§ 1
In 1921 the non-coöperation movement evolved rapidly. The whole year
was one of uncertainty, expectancy, and violent outbreaks. Gandhi
inevitably reflected its oscillations.
For a long time hostility had been growing, and it broke out in open
revolt at the Government's brutally oppressive measures. There were
riots at Malegaon, in the district of Nasik, and at Giridih, in Behar.
In the beginning of May, 1921, there were serious clashes in Assam.
Twelve thousand coolies stopped work in the tea-gardens, and were
attacked by Gurkhas drafted by the Government, and in eastern Bengal the
railroad and steamship workers organized a two months' strike in
protest. Gandhi did all in his power to calm the effervescence. In May
he had a long conversation with the viceroy, Lord Reading, and he also
used his influence with the Ali brothers, who were said to be stirring
up violence by their inflammatory speeches. Gandhi was able to persuade
his Moslem friends to "refrain from directly or indirectly advocating
violence."
The non-coöperation movement, however, grew more and more powerful as
time went on. The Moslem element in particular became audacious. At
Karachi, July 8, for instance, the All-India Khilafat Conference, after
reiterating the Moslem claims, declared that no Mussulman should serve
in the English Army or assist in recruiting. In fact, the conference
even went so far as to threaten to proclaim a republic in India and
advocate civil disobedience at the December session of the National
Congress if the Government did not change its hostile attitude to the
Angora leaders. A little later, on July 28, the committee of the
National Congress (the first congress committee elected according to the
new constitution) sitting at Bombay decided to boycott the Prince of
Wales, whose visit was announced, and declared a boycott on all foreign
materials, to become effective before September 30. It also took steps
to intensify and regulate national spinning and weaving, and urged the
organization of a more vigorous campaign against the drink evil, despite
the Government's support of the dealers. Less audacious than the
Mussulmans of the Khilafat Conference, however, the congress committee
disavowed revolutionary tendencies and disapproved civil disobedience,
approving a more; strenuous propaganda in favor of non-violence.
In August a brutal revolt of the Moplahs took place, and lasted several
months. With Maulana Mohamed Ali, Gandhi decided to go from Calcutta to
Malabar to try to quiet it. But the Government arrested Maulana Mohamed
and his brother Maulana Shaukat Ali as well as several other Moslem
notables, accusing them of having voted for civil disobedience at the
Khilafat Conference. At the news of the Ali brothers' arrest, the
Central Khilafat Committee, sitting at Delhi, ratified unanimously the
resolutions of the Khilafat Conference. Hundreds of demonstrations, held
all over India, confirmed the people's approval of them. On October 4,
Gandhi announced that he considered his cause hound up with that of the
Mussulmans. In a manifesto approved by fifty prominent members of the
All-India Congress Gandhi declared that every citizen was entitled to
express his views on non-coöperation, adding that no Indian, whether
civil functionary or soldier, should serve a Government which has
brought about the moral, political, and economical degradation of India.
He set up non-coöperation with such a Government as an imperative duty.
The Ali brothers' trial took place at Karachi. With their
fellow-accused, they were sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
To this sentence India replied with redoubled vigor. Gandhi's manifesto
was ratified by the Committee of the All-India Congress on November 4 at
Delhi. And casting the die, the committee authorized every province, on
its own responsibility, to proclaim civil disobedience, beginning with a
refusal to pay taxes. "Resisters," however, were first to swear complete
obedience to the _Swadeshi_ program, including hand spinning, and take
the vow of non-violence. In other words, under Gandhi's direction the
committee tried to combine resistance against the Government with
discipline and self-sacrifice. To make the disinterested character of
the movement clear. Resisters were informed that neither they nor their
families would receive any pecuniary aid from the committee.
The great disobedience was about to become effective when, on November
17, the Prince of Wales landed at Bombay. The boycott was carried out by
the lower and the middle classes; but the rich, the Parsees and official
personages, ignored the order completely. Their attitude created such
fury among the populace that the masses stormed the houses of the rich,
looting and sacking homes and property, sparing no one, not even the
women. Many were killed and wounded. This was the only case of violence,
however. Everywhere else, all over India, the prescribed _hartal_ took
place in the midst of almost religious quiet and order. There were no
disturbances of any kind. But the news of the Bombay riots wounded
Gandhi "like an arrow shot in his heart." As soon as he heard of them he
rushed to the spot, and when the rioters cheered him his mortification
knew no bounds. He called the crowd angrily to order and commanded it to
disperse. He declared that the Parsees were justified in celebrating the
prince's arrival if they wished, and, in any event, nothing justified
violence. The crowd listened to Gandhi in silence, but farther off the
tumult broke out again. The worst elements seemed to have suddenly
emerged from the earth, and twenty thousand men, towering in rage and
hatred, cannot be brought back to reason all at once. Still, the rioters
remained localized in certain districts, and the destruction was not
half so great as that caused by the most insignificant revolutionary
outbreak in Europe. Gandhi, however, issued anguished appeals to the
citizens of Bombay and to the non-coöperators, and declared that such
incidents proved that the masses were not yet ripe for civil
disobedience. Therefore he suspended the order proclaiming it. To punish
himself for the violence of his followers, he imposed upon himself a
religious fast of twenty-four hours every week.
The European residents in India were less alarmed by the Bombay riots
than by the striking unanimousness of the silent _hartal_ throughout the
country. They urged the viceroy and the Government to act, and a series
of oppressive measures were imposed in the various provinces. An old
law, aimed at anarchists and secret societies, dating from the uprisings
of 1908, was unearthed, and made to serve against the volunteer
associations of the Congress and of the Khilafat. Arrests were made by
the thousand, which only resulted in bringing thousands of new recruits
to register as volunteers, who were then trained by the provincial
committees. In the meantime a _hartal_ was set for December 24, the date
of the Prince of Wales's visit to Calcutta. That day the prince passed
through a silent, absolutely deserted city.
