WRITTEN STATEMENT
I owe it perhaps to the Indian public and to the public in England to placate which this prosecution is mainly taken up that I should explain why from a staunch loyalist and co-operator I have become an uncompromising disaffectionist and non-co-operator. To the court too I should say why I plead guilty to the charge of promoting disaffection towards the Government established by law in India.
My public life began in 1893 in South Africa in troubled weather. My first contact with British authority in that country was not of a happy character. I discovered that as a man and an Indian I had no rights. On the contrary I discovered that I had no rights as a man because I was an Indian.
But I was not baffled. I thought that this treatment of Indians was an excrescence upon a system that was intrinsically and mainly good. I gave the Government my voluntary and hearty co-operation, criticising it fully where I felt it was faulty but never wishing its destruction.
Consequently when the existence of the Empire was threatened in 1899 by the Boer challenge, I offered my services to it, raised a volunteer ambulance corps and served at several actions that took place for the relief of Ladysmith. Similarly in 1906 at the time of the Zulu revolt I raised a stretcher-bearer party and served till the end of the 'rebellion'. On both these occasions I received medals and was even mentioned in despatches. For my work in South Africa I was given by Lord Hardinge a Kaiser-i-Hind Gold Medal. When the war broke out in 1914 between England and Germany I raised a volunteer ambulance corps in London consisting of the then resident Indians in London, chiefly students. Its work was acknowledged by the authorities to be valuable. Lastly in India when a special appeal was made at the War Conference in Delhi in 1917 by Lord Chelmsford for recruits, I struggled at the cost of my health to raise a corps in Kheda and the response was being made when the hostilities ceased and orders were received that no more recruits were wanted. In all these efforts at service I was actuated by the belief that was possible by such services to gain a status of full equality in the Empire for my countrymen.
The first shock came in the shape of the Rowlatt Act a law designed to rob the people of all real freedom. I felt called upon to lead an intensive agitation against it. Then followed the Punjab horrors beginning with the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh and culminating in crawling orders, public floggings and other indescribable humiliations. I discovered too that the plighted word of the Prime Minister to the Mussulmans of India regarding the integrity of Turkey and the holy places of Islam was not likely to be fulfilled. But in spite of the foreboding and the grave warnings of friends, at the Amritsar Congress in 1919 I fought for co-operation and working the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, hoping that the Prime Minister would redeem his promise to the Indian Mussulmans, that the Punjab wound would be healed and that the reforms inadequate and unsatisfactory though they were, marked a new era of hope in the life of India.
But all that hope was shattered. The Khilafat promise was not to be redeemed. The Punjab crime was white-washed and most culprits went not only unpunished but remained in service and some continued to draw pensions from the Indian revenue, and in some cases were rewarded. I saw too that not only did the reforms not mark a change of heart, but they were only a method of further draining India of her wealth and of prolonging her servitude.
I came reluctantly to the conclusion that the British connection had made India more helpless than she ever was before, politically and economically. A disarmed India has no power of resistance against any aggressor if she wanted to engage in an armed conflict with him. So much is this the case that some of our best men consider that India must take generations before she can achieve the Dominion status. She has become so poor that she has little power of resisting famines. Before the British advent India spun and wove in her millions of cottages just the supplement she needed for adding to her meagre agricultural resources. The cottage industry, so vital for India's existence, has been ruined by incredibly heartless and inhuman processes as described by English witnesses. Little do town-dwellers know how the semi-starved masses of Indians are slowly sinking to lifelessness. Little do they know that their miserable comfort represents the brokerage they get for the work they do for the foreign exploiter, that the profits and the brokerage are sucked from the masses. Little do they realise that the Government established by law in British India is carried on for this exploitation of the masses. No sophistry, no jugglery in figures can explain away the evidence the skeletons in many villages present to the naked eye. I have no doubt whatsoever that both England and the town-dwellers of India will have to answer, if there is a God above, for this crime against humanity which is perhaps unequalled in history. The law itself in this country has been used to serve the foreign exploiter. My unbiased examination of the Punjab Martial Law cases has led me to believe that at least ninety-five per cent of convictions were wholly bad. My experience of political cases in India leads me to the conclusion that in nine out of every ten the condemned men were totally innocent. Their crime consisted in love of their country. In ninety-nine cases out of hundred justice has been denied to Indians as against Europeans in the Court of India. This is not an exaggerated picture. It is the experience of almost every Indian who has had anything to do with such cases. In my opinion the administration of the law is thus prostituted consciously or unconsciously for the benefit of the exploiter.
