The next item of work to which I desire to refer is the Boycott of
Councils. Unhappily the question has become part of the controversy of
Change or No change. To my mind the whole controversy proceeds on a
somewhat erroneous assumption. The question is not so much as to whether
there should be a change in the programme of the work; the real question
is, whether it is not necessary now to change the direction of our
activities in certain respects for the success of the very movement which
we hold so dear. Let me illustrate what I mean. Take the Bardoli
Resolution. In the matter of boycott of schools and colleges the Bardoli
Resolution alters the direction of our activity, which does not in any way
involve the abandonment of the boycott. During the Swaraj year the idea
was to bring the students out of Government schools and colleges, and if
National schools were started they were regarded as concessions to the
"weakness" of those students. The idea was, to quote the words of Mahatma
Gandhi, "political" and not "educational." Under the Bardoli Resolution,
however, it is the establishment of schools and colleges which must be the
main activity of national education. The idea is "educational" and if it
still be the desire of the Congress to bring students out of Government
schools and colleges, it is by offering them educational advantages. Here
the boycott of schools and colleges is still upheld, but the direction of
our activities is changed. In fact, such changes must occur in every
revolution, violent or non-violent, as it is only by such changes that the
ideal is truly served.
In the next place, we must keep in view the fact that according to the
unanimous opinion of the members of the Enquiry Committee, Civil
Disobedience on a large scale is out of question because the people are
not prepared for it.
I confess that I am not in favour of the restrictions which have been put
upon the practical adoption of any system of civil disobedience, and in my
opinion, the Congress should abolish those restrictions. I have not yet
been able to understand why to enable a people to civilly disobey
particular laws, it should be necessary that at least 80 per cent. of them
should be clad in pure "Khadi". I am not much in favour of general Mass
Civil Disobedience. To my mind, the idea is impracticable. But the
disobedience of particular laws which are eminently unlawful, laws which
are the creatures of "Law and Order," laws which are like an outrage on
humanity and an insult to God ... disobedience of such laws is within the
range of practical politics, and, in my opinion, every attempt should be
made to offer disobedience to such laws. It is only by standing on truth
that the cause of Swaraj may prevail. When we submit to such laws, we
abandon the plank of truth. What hope is there for a nation so dead to the
sense of truth as not to rebel against lawless laws, against regulations
which insult their national being and hamper their national development?
I am of opinion that the question of the boycott of Councils which is
agitating the country so much must be considered and decided in the light
of the circumstances I have just mentioned. There is no opposition in idea
between such civil disobedience as I have mentioned and the entry into the
Councils for the purpose and with the avowed object of either ending or
mending them. I am not against the boycott of Councils. I am simply of
opinion that the system of the Reformed Councils with their steel frame of
the Indian Civil Service covered over by a dyarchy of deadlocks and
departments is absolutely unsuitable to the nature and genius of the
Indian nation. It is an attempt of the British Parliament to force a
foreign system upon the Indian people. India has unhesitatingly refused to
recognise this foreign system as real foundation for Swaraj. With me, as I
have often said, it is not a question of more or less; I am always
prepared to sacrifice much for a real basis of Swaraj, nor do I attach any
importance to the question as to whether the attainment of full and
complete independence will be a matter of 7 years or 10 years or 20 years.
A few years is nothing in the life history of a nation. But I maintain
India cannot accept a system such as this as a foundation of Swaraj. These
Councils must therefore be either mended or ended. Hitherto we have been
boycotting the Councils from outside. We have succeeded in doing much. The
prestige of the councils is diminished and the country knows that the
people who adorn those chambers are not the true representatives of the
people. But though we have succeeded in doing much, these Councils are
still there. It shall be the duty of the Congress to boycott the councils
more effectively from within. Reformed councils are really a mask which
the Bureaucracy has put on. I conceive it to be our clear duty to tear
this mask from off their face. The very idea of boycott implies, to my
mind, something more than mere withdrawal. The boycott of foreign goods
means that such steps must be taken that these councils may not be there
to impede the progress of Swaraj. The only successful boycott of these
councils is either to mend them in a manner suitable to the attainment of
Swaraj or to end them completely. That is the way in which I advise the
nation to boycott the councils.
