The Honourable Sir William Vincent's Speech at the Legislative Assembly,
18th January 1922
I say, Sir, from that time we have always avoided systematically and
steadily any excessive severity _vis a vis_ this movement. Later, there
were a number of seditious speeches, including incitements to violence,
particularly by Mr. Muhammad Ali and his brother, and Government were
prepared to take action against them. What ensued is well known to the
Members of this Assembly. There were meetings between Mr. Gandhi and His
Excellency, and later Muhammad Ali and his brother offered to the public
certain undertakings on which the Government withdrew the prosecutions
against them. In a letter of June, 1921, addressed to Local Governments
after this undertaking we indeed expressed some hope that it might be
possible to reduce the number of prosecutions. We were anxious not to
force the pace and although we always maintained our determination to
keep order, we sought to avoid over-drastic action against the less
dangerous or less violent adherents of the movement. At the same time we
indicated to Local Governments that they were not to prosecute persons,
the prosecution of whom might have great effect outside the province,
without consulting the Government of India. In that letter, further, we
invited Local Governments to give certain other convicted persons the
same _locus poenitentiae_ which had been given to Muhammad Ali and his
brother. We have throughout avoided very carefully any suggestion, any
action which might create the impression that we desire to interfere
with a legitimate political movement. I defy any Member of this Assembly
to say otherwise. We have indeed frequently been reproached with
weakness on this account. I maintain that it was not weakness but
patience. At the same time, we made every effort to meet the legitimate
wishes of educated opinion in this country. I have no time to-day to
recapitulate all we have done but I should like to mention such matters
as the compensation to persons injured in the Punjab disorders, the
further review of the Punjab sentences, the Committee on the Press Act,
the results of which will be before this Assembly very shortly; again,
the Committee on repressive measures and the Committee to inquire into
racial distinctions in criminal proceedings. In fact, there was no
question that came before us in which we did not honestly seek to meet
moderate Members of the Assembly in order to consolidate the moderate
party into a great working power in the country for good. What has been
response of Mr. Gandhi and his followers? I maintain that it has been
one steady stream of sedition, one steady attempt to subvert Government,
one method of promoting this object being adopted after another.
Sometimes it has been the boycott of piece goods in order to injure
British trade, although Mr. Gandhi had himself I believe, at one time
said that 'boycott' was a word that was entirely inconsistent with his
principle of 'Ahimsa'. Later this movement took the form of attempts on
the loyalty of our troops attempts on the police and there were constant
incitements to disorder. These have resulted in serious outbreaks of
violence in many parts of the country, the most important of which was
the Moplah outbreak. Sir, there has recently been some attempt to
minimise the cruelties committed by the Moplahs in Malabar. I refer in
particular to the remarks of Mr. Abdul Bari and Mr. Husrat Mohani on
this subject. Mr. Abdul Bari spoke of the pure spirit of the Moplahs and
denied the veracity of the accounts of their atrocities. Mr. Husrat
Mohani justifies them in the following words:
"At such a critical juncture when they are engaged in war against the
English, their Hindu neighbours not only do not help them or observe
neutrality but aid and assist the English in every possible way. They
can indeed contend that, while they are fighting a defensive war for the
sake of their religion and have left their houses, property and
belongings, and taken refuge in the hills and jungles, it is unfair to
characterise as plunder their commandeering of money, provisions and
other necessities for their troops from the English and their
supporters."
Many of us, however, have, I believe, some knowledge of the atrocities
committed by these men, atrocities which I am certain in my mind that
every Mussalman in this House deplores as deeply as I do, and they will
appreciate what a misrepresentation of the facts this is. The
barbarities of the Moplahs have been indefensible. I will cite one
instance '_New India_' in support of what I say. Writing of a
respectable Nair, an article in this paper states:
'When on the 26th he threatened other steps, the rebels forced their way
into his house, dragged him out, along with his wife and two children
carried them to the mosque and bathed all four and compelled them to
recite verses from the Koran and dress as Moplahs. At mid-night they
were led home and imprisoned. Next day the deponent's head was shaved
and ten days later a certain notorious criminal (now in custody)
forcibly circumcised the deponent. Three weeks later he and his family
and other converts (some being Christians) escaped to Shoranur.'