The revolution seemed to be smoldering everywhere, ready to burst into
flame when the Indian National Congress met at Ahmedabad. There was
about it the impressive solemnity of the États-Généraux on the eve of
the French Revolution in 1789. The president of the congress had just
been imprisoned. The discussions were brief. The congress again
proclaimed its faith in non-coöperation and invited all citizens to
register as volunteers and to be prepared to face arrest. It also urged
the people to organize mass-meetings everywhere; and after expressing
the opinion that civil disobedience is a weapon equally effective and
more humane than armed rebellion, it moved that civil disobedience be
adopted as soon as the masses had grasped the real spirit of
non-violence. Realizing that many of the members would be arrested at
the close of the session, the congress delegated its powers to Gandhi,
investing him with a dictature _de facto_ and authorizing him to appoint
his successor. This made Gandhi sole master of India's policy. The
congress limited his authority on one point only, and this was that he
should agree to no change in the national _creed_ nor make peace with
the Government without the consent of the congress committee. A fraction
of the assembly tried to pass a resolution approving violence, if
necessary to bring about India's independence, but this resolution was
rejected by the majority, which believed in Gandhi's principles.
The ensuing weeks revealed the religious enthusiasm which swept over
India. Twenty-five thousand men and women joyfully surrendered
themselves to prison guards. And back of them, thousands of others stood
ready to give themselves up to prove their faith in the cause of India.
§ 2
Again Gandhi believed the country was ripe for civil disobedience _en
masse._ The signal was to be given in a model district, at Bardoli, in
the province of Bombay.[113] Here Gandhi's ideas had always been
understood and followed. In an open letter to the viceroy, dated
February 9, 1922, Gandhi set forth his program. The letter is a
courteous, but clear, declaration of war. Gandhi says he is the leader
of the non-coöperation movement, and he claims responsibility for it.
Bardoli will be the first unit of non-violent mass revolt against a
government which has brutally infringed upon freedom of the press, of
association, and of speech. Gandhi gives Lord Reading seven days in
which to announce a change of policy. If the "viceroy will not or cannot
see such an incredibly simple issue," civil disobedience will be
proclaimed.[114]
Scarcely had the letter, to the viceroy been despatched when there
occurred an outbreak more violent than any of the others. During a
procession at Chauri-Chaura, in the district of Gorakhpur, or, rather,
after the procession had passed, some stragglers were "interfered with
and abused by the constables." Attacked by the mob, the constables
opened fire, and when they exhausted their ammunition they retired to
the _thana_ (the police barracks) for safety. The mob set fire to the
_thana._ In vain the besieged begged for mercy. They were pitilessly
massacred and burned. As the provocation had come from them, however,
and as no non-coöperation volunteer had had a hand in the attack,
Gandhi would have been justified in disclaiming all responsibility for
the outrage. But he had really become the conscience of India. The crime
of a single one of his people cut him to the quick. He took upon himself
all the sins of his people. His horror was such that on the spur of the
moment, and for the second time, he stopped the civil-disobedience
movement that he had just launched. The situation was vastly more
complicated than after the Bombay riots, and only a few days before he
had sent his ultimatum to the viceroy. How could he retract it without
making his program seem illogical and even ridiculous? "Satan," as
Gandhi says, "forbade it." Realizing that "Satan's" voice was the voice
of _pride_, he decided to retract the manifesto.
And on February 16,1922, there appeared in "Young India" one of the most
extraordinary human documents ever written. It is Gandhi's _mea culpa_,
his public confession. From the depths of his mortification words of
thanks swell to his lips, of thanks to God for having humbled him:
God has been abundantly kind to me. He has warned me for the third time
that there is not as yet in India that truthful and non-violent
atmosphere which, and which alone, can justify mass disobedience, which
can be at all described as "civil," which means gentle, truthful,
humble, knowing, wilful, yet loving, never criminal and hateful. He
warned me in 1919 when the Rowlatt Act agitation was started. Ahmedabad,
Viramvrag, and Kheda erred. I retraced my steps, called it a Himalayan
miscalculation, humbled myself before God and man, and stopped not
merely mass civil disobedience, but even my own.... The next time it was
through the events of Bombay that God gave me a terrific warning. He
made me eyewitness.... I announced my intention to stop the mass civil
disobedience which was to be immediately started in Bardoli. The
humiliation was greater than that in 1919. But it did me good and I am
sure that the nations gained by the stopping. India stood for truth and
non-violence by the suspension.
But the bitterest humiliation was still to come.... God spoke clearly
through Chauri-Chaura.... And when India claims to be non-violent and
hopes to mount the throne of liberty through non-violent means, mob
violence even in answer to grave provocation is a bad augury....
Non-violent attainment of self-government presupposes a non-violent
control over the violent elements in the country. Non-violent
non-coöperators can only succeed when they have succeeded in attaining
control over the hooligan of India....
Therefore, on February 11, at Bardoli, he "put his doubts and troubles"
before the working committee of the congress. They did not all agree
with him. "But never," he said, "has a man been 'blessed,' perhaps, with
colleagues and associates so considerate and forgiving."
They sympathized with his scruples and consented, at his request, to
suspend the order of civil disobedience, urging at the same time that
all organizations strive to create an atmosphere of non-violence.
I know that the drastic reversal of practically the whole of the
aggressive program may be politically unsound and unwise, but there is
no doubt that it is religiously sound. The country will have gained by
my humiliation and confession of error. The only virtue I want to claim
is truth and non-violence. I lay no claim to superhuman powers. I want
none. I wear the same corruptible flesh that the weakest of my
fellow-beings wear, and am therefore as liable to err as any. My
services have many limitations, but God has up to now blessed them in
spite of the imperfections.
For confession of error is like a broom that sweeps away dirt and leaves
the surface cleaner and brighter. I feel stronger for my confession. And
the cause must prosper for the retracing. Never has a man reached his
destination by persistence in deviation from the straight path. It has
been urged that Chauri-Chaura cannot affect Bardoli. ... I have no doubt
whatsoever on that account. The people of Bardoli are, in my opinion,
the most peaceful in India. But Bardoli is but a speck on the map of
India. Its effort cannot succeed unless there is perfect coöperation
from the other parts.... Just as the addition of a grain of arsenic to a
pot of milk renders it unfit as food so will the civility of Bardoli
prove unacceptable by the addition of the deadly poison from
Chauri-Chaura.... The latter represents India as much as Bardoli.
