"I write to thank you for yours of the 7th instant and especially for
your request that I should after reading your writings in "Young India"
on non-co-operation, give a full and frank criticism of them. I know
that your sole desire is to find out the truth and to act accordingly,
and hence I venture to make the following remarks. In the issue of May
5th you say that non-co-operation is "not even anti-Government." But
surely to refuse to have anything to do with the Government to the
extent of not serving it and of not paying its taxes is actually, if not
theoretically anti-Government; and such a course must ultimately make
all Government impossible. Again, you say, "It is the inherent right of
a subject to refuse to assist a government that will not listen to him."
Leaving aside the question of the ethical soundness of this
proposition, may I ask which Government, in the present case? Has not
the Indian Government done all it possibly can in the matter? Then if
its attempts to voice the request of India should fail, would it be fair
and just to do anything against it? Would not the proper course be
non-co-operation with the Supreme Council of the Allies, including Great
Britain, if it be found that the latter has failed properly to support
the demand of the Indian Government and people? It seems to me that in
all your writings and speeches you forget that in the present question
both Government and people are as one, and if they fail to get what they
justly want, how does the question of non-co-operation arise? Hindus
and Englishmen and the Government are all at present "shouldering in a
full-hearted manner the burden that Muhomedans of India are carrying
etc. etc." But supposing we fail of our object--what then? Are we all to
refuse to co-operate and with whom?
Might I recommend the consideration of the following course of conduct?
(1) "Wait and see" what the actual terms of the Treaty with Turkey are?
(2) If they are not in accordance with the aspirations and
recommendations of the Government and the people of India, the every
legitimate effort should be made to have the terms revised.
(3) To the bitter end, co-operate with a Government that co-operates
with us, and only when it refuses co-operation, go in for
non-co-operation.
So far I personally see no reason whatsoever for non-co-operation with
the Indian Government, and till it fails to voice the needs and demands
of India as a whole there can be no reason. The Indian Government does
some times make mistakes, but in the Khilafat matter it is sound and
therefore deserves or ought to have the sympathetic and whole-hearted
co-operation of every one in India. I hope that you will kindly consider
the above and perhaps you will be able to find time for a reply in
_Young India_."
I gladly make room for the above letter and respond to the suggestion
to give a public reply as no doubt the difficulty experienced by the
English friend is experienced by many. Causes are generally lost, not
owing to the determined opposition of men who will not see the truth as
they want to perpetuate an injustice but because they are able to enlist
in their favour the allegiance of those who are anxious to understand a
particular cause and take sides after mature judgment. It is only by
patient argument with such honest men that one is able to check oneself,
correct one's own errors of judgment and at times to wean them from
their error and bring them over to one's side. This Khilafat question is
specially difficult because there are so many side-issues. It is
therefore no wonder that many have more or less difficulty in making up
their minds. It is further complicated because the painful necessity for
some direct action has arisen in connection with it. But whatever the
difficulty, I am convinced that there is no question so important as
this one if we want harmony and peace in India.
My friend objects to my statement that non-co-operation is not
anti-Government, because he considers that refusal to serve it and pay
its taxes is actually anti-Government. I respectfully dissent from the
view. If a brother has fundamental differences with his brother, and
association with the latter involves his partaking of what in his
opinion is an injustice. I hold that it is brotherly duty to refrain
from serving his brother and sharing his earnings with him. This happens
in everyday life. Prahalad did not act against his father, when he
declined to associate himself with the latter's blasphemies. Nor was
Jesus anti-Jewish when he declaimed against the Pharisees and the
hypocrites, and would have none of them. In such matters, is it not
intention that determines the character of a particular act? It is
hardly correct as the friend suggests that withdrawal of association
under general circumstances would make all government impossible. But it
is true that such withdrawal would make all injustice impossible.
My correspondent considers that the Government of India having done all
it possibly could, non-co-operation could not be applicable to that
Government. In my opinion, whilst it is true that the Government of
India has done a great deal, it has not done half as much as it might
have done, and might even now do. No Government can absolve itself from
further action beyond protesting, when it realises that the people whom
it represents feel as keenly as do lakhs of Indian Mussalmans in the
Khilafat question. No amount of sympathy with a starving man can possibly
avail. He must have bread or he dies, and what is wanted at that
critical moment is some exertion to fetch the wherewithal to feed the
dying man. The Government of India can to-day heed the agitation and
ask, to the point of insistence for full vindication of the pledged word
of a British Minister. Has the Government of India resigned by way of
protest against the threatened, shameful betrayal of trust on the part
of Mr. Lloyd George? Why does the Government of India hide itself behind
secret despatches? At a less critical moment Lord Hardiage committed a
constitutional indiscretion, openly sympathised with South African
Passive Resistance movement and stemmed the surging tide of public
indignation in India, though at the same time he incurred the wrath of
the then South African Cabinet and some public men in Great Britain.
After all, the utmost that the Government of India has done is on its
own showing to transmit and press the Mahomedan claim. Was that not the
least it could have done? Could it have done anything less without
covering itself with disgrace? What Indian Mahomedans and the Indian
public expect the Government of India to do at this critical juncture is
not the least, but the utmost that it could do. Viceroys have been known
to tender resignations for much smaller causes. Wounded pride brought
forth not very long ago the resignation of a Lieutenant Governor. On the
Khilafat question, a sacred cause dear to the hearts of several million
Mahomedans is in danger of being wounded. I would therefore invite the
English friend, and every Englishman in India, and every Hindu, be he
moderate or extremist, to make common cause with the Mahomedans and
thereby compel the Government of India to do its duty, and thereby
compel His Majesty's Ministers to do theirs.
There has been much talk of violence ensuing from active
non-co-operation. I venture to suggest that the Mussalmans of India, if
they had nothing in the shape of non-co-operation in view, would have
long ago yielded to counsels of despair. I admit that non-co-operation
is not unattended with danger. But violence is a certainty without,
violence is only a possibility with non-co-operation. And it will he a
greater possibility if all the important men, English, Hindu and others
of the country discountenance it.
I think, that the recommendation made by the friend is being literally
followed by the Mahomedans. Although they practically know the fate,
they are waiting for the actual terms of the treaty with Turkey. They
are certainly going to try every means at their disposal to have the
terms revised before beginning non-co-operation. And there will
certainly be no non-co-operation commenced so long as there is even hope
of active co-operation on the part of the Government of India with the
Mahomedans, that is, co-operation strong enough to secure a revision of
the terms should they be found to be in conflict with the pledges of
British statesmen. But if all these things fail, can Mahomedans as men
of honour who hold their religion dearer than their lives do anything
less than wash their hands clean of the guilt of British Ministers and
the Government of India by refusing to co-operate with them? And can
Hindus and Englishmen, if they value Mahomedan friendship, and if they
admit then full justice of the Mahomaden friendship and if they admit
the full justice of the Mahomedan claim do otherwise than heartily
support the Mahomedans by word and deed.