Sir, I am one of those who have been to Malabar, I have seen myself
refugees, a thousand in one refuge, hungry, homeless, lacking clothes,
and I can assure Members of this Assembly that it was a pitiable sight
to see. I only mention the facts because this attempt has been made and
because this rising, these acts of cruelty and murder are one of the
direct results of the Khilafat movement. I do not put it (I never have
put it) that Mr. Gandhi is responsible for this directly, but I do say
that his supporters--his Muhammadan supporters--were the cause of this
terrible loss of life. Indeed you have only got to read, Mr. Hasrat
Mohani's speech to see what the character of the rising was. Now, if the
Moplah outbreak had been an isolated instance of disorder, as I said in
the last Session, the Government might not have been forced to take
action against this non-co-operation movement. It might well have been
argued that the circumstances were exceptional. But have Members of this
Assembly read the report which is attached to the Repressive Measures
Committee? Have they read the appendix setting out a list of 34
outbreaks of disorders of a serious character within a year? Sir, we
have been told that after the declaration of policy by this Government
in March last, the non-co-operation movement was dying down. I think
that I am correct in making this statement; and I hope I am not
misrepresenting anybody. Is there any foundation for it? Does not every
Member of this Assembly know that that is absolutely inaccurate? Does
not every Member here know that the movement of disloyalty to the Crown,
intended to paralyse Government, intended to subvert the administration,
has been growing day by day throughout the year? Can any man here say
that actually the movement was losing strength? Do not these disorders
tell a different story--these outbreaks which culminated in the riots in
Bombay on the 17th November? Before I come to that however, I want to
deal with another point. May I inform this Assembly that, during the
present year, it has been necessary to call out the military to suppress
serious disorder no less than 47 times? May I tell them that, during the
last three months, military assistance has had to be invoked--I have
here the figures from His Excellency the Commander in-Chief--no less
than 19 times? Does that look as if the forces of disorder were losing
strength before the Government took this action?
And now, Sir, I want to turn to the rioting in Bombay in which the
lawless tendencies of those who follow Mr. Gandhi--not of Mr. Gandhi
himself--culminated. Bombay is a city in which Mr. Gandhi is supposed to
exercise the greatest influence. He himself was present there on the
17th November. The occasion was one, one would have thought, when at
least every loyal citizen of the Crown, whatever his political views,
would have avoided any disorder or riot. It was the occasion of the
landing of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, the heir to the
Throne of England. That was the occasion chosen by the non-co-operators
in Bombay for an outbreak of violence which, I believe, has not been
paralleled in that city for many many years, and what was the object of
those who embarked upon this campaign of violence? I say the object was
vengeance, vengeance on those who dared to go forth to welcome His Royal
Highness the Prince of Wales in spite of Mr. Gandhi's direction--that
was the sole crime of the unfortunate people so maltreated. That Sir, is
the result of non-violent non-co-operation. Was Mr. Gandhi able to
exercise any influence to stop the demand? Why, it was pathetic to read
his words next day. He was full of sorrow, but he had not thought of the
consequences of his act before. After all he had warning on previous
occasions. Well, Sir, I do not know that I need go through the events of
these terrible days. You have heard from my Honourable friend, Mr.
Dwaraka Das, how women were assaulted in the public streets; you have
read in the papers how harmless Europeans and Indians, including many
Parsis, were murdered, or assaulted, how one unfortunate engine driver,
going home from his work, a harmless individual, was suddenly attacked
and murdered by a cruel mob. All this was the result of this non-violent
movement. The reports say that it began in intimidation and that was not
checked, those who had been guilty of intimidation thought they could
proceed with impunity to violence. The damage done to property also--the
property of private individuals--was very great. I read in one report,
of 137 shops being looted and that is an under statement of all the
damage.
Now, let us see what was happening in other places on that day? In Delhi
there was _hartal_ enforced by systematic threats and intimidation. And
I assert here, and I dare any one to contradict me, that intimidation
was practised by men posing as volunteers; men dressed as volunteers who
paraded the streets and interfered with the liberty of law-abiding
citizens in a manner that is intolerable in any civilised community. Is
it surprising that we received many complaints actually of absolute want
of any Government control at the time? In Calcutta, again there was
_hartal_ promoted by general intimidation and violence on the part of
volunteers. It is idle for any one to deny it. Mr. Abdul Kasem and other
Members were in Calcutta and they know the facts. The Government of
Bengal, writing on the 26th November, reported that an incessant stream
of seditious speeches was being poured forth, that money was being
freely spent in the employment of paid agents; and here I may tell the
Assembly that many of these volunteers,--I do not say all of them
because that would be wrong,--but many of these volunteers are merely
paid men, paid a rupee a day, and, in fact when the supply of money
dries up,--and there have been places where this has happened,--the
supply of volunteers has run short. We were also told by the Bengal
Government that on the 17th there was general suspension of activities
of all kinds and the riff-raff of the city, under the guise of
volunteers, was abroad, terrorising and abusing law-abiding folk, and
there were numerous instances of molestations of Europeans and Indians.
