The struggle for Indian Home Rule which was started with the
inauguration of the Indian National Congress has many difficulties to
encounter, has strong and powerful opponents and has received many
checks. But its strongest opponent is Mr. Gandhi and perhaps the most
severe check it has received is the adoption by the National Congress at
his instance in Calcutta and Nagpur of the so-called-Non-violent
Non-co-operation. Non-co-operation as advocated by Mr. Gandhi may be a
weapon to be used when constitutional methods have failed to achieve our
purpose. Non-violence and passive suffering will lead to bloodshed or be
unfruitful of any satisfactory results. Moreover, nothing shows the lack
of statesmanship more than practically basing the claim for Swaraj upon
the Punjab and the Khilafat grievances. As representing Asia against
Europe, the fair against the white race, the Hindus regarded the Turkish
Empire with sympathy and were disposed to support the Mahomadens as
Asiatic representatives. But when by Gandhi and Khilafatist that claim
was abandoned; when the Arabs perhaps the noblest of the Mahomadan races
who fought as our allies and helped us to defeat Turkey were sought to
be brought under Turkish dominion, when other Asiatic races freed by the
war were asked to accept Turkish sovereignty on grounds based on the
Mahomaden religion which had already produced such baneful result in
India, the situation became entirely different. It was rightly realised
by many, and the sequel has proved that they were right, that the path
of the progress of the Gandhi movement fused with the Khilafat element
will be bloody. The claim for Indian Home Rule rests upon very different
grounds. The Hindus have nothing to do with the Khilafat agitation. The
Mahomadans themselves are not agreed as to the claims advanced on behalf
of the Calif. It is even questionable, to put it mildly, whether that
claim has the support of the majority of the Mahomadans. While the claim
itself rested on such slender grounds, the means first adopted to
enforce the claim were grotesque. The methods advocated by Mr. Gandhi
and the Congress are directed against Western civilization; against the
class which fought for and won the reforms; and the Montague reforms
scheme of constitutional progress. They have failed miserably and as was
natural more violent methods leading to direct conflict with the forces
of Government have been advocated which would in all probability have
been carried out but for the arrest and imprisonment of Mr. Gandhi. He
belongs to a class of thought which has attracted some of the noblest
minds in this world, but in applying his the gospel of life to politics,
he has shown himself a babe and his interference has been generally
mischievous. In South Africa he is responsible for creating a situation
which makes a peaceful and satisfactory solution practically impossible.
His factious policy in India stands in the way of further reforms. The
opposition to Gandhi was however not strenuous. The so-called Moderates
only whispered their protests against his policy so as not to be heard
beyond a few feet. They are loud however, in their denunciation of
Government action to check the illegal activities of Mr. Gandhi and his
followers. It can hardly be doubted that their cautious attitude has
contributed to the growth of the Gandhi movement. But the inexplicable
conduct of a certain--I won't say class--body of gentlemen has still
more contributed to that result.
There is scarcely any item in the Gandhi programme which is not a
complete violation of everything preached by the foremost sons of India
till 1919; which has not been strongly even vehemently denounced by
those old respected members of the Congress who now follow Mr. Gandhi,
Pandit Malaviya, Messrs. Vijayaragavachari, Lajapat Rai, Natarajam, S.
Kasturiranga Iyengar, the Editor of the 'Hindu.' Mr. Gandhi's emotional
outbursts, fastings, penances, Sanyasi waist cloth, may carry away the
emotional masses, women and students. But whether this wave of
emotionalism submerged the men abovenamed I would not care to guess. No
one of course has any right to find fault with his genuine followers
like Mr. Prakasam, Editor, 'Swaraj' whose motives, however much we might
differ from his politics, no one will question. He is one of those
genuine patriots who believes in the efficacy of Mr. Gandhi's methods to
obtain Home Rule. By far the great majority however, follow him for
other reasons.
The severe simplicity and austerity of Mr. Gandhi's life combined with
his appeal to the principle of '_Ahimsa_' non-injury inherited from
Buddists and now ingrained in Hindu life, has secured him the support of
the Hindu masses and particularly vegetarians. His support of the caste
system has won over the higher classes and the reactionary elements of
Hindu society to his side. The caste system is entirely opposed to the
'Ahimsa' (Non-injury) principle. The former has dedicated one of the
main castes to death. Its function is to kill and be killed. It is also
the function of some of the sub-castes of the lowest caste or class to
slaughter animals. His indiscriminating support of the extreme Khilafat
demands has ensured the Mahomedan support. Islam is more opposed than
the caste system to "Ahimsa." The trouble with the Hindus over the
slaughter of cows is due to this difficulty. Some politicians who
naturally desire to use him and the influence he has acquired for
putting pressure on the Government to concede further reform, also have
joined him. But I am satisfied he is using them all to further his own
ends. An attempt in which he is bound to fail. His success _i.e._ the
success of the reactionary forces in India to obtain what they call
Dominion status or Home Rule, but, which really means their rule, will
not only lead to bloodshed and anarchy and the dismemberment of the
Empire; but to the triumph of a reactionary policy, social, moral and
economic, against which the democratic policy of the recent reforms and
the Legislative Councils is an emphatic protest. I have attempted in the
following pages to give my reasons for these conclusions.
Far more important than my narrative are the extracts published in the
appendix. They consist of speeches made by the Viceroy, and members of
Government in the Legislative Councils. I have on account of
considerations of space omitted speeches in many provinces. I have not
given any speech in full for the same reason. I have also given a list
of riots or disturbances. These give a fair idea of the activities of
Mr. Gandhi.