§ 1
On July 28, 1920, Gandhi announced that non-coöperation would be
proclaimed August 1, and as a preparatory measure he ordered that a day
of fasting and prayer be held the day before. He had no fear of
governmental fury, but he feared the fury of the populace, and he bent
every effort to have order and discipline reign within the Indian ranks.
He declared:
Effective non-coöperation depends upon complete organization.
Disorderliness comes from anger. There must be no violence. Violence
means retrogression in our case, and useless waste of innocent lives.
Above everything else, there must be complete order.
The tactics of non-coöperation had been defined two months before by
Gandhi and the committee of non-coöperation, and they included the
following measures:
(1) Surrender of all titles of honor and honorary offices.
(2) Non-participation in government loans.
(3) Suspension by lawyers of practice, and settlement of court disputes
by private arbitration.
(4) Boycott of government schools by children and parents.
(5) Boycott of the reformed Councils.
(6) Non-participation in government parties and other official
functions.
(7) Refusal to accept any civil or military post.
(8) Agreements to spread the doctrine of Swadeshi.[67]
In other words, the negative part of the program should be completed by
constructive measures, which would lead to the building up of the new
India of the future.
This program specified the first steps to be taken, and we must admire
the prudent sagacity of the leader who, after cranking up the enormous
machine of Hindu revolt, stops it short, so to speak, and holds it back,
pulsating, at the first turn, a method in startling opposition to that
of our European revolutionaries. Gandhi is not planning civil
disobedience for the present. He knows civil disobedience. He has
studied it in Thoreau, whom he quotes in his articles, and he takes
pains to explain the difference between it and non-coöperation. Civil
disobedience, he says, is more than a mere refusal to obey the law. It
means deliberate opposition to the law; it is an infraction of the law,
and can be carried out only by an elite, while non-coöperation should
be a mass movement. Gandhi means to prepare the masses in India for
civil disobedience but they must be trained for it by a gradual process.
He knows that at present people are not ripe for it, and he does not
want to set them loose before he feels sure that they have mastered the
art of self-control. So he launches non-coöperation. Non-coöperation,
in this first stage, does not include a refusal to pay taxes. Gandhi is
biding his time.
August 1,1920, Gandhi gives the signal for the movement by his famous
letter to the viceroy, surrendering his decorations and honorary titles:
It is not without a pang that I return the Kaisar-i-Hind Gold Medal
granted to me by your predecessor for my humanitarian work in South
Africa, the Zulu War Medal, granted in South Africa for my services as
officer in charge of the Indian Volunteer Ambulance Corps in 1906, and
the Boer War Medal for my services as assistant superintendent of the
Indian Volunteer Stretcher-bearer Corps during the Boer War of
1899-1900.
But, he adds, after referring to the scenes that took place in the
Punjab and the events back of the Khilafat movement:
I can retain neither respect nor affection for a Government which has
been moving from wrong to wrong in order to defend its immorality....
The Government must be moved to repentance.
I have therefore ventured to suggest non-coöperation which enables
those who wish to disassociate themselves from the Government and which,
if unattended by violence, must compel the Government co retrace its
steps and undo its wrongs.
And Gandhi expresses the hope that the viceroy will see his way to do
justice, and that he will call a conference of the recognized leaders of
the people, and consult with them.
Gandhi's example was immediately followed. Hundreds of magistrates sent
in their resignations, thousands of students left the colleges, the
courts were abandoned, the schools were emptied. The All-India Congress,
meeting in special session in Calcutta in the beginning of September,
approved Gandhi's decisions by an overwhelming majority. Gandhi and his
friend Maulana Shaukat Ali toured the country and met with tremendous
ovations everywhere.
Never did Gandhi show himself a greater leader than during the first
year of his action. He had to hold back the violence that lay
smoldering, ready to leap into flame at the slightest provocation.
Gandhi fears and abhors mob violence more than anything else. He
considers "mobocracy" the greatest danger that menaces India. He hates
war, but would rather have it than the insane violence of _Caliban._ "If
India has to achieve her freedom by violence, let it be by the
disciplined violence named war," not by mob revolts. Gandhi looks with
disfavor upon all demonstrations and mass-meetings, even in celebration
of some joyous event, for out of a large crowd filled with noise and
confusion frenzied violence may burst for no apparent reason. And he
insists on the necessity of maintaining strict discipline. "We must
evolve order out of chaos," he says, "introduce people's law instead of
mob law." And the mystic with the clear, firm eyes, whose sound
practical sense equals that of the great European mystics who founded
religious orders and dominated the souls of men, gives precise, detailed
rules as to how to canalize the torrents of popular meetings and
demonstrations.