The greatest misfortune is that Englishmen and their Indian associates in the administration of the country do not know that they are engaged in the crime I have attempted to describe. I am satisfied that many English and Indian officials honestly believe that they are administering one of the best systems devised in the world and that India is making steady though slow progress. They do not know that a subtle but effective system of terrorism and an organised display of force on the one hand and the deprivation of all powers of retaliation or self-defence on the other have emasculated the people and induced in them the habit of simulation. This awful habit has added to the ignorance and the self-deception of the administrators. Section 124-A under which I am happily charged is perhaps the prince among the political sections of the Indian Penal Code designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen. Affection cannot be manufactured or regulated by law. If one has no affection for a person or thing one should be free to give the fullest expression to his disaffection so long as he does not contemplate, promote or incite to violence. But the section under which Mr. Banker and I are charged is one under which mere promotion of disaffection is a crime. I have studied some of the cases tried under it, and I know that some of the most loved of India's patriots have been convicted under it. I consider it a privilege therefore, to be charged under it. I have endeavoured to give in their briefest outline the reasons for my disaffection. I have no personal ill-will against any single administrator, much less can I have any disaffection towards the King's person. But I hold it to be a virtue to be disaffected towards a Government which in its totality has done more harm to India than any previous system. India is less manly under the British rule than she ever was before. Holding such a belief, I consider it to be a sin to have affection for the system. And it has been a precious privilege for me to be able to write what I have in the various articles tendered in evidence against me.
In fact I believe that I have rendered a service to India and England by showing in non-co-operation the way out of the unnatural state in which both are living. In my humble opinion, non-co-operation with evil is as much a duty as is co-operation with good. But in the past, non-co-operation has been deliberately expressed in violence to the evildoer. I am endeavouring to show to my countrymen that violent non-co-operation only multiplies evil and that as evil can only be sustained by violence, withdrawal of support of evil requires complete abstention from violence. Non-violence implies voluntary submission to the penalty for non-co-operation with evil. I am here, therefore, to invite and submit cheerfully to the highest penalty that can be inflicted upon me for what in law is a deliberate crime and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen. The only course open to you, the Judge and the Assessors, is either to resign your posts and thus dissociate yourselves from evil if you feel that the law you are called upon to administer is an evil and that in reality I am innocent, or to inflict on me the severest penalty if you believe that the system and the law you are assisting to administer are good for the people of this country and that my activity is therefore injurious to the public weal.
M. K. GANDHI.
APPENDIX XXII
Lists of Riots or Disturbances
List of riots or Disturbances since the year 1919.
List of riots or Disturbances since the year 1921.
- Killed 3
- Wounded 14
- Killed 4
- Wounded 12
APPENDIX XXIII
The Honourable Sir William Vincent's Speech at the Legislative Assembly, 18th January 1922
I say, Sir, from that time we have always avoided systematically and steadily any excessive severity vis a vis this movement. Later, there were a number of seditious speeches, including incitements to violence, particularly by Mr. Muhammad Ali and his brother, and Government were prepared to take action against them. What ensued is well known to the Members of this Assembly. There were meetings between Mr. Gandhi and His Excellency, and later Muhammad Ali and his brother offered to the public certain undertakings on which the Government withdrew the prosecutions against them. In a letter of June, 1921, addressed to Local Governments after this undertaking we indeed expressed some hope that it might be possible to reduce the number of prosecutions. We were anxious not to force the pace and although we always maintained our determination to keep order, we sought to avoid over-drastic action against the less dangerous or less violent adherents of the movement. At the same time we indicated to Local Governments that they were not to prosecute persons, the prosecution of whom might have great effect outside the province, without consulting the Government of India. In that letter, further, we invited Local Governments to give certain other convicted persons the same locus poenitentiae which had been given to Muhammad Ali and his brother. We have throughout avoided very carefully any suggestion, any action which might create the impression that we desire to interfere with a legitimate political movement. I defy any Member of this Assembly to say otherwise. We have indeed frequently been reproached with weakness on this account. I maintain that it was not weakness but patience. At the same time, we made every effort to meet the legitimate wishes of educated opinion in this country. I have no time to-day to recapitulate all we have done but I should like to mention such matters