Sketch of the Non-co-operation Movement

Prefatory Note

With the incarceration of Mahatma Gandhi, his writings in Young India have passed beyond the pale of polemical politics and entered the realm of the “classic” literature. Far more than their practical value to India, at present or hereafter, is their value to the world at large, embodying in them a philosophy of life and practical conduct elaborated by the experience of the life time of a soul which will undoubtedly rank in history as that of one of the world’s greatest of men.

A few isolated articles are all that have so far been published in book form and the need for a systematic collection of all the articles, numbering hundreds, and their presentation in a carefully edited form, is the justification for this publication. The task of editing has not been easy. To have arranged the articles in a wholly chronological order would perhaps have been preferred by the few close followers of Young India who till recently have been comparatively few. On the other hand, the by far more numerous lay readers who pay serious and systematic attention to the writings for the first time—and their number is bound to grow—prefer, as experience proves, a logical arrangement. A wholly logical arrangement would, however, have required an amount of editing which would have been incompatible with the publisher’s desire not to tamper with the original in any way. The result is a compromise whereby while the articles are sorted and grouped under ten sections, so as to facilitate the study of particular subjects, they are, within these sections, arranged exactly as they appeared in Young India. In all cases, where to have given the whole article would only have been unduly burdening the book, the articles have been carefully summarised and given as footnotes in appropriate places. As far as possible, even observations by the way, though on topics of but momentary interest, have, wherever they are in the nature of valuable obiter dicta, been also included. All endeavour has thus been made to give in this one volume the valuable writings of Mahatmaji and others in Young India from the date of its first publication in Ahmedabad, 1919 to the date of his imprisonment in 1922. Throughout, the writings have been approached as an earnest and reverent student in search solely of Truth would have done, so that the collection might be a reliable account of the Mahatmaji’s views to all who desire seriously to study them.

The task has involved a considerable amount of labour and money and but for the fact that Mahatma Gandhi accepts no royalty or honorarium for his writings, it would have been altogether impossible to price the book so cheap.

II A Biographical Note

That Mahatma Gandhi’s life was, as stated above, rich in experiences will be easily realised from the all too brief biographical note which is given below:

Born at Porbandar on 2nd October, 1869; son of Karamchand Gandhi, Prime Minister first of Probandar and then of Rajkot; educated at Kathia war High School, London University and the Inner Temple; married to Kasturibhai 1881, having been betrothed at the age of 8; Advocate, Bombay High Court, 1891; visits South Africa, 1893; enrolled as Advocate, Supreme Court in spite of White opposition; founded Natal Indian Congress, 1894; agitation in India on behalf of South African Indians, 1895; mobbed almost to death under the lead of Attorney-General Escombe on landing in S. Africa on return and saved by the heroism of the wife of the Police Superintendent; led the Indian Ambulance Corps in the Boer War, 1899, whose services were well appreciated in S. Africa as well as in England; returns to India to ręcoup health, 1901; attends the Calcutta Congress under the presidentship of Mr. Wacha; called to Natal to place the Indian case before Mr. Chamberlaim appointed to consider the question; helps Transvaal Indians in the same manner, though right of leading the deputation was refused by the White authorities; enrolled as Attorney of the Supreme Court of Transvaal; founds the Transvaal British Indian Association and becomes its Hony. Secretary and legal adviser; founds also the Indian Opinion; also the Phoenix settlement, 1904, under the influence of Ruskin and the experience of the conflict between Capital and Labour in S. Africa; anti-plague work in Johannesburg in 1904; led the Stretcher Bearer Corps in the Native Revolt in 1906; anti-Asiatic Law Agitation, 1906; Passive Resistance struggle; arrest and imprisonment; Gandhi-Smuts compromise; nearly killed by his own followers who thought the compromise was a betrayal of Indian interests; General Smuts’s repudiation of the compromise; the recommencement of the struggle; arrest and imprisonment; Indian Home Rule written, 1908; visit to England, 1909; 1911 settlement; Gokhale’s visit to S. Africa; repudiation of promise to repeal the £3 poll tax, 1913; recommencement of the great Passive Resistance struggle; its success; visit to England, 1914; raises Ambulance Corps in London, 1914; return to India, 1915; other recent incidents referred to in the statement before the Court (See p. 1049) ; arrest and imprisonment.