"One great stumbling-block," he says, speaking of the organization of
mass-meetings, "is that we have neglected music. Music means rhythm,
order. Unfortunately, in India, music has been the prerogative of the
few. It has never become nationalized.... I would make compulsory a
proper singing, in company, of national songs. And to that end I would
have great musicians attending every congress or conference and teaching
mass music. Nothing is so easy as to train mobs, for the simple reason
that they have no mind, no meditation."
Gandhi makes a list of suggestions. No raw volunteers should be accepted
to assist in the organization of the big demonstrations. None but the
most experienced should be at the head. Volunteers should always have a
general instruction-book on their persons. They should be dispersed
among the crowd and should learn flag and whistle signaling to pass
instructions. National cries should be fixed and raised at the right
moment. Crowds should be prevented from entering the railroad stations;
they should be taught to stand back and leave a clear passage in the
streets for people and carriages. Little children should never be
brought out in the crowds, etc.
In other words, Gandhi makes himself the orchestra leader of his oceans
of men.[68]
§ 2
But while the mob may break out into violence, unconsciously, blindly,
moved by a sudden unreasonable impulse, there is a political faction
which advocates violence deliberately and consciously. Many of the best
men in India believe that national independence can be reached only by
violent methods. This faction does not understand Gandhi's doctrine and
does not believe in its political efficacy. It demands action, direct
action. Gandhi receives anonymous letters urging him to stop advocating
non-violence, and, worse, others implying cynically that his doctrine of
non-violence is merely a mask and that the time has now come to throw it
aside and give the signal for battle. Gandhi replies vehemently. He
discusses the arguments passionately.[69] In a series of beautiful
articles he censures the "doctrine of the sword." He denies that Hindu
scriptures and the Koran approve violence. Violence is not part of the
doctrine of any religion. Jesus is the prince of passive resistance. The
Bhagavad Gitâ does not preach violence, but the fulfilment of duty even
at the cost of one's life.[70] As man has not been given the power to
create, he has not the right to destroy the smallest creature that
lives. There must be no hatred for any one, not even for the evil-doer;
but this does not mean that one should tolerate evil. Gandhi would nurse
General Dyer if he were ill, but if his own son lived a life of shame,
he would not help him by continuing to support him. On the contrary, "my
love for him would require me to withdraw all support from him, although
this might even mean his death." No one has the right to compel another
by physical force to become good. "But one is under the obligation to
resist him by leaving him, no matter what may happen, and by welcoming
him to one's bosom if he repents."[71]
While Gandhi curbs the violent elements, he stimulates the hesitating.
He reassures those who are afraid of taking a decisive step:
Never has anything been done on this earth without direct action. I
rejected the word "passive resistance" because of its insufficiency....
It was, however, direct action in South Africa which told, and told so
effectively that it converted General Smuts to sanity. What was the
larger "symbiosis" that Buddha and Christ preached? Gentleness and love.
Buddha fearlessly carried the war into the enemy's camp and brought down
on its knees an arrogant priesthood. Christ drove out the money-changers
from the temple of Jerusalem and drew down curses from heaven upon the
hypocrites and the Pharisees. Both were for intensely direct action. But
even as Buddha and Christ chastened, they showed unmistakable gentleness
and love behind every act of theirs.[72]
Gandhi also appeals to the generosity and the common sense of the
English.[73] He calls the English his "dear friends" and points out that
he has been their faithful companion for more than thirty years. He asks
them to make up for the Government's perfidy, which by its treachery has
completely shattered his faith in its good intentions. But he still
believes in English bravery and in English respect for other people's
bravery. "Bravery on the battle-field is impossible for India, but
bravery of the soul remains open to us. Non-coöperation means nothing
less than training in self-sacrifice. I expect to conquer you by my
suffering."
In the first four or five months' preliminary campaign Gandhi was not
trying to paralyze the Government through non-coöperation; his idea was
rather to lay the foundation for the building up of a new India which
would be independent mentally, morally, and economically. Gandhi
expresses the idea of India's economic independence by the term
_Swadeshi_, and he takes the word in its narrow and physical sense.
India must learn to go without many comforts and to accept hardships
without a murmur. A salutary discipline, this; necessary moral hygiene.
The nation's health as well as its character will benefit thereby.
Gandhi's first move is to free India from the curse of drink. Groups
must be formed to advocate temperance. European wines must be boycotted;
liquor-dealers must be induced to surrender their licenses.[74] All
India responded to the Mahatma's appeal. Such a strong wave of
temperance swept over India that Gandhi had to interfere to prevent the
crowds from sacking and looting the wine-shops and closing them by
force. "You must not try to compel another by physical force to become
good," he explained to the masses.
But if it was a relatively easy matter to rid India of the curse of
drink, it was much more difficult to provide her with means of
subsistence. If cooperation with England ceased, what would India live
on? What would she clothe herself in if European products were tabooed?
Gandhi's solution is one of utmost simplicity and reveals the medieval
turn of his mind: he undertakes to reestablish the old Indian industry
of home spinning, introduce the spinning-wheels.