as the compensation to persons injured in the Punjab disorders, the further review of the Punjab sentences, the Committee on the Press Act, the results of which will be before this Assembly very shortly; again, the Committee on repressive measures and the Committee to inquire into racial distinctions in criminal proceedings. In fact, there was no question that came before us in which we did not honestly seek to meet moderate Members of the Assembly in order to consolidate the moderate party into a great working power in the country for good. What has been response of Mr. Gandhi and his followers? I maintain that it has been one steady stream of sedition, one steady attempt to subvert Government, one method of promoting this object being adopted after another. Sometimes it has been the boycott of piece goods in order to injure British trade, although Mr. Gandhi had himself I believe, at one time said that 'boycott' was a word that was entirely inconsistent with his principle of 'Ahimsa'. Later this movement took the form of attempts on the loyalty of our troops attempts on the police and there were constant incitements to disorder. These have resulted in serious outbreaks of violence in many parts of the country, the most important of which was the Moplah outbreak. Sir, there has recently been some attempt to minimise the cruelties committed by the Moplahs in Malabar. I refer in particular to the remarks of Mr. Abdul Bari and Mr. Husrat Mohani on this subject. Mr. Abdul Bari spoke of the pure spirit of the Moplahs and denied the veracity of the accounts of their atrocities. Mr. Husrat Mohani justifies them in the following words:
"At such a critical juncture when they are engaged in war against the English, their Hindu neighbours not only do not help them or observe neutrality but aid and assist the English in every possible way. They can indeed contend that, while they are fighting a defensive war for the sake of their religion and have left their houses, property and belongings, and taken refuge in the hills and jungles, it is unfair to characterise as plunder their commandeering of money, provisions and other necessities for their troops from the English and their supporters."
Many of us, however, have, I believe, some knowledge of the atrocities committed by these men, atrocities which I am certain in my mind that every Mussalman in this House deplores as deeply as I do, and they will appreciate what a misrepresentation of the facts this is. The barbarities of the Moplahs have been indefensible. I will cite one instance 'New India' in support of what I say. Writing of a respectable Nair, an article in this paper states:
'When on the 26th he threatened other steps, the rebels forced their way into his house, dragged him out, along with his wife and two children carried them to the mosque and bathed all four and compelled them to recite verses from the Koran and dress as Moplahs. At mid-night they were led home and imprisoned. Next day the deponent's head was shaved and ten days later a certain notorious criminal (now in custody) forcibly circumcised the deponent. Three weeks later he and his family and other converts (some being Christians) escaped to Shoranur.'
Sir, I am one of those who have been to Malabar, I have seen myself refugees, a thousand in one refuge, hungry, homeless, lacking clothes, and I can assure Members of this Assembly that it was a pitiable sight to see. I only mention the facts because this attempt has been made and because this rising, these acts of cruelty and murder are one of the direct results of the Khilafat movement. I do not put it (I never have put it) that Mr. Gandhi is responsible for this directly, but I do say that his supporters—his Muhammadan supporters—were the cause of this terrible loss of life. Indeed you have only got to read, Mr. Hasrat Mohani's speech to see what the character of the rising was. Now, if the Moplah outbreak had been an isolated instance of disorder, as I said in the last Session, the Government might not have been forced to take action against this non-co-operation movement. It might well have been argued that the circumstances were exceptional. But have Members of this Assembly read the report which is attached to the Repressive Measures Committee? Have they read the appendix setting out a list of 34 outbreaks of disorders of a serious character within a year? Sir, we have been told that after the declaration of policy by this Government in March last, the non-co-operation movement was dying down. I think that I am correct in making this statement; and I hope I am not misrepresenting anybody. Is there any foundation for it? Does not every Member of this Assembly know that that is absolutely inaccurate? Does not every Member here know that the movement of disloyalty to the Crown, intended to paralyse Government, intended to subvert the administration, has been growing day by day throughout the year? Can any man here say that actually the movement was losing strength? Do not these disorders tell a different story—these outbreaks which culminated in the riots in Bombay on the 17th November? Before I come to that however, I want to deal with another point. May I inform this Assembly that, during the present year, it has been necessary to call out the military to suppress serious disorder no less than 47 times? May I tell them that, during the last three months, military assistance has had to be invoked—I have here the figures from His Excellency the Commander in-Chief—no less than 19 times? Does that look as if the forces of disorder were losing strength before the Government took this action?