III A Note On “young India”

A few words about the journal Young India will, we think, be also of interest to the readers. The history of Young India has a piquant interest. It was started originally by Mr. Jamnadas Dwarkadas, a young Bombay politician, who, wavering between the lead of Mr· Gandhi and that of Mrs. Besant, ultimately accepted that of the latter and became one of the most uncompromising opponents of the Non-co-operation Movement. It then came into the hands of a syndicate of whom Mr. Shankerlal Banker was a member. When Mr. Horniman was deported and the Bombay Chronicle was put under censorship, public life in Bombay needed the services of Mahatmaji. Young India was, therefore, put under his charge. After the Bombay Chronicle got back its freedom, Mahatmaji found it necessary to shift it to Ahmedabad (see p. 1) for reason mentioned on p. 2 and take over complete charge of the paper. He stopped all advertisments through Young India and determined to carry it on only so long as it paid its way without them. The High Court of Bombay once tried to extort an apology from the Mahatmaji, which it was impos- sible for him to tender. The High Court, therefore, prudently let him off with a reprimand ‘behind his back’ as the Mahratta put it.

Young India increased in its popularity as the Non-co-operation movement developed in its intensity. At first it failed to get even the minimum 2,500 which Mahatmaji wanted to keep it going, but subsequently its circulation rose till when Mahatmaji was arrested its weekly sale was about 40,000.

On the arrest and convicition of Mahatmaji and Mr. Banker, the paper was put in the hands of that young and faithful Mussalman Mr. Shuaib Qureshi. The Government soon prosecuted a second time all the workers connected with the paper and they were sent to jail for practically a year and a half. Professors Desai and Bhansali and the never tiring Swami Anandan of Young India and Nava Jivan were thus safely lodged in the Sabarmati jail along with Mr. Shuaib Qureshi.

The paper is now being conducted by Mr. C. Rajagopalachar of Salem, Madras, and Mahatmaji’s son, Ramadas Gandhi, has taken upon himself the responsibility of publisher, printer and keeper of the press.

A BRIEF SKETCH OF THE NON-CO-OPERATION MOVEMENT

India and the War.—To understand the significance and causes of the Non-co-operation Movement one has to go back beyond the incidents which immediately led to its adoption by the Khilafat Conference and the Indian National Congress. When the Great European War broke out between England and Germany in August 1914, India rose as one man to help the British Government. Those very people, the educated classes, who had been regarded as opponents of the Government on account of their inauguration of and participation in all political movements of the country were the first to realise the significance of the German menace and to throw in the whole weight of their influence on the side of the Government. The country as a whole helped the Empire in its time of need by offering her sons to fight its battle and also by making monetary contributions. Her services were recognised and spoken of in most eulogistic terms not only by the Viceroy and other officials in this country but also by the Prime Ministers and other statesmen in England. The war aims which were declared to be nothing less than making the world safe for democracy, the protection of weak nationalities, and the conferment of the boon of self-determination on all peoples naturally roused great hopes in the minds of the people of India who began to see in the world-devastating war a chance of their deliverance from the humiliating position of a subject people and a hope of the elevation of their country to the status of an equal partner in the British Commonwealth.

The Montagu-Chelmsford Report.—In this hope they were encouraged by a declaration by the Secretary of State for India (Mr. E. S. Montagu) in August 1917 which, while promising full responsible government to India within the British Empire by a gradual transference of power to popular control and a larger association of Indians in the administration of the country, reserved to the British Parliament the right of determining the pace of progress towards full responsible government. It was followed in the cold weather of 1917-18 by a visit of Mr. Montagu to India for consulting Indian public opinion regarding the reforms proposed to be introduced as the first step in fulfilment of the promise made in the declaration of August 1917. After a tour through the country and after interviewing a large number of persons and receiving numerous deputations, Mr. Montagu and the Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, issued their report on constitutional Reform on the 8th July 1918.