This patriarchal solution of the social problem has naturally met with
ridicule.[75] But conditions in India and Gandhi's interpretation of the
term _charka_ must, be taken into consideration. Gandhi has never
claimed that spinning alone would constitute a means of livelihood
except for the very poor; but he does claim that it could supplement
agriculture during the months when work in the fields is at a
standstill. India's problem is not theoretical, but real and pressing.
Eighty per cent of the population of India is agricultural, and is
therefore without employment virtually four months of the year. One
tenth of the population is normally exposed to famine. The middle class
is underfed. What has England done to remedy these conditions? Nothing.
On the contrary, she has aggravated them, for English manufactures have
ruined local industries, pumped the resources of India, bleeding the
country for more than sixty million rupees a year. India, who grows all
the cotton she requires, is forced to export millions of bales to Japan
and Lancashire, whence it is returned to her in the form of manufactured
calico, which she must buy at exorbitant prices. The first thing for
India to do, therefore, is to learn to do without ruinous foreign goods,
and in order to do this she must organize workshops of her own to give
employment and food to her people. There is no time to lose. Now,
nothing can be organized more rapidly and economically than the industry
of spinning and weaving at home. The idea is not to induce well paid
agricultural laborers to give up their work and to spin, but to urge the
unemployed, and all those who do not have to work for a living, such as
women and children, as well as all Hindus who may have some spare time
during the day, to spin in their leisure hours. Gandhi orders,
therefore, (1) the boycotting of foreign goods, (2) the teaching of
spinning and weaving, (3) the buying of hand-woven cloth only.
Gandhi gives himself up tirelessly to this idea. He says spinning is a
duty for all India.[76] He wants poor children to pay for their tuition
at school by a certain number of hours of spinning; he wants every one,
man and woman, to contribute at least one hour a day, as charity, to
spinning. He gives the most precise directions as to the choice of
cotton, spinning-wheels, etc., and information on all sorts of technical
details of spinning and weaving; he gives practical advice to those who
wish to buy hand-woven cloth, to the fathers of large families, as well
as to pupils in the schools. He explains, for instance, how one may
start a _Swadeshi_ shop--a shop dealing in the products of Hindu
industry--with but little capital, make ten per cent profits, etc. He
becomes lyrical when he describes the "music of the spinning-wheel,"[77]
the oldest music in India, which delighted Kahir, the poet-weaver, and
Aureng-Zeb, the great emperor, who wove his own caps.
Gandhi was able to fire public enthusiasm. The great ladies of Bombay
took up spinning. Hindu and Moslem women agreed to wear only national
cloth, which became all the fashion. Tagore, too, praised this _khaddar_
or _khadi_, as the hand-woven cloth was called, which he said was in
excellent taste. Orders poured in. Some came from as far as Aden and
Baluchistan.
But the disciples of _Swadeshi_ went a little too far when they began
boycotting foreign materials, and even Gandhi, usually sane and well
balanced, was carried away. In August, 1921, he ordered the binning of
all foreign goods in Bombay, and as in the days of Savonarola in
Florence, _Christo regnante_, magnificent family heirlooms, priceless
stuffs and materials, were piled into huge heaps and devoured by the
flames in the midst of riotous cheers and enthusiasm. In this connection
one of the most broad-minded Englishmen in India, C. F. Andrews, a great
friend of Rabindranath Tagore, wrote a letter to Gandhi. While
expressing his great admiration for the Mahatma, he deplored that such
valuable materials should have been burned instead of having been given
to the poor. He added that he believed the process of destruction called
forth the worst instincts of the masses, and he protested against the
outbursts of a nationalism which virtually set destruction up as a
religious dogma. He could not help feeling that it was sinful to destroy
the fruits of human toil. Andrews had approved Gandhi's campaign and had
even begun wearing _khaddar_ but now he wondered whether it was right to
continue to do so. The burning cloth in Bombay had shaken his faith in
the Mahatma.
In publishing Andrews's letter in "Young India" Gandhi said he regrets
nothing. He does not bear ill will to any race whatsoever, nor does he
demand the destruction of _all_ foreign goods. He merely wants to
destroy the goods which harm India. Millions of Indians have been ruined
by English factories, which, by taking work away from India, have turned
thousands upon thousands of Indians into pariahs and mercenaries and
their women into prostitutes. India is already inclined to hate her
British dominators. Gandhi does not wish to strengthen this hatred. On
the contrary, he wants to side-track it, to turn it away from people to
_things._ The Indians who bought the materials are as guilty as the
British who sold them. The materials were not burned as an expression of
hatred for England, but as a sign of India's determination to break with
the past. It was a necessary surgical operation. And it would have been
wrong to give these "poisonous" materials to the poor, for the poor too,
have a sense of honor.