Chauri-Chaura is, after all, an aggravated symptom. _In civil
disobedience there should be no excitement. Civil disobedience is a
preparation for mute suffering._ Its effect is marvelous, though
unperceived and gentle.... The tragedy of Chauri-Chaura is really the
index-finger. It shows the way India may easily go if drastic
precautions be not taken. If we are not to evolve violence out of
non-violence, it is quite clear that we must hastily retrace our steps
and reestablish an atmosphere of peace, and not think of starting mass
civil disobedience until we are sure of peace being retained in spite of
mass civil disobedience being started and in spite of government
provocation.... Let the opponent glory in our humiliation and so-called
defeat. It is better to be charged with cowardice than to be guilty of
denial of our oath and sin against God....
And the apostle wants to redeem the blood shed by others:
I must undergo personal cleansing. I must become a fitter instrument
able to register the slightest variation in the moral atmosphere about
me. My prayers must have deeper truth and humility. For me there is
nothing so cleansing as a fast. A fast undertaken for fuller
self-expression, for attainment of the spirit's supremacy over the
flesh, is a most powerful factor in one's evolution....[115]
And he imposes on himself a continuous five days' fast. He does not want
his co-workers to follow his example. He must punish himself. "I am in
the unhappy position of a surgeon proved skill-less to deal with an
admittedly dangerous case. I must either abdicate or acquire greater
skill." His fast is penance and punishment for him and for the rioters
of Chauri-Chaura who sinned with his name on their lips. Gandhi would
like to suffer for them alone, but he advises them to hand themselves
voluntarily to the Government and to make a clean confession, for they
have injured the cause they meant to serve.
I would suffer humiliation, every torture, absolute ostracism, and death
itself to prevent the movement from becoming violent or a precursor of
violence.
The history of humanity's spiritual progress can point to few pages as
noble as these. The moral value of such an action is incomparable, but
as a political move it was disconcerting. Gandhi himself admits it might
be called "politically unsound and unwise." It is dangerous to assemble
all the forces of a nation and to hold the nation, panting, before a
prescribed movement, to lift one's arm to give the final command, and
then, at the last moment, let one's arm drop and thrice call a halt just
as the formidable machinery has been set in motion. One risks ruining
the brakes and paralyzing the impetus.
Therefore, when the congress committee held its session at Delhi,
February 24, 1922, Gandhi met with great opposition. The resolutions of
the working committee of Bardoli, approved on the eleventh, were not
ratified without discussion. The non-coöperators split into two camps.
Gandhi claimed that before civil disobedience could be launched the
people must be better prepared, and he submitted a constructive program.
But many members were irritated at the slow progress of the independence
movement, and they protested against the suspension of civil
disobedience. Gandhi's methods, they claimed, were stifling the nation's
ardor. A vote of censure against the working committee was proposed, and
it was suggested that its resolutions be annulled. In the end, however,
Gandhi triumphed. But he suffered keenly, for he realized that the
majority was not backing him sincerely; he knew that more than one of
those who voted for him called him "dictator" behind his back. He knew
that, at bottom, he no longer reflected the sentiment of the country.
And with his undaunted sincerity he admits this, March 2, 1922:
There is so much undercurrent of violence, both conscious and
unconscious, that I was actually and literally praying for a disastrous
defeat. I have always been in a minority. In South Africa I started with
practical unanimity, reached a minority of sixty-four and even sixteen,
and went up again to a huge majority. The best and the most solid work
was done in the wilderness of minority.... I know that the only thing
that the Government dreads is this huge majority I seem to command. They
little know that I dread it even more than they. I have become literally
sick of the adoration of the unthinking multitude. I would feel certain
of my ground if I was spat upon by them. A friend warned me against
exploiting my "dictatorship." I have begun to wonder if I am not
unconsciously allowing myself to be "exploited"! I confess that I have a
dread of it as I never had before. My only safety lies in my
shamelessness. I have warned my friends of the committee that I am
incorrigible. I shall continue to confess blunders each time the people
commit them. The only tyrant I accept in this world is the "still small
voice" within. And even though I have to face the prospect of a minority
of one, I humbly believe I have the courage to be in such a hopeless
minority. That to me is the only truthful position. But I am a sadder
and, I hope, a wiser man to-day. I see that our non-violence is
skin-deep. We are burning with indignation. The Government is feeding it
by its insensate acts. It seems almost as if the Government wants to see
this land covered with murder, arson, and rapine in order to be able
once more to claim exclusive ability to put them down.
This non-violence, therefore, seems to be due merely to our
helplessness. It almost appears as if we are nursing in our bosoms the
desire to take revenge the first time we get the opportunity. Can true
voluntary non-violence come out of this seeming forced non-violence of
the weak? Is it not a futile experiment I am conducting? What if, when
the fury bursts, not a man, woman, or child is safe and every man's hand
is raised against his fellow-being? Of what avail is it, then, if I fast
myself to death in the event of such a catastrophe coming to pass? Let
us be truthful. If it is by force that we wish to gain _Swaraj_, let us
drop non-violence and offer such violence as we may. It would be a
manly, honest, and sober attitude, and no one can then accuse us of the
terrible charge of hypocrisy.[116] If, in spite of all my warnings...
the majority did not believe in our goal, although they accepted it
without a single material change, I would ask them to realize their
responsibility. They are not bound to rush to civil disobedience, but to
settle down to the quiet work of construction. If we do not take care,
we are likely to be drowned in the waters whose depth we do not know....
Those who do not believe in the creed should surely retire from
the congress.
And, turning to the minority, Gandhi adds:
The patriotic spirit demands loyal and strict adherence to non-violence
and truth. Those who do not believe in them should retire from the
congress organization.
There is bitter sadness, but a proud manliness, in these forceful words.
