It is not without the greatest reluctance that I engage in a controversy
with so learned a leader like Sir Narayan Chandavarkar. But in view of
the fact that I am the author of the movement of non-co-operation, it
becomes my painful duty to state my views even though they are opposed
to those of the leaders whom I look upon with respect. I have just read
during my travels in Malabar Sir Narayan's rejoinder to my answer to the
Bombay manifesto against non-co-operation. I regret to have to say that
the rejoinder leaves me unconvinced. He and I seem to read the teachings
of the Bible, the Gita and the Koran from different standpoints or we
put different interpretations on them. We seem to understand the words
Ahimsa, politics and religion differently. I shall try my best to make
clear my meaning of the common terms and my reading of the different
religious.
At the outset let me assure Sir Narayan that I have not changed my views
on Ahimsa. I still believe that man not having been given the power of
creation does not possess the right of destroying the meanest creature
that lives. The prerogative of destruction belongs solely to the creator
of all that lives. I accept the interpretation of Ahimsa, namely, that
it is not merely a negative State of harmlessness, but it is a positive
state of love, of doing good even to the evil-doer. But it does not mean
helping the evil-doer to continue the wrong or tolerating it by passive
acquiescence. On the contrary love, the active state of Ahimsa, requires
you to resist the wrong-doer by dissociating yourself from him even
though it may offend him or injure him physically. Thus if my son lives
a life of shame, I may not help him to do so by continuing to support
him; on the contrary, my love for him requires me to withdraw all
support from him although it may mean even his death. And the same love
imposes on me the obligation of welcoming him to my bosom when he
repents. But I may not by physical force compel my son to become good.
That in my opinion is the moral of the story of the Prodigal Son.
Non-co-operation is not a passive state, it is an intensely active
state--more active than physical resistance or violence. Passive
resistance is a misnomer. Non-co-operation in the sense used by me must
be non-violent and therefore neither punitive nor vindictive nor based
on malice ill-will or hatred. It follows therefore that it would be sin
for me to serve General Dyer and co-operate with him to shoot innocent
men. But it will be an exercise of forgiveness or love for me to nurse
him back to life, if he was suffering from a physical malady. I cannot
use in this context the word co-operation as Sir Narayan would perhaps
use it. I would co-operate a thousand times with this Government to wean
it from its career of crime but I will not for a single moment
co-operate with it to continue that career. And I would be guilty of
wrong doing if I retained a title from it or "a service under it or
supported its law-courts or schools." Better for me a beggar's bowl
than the richest possession from hands stained with the blood of the
innocents of Jallianwala. Better by far a warrant of imprisonment than
honeyed words from those who have wantonly wounded the religious
sentiment of my seventy million brothers.
My reading of the Gita is diametrically opposed to Sir Narayan's. I do
not believe that the Gita teaches violence for doing good. It is
pre-eminently a description of the duel that goes on in our own hearts.
The divine author has used a historical incident for inculcating the
lesson of doing one's duty even at the peril of one's life. It
inculcates performance of duty irrespective of the consequences, for, we
mortals, limited by our physical frames, are incapable of controlling
actions save our own. The Gita distinguishes between the powers of light
and darkness and demonstrates their incompatibility.
Jesus, in my humble opinion, was a prince among politicians. He did
render unto Caesar that which was Caesar's. He gave the devil his due.
He ever shunned him and is reported never once to have yielded to his
incantations. The politics of his time consisted in securing the welfare
of the people by teaching them not to be seduced by the trinkets of the
priests and the pharisees. The latter then controlled and moulded the
life of the people. To-day the system of government is so devised as to
affect every department of our life. It threatens our very existence. If
therefore we want to conserve the welfare of the nation, we must
religiously interest ourselves in the doing of the governors and exert a
moral influence on them by insisting on their obeying the laws of
morality. General Dyer did produce a 'moral effect' by an act of
butchery. Those who are engaged in forwarding the movement of
non-co-operation, hope to produce a moral effect by a process of
self-denial, self-sacrifice and self-purification. It surprises me that
Sir Narayan should speak of General Dyer's massacre in the same breath
as acts of non-co-operation. I have done my best to understand his
meaning, but I am sorry to confess that I have failed.