§ 3
India's economic life must first be freed from foreign domination. But
the next step is to liberate the mind, create a real, independent Indian
spirit. Gandhi wants his people to shake off the yoke of European
culture, and one of his proudest achievements is the laying of the
groundwork of a truly Indian education.
Under English rule the smoldering embers of Asiatic culture had lain
dormant in various colleges and universities. For more than forty-five
years Aligarh had remained a Hindu-Mussulman university, a center of
Islamic culture in India. Khalsa College was the center of Sikh culture,
while the Hindus had the University of Benares. But these institutions,
more or less antiquated, were dependent on the Government, which
subventioned them, and Gandhi longed to see them replaced by purer
hearths of Asiatic culture. In November, 1920, he founded the national
University of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. Its ideal was that of a united
India. The _Dharma_ of the Hindus and the Islam of the Mohammedans were
its two religious pillars. Its object was to preserve the dialects of
India and to use them as sources of national regeneration.[78] Gandhi
felt, with full justice, that a "systematic study of Asiatic culture is
no less essential than the study of Western sciences. The vast treasures
of Sanskrit and Arabic, Persian and Pali and Magadhi, have to be
ransacked to discover wherein lies the source of strength for the
nation. The ideal is not merely to feed on or repeat the ancient
cultures, but to build a new culture based on the traditions of the past
and enriched by the experiences of later times. The ideal is a synthesis
of the different cultures that have to come to stay in India, that have
influenced Indian life, and that, in their turn, have themselves been
influenced by the spirit of the soil. This synthesis will naturally be
of the _Swadeshi_ type, where each culture is assured its legitimate
place, and not of the American pattern, where one dominant culture
absorbs the rest and where the aim is not toward harmony, but toward an
artificial and forced unity." All Indian religions were to be taught.
The Hindus were to have an opportunity of studying the Koran and the
Mussulmans the Shastras. The national university excludes nothing except
a spirit of exclusion. It believes that there is nothing "untouchable"
in humanity. Hindustani is made compulsory, because it is the national
blend of Sanskrit, Hindi, and Persianized Urdu.[79] A spirit of
independence was to be fostered, not only by the methods of study, but
by a careful vocational training.
Gandhi hopes to organize, gradually, higher schools that will spread
education broadcast throughout the towns and "filter it down to the
masses, so that ... ere long the suicidal cleavage between the educated
and the uneducated will be bridged. And as an effect of giving an
industrial education to the genteel folks and a literary education to
the industrial classes, the unequal distribution of wealth and social
discontent will be considerably checked."
In opposition to European educational methods, which neglect manual
proficiency and develop the brain only, Gandhi wants manual work to he
part of the curriculum of all the schools from the lowest grades up. He
believes it would be excellent for children to pay for their tuition by
a certain amount of spinning. In this way they would learn to earn their
living and become independent. As for education of the heart, which
Europe neglects absolutely, Gandhi would have stress laid upon it from
the very first. But before the pupils can be properly trained, the right
sort of teachers must be provided.
The object of the higher institutions which Gandhi seems to look upon as
the keystones of the new education is to train teachers. These
institutions will be more than schools or colleges; they might rather be
called convents, where the sacred fire of India will be concentrated in
order afterward to radiate throughout the world, just as in former days
great religious pioneers radiated from the Benedictine monasteries in
the West, conquering souls and territory.
The rules which Gandhi prescribes for the school of _Satyagrah
Ashram_,[80] or place of discipline, at Ahmedabad, his model
institution, concern the teachers more than the pupils, and bind the
former by monastic vows. Whereas these vows in ordinary religious orders
have a purely negative character, here they throb with an active spirit
of sacrifice and with the pure love that inspires the saints. The
teachers are bound by the following vows:
1. The vow of truth. It is not enough not to resort ordinarily to
untruth. No deception may be practised even for the good of the country.
Truth may require opposition to parents and elders.
2. The vow of _Ahimsa_ (non-killing). It is not enough not to take the
life of any living being. One may not even hurt those whom he believes
to be unjust; he may not be angry with them, he must love them. Oppose
tyranny but never hurt the tyrant. Conquer him by love. Suffer
punishment even unto death for disobeying his will.
3. The vow of celibacy. Without it the two foregoing are almost
impossible to observe. It is not enough not to look upon woman with a
lustful eye. Animal passions must be controlled, so that they will not
be moved even in thought. If a man is married, he will consider his wife
a lifelong friend and establish with her the relationship of perfect
purity.
4. The control of the palate. Regulate and purify the diet. Leave off
such foods as may tend to stimulate animal passions or are otherwise
unnecessary.
5. The vow of non-stealing. It is not enough not to steal what is
commonly considered other men's property. It is theft if we use articles
which we do not really need. Nature provides us from day to day just
enough and no more for our daily needs.
6. The vow of non-possession. It is not enough not to possess and not to
keep much, but it is necessary not to keep anything which may not be
absolutely necessary for our bodily wants. Think constantly of
simplifying life.