The authority of Government was openly flouted; and law abiding citizens
were depressed because of Government's failure to protect them, I have
got instances here of the different kinds of speeches made in Bengal. I
do not think I need cite them except to mention that one of them says:
'That the Bengalees had discovered the death-arrow of the English.
Remember Kanai and Khudiram Bose and others of Bengal.'
I do not suppose the Members of this Assembly know who they were; they
were prominent murderers; some, if not all of them, were hanged. Well,
Sir, the whole effect of the activities was that, on the 17th of
November in Calcutta there was an absolute effacement of the authority
of Government, and general intimidation throughout the whole of the
city. I am told now that we exaggerated all this: There was a _hartal_,
it is true, but there was nothing more than a voluntary one. Well, the
_Amrita Bazar Patrika_, itself stated on the morning of the 18th a most
significant fact--I cite it because it is testimony coming from an
adversary--it said on the 18th 'Writ large on the _hartal_ of Calcutta
is revolution'. Now I ask the Assembly to ponder those words.
I may say that throughout all this period the most desperate efforts
were made to create racial animosity. Those who were in Calcutta in
December last--I was there--know how true this is and it was a very
dangerous factor in the situation. There was also at that time every
reason to believe that if the activities of these so-called volunteers
were not curtailed, we should have a repetition in Calcutta of what we
had in Bombay. Now the total deaths in Bombay were 53 people killed, and
I think something like 400 injured went to the Hospital. The problem
before the Government, therefore, was: are you going to sit quietly, or,
as my Honourable friend said, 'with folded hands' and watch with apathy
and inertia this slaughter of innocent people, or are you going to take
action while there is yet time? The Assembly remember also that
previously, on the 14th of November, there had been already a dangerous
riot in Calcutta at Belgatchia, in which over 5,000 people had been
engaged. Now, I maintain that, in such circumstances, the Bengal
Government were fully justified in taking the action. We have abundant
testimony that, whatever be the professions of those who inaugurate
these volunteer movement, their practice and precept are poles apart.
You may say that they enter into a solemn vow of non-violence, but in
practice they are repeatedly constantly and persistently, guilty of
intimidation and violence. Let me turn to another province. I have got a
report here from the Bihar Government. We called for these reports to
see on what grounds they had proceeded against these associations. The
replies show that Local Governments were satisfied that the members of
the proscribed associations went in systematically for this class of
offence. To return to Bihar, on the 10th of December, I received a
report from the Local Government which says that these volunteers had
been guilty of intimidation, violence and other forms of criminal action
on no less than 122 occasions reported in the last year. One of the
incidents is worthy of special mention, indeed many of them are. The one
to which I refer was the case of a poor Muhammadan who had the
misfortune to be a law-abiding subject of the Crown. He died in Ranchi
and his funeral had to be performed. But the non-co-operators said: "No,
he shall not be buried by Muhammadans." Well, some over-daruni spirit
said: 'Oh, his was not so great an offence that we should allow this
oppression; men who differ from other in their political views are
entitled to a little toleration.' So they took the body to the graveyard
with police protection and buried it. What was the next action of the
extremists? The non-co-operation volunteers dug up the corpse and
dishonoured it, ('Shame.') Well that is the conduct of these non-violent
non-co-operation volunteers. Again, on the 17th in Calcutta, there were
unfortunately two Muhammadans who died in Ballygunge of natural causes
and those who wished to bury them could not procure the necessary
assistance: they were unable to procure bearers or _Khatias_ or anything
else and the bodies remained unburied for the whole of that day. There
was many a sick man and woman in Calcutta on the 17th who could not
procure medical attendance. No conveyances for medical practitioners,
and when doctors walked to the patients and attended on them, they would
not get medicine, because the dispensaries were not allowed under the
strict orders of the non-co-operators to sell medicine even to save life
on that day. Now, is that intimidation or is it not? I have been told
that Government interferes with the liberty of the subject in
proscribing these associations. I am amazed at the audacity of those who
make such an accusation, whether it comes from the Members of this
Assembly or from those who are of different political opinions, and I
include Mr. Gandhi. Who in reality has interfered with the liberty of
the subject to the same extent as members of his party? Who is it that
will not allow those who wish to welcome the Prince to do so? Who
prevents reasonable respect being shown to the dead! Who boycots and
intimidates those who venture to serve the Crown or wish to sell or buy
foreign piece goods? Who will not allow any member of the Assembly to
address a public meeting without interruption? ('Hear, hear'.) Who,
then, is it that is really guilty of interference with the liberty of
the subject? What extremist can make, with justice, this accusation
against the Government? What has the Government done in this matter?...