The Delhi War Conference.—Early in 1918 the war had been passing through a phase most threatening to the Allies and the big German offensive was in full progress . To secure greater support and a further concentration of effort; the Prime Minister (Mr. Lloyd George), on the 2nd of April , 1918 , sent a message to India reminding her of “the intention of the rulers of Germany to establish a tyranny, not only over Europe, but over Asia as well” and asking “every lover of freedom and law” to play his part in preventing “the menace spreading to the East and gradually engulfing the world” and hoping that India “will add to the laurels it has already won” and “be the bulwark which will save Asia from the tide of oppression and disorder which it is the object of the enemy to achieve.” The Viceroy in reply assured him on behalf of the people of India of the “fullest effort and the fullest sacrifice to safeguard the soil of the motherland against all attempts of a cruel and unscrupulous enemy and to secure the final triumph of those ideals of justice and honour for which the British Empire stands.” This was followed by a War Conference at Delhi on April 27th, 1918, at which the King Emperor’s message declared that “the need of the Empire is India’s opportunity” and a series of similar Provincial Conferences.

Mahatma Gandhi joined the War Conference at Delhi and supported the resolution about loyalty. As a result, contributions in men and money increased on a large scale and recruitment went up. Some idea of the contribution of India to the success of the allies may be gathered from the following facts culled from official acknowledgments. India made a total combatant contribution of 9,85,000 men of whom 5,52,000 were sent overseas and of whom no less than 7,91,000 were enlisted during the War. Of non-combats India contributed 4,72,000 of whom 3,91,000 were sent overseas and no less than 4,27,000 were enrolled during the war. The total contribution of Indian personnel was thus 14,57,000 of whom 9,43,000 served overseas and no less than 1,06,594 suffered casualities. The number of animals sent was 1,75,000. During the war 1,855 miles of railway track, 229 locomotives, and 5,989 vehicles were sent out and 940 crafts of various descriptions for service on rivers and on seas were made available for war service. It is difficult to estimate accurately the contributions in money, but roughly they amounted in all to no less than 130 million pounds or nearly 200 crores.

The Rowlatt Acts Report and After.—While India was making such immense sacrifices for the sake of the Empire believing in the King Emperor’s words that “the need of the Empire was India’s opportunity,” there were not signs wanting to the keen observer that the righteous war aims so pompously advertised were after all intended to secure the support of India in the war and would go the way of other similar declarations of British Policy in India in the past. The internment of Mrs. Besant gave a rude shock to the country at large and the internment and maltreatment of a large number of persons supposed to be dangerous, under the Defence of India Act without any trial awakened the country to a sense of the mistake it had committed in giving its tacit consent to the passing of that Act and the prostitution of its provisions to secure political purposes as distinguished from protection of the country from the enemy’s designs. On the top of it all came the Report of a Committee appointed under the Presidentship of Sir Sidney Rowlatt to report on the growth of revolutionary movement in the country and to suggest remedies.

The report was published on the 19th July, 1918 and recommended practically the perpetuation of the provisions of the Defence of India Act, taking away trials by juries and assessors in cases of seditious crimes, taking a way, the preliminary proceedings of commitment on the one hand and the right of appeal after conviction on the other, authorising trials in camera and admission of evidence not subjected to cross-examination and not recorded by the trial court under certain circumstances and, above all reserving to the Executive the right and power not only to restrict the liberty of the individual by demanding securities with or without sureties, by restricting his residence or requiring notification of change of residence and demanding abstention from certain acts, such as engaging in journalism, distributing leaflets, attending meetings, etc., but also to deprive him of it by arresting and confining him. The abuses to which similar pro visions of the Defence of India Act and the rules promulgated under powers conferred by it had been put showed the country what these proposals meant and they naturally created consternation in the country and when armistice was declared in the autumn of 1918, India was seething with discontent at what she rightly considered to be a betrayal of her after the time of “the need of the Empire” had passed away. Suspicion was naturally roused that the promised Reforms would be postponed and the ordinary rights of the citizen to enjoy freedom of movement and sanctity of home and home life taken away on the pretext of the existence of a revolutionary conspiracy in the country. When at last on the 6th of February, 1919, the Rowlatt Bills, embodying the recommendations of the Rowlatt Committee, were introduced by Sir William Vincent into the Imperial Legislative Council at Delhi, the whole country rose like one man against this most unwarranted encroachment on the ordinary rights of free citizens. It was the beginning of an agitation throughout the country the like of which had never before been witnessed. Innumerable meetings were held in all parts of the vast peninsula, and in the Council itself not a single Indian was found to support its drastic provisions even with a silent vote. But all this was of no avail and the Government with the help of official votes passed one of the Bills into an Act in the third week of March, 1919.