To these main vows are added a few secondary rules:
1. _Swadeshi._ Use no articles about which there is a possibility of
deception. Do not use manufactured articles. Laborers suffer much in
mills, and manufactured articles are products of misery exploited.
Foreign goods and goods made by complicated machinery should be tabooed
by a votary of _Ahimsa._ Use simple clothes, made simply in India.
2. Fearlessness. He who is acted upon by fear cannot follow truth or
_Ahimsa._ He must be free from the fear of kings, people, caste,
families, thieves, robbers, ferocious animals, and death. A truly
fearless man will defend himself against others by truth-force or
soul-force.
Once established the main points of this iron foundation, Gandhi refers
rapidly to the other requirements, of which the two most remarkable are
that the teachers must set the example of performing bodily labor,
preferably agricultural work, and that they must know the principal
Indian tongues.
As for the pupils, who can enter the _Ashram_ from the age of four up
(students will be admitted at any age), they must remain in the _Ashram_
for the whole course of studies, which lasts about ten years. The
children are separated from their parents and families. The parents
renounce all authority over them. The children never visit their
parents. The pupils wear simple clothes, eat simple food of a strictly
vegetarian nature, have no holidays in the ordinary sense of the word,
though once a week they are allowed a day and a half in which to do
individual creative work. Three months of the year are spent in
traveling on foot through India. All pupils must study the Hindi and
Dravidian dialects. As a second language, they must learn English, and
they must also familiarize themselves with the characters of the five
Indian languages (Urdu, Bengali, Tamil, Telugu, and Davanagri). They are
taught, in their own dialect, history, geography, mathematics,
economics, and Sanskrit. At the same time they are taught agriculture
and spinning and weaving. It goes without saying that a religious
atmosphere pervades the whole education. When they have completed their
studies, the pupils are allowed to choose between taking the vows, like
their teachers, or leaving the school. The tuition is entirely free.
I have described Gandhi's educational system rather fully because it
shows the high spirituality of his action, and because he considers this
system the mainspring of the whole movement. To build a New India, a new
soul, strong and pure, must be wrought out of Indian elements. And this
soul can only be developed by a sacred legion of apostles who, like
those of Christ, will be as the salt of the earth. Gandhi, unlike our
European revolutionaries, is not a maker of laws and ordinances. He is a
builder of a new humanity.
§4
Like all governments under similar conditions, the English Government
had no realization of what was going on. At first its attitude was one
of ironical disdain. The viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, characterized the
movement in August, 1920, as "the most foolish of all foolish schemes."
But these heights of comfortable condescension had to be abandoned
before long. In November, 1920, the Government published a surprised and
slightly alarmed proclamation, where threats and paternal advice
commingled, warning the people that while the leaders of the movement
had not been molested so far because they had not preached violence,
orders had now been given to arrest any one who overstepped the bounds
and whose words might stir up revolt or in other ways incite to
violence.
The bounds were soon overstepped, but by the Government. The
non-coöperation movement had been growing and gathering momentum, and
the Government was beginning to be seriously alarmed. In December
affairs took a decidedly dangerous turn. Until then non-violent
non-coöperation had been looked upon as an experiment of a more or less
temporary nature, and the Government had flattered itself that when the
National Indian Congress met at Nagpur for its December session,
non-coöperation would be vetoed. But far from disapproving of
non-coöperation, the congress incorporated the idea in the constitution
by making the first paragraph read:
The object of the Indian National Congress is the attainment of
_Swaraj_--Home Rule--by the people of India by all legitimate and
peaceful means.
The congress thereupon confirmed the non-coöperation resolution passed
in the special session in September, and enlarged upon it. While the
principle of non-violence was upheld absolutely, the general feeling was
that every effort must be made to unite all the elements in India in
view of a common, sustained action, and the congress not only called
upon Hindus and Mussulmans to collaborate loyally, but urged a
_rapprochement_ between the privileged and "suppressed" classes. In
addition to this the congress made fundamental changes in the
constitution, which virtually amounted to the organization of a
representative system for all India.[81]
The congress did not try to conceal the fact that it regarded
non-coöperation in its present form as a preliminary step only, to be
followed, at a time to be determined later, by complete
non-coöperation, including a refusal to pay taxes. Until then, however,
and in order to pave the way, it urged that the boycott be sharpened,
spinning and weaving be encouraged, while an appeal was sent out to
students, parents, and magistrates inviting them to practise
non-coöperation with greater zeal. Those who did not live up to the
decisions of the congress were to be barred from public life.
The resolutions of the congress implied the virtual establishment of a
state within a state, the setting up of real Indian rule in opposition
to the British Government. England could not countenance this. She had
to do something. The Government had to fight or negotiate. A compromise
could easily have been reached by negotiation if the Government had been
willing to go half-way. The congress had declared that it hoped to reach
its goal "with England, if possible," but otherwise "without her." But
as is always the case when European politics involve foreign races, no
attempt was made to negotiate. Force was resorted to. Pretexts for armed
oppression were sought. There was no lack of them.