A great deal of discussion has taken place in the country as to whether
the boycott of councils in the sense in which I mean it is within the
principle of non-violent non-co-operation. I am emphatically of opinion
that it does not offend against any principle of non-co-operation which
has been adopted and applied by the Indian National Congress. I am not
dealing with the logical, or philosophical abstractions. I am only dealing
with that which the Congress has adopted and called non-co-operation. In
the first place, may I point out that we have not up to now
non-co-operated with the Bureaucracy? We have been merely preparing the
people of this country to offer non-co-operation. Let me quote the Nagpur
Resolution on non-co-operation in support of my proposition. I am quoting
only the portions which are relevant to this point.
Whereas in the opinion of the Congress the existing Government of India
has forfeited the confidence of the country, and, whereas the people of
India are now determined to establish Swaraj ... now this Congress ...
declares that the entire or any part or parts of the scheme of non-violent
non-co-operation with the renunciation of voluntary association with the
present Government at one end and the refusal to pay taxes at the other,
should be put into force at a time to be determined by either the Indian
National Congress, or the All-India Congress Committee and that "in the
meanwhile to prepare the country for it, effective steps should continue
to be taken in that behalf."
Then follows the effective steps such as, national education, boycott of
law courts, boycott of foreign goods, etc., which must be taken "in the
meanwhile." It is clear therefore that the Congress has not yet advocated
the application of non-co-operation but has merely recommended certain
steps to be taken so that at some time or other to be determined by the
Congress, the Indian Nation may offer non-co-operation. In the second
place, let us judge of the character of this principle not by thinking of
any logical idea or philosophical abstraction but by gathering principle
from the work and the activity which the Congress has enjoined. When I
survey the work it is clear to my mind that the Congress was engaged in a
two-fold activity. In everything that the Congress has commanded there is
an aspect of destruction as there is an aspect of creation. The boycott of
Lawyers and Law Courts means the destruction of existing legal
institutions; and the formation of Panchayats means the creation of
agencies through which justice may be administered. The boycott of schools
and colleges means the destruction of the department of Education; and the
establishment of National schools and colleges means the creation of
educational institutions for the Youth of India. The boycott of foreign
goods followed as it was by the burning of foreign goods covering into the
country. But, on the other hand, the spinning wheel and looms means
creative activity in supplying the people with indigenous cloth. Judged by
this principle what is wrong about the desire either to convert the
Councils into institutions which may lead us to Swaraj, or to destroy them
altogether? The same twofold aspect of creation and destruction is to be
found in the boycott of Councils in the way I want them to be boycotted.
It has also been suggested that it offends against the morality and
spirituality of this movement. Let us take the two points separately. As
regards morality apart from the ethics of Non-co-operation, it has been
urged that entering the Councils for the purpose of ending the Councils is
unfair and dishonest. The argument implies that the Reformed Councils
belong entirely to the Bureaucracy, and the idea is that we should not
enter into other peoples' property with a view to injure it. To my mind,
the argument is based on a misconception of facts. Inadequate as the
Reforms undoubtedly are, I do not for a moment admit that the Reform Act
was a gift of the British Parliament. It was, to quote the words of
Mahatma Gandhi, "a concession to popular agitation." The fact is that it
is the resultant of two contending forces, the desire of the people for
freedom and the desire of the Bureaucracy to oppose such a desire. The
result is that it has travelled along lines neither entirely popular nor
entirely bureaucratic. The people of India do not like these Reforms, but
let us not forget that the Bureaucracy does not like them either because
it is the result of two contending forces pulling in different directions
or the Reforms have assumed a tortured state. But so far as the rights
recognised are concerned, they are our rights--our property, and there is
nothing immoral or unfair or dishonest in making use of the rights which
the people have extorted from the British Parliament. If the fulfilment of
the very forces which have succeeded in securing the Reforms require that
the Councils should either be mended or ended, if the struggle for
freedom compels the adoption of either course, what possible charge of
immorality can be levelled against it? I admit if we had proposed to enter
the Councils stealthily with the avowed object of co-operation keeping
within our hearts the desire to break the Councils, such a course would
undoubtedly have been dishonest. European diplomacy, let us hope, has been
abolished by Indian National Congress under the leadership of Mahatma
Gandhi. If we play now, we play with all our cards on the table.