The Hartal and the Disturbunces.—The result of forcing the Act was some members of the Imperial Legislative Council resigned their seats in protest against this high-handed action of the Government, and when Mahatma Gandhi declared his intention of leading a Satyagraha campaign, he only voiced the feeling of India smarting under an insult and humiliation which was as undeserved of India as it was unbecoming and ungrateful of the British Government to offer. The Satyagraha pledge which began to be signed in large numbers required the signatory to affirm that they would refuse civilly to obey those laws and such other laws as the Committee to be appointed later on might think fit and further that “in this struggle we will faithfully follow the truth and refrain from violence to life, person, or property.” On the 23rd of March, Mahatma Gandhi issued his manifesto fixing the 6th of April for the observance of an All-India Hartal and as a day of fasting, prayer and penance. Under some mistake, the Hartal was observed at Delhi on the 30th March. And, as a result of a quarrel between some demonstrator on the one hand and the stall keeper at the Railway Station on the other, a riot ensued. Military police and a small military force were brought out, and some people were shot. In other parts of the country, the Hartal on the 6th April passed off quietly without any untoward incident. It was a first demonstration in which all, rich and poor, high and low, educated or uneducated, village folks and town people took part. The people of India seemed to have broken their slumber of centuries and to have awakened to a sense of their hidden power. In one word, they re-discovered their soul.

Mahatma Gandhi was proceeding to Delhi on the 8th of April to relieve the sufferings of the people and to apply a healing balm to their lacerated hearts. He was however served with an order not to enter the Punjab or Delhi and on his refusal to obey the order he was arrested and turned back from a way side Railway Station by a special train to Bombay. The news created consternation throughout the length and breadth of the country and nowhere more than in the province of the Punjab where on account of the reactionary regime of Sir Michael O’Dwyer, people were already exasperated. To add fuel to the fire, under the order of Sir Michael O’Dwyer, on the 10th of April, two popular leaders of Amritsar, Drs. Kitchlew and Satyapal, were deported. Feeling was running very high when a large body of men proceeding towards the house of the Deputy Commissioner to make a representation for the release of the leaders was fired at and on its way back broke out in a serious riot burning and looting banks, the Post Office and some other Government offices, murdering some Europeans and assaulting two ladies. Quite was however soon restored but the atmosphere was surcharged with panic.

Jallianwalla Massacre.—General Dyer arrived at Amritsar on the night of the 11th and occupied the town. There was no incident either on the 11th or on the 12th. On the 13th a meeting was advertised to be held at a vacant space known as Jallianwalla Bagh. General Dyer prohibited any gathering of men on pain of death and hearing that a meeting was going to be held at Jallianwalla proceeded to the spot with his troops and machine guns. The place was full of men, women and children as it was an important Hindu festival day. Within 30 seconds of his arrival, he opened fire which continued for 10 minutes directing it where the crowd was thickest. The fire continued till ammunition was exhausted. Some 5 to 6 hundred people were killed outright and three times the number wounded. The place being surrounded on all sides by high walls no one could escape. There was no warning given before firing and no care taken of the dead and wounded after it. Subsequently, Martial Law was declared in Amritsar, Lahore, Gujrat, and Llyalpur districts and what may be fitly described as a reign of terror followed. Large numbers of people were arrested and tried under Martial Law. Even respectable people were arrested. Some were flogged, others made to crawl on their bellies and unutterable horror committed including bombing of unarmed crowds from aeroplanes.