Despite the principle of non-violence established by Gandhi and the
congress, a few riots occurred in various parts of India. It is true
that they bore little or no relation to the non-coöperative movement,
but, still, there had been and were troubles. In the United Provinces
(Allahabad) there were agrarian uprisings, revolts of the tenants
against the landowners, and the police had to interfere, and there was
some bloodshed. Soon afterward the Akali movement of the Sikhs, although
of a purely religious character, adopted non-coöperative methods, and
as a result of the agitation some two hundred Sikhs were massacred in
February, 1921. No one in good faith could have held Gandhi or his
disciples responsible for this drama of fanaticism, but the Government
considered it a good opportunity. In March, 1921, the repression began,
and it became more and more oppressive as the months passed. The
Government justified its intervention by the necessity of protecting the
liquor dealers from the fury of the mobs. This was not the first time
for European civilization and alcohol to march hand in hand. The
volunteer non-coöperation organizations were dissolved. A law was made
prohibiting seditious meetings. In certain provinces the police had
given _carte blanche_ in suppressing the movement, which was called
"revolutionary and anarchistic." Thousands of Indians were arrested, and
some of India's most respected citizens were summarily jailed and
brutalized. Naturally, this procedure stirred up bad blood, and here and
there the people and the constables clashed. Some houses were burned and
people pounded. This was the situation in India when the committee of
the All-Indian congress met at Bezwada in the end of March to discuss
civil disobedience. With rare moderation and foresight it voted against
it, on the ground that the country was not yet prepared to wield this
double-edged sword. Civil disobedience would be urged later. For the
present there could only be a sort of civil and financial mobilization.
Meanwhile Gandhi continued more and more actively his campaign for the
unity of India. He tried to unite all religions, races, parties, and
castes. He called upon the Parsees,[82] the rich, prosperous merchant
class, more or less tainted, as he expressed it, with the spirit of
Rockefeller, and he called upon Hindus and Mussulmans to form a solid
alliance. The relations between Hindus and Mussulmans were continually
embittered by prejudices, mutual fear, and suspicion. Gandhi devoted
himself to bringing the two races into harmonious collaboration,[83] and
without advocating or desiring an impossible fusion between the two
peoples, he tried to unite them in friendship.[84]
His keenest efforts, however, were given to the regeneration of the
"suppressed" classes, the pariahs. His passionate appeals for the
pariahs, his cries of sorrow and indignation at the monstrous social
iniquity which oppressed them, would, alone, immortalize his name. His
feeling for the outcasts dates back to his boyhood. He tells how, when
he was a boy,[85] a pariah used to come to the house to do all the
coarse work. As a boy Gandhi was told never to touch the pariah without
purifying himself afterward by ablutions. He could not understand why,
and often asked his parents about it. At school he frequently touched
the untouchables, and his mother told him that he could escape the
consequences of this unholy touch only by touching a Mohammedan. To
Gandhi it all seemed absurdly unfair, cruelly unjustified. At the age of
twelve he made up his mind to wipe this stain off India's conscience. He
planned to come to the rescue of his degraded brothers. And never has
Gandhi's mind revealed itself clearer and more unbiased than when he
pleads their cause. What their cause means to him may be gathered from
the fact that he says he would give up his religion (he to whom religion
is everything!) if any one can prove to him that untouchability is one
of its dogmas. The unjust pariah system justified, in his eyes,
everything that has been inflicted on India by other nations.
If the Indians have become the pariahs of the empire, it is retributive
justice, meted out to us by a just God.... Should we Hindus not wash our
blood-stained hands before we ask the English to wash theirs?
Untouchability has degraded us, made us pariahs in South Africa, East
Africa, Canada. So long as Hindus willfully regard untouchability as
part of their religion, so long _Swaraj_ is impossible of attainment.
India is guilty, England has done nothing blacker. The first duty is to
protect the weak and helpless and never injure the feelings of any
individual. We are no better than brutes until we have purged ourselves
of the sins we have committed against our weaker brethren.
Gandhi wanted the national congress to better the condition of the
pariah brothers by giving them schools and wells, for pariahs were not
allowed to use the public wells. But until then? Unable to wait with
folded hands for the privileged classes to condescend to make good their
cruelty, Gandhi went over to the pariahs. He placed himself at their
head and tried to organize them. He discussed their problems with them.
What ought they to do? Appeal to the English Government? Place
themselves at its disposal? This would only mean a change of slavery.
Abandon Hinduism? (Note the broad-minded audacity of a Hindu believer!)
Become Christians or Mohammedans? Gandhi would almost advise them to do
so if Hinduism really stood for untouchability. But it doesn't.
