and May 18, October 6, 1921. In regard to
castes see articles December 8, 1920, and October 6, 1921.]
[Footnote 39: This is in accordance with the Upanishads, for when the
primitive classes hardened into proud castes, in the course of
centuries, these Hindu scriptures express protest and disapproval.]
[Footnote 40: A term often used by Gandhi. "Untouchability is an
invention of Satan." (June 19, 1921.)]
[Footnote 41: September 8, 1920.]
[Footnote 42: It should not be forgotten that one of Gandhi's main
arguments against the medical science of Europe is its use of
vivisection, which he brands as "man's blackest crime."]
[Footnote 43: Particularly in regard to sexual relations. Gandhi's
doctrine resembles that of St. Paul in its rigorism.]
[Footnote 44: "Hind Swaraj."]
[Footnote 45: Although Gandhi does not approve of European science, he
realizes the necessity of scientific achievement. He admires the
disinterested zeal and the spirit of self-sacrifice of European men of
science and frequently calls their abnegation greater than that of Hindu
believers. But he disapproves the goal they are pursuing even though he
admires their state of mind. There is an evident antagonism between
Gandhi and European science. And in this connection we will see, later
on, how Tagore protests against Gandhi's medievalism.]
[Footnote 46: January 19, 1921.]
[Footnote 47: March 9, 1920.]
[Footnote 48: August 11, 1920.]
[Footnote 49: Etymology: _Swa_, self; _raj_, government, autonomy. The
word is as old as the Vedas, but it was adopted by Dadabhai, Gandhi's
Parsee master, who made it part of the political vocabulary.]
[Footnote 50: Etymology: _Satya_, just right; _Agraha_, attempt, effort.
Hence, _Satyagraha_, a just effort, in the sense of meaning
non-acceptation of or resistance to injustice. Gandhi defines it,
November 5, 1919, as meaning "holding on to truth, hence, truth-force."
And he adds, "I have also defined it as love-force or soul-force."]
[Footnote 51: August 11, 1920.]
[Footnote 52: October 20, 1921.]
[Footnote 53: August 4, 1920.]
[Footnote 54: August 11, 1920. One of the rules of the _Satayagraha
Ashram_, the school founded by Gandhi, is "absence of fear." The spirit
must be freed from fear of kings, nations, castes, family, men, wild
beasts, and death. It is also the fourth condition of non-violent
resistance in the Hindra. The others are chastity, poverty, and truth.]
[Footnote 55: June 16, 1920.]
[Footnote 56: August 11, 1920.]
[Footnote 57: April 6, 1921.]
[Footnote 58: A few months before his imprisonment Gandhi replies to the
criticisms as to "illogic" of his conduct. His critics jeer at the
assistance he tendered England in South Africa and during the World War.
Gandhi, in replying, does not try to evade the issue. He honestly
believed, he says, that he was a citizen of the empire; it was not his
business to judge the Government. He would consider it wrong for every
man to look upon himself as justified in criticizing the Government. He
had confidence in England's wisdom and loyalty as long as possible. The
Government's aberration has destroyed his faith in it. Let the
Government take the consequences! (November 17, 1921.)]
[Footnote 59: April 6, 1921.]
[Footnote 60: On the contrary, violence degrades the person who makes
use of it. The Allies' violence made them like unto the Germans, whose
acts they flayed, in the beginning of the war. (June 9, 1920.)]
[Footnote 61: The hardest fiber must melt in the fire of love. If it
does not melt it is because the fire is not strong enough. (March 9,
1920.) Those joining the _Satyagraha_ movement had to promise to disobey
the laws declared by the _Satyagraha_ committee to be unjust, to follow
in the path of truth, and to abstain from all violence against the
lives, persons, or property of their adversaries.]
[Footnote 62: March 23, 1919.]
[Footnote 63: This Hindustani word of Mohammedan origin means
cessation of work.]
[Footnote 64: Delhi, incidentally, made a mistake in the date
of the _hartal_ and celebrated it March 30.]
[Footnote 65: April 7, 1920.]
[Footnote 66: Gandhi, to quiet the effervescence instead of trying to
exploit it as an ordinary revolutionary leader would have done,
suspended the movement on April 18.]