It was the night in Gethsemane. Gandhi's arrest was imminent. Who knows
whether, in his heart, he did not look upon imprisonment as a delivery?
§ 3
Gandhi had for a long time been expecting to be arrested. Ever since
November 10, 1920, all his affairs had been in order and he himself
prepared. He had dictated his instructions to the people in his article,
"If I Am Arrested." He referred to this possibility again in an article
dated March 9, 1922, when the rumor of his arrest again cropped up. He
says he does not fear the Government. "Rivers of blood shed by the
Government cannot frighten me." The only thing he fears is that the
people may be carried away at the news of his arrest. This would be a
disgrace to him. "I desire that the people should maintain perfect
self-control and consider the day of my arrest a day of rejoicing. The
Government believes that I am the soul of all this agitation and that if
I am removed it will be left in peace. The only thing that remains is
for it to measure the strength of the people. Let the people preserve
perfect peace and calmness. It is a matter of no pride or pleasure to
me, but of humiliation, that the Government refrain from arresting me
for fear of an outbreak of universal violence." Let the people carry out
the whole constructive program. Let there be no _hartals_ or
demonstrations, no cooperation with the Government. Let courts and
schools be boycotted. Let, in short, the program of non-coöperation be
pursued in absolute order and discipline. If the people can live up to
this program, they will win. Otherwise they will face disaster.
When everything was in readiness, Gandhi went to his cherished retreat
at the _Ashram_ of Sarbarmati, near Ahmedabad, to await, in quiet
meditation and surrounded by his beloved disciples, the coming of the
constables. He longed for imprisonment. In his absence India would
affirm her purpose with greater strength. And, as he says, imprisonment
would give him "a quiet and physical rest," which he perhaps
deserved.[117]
The constables arrived on the night of March 10. News had reached the
_Ashram_ of their coming. The Mahatma was ready, and placed himself at
their disposal. On the way to prison he met Maulana Hasrat Mohani, a
Mohammedan friend who had come from far to give him a last embrace.
Banker, the editor of "Young India," was sent to jail along with the
master. Gandhi's wife was allowed to accompany her husband as far as the
prison gates.
At noon of Saturday, March 18, Gandhi's "Great Trial"[118] began before
Mr. C. N. Broomsfield, district and session judge of Ahmedabad. It was a
manifestation of rare nobility and high-mindedness. Judge and accused
vied with each other in chivalrous courtesy. Never in the struggle did
England rise to more magnanimous impartiality. Judge Broomsfield that
day made up for many faults of the Government. Since much has been
written about the trial, I will only summarize the main points.
Why had the Government at last arrested Gandhi? Why, after contemplating
this move for more than two years, did it choose the very moment when
the Mahatma had quelled the mob movement and when he seemed to stand as
the only barrier against violence? Was it acting in aberration? Or did
it wish to lend confirmation to Gandhi's terrible words: "It seems
almost as if the Government wants to see this land covered with murder,
arson, and rapine in order to be able to claim exclusive ability to put
them down"? The Government was in a very difficult position. It
respected and feared Gandhi. It would have liked to treat him gently.
But Gandhi did not treat the Government gently. The Mahatma condemned
violence, but his non-violence was more revolutionary than any violence.
The very same day that he stopped civil disobedience for the mass, or
rather the day before the session of the congress at Delhi, on February
23, he wrote one of the most menacing articles to Great Britain's power.
An insolent telegram from Lord Birkenhead and Mr. Montagu had struck
India as a blow.[119]
In a burst of indignation Gandhi took up the challenge:
How can there be any compromise whilst the British lion continues to
shake his gory claws in our faces? The British Empire, which is based
upon organized exploitation of physically weaker races and upon a
continuous exhibition of brute force, cannot live if there is a just God
ruling the universe.... It is high time that the British people were
made to realize that the fight that was commenced in 1920 is a fight to
the finish, whether it lasts one month or one year or many months or
many years. I shall only hope and pray that God will give India
sufficient humility and sufficient strength to remain non-violent to the
end. Submission to the insolent challenges that are cabled is now an
utter impossibility.
Gandhi was indicted on the statements contained in this article and in
two other articles, the one dated September 19, 1921, and the other
December 15, 1921. The first referred to the arrest of the Ali brothers,
and the second was a reply to a speech of Lord Reading. Both of them
contain the same declaration of "fight to the finish. We want _Swaraj_,
we want the Government to yield to popular will. We ask for no quarter
and expect none." The accusation, therefore, charged that Gandhi had
"preached disaffection toward the Government and had openly instigated
others to overthrow it." Gandhi spoke in his own defense. He pleaded
guilty to all charges.
The advocate-general, Sir J. T. Strangman of Bombay, claimed that the
three articles cited by the accusation were not isolated, but were part
of a general campaign pursued for two years in view of overthrowing the
Government, and he quoted passages from Gandhi's articles. He paid
tribute to Gandhi's high character. But this only served to lend
authority to the articles and to increase their harmful influence. He
held Gandhi responsible for the bloodshed at Bombay and at
Chauri-Chaura. It was true that Gandhi preached non-violence, but he
also preached disaffection. He was therefore responsible for the
violence committed by the people.
Gandhi asked permission to speak. The torment as to what was right and
wrong, the anguish, the doubts, the mental and spiritual struggle of the
last weeks as to which course he should pursue and the effect it would
have on the people, had been cleared away. He had recovered the serenity
of his soul. He accepted everything that had taken place and everything
that was to take place as a necessity which he might regret, but which
he would have to bear. He agreed with the advocate-general. Yes, he was
responsible. He was responsible for everything. He had preached
disaffection for a much longer time than the accusation had stated. He
assumed responsibility for the troubles at Madras, for the "diabolical
crimes" of Chauri-Chaura, and the "mad outrages" of Bombay.
The learned advocate-general is quite right when he says that as a man
of responsibility, a man having received a fair share of education,
having had a fair share of experience of this world, I should have known
the consequences of every one of my acts. _I knew that I was playing
with fire, I ran the risk, and if I was set free, I would still do the
same._ I felt this morning that I would have failed in my duty if I did
not say what I say here just now.
