« PreviousContinue »
consistent, for, in his agitation, he avails himself freely of the resources of modern civilisation, the railway, the telegraph, and the motor car.
The peculiar means adopted by Mr Gandhi and his party to bring pressure upon the Government is the scheme of Non-Co-operation. On June 24, 1920, ninety Sunni Mahomedans wrote to the Viceroy saying that they would refuse to co-operate with Government from Aug. 1, unless in the mean time the terms of the Peace Treaty with Turkey were revised. 'They cannot (they said) bear the thought of the temporal power of the Sultan being adversely affected by way of punishment for his having joined Germany under circumstances which need not be examined here.' They further declare that the least a Mussulman can do under the circumstances is not to assist those who are trying to reduce the Khalifate practically to nothingness.' Mr Gandhi wrote an accompanying letter to the Viceroy, which showed that he was not blind to the consequences of the course he was pursuing.
'I admit (he said) that Non-Co-operation practised by the mass of the people is attended with grave risks. But in a crisis such as has overtaken the Mussulmans of India, no step that is unattended with large risks can possibly bring about the desired change. Not to run some risks will be to court greater risks, if not the virtual destruction of law and order.'
In June last the Khalifat Committee resolved that Khalifat volunteer corps should be established all over India to collect subscriptions and to prepare the people for Non-Co-operation. In a speech at Simla, at the opening of the Final Session of the Imperial Legislative Council on Aug. 20, Lord Chelmsford emphasised the risks attendant on Non-Co-operation, but said that he and his colleagues had faith in India's common sense,' and preferred to allow the movement to fail by reason of 'its intrinsic inanity.' A Resolution of the Government of India dated Nov. 8, 1920, explains and amplifies this policy.
Mr Gandhi gained a further victory at the Congress held at Calcutta, when he defined Non-Co-operation as implying: (1) Renunciation of titles and honorary offices conferred by the British Government; (2) Boycott of
foreign goods and of the elections to the new Legislative Councils; (3) Gradual withdrawal of children from Government schools and of lawyers from practising in the Government law-courts. He promised that, if this programme were adopted, the Government would be compelled to grant completely responsible government within a year, and it was carried.
Where the agitators have power, they adopt a strict social boycott of all opponents of Non-Co-operation, even to the extent of threatening to refuse them burial in Mahomedan graveyards. Loyalty to Government entails social ruin, but, in accordance with its policy of inaction, Government does nothing to help its own friends. In October last, Mr Gandhi endeavoured to enforce the boycott of Government on colleges and schools. He visited Aligarh College, accompanied by Messrs Mahomed and Shaukat Ali. The students to a great extent adopted Non-Co-operation, but the trustees by a large majority rejected the proposals of Mr Mahomed Ali to refuse the Charter raising Aligarh College to the rank of a University, and to abandon the Government Grant in Aid. The Hindu University at Benares was the next object of attack, but, owing to the strenuous opposition of Pandit Madhan Mohan Malaviya, Non-Co-operation was rejected there. The Non-Co-operation plan was adopted by the Sikh Khalisa College at Amritsar, but the Government has quietly accepted the situation. Calcutta was affected by the movement later, but in January last 2,000 students were on strike. It is pathetic to see a great number of the youth of the country content to sacrifice their careers for a mistaken religious obligation, but the agitators care nothing for this.
In October, two Mahomedan extremists at Panipat were prosecuted for seditious speeches and writings inciting to rebellion. Their trial was transferred to the gaol at Rohtak. On the 8th Mr Gandhi, in a public meeting at that place, repeated the exact words, for uttering which the two men had been prosecuted, and defied the Government to bring a case against him, but hitherto it has refused to present him with the political martyr's crown by prosecution. With the exception of the prosecution of a few underlings, the only steps taken
to check Mr Gandhi's agitation have been the application by the Panjab Government of the Seditious Meeting Act to the Lahore and Sheikhpura areas, and its proscription of the Gandhi Volunteer Corps as illegal associations.
Under Mr Gandhi's auspices the National Congress held at Nagpore in November last, adopted a definitely revolutionary attitude. He carried a resolution that 'the object of Congress is the attainment of Swaraj (Home Rule) by the people of India by all legitimate and peaceful means,' thus omitting all mention of connexion with the British Empire, which was always a proviso in all previous Congress utterances. Mr C. R. Das also carried a resolution that 'the non-violent Non-Co-operation scheme, with the renunciation of co-operation 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 the Indian National Congress or the All-India Congress Committee.' These resolutions show that the Extremists have captured the National Congress, and that there has been a complete split between them and the Moderates.