The news of Mahatma Gandhi’s arrest led to riots at Ahmedabad and other places also. But Martial Law was not continued there for more than a few days.

The Indemnity Act and the Hunter Committee.—The news of these horrors in the Punjab did not go abroad as a strict censorship was maintained. In course of time, however, when some months later, Martial Law was withdrawn, the news began to leak out and caused deep and widespread indignation throughout the country. A Committee of Enquiry was demanded and was ultimately appointed by the Government with Lord Hunter as its President. But before the Committee began its labours, the Government of India passed an Indemnity Act for the protection of its officers. There was a great deal of opposition to it in the Council, but Mahatma Gandhi, true to his principle of non-retaliation, supported the bill. When the Hunter Committee began to record evidence, disclosures of facts and incidents of the most harrowing nature were made. The Congress Committee had appointed a sub-committee to lead evidence before the Hunter Committee. But on account of the refusal of the President to secure the temporary release of those Punjab leaders who were undergoing sentences, even for a short period, to enable them to collect the necessary evidence, the Congress Sub-Committee decided not to lead any evidence at all but to hold an independent enquiry and published its report on the 26th March, 1920, making recommendations which were regarded as much too lenient by the people. On the other hand, the report of the Hunter Committee was not unanimous, the Indian members appending a note of dissent differing from their European colleagues and holding that the promulgation of Martial law in the Punjab was not justified. The recommendations of the Committee as also the orders of the Government failed to satisfy Indian opinion and led, immediately, along with another matter to be presently mentioned, to the inauguration of the Non-co-operation Movement.

The Khilafat Question.—The other question which had greatly exercised the mind of the Indian people was the question of the Khilafat. When war broke out between England and Turkey, Indian Mussalmans found them selves on the horns of a dilemma. Should they help the Turks and the Sultan who stood as the representative and Defender of their faith, or should they support the British power under which they had been living for more than a century? They decided to throw in their lot with the British in the hope and faith that their religious places would be kept under Muslim control and they would be able to secure for their Turkish co-religionists terms of peace which would be favourable to them. Their faith was based on declarations made by the Viceroy in India and the Prime Minister of England (Mr. Lloyd George) in which the former had pledged immunity of the holy places in Arabia, Mesopotamia and of Jeddah, and the latter had assured the Muslims “Nor are we fighting to deprive Turkey of its capital or of the rich and renowned lands of Asia Minor and Thrace which are predominantly Turkish in race.”

When the war came to an end and rumours about the severe nature of the terms proposed to Turkey got abroad, Mussalmans became naturally alarmed and representation began to be made to the authorities, insisting on the fulfilment of the pledge so unequivocally given by the Prime Minister. The First All-India Khilafat Conference met at Delhi on Nov. 23, 1919, which thanked Mahatma Gandhi and other Hindus for their deep interest in the Khilafat question, enjoined upon Indian Mussalmans to refrain from participating in Victory celebrations, and in the event of a satisfactory settlement of the Turkish question not taking place, to progressively withhold all co-operation from the British Government and to boycott British goods. And lastly, it decided to send a deputation to England with the object of acquainting the British ministers and others with the true sentiments of the Mussalmans regarding the Turkish settlement and the Khilafat question. The second Khilafat conference met at Amritsar in the Congress week. It affirmed the resolution regarding the deputation to England and America, resolved further to send a deputation to the Viceroy and another deputation to Turkey and reiterating the Moslem demands and directed the Central Khilafat Committee to collect funds. A representation signed by the Aga Khan, Syed Ameer Ali and a number of other gentlemen, Indian and European, was submitted to the Premier in December, 1919. The Khilafat question came further to the forefront in December, 1919, when Maulana Shaukat Ali and Mahammad Ali were released from their internment.