I wanted to avoid violence, I want to avoid violence. Non-violence is
the first article of my faith. It is also the last article of my creed.
But I had to make my choice. I had either to submit to a system which I
considered had done an irreparable harm to my country or incur the risk
of the mad fury of my people bursting forth when they understood the
truth from my lips. I know that my people have sometimes gone mad. I am
deeply sorry for it and I am therefore here to submit not to a light
penalty, but to the highest penalty. I do not ask for mercy. I do not
plead any extenuating act. I am here, therefore, to invite and
cheerfully submit to the highest penalty that can be inflicted upon me
for what in law is a deliberate crime and what appears to me to be the
highest duty of a citizen. The only course open to you, Judge, is either
to resign your post or inflict on me the severest penalty.
After this powerful improvisation, where the scruples of a religious
spirit are balanced by the heroic firmness of a political leader, Gandhi
read a written declaration addressed to the public in India and England.
He owed it to them, he said, to explain why, "from a stanch loyalist and
coöperator," he had become an uncompromising disaffectionist and
non-coöperator. He dwelt on his public life from 1893 on. He pointed
out all he had to suffer, as an Indian, from the British system, and he
told of his ceaseless attempts for twenty-five years to reform it. He
believed obstinately that this could be accomplished without separating
India and England. In spite of all deceptions, he remained a stanch
coöperator till 1919. But since then outrages and crimes have surpassed
all measure. And instead of making up for injustices, the Government, as
if in defiance to the spirit of India, has honored, pensioned, and
rewarded its guilty servants. The Government itself has severed all
ties. Gandhi has come to the conclusion that even if the desired reforms
were now proposed by the Government, they would be harmful. The
Government in British India is based on the exploitation of the masses.
Laws are made in view of strengthening this exploitation. The
administration of the law is prostituted consciously or unconsciously
for the benefit of the exploiter. A subtle, but effective, system of
terrorization and an organized display of force have emasculated the
people and "induced in them the habit of simulation." India is starving,
ruined, degraded; and many claim that before India becomes capable of
self-government on the dominion plan generations will have to pass.
England has done more harm to India than any previous system.
Non-coöperation with evil is a duty. Gandhi' has done his duty. But
whereas in the past non-coöperation has been deliberately expressed in
the form of violence inflicted on the evildoer, violence having been the
supreme weapon, Gandhi has given his people the new, but indomitable,
arm of non-violence.
And then came the chivalrous match between Judge Broomsfield and the
Mahatma.
Mr. Gandhi, you have made my task easy in one way by pleading guilty to
the charges; nevertheless what remains, namely the determination of a
just sentence, is perhaps as difficult a proposition as a judge in this
country could have to face.... It would be impossible to ignore the fact
that in the eyes of millions of your countrymen you are a great patriot
and a great leader. Even those who differ from you in politics look upon
you as a man of high ideals and of noble and even saintly life.... But
it is my duty to judge you as a man subject to the law.... There are
probably few people in India who do not sincerely regret that you should
have made it impossible for any Government to leave you at liberty. But
it is so. I am trying to balance what is due to you against what appears
to me to be necessary in the interest of the public.
With great courtesy he consulted the accused as to the sentence which
should be imposed. "You will not consider it unreasonable, I think, to
be classed with Mr. Tilak," sentenced twelve years previously to six
years. "If the course of events in India should make it possible for the
Government to reduce the period and release you, no one will be better
pleased than I."
Gandhi did not allow the judge to outdo him in courtesy. He claimed it
was his proudest privilege and honor to have his name associated with
that of Tilak. So far as the sentence itself was concerned, he
considered it as light as any judge could impose on him, and as far as
the whole proceedings were concerned, he said that he could not have
expected greater courtesy.[120]
The trial was over. Gandhi's friends fell at his feet, sobbing. The
Mahatma took leave of them, smiling. And the door of the jail of
Sarbamati closed behind him.[121]
§ 4
Ever since the great apostle's voice has been silent. His body is walled
in as in a tomb. But never did a tomb act as a barrier to thought, and
Gandhi's invisible soul still animates India's vast body. "Peace,
non-violence, suffering,"[122] is the only message that has come from
the prison. The message has been heard. From one end of the country to
the other the watchword has been passed. Three years earlier India would
have been swept by bloodshed at Gandhi's arrest. The mere report of its
having taken place caused riots among the population in 1920. But the
sentence of Ahmedabad was received with religious solemnity. Thousands
of Indians with serene joyfulness handed themselves over to prison
guards. Non-violence and suffering--one example more amazing than the
others--may serve to show to what depths the divine words have
penetrated into the spirit of the nation.
As is well known, the Sikhs have always been looked upon as one of the
most warlike races in India. Large numbers of them served in the army
during the war. Last year grave dissensions arose among them. To our
Western eyes the cause seems insignificant. As the result of a religious
effervescence, one of the Sikh sects, the Akalis, wished to purify the
sanctuaries. The latter had fallen into the hands of guardians of ill
repute who refused to be put out. For legal reasons the Government took
their defense. And in August, 1922, began the daily martyrdom of
Guru-Ka-Bagh.[123] The Akalis adopted the doctrine of non-resistance. A
thousand of them settled near the sanctuary, while four thousand took up
abode in the Golden Temple at Amritsar, ten miles away. Every day one
hundred from among the four thousand, most of them men of military age,
many of whom served in the war, left the Golden Temple, after taking the
vow of remaining true to the principles of non-violence in thought as
well as action, and of reaching Guru-Ka-Bagh or being brought back
unconscious. Among the group of the thousand volunteers twenty-five made
the same vow every day. Not far from the sanctuary the British
constables waited at the bridge with iron-tipped rods to stop the
manifestation. And every day a gruesome scene took place. Andrews,
Tagore's friend, describes it unforgettably in his "Akali
Struggle."[124] With a wreath of small white flowers around their black
turbans, the Akalis arrived silently before the constables, and at a
distance of about a yard they stopped and began to pray, silently,
motionlessly. The constables, in order to drive them away, prodded them
with the iron-tipped rods, jabbing harder and harder till blood began to
flow and the Sikhs fell unconscious. Those who could get to their feet
would begin to pray again, until they were beaten into unconsciousness
like the others. Andrews did not hear a single cry, nor did he see a
defiant glance. Near-by, a crowd of spectators, their faces tense with
anguish, prayed silently. "I could not help thinking," Andrews says, "of
the shadow of the cross." The English described the scene in their
papers and expressed amazement.[125] It seemed incomprehensible to the
British, although they had to admit that the absurd sacrifice proved
that the idea of non-coöperation and non-violence was gaining ground
and that the people of the Punjab had been won over to the doctrine.