But some people say that it is immoral from the point of view of
non-co-operation, because it involves an idea of destruction. The work of
non-co-operation according to these,--I have the highest reverence for
them,--is only to build our national life ignoring altogether the
existence of the Bureaucracy. It may be an honest ideal, and, logically
speaking, it may be the inner meaning of non-co-operation. But the
non-co-operation which the Congress has followed is not so logical and I
claim that if the principle of non-co-operation is to be advanced as a
test of my programme, let it be the same principle which the Congress has
accepted, adopted and applied. As I have already said, that principle
countenance destruction as well as creation. As a matter of fact
circumstanced as we are with Bureaucracy to the right and the Bureaucracy
to the left Bureaucracy all around us, it is impossible to create without
destroying: nor must it be forgotten that if we break, it is only that we
may build.
It has also been suggested that the very entry into the Council is
inconsistent with the ideal of non-co-operation. I confess I do not
understand the argument. Supposing the Congress had sanctioned an armed
insurrection could it be argued that entry into the fort of the
Bureaucracy is inconsistent with the principle of non-co-operation? Surely
the charge of inconsistency must depend on the object of the entry. An
advancing army does not co-operate with the enemy when it marches into
the enemy's territory. Co-operation must therefore depend on the object
with which such entry is made. The argument if analysed comes to this,
that whenever the phrase entry into Councils is used it calls up the
association of co-operation, and then the mere idea of this entry
is proclaimed to be inconsistent with non-co-operation. But this
is the familiar logical fallacy of our terms. Entry into the
Councils to co-operate with the Government and entry into the
Councils to non-co-operate with the Government are two terms and two
different propositions. The former is inconsistent with the idea of
non-co-operation, the latter is absolutely consistent with that very idea.
Next let us understand the opposition from the point of view of the
spirituality of our movement. The question of spirituality is not to be
confused with the dictates of any particular religion. I am not aware of
the injunctions of any religion against entering the Councils with a view
either to mend them or end them. I have heard from many Mahomedans that
the Koran lays down no such injunction. Other Mahomedan friends have told
me that there may be some difficulty on that ground, but that is a matter
with regard to which I am not competent to speak. The Khilafat must answer
that question with such assistance as they may obtain from the Ulemas. It
is needless to point out that should the Ulemas come to the conclusion
that under the present circumstances it would be an offence against their
religion to enter the Councils, the Congress should unhesitatingly accept
their decision because no work in this country towards the attainment of
Swaraj is possible without the hearty co-operation of both Hindus and
Mussalmans. But I am dealing with that spirituality which does not affect
any particular creed or any particular religion. Judged from the
standpoint of such spirituality what objection there can be in removing
from our path by all legitimate means any obstacle to the attainment of
Swaraj? We burned foreign cloth without a scruple, and the spirituality of
the movement did not receive a shock when we burned them. It is as well to
start with a clear conception as to what that spiritually is. Apart from
any creedal or doctrinal injunction and apart from any question of
morality, the basis of spirituality must be the attainment of freedom and
of Swaraj. What is the duty which every human being owes not only to his
race, not only to his nation, not only to humanity but also to his God? It
is the right to fulfil oneself. It is the duty of living in the light of
God. Shortly after my release from imprisonment I said in a public speech
that all our national activities should be based on truth. Ever since that
day questions and conundrums have been put to me. I have been asked to
define what is truth. It has also been suggested that because I dare not
tell the truth that I took refuge under the general expression. I still
insist that our national activities must be based on truth. I repeat that
I do not believe in politics, or in making water-tight compartments of our
national life which is an indivisible organic whole. I repeat that as you
cannot define life, you cannot define truth. The test of Truth is not
logical definition. The test of Truth lies in its all-compelling force, in
making itself felt. You know truth when you have felt it. God cannot be
defined, nor can truth because truth is the revelation of God. Two
thousand years ago, a jesting judge asked the same question of the Son of
God. He made no answer by word of mouth; but he sacrificed himself and
Truth was revealed. When I speak of spirituality I speak of the same
truth. I look upon history as the revelation of God. I look upon human
individual personality, nationality and humanity, each contributing to
the life of the other as the revelation of God to man. I look upon the
attainment of freedom and Swaraj the only way of fulfilling oneself as
individuals, as nations. I look upon all national activities as the real
foundation of the service of that greater humanity which again is the
revelation of God to man. The Son of God brought to the world not peace
but a sword--not the peace of death and immortality and corruption but the
"separating sword" of Truth. We have to fight against all corruptions and
all immorality. It is only thus that freedom can be attained. Whatever
obstacles there may be in the path of Swaraj either of the individual or
of the nation, or humanity at large, these obstacles must be removed by
the individual if he desires his freedom by the nation, if that nation
desires to ruin itself by all the nations of the world if the cause of
humanity is to prosper. That being the spirituality of the movement as I
understand it I am prepared to put away all obstacles that lie between the
Indian nation and the attainment of its freedom, not stealthily but
openly, reverently in the name of truth and God. Judged from this ideal of
spirituality the entry into the Councils for the purpose I have stated is
necessary to advance the cause of truth. Everything in connection with the
controversy must be judged by that standard.