And now, Sir, I want to turn to the rioting in Bombay in which the lawless tendencies of those who follow Mr. Gandhi—not of Mr. Gandhi himself—culminated. Bombay is a city in which Mr. Gandhi is supposed to exercise the greatest influence. He himself was present there on the 17th November. The occasion was one, one would have thought, when at least every loyal citizen of the Crown, whatever his political views, would have avoided any disorder or riot. It was the occasion of the landing of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, the heir to the Throne of England. That was the occasion chosen by the non-co-operators in Bombay for an outbreak of violence which, I believe, has not been paralleled in that city for many many years, and what was the object of those who embarked upon this campaign of violence? I say the object was vengeance, vengeance on those who dared to go forth to welcome His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales in spite of Mr. Gandhi's direction—that was the sole crime of the unfortunate people so maltreated. That Sir, is the result of non-violent non-co-operation. Was Mr. Gandhi able to exercise any influence to stop the demand? Why, it was pathetic to read his words next day. He was full of sorrow, but he had not thought of the consequences of his act before. After all he had warning on previous occasions. Well, Sir, I do not know that I need go through the events of these terrible days. You have heard from my Honourable friend, Mr. Dwaraka Das, how women were assaulted in the public streets; you have read in the papers how harmless Europeans and Indians, including many Parsis, were murdered, or assaulted, how one unfortunate engine driver, going home from his work, a harmless individual, was suddenly attacked and murdered by a cruel mob. All this was the result of this non-violent movement. The reports say that it began in intimidation and that was not checked, those who had been guilty of intimidation thought they could proceed with impunity to violence. The damage done to property also—the property of private individuals—was very great. I read in one report, of 137 shops being looted and that is an under statement of all the damage.
Now, let us see what was happening in other places on that day? In Delhi there was hartal enforced by systematic threats and intimidation. And I assert here, and I dare any one to contradict me, that intimidation was practised by men posing as volunteers; men dressed as volunteers who paraded the streets and interfered with the liberty of law-abiding citizens in a manner that is intolerable in any civilised community. Is it surprising that we received many complaints actually of absolute want of any Government control at the time? In Calcutta, again there was hartal promoted by general intimidation and violence on the part of volunteers. It is idle for any one to deny it. Mr. Abdul Kasem and other Members were in Calcutta and they know the facts. The Government of Bengal, writing on the 26th November, reported that an incessant stream of seditious speeches was being poured forth, that money was being freely spent in the employment of paid agents; and here I may tell the Assembly that many of these volunteers,—I do not say all of them because that would be wrong,—but many of these volunteers are merely paid men, paid a rupee a day, and, in fact when the supply of money dries up,—and there have been places where this has happened,—the supply of volunteers has run short. We were also told by the Bengal Government that on the 17th there was general suspension of activities of all kinds and the riff-raff of the city, under the guise of volunteers, was abroad, terrorising and abusing law-abiding folk, and there were numerous instances of molestations of Europeans and Indians. The authority of Government was openly flouted; and law abiding citizens were depressed because of Government's failure to protect them, I have got instances here of the different kinds of speeches made in Bengal. I do not think I need cite them except to mention that one of them says:
'That the Bengalees had discovered the death-arrow of the English. Remember Kanai and Khudiram Bose and others of Bengal.'
I do not suppose the Members of this Assembly know who they were; they were prominent murderers; some, if not all of them, were hanged. Well, Sir, the whole effect of the activities was that, on the 17th of November in Calcutta there was an absolute effacement of the authority of Government, and general intimidation throughout the whole of the city. I am told now that we exaggerated all this: There was a hartal, it is true, but there was nothing more than a voluntary one. Well, the Amrita Bazar Patrika, itself stated on the morning of the 18th a most significant fact—I cite it because it is testimony coming from an adversary—it said on the 18th 'Writ large on the hartal of Calcutta is revolution'. Now I ask the Assembly to ponder those words.
