Now the position is this:--

The Hindus and Mohamedans have been waging a common war with

non-violence as the fundamental creed. It has to be noted however, that

there is a party led by the Maulana that advocates violence for the

achievement of their object. Suppose to-morrow that party takes to

violence and the other remains non-violent, what will be the fate of

the non-violent party if Maulana's views are pushed to their logical

conclusion? Is freedom worth having if in the attainment of it you have

to loot, murder and outrage your innocent neighbour who does not agree

with you or approve of your methods and is Swaraj possible of

achievement and the Khilafat likely to be righted by such means?

Maulana's views make those who have absolutely no faith in violence to

think over these facts deeply and anxiously.

The Indian Non-Mahomedans, did not trouble themselves about the Khilafat

claims. Mr. Gandhi and his followers took it up as an anti-British

movement to secure Mahomedan support to his non-co-operation movement.

Even that non-Mahomedan sympathy with the Khilafat movement, has

vanished. That movement acquired its strength on account of such

unfortunate statements that the Secretary of State and the Government of

India are in hearty sympathy with the Moslim demands; statements like

those reported to have been made by His Highness Aga Khan that Mr.

Montagu is doing as much as it is possible to support the Mahomedan

claim and Gandhi himself could not have done more. I doubt whether any

influential newspaper or any publicist in America, England or the

continent support the Khilafat claim as advanced by Indian Mahomedans or

by Gandhi. However, the reputed sentiments of Mr. Montagu and the

Government of India have influenced even moderate Mahomedans and Hindus

to support them against the cabinet in starting and supporting an

agitation, which has now assumed dangerous proportions.

The Khilafat movement does not want, and Mr. Gandhi is not for, any

reasonable settlement of the Mahomedan grievance or for Home Rule. They

wish to get rid of the British Government. Such being the objective

naturally the Khilafat Indian agitators have put forward demands which

the Turks themselves recognise as outside practical politics. They have

hampered the efforts of their friends for a revision of the treaty of

Sevres. Everybody now realises that this attitude of the Khilafat

movement under the guidance of Gandhi and Mahomed Ali stood in the way

of any reasonable settlement. It is a futile endeavour of the Indian and

British Governments to satisfy Mr. Gandhi or the Khilafat agitators led

by the Ali brothers. Gandhi and his followers have greatly encouraged

the growth of Indian Pan Islamism which will in future be always opposed

to other Religions and civilizations. I can well understand the adherent

of large numbers of Mussulmans to the idea of Pan-Islamism. It must

naturally have a fascination for devotees of Islam by reason of the

splendour of its promise that Mussulmans the world over shall one day be

united under one flag, but we have to take the world as it is and to

take into the consideration the forces actually at work in

reconstruction. The world has passed the stage of religious empires. It

has gone beyond the stage of religious crusades. We are on the threshold

of an era of a brotherhood transcending religious differences,

transcending even national differences and of which one of the dominant

notes is a unity of purpose in which religious differences of race and

customs are to be merged and harmonised. Pan-Islamism or

Pan-Christianity or Pan-Budhism--one can hardly speak of

Pan-Hinduism--belong to the world that is dead and not to the world that

is living. They mean destruction, proselytisation, the assertion of

superiority the world war was waged to destroy. This also shows the

dangerous foundation on which the Gandhi movement rests. Home Rule or

Swaraj is claimed not as an end in itself but for the purpose of

righting the alleged wrongs sustained by foreigners. We know Gandhi's

principles which I have set forth above. Swaraj or political

independence is not what he really wants. It is not the Caliph

grievances that have led him to claim political independence. He wants

to destroy the British Government, as a hater of all Governments.

The attitude of the Government towards the people of the Punjab and the

Punjab officials is stated in the Congress Resolution as the second and

the only other reason for this non-co-operation campaign against the

Government.

Gandhi and Anarchy · 第 28 / 136 题