At present the question before the country put by those members of the
Civil Disobedience Enquiry Committee who are in favour of the Council
Entry is simply that the members of the Congress should stand as
candidates. It is unnecessary therefore to go into other questions raised,
such as in the matter of taking oath, the probability or otherwise of
securing a majority and so on. With regard to the question of oath all
that I need say at present is this, that apart from the dictates of any
particular religion which I do not propose to deal with, the question does
not present any difficulty at all. The oath is a constitutional one. The
king stands for the constitution. Great changes in the constitution have
taken place in England under that very oath. Now what is the oath? It
binds those who take it,--first not to make any use of powers which are
not allowed by the Reforms Act; secondly to discharge their duties
faithfully. So far as the first point is concerned, there is nothing in my
suggestion which militates against it. So far as the second point is
concerned, I am aware that a forced interpretation has been sought to be
put upon it, namely, that a member taking the oath is bound to discharge
his duties faithfully to the Bureaucracy. All that I need say is, that
there is no constitutional authority of any kind to justify that
interpretation. To my mind the words mean a faithful discharge of a
member's duties to his constituency by the exercise of powers recognised
under the Reforms Act. I do not therefore understand what possible
objection there may be to take the Oath. But there again the question
does not arise at present.
Various other questions have been asked as to whether it is possible to
secure a majority and as to what we should do, supposing we are in a
majority. I think it possible that having regard to the present
circumstances of the country, the Non-co-operators are likely to get the
majority. I am aware of the difficulty of the franchise. I am aware of the
rules which prevent many of us from entering the Councils; but making
every allowances for all these difficulties, I believe that we shall be in
the majority. But here also the question doesn't arise till we meet in the
Congress of 1923 when the matter may be discussed not on suppositions but
on actualities.
As regards the question as to what we should do if we have the majority
the answer is clear. We should begin our proceedings by a solemn
declaration of the existence of our inherent right, and by formal demand
for a constitution which would recognise and conserve those rights and
give effect to our claims for the particular system of Government which we
may choose for ourselves. If our demands are accepted, then the fight is
over. But, as I have often said, if it is conceded that we are entitled to
have that form of Government which we may choose for ourselves, and the
real beginning is made with that particular form of Government in view,
then it matters nothing to me whether the complete surrender of power is
made up to-day, or in five years or even in twenty years. If, however, our
demand is not given effect to, we must non-co-operate with the Bureaucracy
by opposing each and every work of the Council. We must disallow the
entire Budget. We must move the adjournment of the House on every possible
occasion and defeat every Bill that may be introduced. In fact we must so
proceed that the Council will refuse to do any work unless and until our
demands are satisfied. I am aware of the large powers of certification
which Governors can exercise under the Reform Act. But Government by
certification is just as impossible as Government by veto. Such procedure
may be adopted on a few occasions. The time must soon come when the
Bureaucracy must yield or withdraw the Reforms Act. In either case it is a
distinct triumph for the nation, and either course if adopted by the
Bureaucracy will bring us nearer to the realisation of our ideal.
Another question is often asked, suppose we end these Reformed
Councils,--what then? Could not the same question be asked with regard to
every step the Congress has hitherto undertaken in the way of breaking, of
destroying institutions. If we had succeeded in destroying the Educational
Department, might not somebody ask--what then? If we had succeeded in
destroying the legal institutions, might not the question be put with
equal relevance? The fact is destruction itself will never bring us
Swaraj. The fact further is that no construction is possible without
destruction. We must not forget that it is not this activity or that
activity by itself that can bring Swaraj. It is the totality of our
national activity in the way of destruction and in the way of creation,
that will bring Swaraj. If we succeeded in demolishing these Reformed
Councils you will find the whole nation astir with life. Let them put
other obstacles in our way; we shall remove them with added strength and
greater vitality.