Untouchability is only a morbid excrescence of Hinduism, which must be
extirpated. The pariahs must organize themselves in self-defense. They
might, of course, adopt the principles of non-coöperation in regard to
Hinduism by refusing to have any relations with the Hindus (singularly
audacious advice of social revolt on the lips of a patriot like
Gandhi!). But the difficulty is that the pariahs have no leaders and
cannot organize themselves. The best thing, therefore, is for them to
join the general non-coöperation movement, since its object is harmony
among all classes. Real non-coöperation is a religious act of
purification, and no one can take part in it who believes in
untouchability. Gandhi in this way combines religion, humanity, and
patriotism.[86]
A certain solemnity attended the first efforts to group the pariahs. A
"suppressed-classes conference" took place at Ahmedabad on April 13 and
14, 1921. Gandhi presided at the conference and made one of his most
beautiful speeches. He not only demanded the suppression of the pariah
system but urged the untouchables to rise to the occasion and show the
best that was in them. He expects great things from the pariahs, he
says, in the social life of regenerated India. He tries to instill
self-confidence in them and fill them with his own burning ideal. In the
"suppressed classes," he says, he sees tremendous latent possibilities.
He believes that within five months the untouchable class will be able
to win, by its own merits, the place it deserves within the great Indian
family.
Gandhi had the joy of seeing his appeal find echo in the hearts of the
people. In many parts of India the pariahs were emancipated.[87] The day
before his arrest Gandhi made a speech recording the progress of the
pariah cause. The Brahmans were helping. The privileged classes were
giving touching examples of remorse and fraternal love. Gandhi cites the
case of a young Brahman who at nineteen became a street-sweeper, to live
among the untouchables.[88]
§ 5
With equal generosity Gandhi took up another great cause, that of women.
The sexual problem is a peculiarly difficult one in India, throbbing
with an all-pervading, oppressive, and badly directed sensuality. Child
marriages weaken the physical and moral resources of the nation. The
obsession of the flesh weighs on men's minds and is an insult to woman's
dignity. Gandhi publishes the complaints of Hindu women at the degrading
attitude of Hindu nationalists.[89] Gandhi takes the women's side. Their
protest, he says, proves that there is another sore in India as bad as
that of untouchability. But the woman question is not a purely Indian
problem. The whole world suffers from it. As with the pariahs, he
expects more from the oppressed than from the oppressors. He calls upon
women to demand and inspire respect by ceasing to think of themselves as
the objects of masculine desire only. Let them forget their bodies and
enter into public life, assume the risks, and suffer the consequences of
their convictions. Women should not only renounce luxury and throw away
or burn foreign goods, but they should share men's problems and
privations. Many distinguished women have faced arrest and imprisonment
in Calcutta. This shows the proper spirit. Instead of asking for mercy,
women should vie with men in suffering for the cause. When it comes to
suffering, women will always surpass men. Let women have no fear. The
weakest will be able to preserve her honor. "One who knows how to die
need never fear."
Nor does Gandhi forget the fallen sisters.[90] He tells of conversations
with them in the provinces of Andhra and Barisal, where they met in
conference. He spoke to them nobly and simply, and they replied,
confided in him, and asked his advice. He tried to suggest some way in
which they might make an honest living, and proposed spinning. They
agreed to begin the very next day if assured of encouragement and
assistance. And then Gandhi turned to the men of India; called upon them
to respect women:
Gambling in vice has no place in our revolution. _Swaraj_, home rule,
means that we must regard every inhabitant of India as our own brother
or sister. Woman is not the weaker sex, but the better half of humanity,
the nobler of the two; for even to-day it is the embodiment of
sacrifice, silent suffering, humility, faith, and knowledge. Woman's
intuition has often proved truer than man's arrogant assumption of
knowledge.
In the women of India, beginning with his own wife, Gandhi always found
intelligent aid and understanding, and among them he recruited some of
his best disciples.
§ 6
In 1921 Gandhi's power was at its apogee. His authority as a moral
leader was vast, and without having sought it, almost ilimited political
authority had been placed in his hand. The people looked upon him as a
saint. Pictures were painted representing him as Sri-Krishna.[91] And at
the end of the year, in December, the All-India National Congress
delegated its powers to him and authorized him to appoint his successor.
He was the undisputed master of India's policy. It was up to him to
start a political revolution, if he saw fit, or even to reform religion.
He did not do so. He did not wish to do so. Moral grandeur? Moral
hesitancy? Both, perhaps. It is very difficult for one human being
really to understand another, particularly if they belong to different
races and civilizations. And how much more difficult when a spirit so
deep and subtle as Gandhi's is to be considered! In the maze of events
which took place in India, in this tumultuous year, it is hard to
ascertain whether the pilot's hand did not tremble, but, always firm and
sure, steered the colossal ship along the chosen course. I will try,
however, to explain my feeling in regard to the living enigma, and I
will do so with the religious respect which I have for this great man
and the sincerity which I owe to his sincerity.