The Khilafat Deputations.—A deputation headed by Dr. Ansari accordingly waited on the Viceroy on January 19, 1920. The reply which the Viceroy gave to the deputation was disappointing to a degree, and the Muslim leaders issued a statement recording their firm conviction that “should the peace terms result unfavourably to Muslim religion and sentiments, they would place an undue strain upon Muslim loyalty” and demanding that “Arabia as delimited by Muslim authority and the Holy places of Islam must remain under the control of the Khalif”, and that the pledge given by Mr. Lloyd George should be fulfilled. The third Khilafat Conference met at Bombay in February, 1920, and expressed its confidence in the deputation going to England and issued a very important manifesto, laying down the Muslim demands and declaring that “any reduction of the claim would not only be a violation of the deepest religious feelings of the Muhammadans, but also a flagrant violation of the solemn declarations and pledges made or given by responsible statesmen, representing Allied and Associated Powers and given at a time when they were desirous of enlisting the support of Muslim people and soldiery, and warning them against the consequence of a wrong decision, particularly when not only the Mussalmans but also the entire Hindu population were joining them in their demand.”

Their Failure.—The deputation which was headed by Maulana Muhammad Ali was received by Mr. Fisher on behalf of the Secretary of State for India, and it also waited upon the Prime Minister. It further requested permission to place its views before the Supreme Council of the Peace Conference but was refused. While the deputation was still in Europe, the proposed terms of peace with Turkey were made public on 14th May, 1920, and in India, they were accompanied with a message from the Viceroy to the Muslims of India, explaining those terms. The message recognised that the terms were such as must cause pain to the Muhamadans of India, but asked the Muslims of India to brace themselves to bear with patience and resignation the misfortunes of their Turkish co-religionists. The publication of the proposed peace terms caused the deepest indignation, and synchronising as it did with the publication of the Hunter Committee’s report, the whole country was ablaze. The Khilafat Committee met at Bombay to deliberate upon Mahatma Gandhi’s Non-co-operation project and adopted it on the 28th May, 1920, as the only means now left to the Muslims. On the 30th May, the All-India Congress Committee met at Benares to discuss the Hunter Report and the Turkish Peace terms, and after a long debate decided to hold a special session of the Congress to consider the question of Non-co-operation.

Non-co-operation Adopted.—On the 30th of June, there was a joint Hindu-Muslim Conference at Allahabad regarding the Khilafat question, and Non-co-operation was unanimously adopted to be resorted to after a month’s notice to the Viceroy. Numerous meetings of all parties were held in the different parts of the country, strongly condemning the Hunter Report and demanding justice regarding the Punjab and the Khilafat. On the 22nd of June, a message signed by numerous Muhammadan leaders was submitted to the Viceroy, asking him to secure revision of the Turkish Peace terms and, in the event of the British Cabinet failing to comply with the Muslim wishes, to make common cause with the Indian Mussalmans. It further warned him that, if he failed to adopt the suggestion, they would be obliged from the 1st August following to withdraw co-operation from the Government and to ask other Mussalmans and Hindus to do likewise. Mahatma Gandhi also addressed a letter to the Viceroy in which he explained his connection with the Khilafat question. He told him how he had noticed the growing anxiety of the Mussalmans and their distrust of British intention and how he had advised them not to give a way to despair. He proceeded: “The terms violate ministerial pledges and utterly disregard Mussalman sentiment. I consider that as a staunch Hindu wishing to live on terms of the closest friendship with my Mussalman countrymen, I should be an unworthy son of India if I did not stand by them in their hour of trial… The report of the majority of the Hunter Committee and your Excellency’s despatch thereon have aggravated the distrust. In these circumstances, the only course open to one like me is either in despair to sever all connection with British rule, or if I still retain the faith in the inherent superiority of British Constitution to all others at present in vogue, to adopt such means as will rectify the wrong done and thus restore confidence. I have not lost faith in such superiority and I am not without hope somehow or other, justice will yet be rendered if we show requisite capacity for suffering. It is then because I believe in British constitution that I have advised my Muslim friends to withdraw their support from your Excellency’s Government, and the Hindus to join them.”