The Non-Co-operators made a great vaunt of boycotting the new Legislative Councils. The elections for these are now over, and, speaking of the attempt to boycott them, the 'Times' says: 'It has neither succeeded nor failed. It stopped a large number from going to the poll, but it has not stopped the elections.' The attempt to boycott the Duke of Connaught's visit was apparently equally unsuccessful, and the ceremonies inaugurating the new regime at which the Duke was present, took place successfully at Delhi at the beginning of February. One result of the attempt of the Extremists to boycott the elections, is that the members returned to the new Councils almost all belong to the Moderate party, and show a disposition to make the Reforms a success. The Indian Legislative Assembly has passed a resolution repudiating the recommendation of the Esher Commission, and asserting that the Indian Army must remain under the exclusive control of the Indian Government. The Mahomedan members of the Council of State and the Indian Legislative Assembly have requested the Secretary of State to suggest to the London Conferences that Adrianople, Thrace, and Smyrna, 'which
are Turkish in race,' should be returned to Turkey. This is very different language from the arrogant claims of the Khalifat Committee. The Moderates have formed the National Liberal Association and have offered a vigorous opposition to Non-Co-operation. Their proposals in the new Councils have been reasonable, and all who wish for the success of the Reforms hope that they will consolidate their political power.
Itinerant agitators have been concerned in the agrarian disturbances, accompanied by some damage to the crops and property, and by some loss of life, which broke out at the end of the year 1920 in the Oudh districts of Rai Bareli and Sultanpur against the taluqdars or landlords. The cultivators had been told that the downfall of the British Raj was near, and that a 'golden age' of cheapness and plenty under Mr Gandhi's beneficent rule was coming. The disturbed districts are now quiet, and it is proposed to redress the cultivators' only genuine grievance by granting them greater fixity of tenure, and preventing the landlords from imposing arbitrary cesses on their tenants. Similar disturbances have since broken out in the Fyzabad district in Oudh, and in the Mozufferpore district in Behar. These disturbances, with the exhibitions of racial hatred culminating in the murder of Mr Willoughby in August last and the frequent strikes, show that the Reforms have been only too successful in disturbing what their framers called 'the placid, pathetic contentment of the masses' with British rule. As Mr Montagu and Lord Chelmsford have sown, so have they reaped. Lord Chelmsford has defended his policy in a recent speech made at the Calcutta Club dinner on Feb. 23. Speaking of Non-Co-operation, he said:
"The outstanding fact remains that the Councils have been established, are composed of admirable materials, and are doing their work. Non-Co-operation was attempted in the Hijrat movement into Afghanistan. The trial of death and suffering imposed by that exodus upon the unfortunate misguided people who took part in it has, I believe, killed any attempt to revive any such exodus from India. NonCo-operation succeeded temporarily in inducing emotional boys to leave their schools and colleges, but here again, as soon as the emotional ebullition had passed, the students
returned in large numbers to their class-rooms. We have then every reason to take heart with regard to the success of the policy we have adopted.
'But a moment may come when our policy may fail, and when the two alternatives of order on the one hand or anarchy on the other alone may face us. In such an event there can be only one course for the Government to pursue and that is to uphold the cause of order. We shall then ask all responsible men to range themselves on the side of order, and here I am confident the Reformed Councils will play their part. We as a Government will place all the facts before them, and all our cards on the table, and I am confident that when we prove to them that the alternative is between order and anarchy, there will be only one response made, and that is that we will support you in any action that you may consider necessary to maintain order in the country.'
Such a speech would be more appropriate for an incoming than an outgoing Viceroy. Lord Chelmsford is entitled to all the satisfaction he can gather from the circumstances he alludes to, but it is strange that he did not consider that the moment when his policy failed, had come last year, when the Non-Co-operators were preaching sedition, persecuting those who disagreed with them in politics, even to the extent of refusing them burial in Mahomedan graveyards, emptying the colleges and schools, and stirring up strikes everywhere. Even when, in his estimation, the moment for action has come, Lord Chelmsford will take no action till assured of the support of the popular representatives. Surely this is to invert the proper functions of government. Any Government, worthy of name, would take action in defence of law and order first, and then invite the popular representatives to criticise its action, if they think fit. Sir Verney Lovett * criticises the official policy thus: 'It has profoundly puzzled many among those millions, who consider that no Government deserves respect or obedience, which does not promptly combat the operations of its open enemies.' This he calls a 'root idea,' and says that it will remain in 'spite of the implications of the coming parliamentary system.' In saying this he has, we think, given expression to the general verdict.
# 'History of Indian Nationalism,' third edition, 1921, p. 278. Vol. 236.-No. 468.