If Gandhi's power was great, the danger of abusing it was equally great.
As the effect of his campaign, by the slightest ripple, affected
hundreds of millions of men, it became more and more difficult to direct
the movement and at the same time remain firm in the midst of the
turbulent ocean. A superhuman problem indeed, to conciliate moderation
and high-mindedness with surging, unbridled mob passions! The pilot,
gentle and pious, prays and relies on God; but the voice that comes to
him is almost lost in the roar of the tempest. Will it ever reach the
others?
There is no danger of his being swept off his feet by pride. No amount
of adoration can turn his head. On the contrary, it wounds not only his
sense of fitness of things, but his spirit of humility. Gandhi is an
exception among prophets and mystics, for he sees no visions, has no
revelations; he does not try to persuade himself that he is guided
supernaturally, nor does he try to make others believe it. Radiant
sincerity is his. His forehead remains calm and clear, his heart devoid
of vanity. He is a man, like all other men. He is _not_ a saint. He will
not have the people call him one. (Yet his very attitude proves that he
is one.)
The word "saint," he says, should be ruled out of present life.
I pray like every good Hindu. I believe we can all be messengers of God.
I have no special revelations of God's will. My firm belief is that He
reveals himself daily to every human being, but that we shut our cars to
the "still small voice." ... I claim to be nothing but a humble servant
of India and humanity. I have no desire to found a sect. I am really too
ambitious to be satisfied with a sect for a following, for I represent
no new truths. I endeavor to follow and represent truth as I know it. I
do claim to throw a new light on many an old truth.[92]
Personally, he is always modest, conscientious in the extreme, incapable
of narrow-mindedness whether as Indian patriot or apostle of
non-coöperation. He sanctions no tyranny, not even for the good of the
cause. Government oppression must never be replaced by non-coöperative
oppression.[93] Gandhi will not set his country up against other
countries; his patriotism is not confined to the boundaries of India.
"For me, patriotism is the same as humanity. I am patriotic because I am
human and humane. My patriotism is not exclusive. I will not hurt
England or Germany to serve India. Imperialism has no place in my scheme
of life. A patriot is so much less a patriot if he is a lukewarm
humanitarian."[94]
But have his disciples always felt this way? And, on their lips, what
becomes of Gandhi's doctrine? And, interpreted by them, how does it
reach the masses?
When Rabindranath Tagore, after traveling several years in Europe,
returned to India in August, 1921, he was astounded at the change in the
mentality of the people. Even before his return he had expressed his
anxiety in a series of letters sent from Europe to friends in India.
Many of these letters were published in his "Modern Review."[95] The
controversy between Tagore and Gandhi, between two great minds, both
moved by mutual admiration and esteem, but as fatally separated in their
feeling as a philosopher can be from an apostle, a St. Paul from a
Plato, is important. For on the one side we have the spirit of religious
faith and charity seeking to found a new humanity. On the other we have
intelligence, free-born, serene, and broad, seeking to unite aspirations
of all humanity in sympathy and understanding.
Tagore always looked upon Gandhi as a saint, and I have often heard him
speak of him with veneration. When, in referring to the Mahatma, I
mentioned Tolstoi, Tagore pointed out to me, and I realize it now that I
know Gandhi better--how much more clothed in light and radiance Gandhi's
spirit is than Tolstoi's. With Gandhi everything is nature--modest,
simple, pure--while all his struggles are hallowed by religious
serenity, whereas with Tolstoi everything is proud revolt against pride,
hatred against hatred, passion against passion. Everything in Tolstoi is
violence, even his doctrine of non-violence. On April 10, 1921, Tagore
wrote from London, "We are grateful to Gandhi for giving India a chance
to prove that her faith in the divine spirit of man is still living."
Despite the misgivings he had expressed as to Gandhi's campaign, Tagore,
when he left France to return to India, sincerely planned to back Gandhi
in every way. And even the manifesto of October, 1921, which I will
discuss later--the "Appeal to Truth," which marked the break between the
two men--begins with one of the most beautiful tributes to Gandhi that
have ever been written.
Gandhi's attitude to Tagore is one of loving regard, and it does not
change even when the two disagree. You feel that Gandhi is loath to
enter into polemics with Tagore, and when certain kind friends try to
embitter the debate by repeating personal remarks, Gandhi bids them be
silent and explains how much he owes Tagore.[96]
Yet it was inevitable that the breach between the two men would widen.
As far back as in 1920 Tagore had deplored that the overflowing wealth
of Gandhi's love and faith should be made to serve political ends, as it
had since Tilak's death. Of course Gandhi had not entered the political
arena with a light heart. But when Tilak died, India was left without a
political leader, and some one had to take his place.