And now, Sir, I wish to turn to our instructions of 24th November, in so
far as the Criminal Law Amendment Act goes. They were to the effect that
where associations practised intimidation violence and obstruction, it
was necessary to suppress those activities and that the Act of 1908
should be used for that purpose. I believe, up to a certain point at any
rate, it has been successful. What followed? A number of young men--many
of them in Calcutta, hired from the mills--joined these associations as
volunteers for a money reward. Many are doing it in Delhi now and a
rupee a day is the price. They join the volunteers in defiance of all
orders and then complain bitterly and pose as patriots, if they are
arrested. In Delhi, when the movement first started and arrests took
place, the authorities were anxious not to impose too severe penalties
on accused and the consequence was, they were sentenced simple
imprisonment. Many of them were quite pleased; they were able to get
free meals and had nothing to do, so later it was found necessary to
sentence others to rigorous imprisonment. At once there was a general
feeling that this was very unfair, though it was really a very natural
consequence. Throughout, however, the Government have been very anxious
to avoid any appearance of undue severity; to avoid any appearance of
unreasonable harshness we have made various suggestions to the Local
Governments with which I will deal later. Apart from this, however, His
Excellency was never unmindful of the dangers of a purely regressive
policy and, as every Honourable Member knows he received a deputation on
the 21st December in Calcutta and listened to their views on the action
of Government and the possibility of a conference between different
sections of the community and Government. And I should like to read to
Honourable Members one or two words from His Excellency's reply to that
deputation because, to my mind, his words breathe a lofty tone of
statesmanship and indicate a deep desire to find a solution of the
problem of all the difficulties with which the Government are faced. He
spoke words over which every Member of this Assembly would do well to
ponder. Referring to a suggestion that Government should cease making
use of measures now enforced and release prisoners convicted under the
law, he said:
'I cannot believe that this was the intention, of the deputation, when
originally suggested, for it would mean that throughout the country
intimidation and unlawful oppression and other unlawful acts should be
allowed to continue, whilst Government action to maintain order and
protect the law-abiding citizen would be largely paralysed. I need
scarcely tell you that no responsible Government could even contemplate
the acceptance of such a state of public affairs. I wish with all my
heart, that it had been possible to deal with these problems in a large
and generous spirit, worthy of such on occasion in the history of India.
Had there been indications to this effect before me to-day in the
representations which you have made in your address on the part of the
leaders of non-co-operation, had the offer been made to discontinue open
breaches of the law for the purpose of providing a calmer atmosphere for
discussion of remedies suggested, my Government would never have been
backward in response. We would have been prepared to consider the new
situation in the same large and generous spirit I would have conferred
with Local Governments for this purpose.'
Sir, now what was Mr. Gandhi's reply to this? This is what Mr. Gandhi
said:
'I am sorry that I suspect Lord Reading of complicity in the plot to
unman India.'
I would ask Honourable Members of this Assembly if they would take that
view. He proceeded to say:
'I am forced to conclude that Lord Reading is trying to emasculate India
by forcibly making free speech and popular organization impossible.'
In another article he said:
'I was totally unprepared for what I most respectfully call his
mischievous misrepresentation of the attitude of the Congress and the
Khilafat organisations in connection with the visit of His Royal
Highness the Prince of Wales.'
This country is, in truth, faced with a very grave crisis: we have civil
disobedience looming before us. We have threats of organised violence
from an influential section of the Mussalman population. We have had
outbreaks of violence of a dangerous character showing what may happen
in a more extended degree in future. We have had the most terrible
bloodshed and loss of life. We are face to face with a situation in
which there may be, I fear, greater loss of life and greater bloodshed.
It is for the Assembly to say whether they are now going to encourage
the forces which make for ruin and disorder. It is for them to say
whether, consistently with their oath of allegiance to the Crown, most
solemnly sworn here, they can conscientiously and deliberately encourage
those who intend to overthrow this Government by any means that is
possible. Lastly, it is for them to ponder their responsibility not only
to the Assembly, not only to the Government and to the country, but also
to themselves. It is for them to say whether they will take such a
course as will facilitate a real and very grave danger to their own
properties, to their own lives, to their own honour.
[Illustration]