Andrews, whose generous spirit and pure idealism enabled him to
penetrate the soul of India, says that here he saw, like Goethe at
Valmy, "the dawn of a new era. A new heroism, steeled by suffering, has
risen, a _war of the spirit._"
It would seem as if the people of India have lived up to Mahatma's
spirit more faithfully than those whose mission it was to guide them. I
have already spoken of the opposition to Gandhi at the session of the
congress committee at Delhi twenty days before the master was arrested.
This opposition still manifested itself when the committee met again, at
Lucknow, June 7, 1922. The program of patient waiting and silent
reconstruction advocated by Gandhi was bitterly criticized, and a motion
was made to proclaim civil disobedience. A commission was appointed to
inquire into conditions and determine whether the country might be
called ripe for civil disobedience. The commission traveled all over
India, and in the autumn sent in a discouraging report. Not only was
civil disobedience called impractical for the present, but half the
members went to such extremes of conservatism as to suggest that
Gandhi's methods of non-coöperation be abandoned and a new _Swaraj_ or
home rule party be formed within the government councils. Gandhi's
doctrine was, in other words, attacked by those who believed in
violence, as well as by those who believed in prudence.
India, however, did not accept the commission's report. In its annual
meeting at the end of December, 1922, the National Indian Congress
energetically proclaimed its allegiance to the persecuted master and his
doctrine of non-coöperation. By 1740 votes to 890 it rejected all
participation in government councils. As for those who believed in
violence, they were few and far between and had little influence. The
session closed with a unanimous resolution urging that the political
strike ordered by Gandhi be kept up. A resolution boycotting English
materials, however, was turned down, in order not to antagonize European
workmen. But the Mussulman conference of the Khilafat, as usual more
audacious than the congress, voted for the boycott by a large majority.
Here we must stop the record of the Gandhist movement. Despite a few
inevitable backslides due to the absence of the master and his best
disciples, imprisoned like himself (especially the Ali brothers), the
movement has successfully passed through the trials of the first
unguided year. And the English press, at the close of the session of the
congress of 1922 at Gaya, expresses surprise and disappointment at the
progress of the movement.[126]
§ 5
And what will now come? Will England, wiser for past experiences, know
how to mold the aspirations of the people of India? And will this people
remain true to its ideal? Nations have short memories, and I should have
but slight faith in India's power to remain true to the Mahatma's
teaching if his doctrines were not an expression of the deepest and most
ancient longings of the race. For if there is such a thing as genius,
great by its own strength whether or not it corresponds to the ideals of
its surroundings, there can be no genius of action, no leader, who does
not incarnate the instincts of his race, satisfy the need of the hour,
and requite the yearning of the world.
Mahatma Gandhi does all this. His principle of _Ahimsa_ (non-violence)
has been inscribed in the spirit of India for more than two thousand
years. Mahavira, Buddha, and the cult of Vishnu have made it the
substance of millions of souls. Gandhi has merely transfused heroic
blood into it. He called upon the great shadows, the forces of the past,
plunged in mortal lethargy, and at the sound of his voice they came to
life. In him they found themselves. Gandhi is more than a word; he is an
example. He incarnates the spirit of his people. Blessed the man who is
a people, his people, entombed, and then resuscitated in him! But such
resurrections are never haphazard. If the spirit of India now surges
forth from temples and forests, it is because it holds the message for
which the world is sighing.
This message carries far beyond the boundaries of India. India alone
could formulate it, but it consecrates the nation's greatness as much as
its sacrifice. It may become its cross.
For it would seem as if a people must he sacrificed in order to give new
life to the world. The Jews were sacrificed to their Messiah, whom they
had borne for centuries in their thoughts, and whom they did not
recognize when He finally flowered on the blood-stained cross. More
fortunate, India has recognized her Messiah, and joyously the people
march to the sacrifice which is to set them free.
But, like the early Christians, they do not all understand the real
meaning of their liberation. For a long time the Christians awaited the
fulfilment of the _adveniat regnum tuum._ In India there are many who do
not see beyond _Swaraj_, home rule. Incidentally, I imagine that this
political goal will soon be reached. Europe, bled by wars and
revolutions, impoverished and exhausted, despoiled of her prestige in
the eyes of Asia, which she formerly oppressed, cannot long resist on
Asiatic soil the aspirations of the awakened peoples of Islam, India,
China, and Japan. But this would mean little, no matter how rich and new
might be the harmonies which a few more nations would bring to the human
symphony; this would mean little, if the surging spirit of Asia did not
become the vehicle for a new ideal of life and of death, and, what is
more, of action, for all humanity, and if it did not bring a new
viaticum to prostrate Europe.
The world is swept by the wind of violence. This storm which ravages the
harvest of our civilization did not break out from a clear sky.
Centuries of brutal national pride, whetted by the idolatrous ideology
of the Revolution, spread by the empty mockery of democracies, and
crowned by a century of inhuman industrialism, rapacious plutocracy, and
a materialistic system of economics where the soul perishes, stifled to
death, were bound to culminate in these dark struggles where the
treasures of the West succumbed. It is not enough to say all this was
inevitable. There is a in it. Each people kills the other in the name of
the same principles which hid the same covetousness and Cainish
instincts. All--be they nationalists, Fascists, Bolshevists, members of
the oppressed classes, members of the oppressing classes--claim that
they have the right to use force, while refusing this right to others.