It has also been suggested that the Bureaucracy will never allow the
Non-co-operators to enter the Councils, they will alter the rules to
prevent such entry. I cannot conceive of anything better calculated to
strengthen the cause of Non-co-operation than this. If any such rule is
framed I should welcome it and again change the direction of our activity.
The infant nation in India requires constant struggle for its growth and
development. We must not forget that a great non-violent revolution is on
the land, and we shall change the direction of our activities as often as
circumstances require it. To-day the Councils are open and we must attack
them,--to-morrow if the Councils are closed, we must be prepared to deal
with the contingency when it arises. What do we do when it pours with
rain? We turn our umbrella in the direction from which the water comes.
It is in the same way that we must turn the direction of our activities
whenever the fulfilment of our national life demands it.
The work of the Councils for the last two years has made it necessary for
non-co-operators to enter the Councils. The Bureaucracy has received added
strength from these Reformed Councils, and those who have entered the
Councils, speaking generally, have practically helped the cause of
Bureaucracy. What is most necessary to consider is the fact that taxation
has increased by leaps and bounds. The expenditure of the Government of
India has grown enormously since the pre-war year 1913-14. In that year
the total expenditure of the Government of India amounted to 79 crores and
37 lakhs; in 1919-20, it rose to 138 crores, and in 1920-21, the first
year of the reformed system of administration, it stood at 149 crores. The
expenses of the current year are likely to be even higher. To meet the
successive increases in expenditure, additional taxation was levied in
1916-17, 1917-18, 1919-20, 1921-22 and 1922-23. We may prepare ourselves
for proposals for further additional taxation in the ensuing year. In
spite of the levy of additional taxation, seven out of the last nine years
have been years of deficit.
The increase in military expenditure is chiefly responsible for the
present financial situation. In 1913-14, the expenses of this department
amounted to about 31-1/2 crores, in 1919-20, after the conclusion of the
war they mounted up to 87 crores, and in 1920-21 they stood at 88 crores.
As Sir Visveswaraya remarks the expenses under the head "Civil
Administration" also have shown a perpetual tendency to increase. As a
part and parcel of the Reform Scheme, the emoluments of the members of the
Indian Civil Service, the Indian Educational Service, the Indian Medical
Service and of all the other services recruited in England have been
enormously increased; and to maintain some kind of fairness the salaries
of the subordinate services which are manned by Indians have also been
increased.
The financial situation in the provinces is not much better. Under the
financial arrangements of the Reform Scheme, the provinces of India, taken
together, secured an accession to their resources of about 11 crores of
Rupees. Besides, the provinces had between them in 1920-21 a total
accumulated balance of 21 crores and 68 lakhs. But so great has been the
increase in provincial expenditure during the last two years that even
those provinces which had hoped to realise large surpluses are now on the
verge of bankruptcy. In the first year of the reform era, most of the
provinces were faced with deficits and were just able to tide over their
financial difficulties by drawing upon their balances. But in the current
year, the financial situation in many of the provinces has become worse.
The Burma budget shows a deficit of 1 crore and 90 lakhs, the Punjab, 1
crore and 30 lakhs, Bihar and Orissa, 51 lakhs, Madras, 41 lakhs, the
United Provinces, 27 lakhs and the Central Provinces 37 lakhs. The deficit
of the Madras Government would have been much higher had it not taken
steps to increase its revenues by Rs. 77-1/2 lakhs from fresh taxation.
The Bengal statement shows an estimated surplus owing to the remission of
the Provincial contribution to the Central Government and expected
receipts from fresh taxation amounting to 1 crore and 40 lakhs. But it is
very doubtful if the expectation will be realised, and early next year,
further fresh taxes are likely to be imposed. Assam has budgeted for a
deficit of 14-1/2 lakhs after the imposition of additional taxation.
Proposals for further taxation are under consideration in the Punjab,
Bihar and Orissa, the Central Provinces and Assam. In the United Provinces
the proposals brought forward by the Government were rejected by the
Legislative Council.
I warn my countrymen against the policy of allowing these Reformed
Councils to work their wicked will. There will undoubtedly be a further
increase of taxation and there is an apprehension in my mind, I desire to
express it with all the emphasis that I can command, that if we allow this
policy of drift to continue the result will be that we shall lose the
people who are with us to-day. Let us break the Councils if the
Bureaucracy does not concede to the demands of the people. If there is
fresh taxation as it is bound to be let the responsibility be on the
Bureaucracy. Then you and I and the people will jointly fight the powers
that be.