Half a century ago might dominated right. To-day things are far worse.
Might _is_ right. Might has devoured right.
In the old crumbling world, no refuge, no hope, no great light. The
church gives innocuous advice, virtuous and dosed, carefully worded so
as not to antagonize the mighty. Besides, the church never sets the
example--even when giving advice. Weak pacifists bray languishingly, and
you feel that they hesitate and fumble, talk about a faith they no
longer believe in. Who will prove this faith? And how, in an unbelieving
world? Faith is proved by action.
This is the great message to the world, or, as Gandhi puts it, India's
message--_self-sacrifice._
And Tagore has repeated the same inspired words, for on this proud
principle Tagore and Gandhi agree.
I hope this spirit of sacrifice will grow, and also the will to
suffer.... This is real liberty. Nothing is higher, not even national
independence. The West has an unshakable belief in force and material
wealth; therefore no matter how much it cries for peace and disarmament,
its ferocity will cry still louder.... We, in India, must show the world
what this truth is which not only makes disarmament possible but
transmutes it into strength. The fact that moral force is a stronger
power than brute force will be proved by an unarmed people. The
evolution of life shows that it has gradually cast off its formidable
armature of scales and carapaces and a monstrous quantity of flesh until
man was evolved who conquered brute force. The day will come when a
weak, noble man absolutely unarmed will prove that the meek shall
inherit the earth. It is logical that Mahatma Gandhi, weak of body and
without material resources, should prove the unconquerable strength of
the meek and the humble hidden in the heart of the outraged and
destitute humanity of India. India's destiny is bound up in _Narayana_
and not in _Narayani-sena_, in soul force and not muscle. It must uplift
human history, transport it from the confused valley of material
struggles to the high plateaux of spiritual battles. Although we may
delude ourselves through phrases acquired from the vocabulary of the
West, _Swaraj_, home rule, is not really our goal. Our battle is a
spiritual battle, a fight for humanity. We must emancipate man from the
meshes he has woven around him, free him from the organizations of
national selfishness. We must persuade the butterfly that the freedom of
the sky is better than the shelter of the cocoon. In India we have no
word for "nation." When we loan the word from other peoples it is not
suited to us, for we should ally ourselves with _Narayana_, the Supreme
Being, and our victory will be the victory for God's world.... If we can
defy the powerful, the rich, the armed, by showing the world the power
of the immortal spirit, the castle of the giant Flesh will crumble into
nothingness. And then man will find real _Swaraj._ We, the miserable
outcasts of the Orient, we must conquer freedom for all humanity....
"Our object," Gandhi has said, "is friendship with the whole world.
Non-violence has come to men, and it will remain. It is the annunciation
of peace on earth."
The peace of the world is far off. We have no illusions. We have seen,
abundantly, during the course of half a century, the hypocrisy, the
cowardice, and the cruelty of mankind. But this does not prevent us from
loving mankind. For even among the worst there is a _nescio quid Dei._
We know the material ties that weigh on twentieth-century Europe, the
crushing determinism of economic conditions which hem it in; we know
that centuries of passions and systematized error have built a crust
about our souls which the light cannot pierce. But we also know what
miracles the spirit can work.
Historians, we have seen its glory brighten skies even darker than our
own. We, who live but a day, have caught in India the sound of the
tambour of Çiva, "_the Master Dancer who veils his devouring eye and
guards his steps to save the world from plunging into the abyss._"[127]
The _Realpolitiker_ of violence, whether revolutionary or reactionary,
ridicule our faith, and reveal thereby their ignorance of deep reality.
Let them jeer! I have this faith. I know it is scorned and persecuted in
Europe, and that in my own land we are but a handful--are we even a
handful?--who believe in it. And even if I were the only one to believe
in it, what would it matter? The true characteristic of faith is not to
deny the hostility of the world, but to recognize it and to believe in
spite of it! Faith is a battle. And our non-violence is the most
desperate battle. The way to peace is not through weakness. We do not
fight violence so much as weakness. Nothing is worth while unless it is
strong, neither good nor evil. Absolute evil is better than emasculated
goodness. Moaning pacifism is the death-knell of peace; it is cowardice
and lack of faith. Let those who do not believe, who fear, withdraw! The
way to peace leads through self-sacrifice.
This is Gandhi's message. The only thing lacking is the cross.[128]
Every one knows that had it not been for the Jews, Rome would not have
given it to Christ. The British Empire is no better than ancient Rome.
The impetus has been given. The soul of Oriental peoples has been moved
in its deepest fibers, and its vibrations are felt the whole world over.
The great religious apparitions of the Orient are ruled by a rhythm. One
thing is certain: either Gandhi's spirit will triumph, or it will
manifest itself again, as were manifested, centuries before, the Messiah
and Buddha, till there finally is manifested, in a mortal half-god, the
perfect incarnation of the principle of life which will lead a new
humanity on to a new path.
[Footnote 113: One hundred and forty villages, 87,000 inhabitants.]
[Footnote 114: A note in "Young India" of the same date is even more
explicit. If the viceroy does not answer, civil obedience will be
proclaimed even if against the will of the majority.]
[Footnote 115: What light these words throw on the mysterious power of
this soul where all the emotions of hit people are inscribed!]
[Footnote 116: Gandhi had come to realize that some of the majority
members who voted for non-violence looked upon it, in their hearts, as a
political expedient paving the way, covertly, to violence. They spoke
suavely, he says, "of delivering non-violent blows." Gandhi had not
grasped the danger, as Tagore had, long before. But he was
horror-struck. And, more harshly than Tagore, he denounced and attacked
the majority's attitude.]
[Footnote 117: March 9, 1922.]
[Footnote 118: "The Great Trial, Young India," March 23, 1922.]
[Footnote 119: "If the existence of our Empire were challenged, the
discharge of responsibilities of the British Government to India
prevented and demands were made in the very mistaken belief that we
contemplated retreat from India, then India would not challenge with
success the most determined people in the world who once again would
answer with all the vigor and determination at its command."]
[Footnote 120: Mr. Banker, the editor of "Young India," who, during the
trial, had followed the master's example and acquiesced in all his
statements, was sentenced to a fine and imprisonment for one year.]
[Footnote 121: Mrs. Kasturibai Gandhi informed the people of India of
the sentence imposed on Gandhi, in a very beautiful message, urging them
in peace and quiet to concentrate on carrying out Gandhi's constructive
program.
Gandhi did not remain in the prison of Sarbamati, where he was well
treated, but was transferred to an unknown jail and then to Yeravda,
near Poona. According to a statement made by N. D. Hardiker, "Gandhi in
Prison, Unity," May 18, 1922, which we are unable to verify, Gandhi has
been placed in a cell like the common-law criminals, and is allowed no
privileges of any kind. It is claimed that his delicate health has
suffered through this regime.
"Mr. C. F. Andrews, speaking of Gandhi's imprisonment, told me that the
Mahatma was happy in prison and that he had asked his friends not to
visit him. He is purifying himself, he prays and feels convinced that in
this way he is working in the most efficacious way for India."
Incidentally Mr. Andrews states that the Gandhist party in India has
gained strength by the Mahatma's imprisonment. India believes in Gandhi
with more fervor than ever before. It persists in looking upon him as an
incarnation of Sri-Krishna, who was also subjected to the trial of
imprisonment. And Gandhi, in jail, has more effectively prevented the
explosion of that violence which he feared than if he had been at
liberty.]
[Footnote 122: On August 3, 1922, "Unity" published a "Letter from
Prison" where Gandhi speaks about the evils of modern civilization. The
letter seems apocryphal to me. I should imagine it a summary of extracts
written some time ago, particularly in the "Hind Swaraj."]
[Footnote 123: Guru-Ka-Bagh is a sanctuary (Gurdwara) about ten
miles from Amritsar.]
[Footnote 124: "The Akali Struggle," by Andrews, professor at
Santiniketan. Published in the "Swaraiya" of Madras and under separate
cover. September 1, 1922.]
[Footnote 125: "Manchester Guardian Weekly," October 13, 1922.]
[Footnote 126: An article by Blanche Watson, in "Unity," November 16,
1922, enumerates the advantages which India has won by her fight of
non-violent resistance.
This article claims that the internal revenues of India have decreased
some seventy million dollars, and that the boycott of English goods has
caused England to lose, in the course of a single year, some twenty
million dollars. She claims that at that time about thirty thousand
Indians were imprisoned, and that the governmental machinery was
entirely upset. But Blanche Watson, who is a fervent admirer of
Gandhism, has, perhaps, an unconscious tendency to exaggerate its
successes. Other testimony would seem to be less encouraging and would
seem to prove that the spirit of self-sacrifice is balked by the selfish
attitude of the wealthy and of business people, while many of those who
resigned from government posts in the first flush of enthusiasm have now
returned to work. It would not be human to believe anything else. In
every revolution many lag on behind, or retrace their steps. The point
is to determine whether, or not, on the whole, the movement is on the
increase or the decrease. In this connection it is interesting to refer
to a description published in the "Manchester Guardian Weekly," February
16, 1928.
The "Manchester Guardian," whose intelligent liberalism is well known,
but which nevertheless represents certain powerful interests directly
imperiled by the non-coöperation movement, recently organized an
investigation of conditions in India. The conclusion one draws after
reading the results of this inquiry, in spite of a very natural tendency
to discredit the movement, is that the situation is serious and causes
grave misgivings. The last article (February 16, 1923) tries to prove
that Gandhi's tactics have been proved ineffective and that the
non-coöperation movement must be reorganized. But the article goes on
to say that the spirit of non-coöperation is growing. Everywhere there
are traces of distrust of the foreign Government and ardent hope of
getting rid of it. The most cultivated people in India and the
inhabitants of the large cities agree on this point. The _ryot_, or
peasant, is only slightly affected by the movement, but conditions are
such in the villages that within a short time he will have to take
sides. The army still seems immune, but recruits come from the villages,
and sooner or later they will be contaminated. The non-coöperation
movement is frequently most intense among the best and the most moderate
elements. These elements disapprove revolutionary methods, but their
disapproval is not shared by the rest of the country. The writer claims
that it will take about ten years for India really to bring about
effective civil disobedience. But in the meantime the situation will
grow more and more serious. It is impossible to hold the Indians in
check by threatening them with imprisonment. They no longer fear it.
Harsher coercive measures must be resorted to, and this will stir up
hatred. There is only one peaceful solution--if it is not already too
late--and that is for England to take the initiative of making Indian
reforms. No half-measures, like those of 1919, and not applied till last
year! They are not sufficient, and there is no time to lose. England
must call a National Indian Convention where all parties and interests
in India will be represented--Gandhi and his disciples as well as Indian
princes and European capitalists, Mohammedans, Hindus, Parsees,
Eurasians, Christians, pariahs--all must join in a convention and draft
a constitution for an autonomous India within the empire and draw up the
lines of such a home rule. This is the only way to avoid the breaking up
of the empire.
I do not know how the Government of India and British bureaucracy look
upon the "Manchester Guardian's" suggestion, and I hardly believe that
Gandhi and his non-coöperators would agree to sit in a convention with
European and Indian capitalists. But one thing is sure, and that is that
no one questions, any more, India's right to home rule. It must come in
one way or another. And nothing is more remarkable than the change of
England's attitude to India since the beginning of the Gandhist
movement. The European no longer scorns the Indian but treats him with
consideration. Everybody agrees that it is a mistake to employ the
violent methods which were the first the Governments resorted to in
former days. From a spiritual and mental point of view, India is already
victorious.]
[Footnote 127: Fragment of the oldest Invocation of Çiva, in the
play "Mudra-Rakshasha" (400) by Vishakadatta.]
[Footnote 128: This is the standpoint of the "conscientious objectors"
in England, which is spreading little by little to other countries.]