I may say that throughout all this period the most desperate efforts were made to create racial animosity. Those who were in Calcutta in December last—I was there—know how true this is and it was a very dangerous factor in the situation. There was also at that time every reason to believe that if the activities of these so-called volunteers were not curtailed, we should have a repetition in Calcutta of what we had in Bombay. Now the total deaths in Bombay were 53 people killed, and I think something like 400 injured went to the Hospital. The problem before the Government, therefore, was: are you going to sit quietly, or, as my Honourable friend said, 'with folded hands' and watch with apathy and inertia this slaughter of innocent people, or are you going to take action while there is yet time? The Assembly remember also that previously, on the 14th of November, there had been already a dangerous riot in Calcutta at Belgatchia, in which over 5,000 people had been engaged. Now, I maintain that, in such circumstances, the Bengal Government were fully justified in taking the action. We have abundant testimony that, whatever be the professions of those who inaugurate these volunteer movement, their practice and precept are poles apart. You may say that they enter into a solemn vow of non-violence, but in practice they are repeatedly constantly and persistently, guilty of intimidation and violence. Let me turn to another province. I have got a report here from the Bihar Government. We called for these reports to see on what grounds they had proceeded against these associations. The replies show that Local Governments were satisfied that the members of the proscribed associations went in systematically for this class of offence. To return to Bihar, on the 10th of December, I received a report from the Local Government which says that these volunteers had been guilty of intimidation, violence and other forms of criminal action on no less than 122 occasions reported in the last year. One of the incidents is worthy of special mention, indeed many of them are. The one to which I refer was the case of a poor Muhammadan who had the misfortune to be a law-abiding subject of the Crown. He died in Ranchi and his funeral had to be performed. But the non-co-operators said: "No, he shall not be buried by Muhammadans." Well, some over-daruni spirit said: 'Oh, his was not so great an offence that we should allow this oppression; men who differ from other in their political views are entitled to a little toleration.' So they took the body to the graveyard with police protection and buried it. What was the next action of the extremists? The non-co-operation volunteers dug up the corpse and dishonoured it, ('Shame.') Well that is the conduct of these non-violent non-co-operation volunteers. Again, on the 17th in Calcutta, there were unfortunately two Muhammadans who died in Ballygunge of natural causes and those who wished to bury them could not procure the necessary assistance: they were unable to procure bearers or Khatias or anything else and the bodies remained unburied for the whole of that day. There was many a sick man and woman in Calcutta on the 17th who could not procure medical attendance. No conveyances for medical practitioners, and when doctors walked to the patients and attended on them, they would not get medicine, because the dispensaries were not allowed under the strict orders of the non-co-operators to sell medicine even to save life on that day. Now, is that intimidation or is it not? I have been told that Government interferes with the liberty of the subject in proscribing these associations. I am amazed at the audacity of those who make such an accusation, whether it comes from the Members of this Assembly or from those who are of different political opinions, and I include Mr. Gandhi. Who in reality has interfered with the liberty of the subject to the same extent as members of his party? Who is it that will not allow those who wish to welcome the Prince to do so? Who prevents reasonable respect being shown to the dead! Who boycots and intimidates those who venture to serve the Crown or wish to sell or buy foreign piece goods? Who will not allow any member of the Assembly to address a public meeting without interruption? ('Hear, hear'.) Who, then, is it that is really guilty of interference with the liberty of the subject? What extremist can make, with justice, this accusation against the Government? What has the Government done in this matter?...
And now, Sir, I wish to turn to our instructions of 24th November, in so far as the Criminal Law Amendment Act goes. They were to the effect that where associations practised intimidation violence and obstruction, it was necessary to suppress those activities and that the Act of 1908 should be used for that purpose. I believe, up to a certain point at any rate, it has been successful. What followed? A number of young men—many of them in Calcutta, hired from the mills—joined these associations as volunteers for a money reward. Many are doing it in Delhi now and a rupee a day is the price. They join the volunteers in defiance of all orders and then complain bitterly and pose as patriots, if they are arrested. In Delhi, when the movement first started and arrests took place, the authorities were anxious not to impose too severe penalties on accused and the consequence was, they were sentenced simple imprisonment. Many of them were quite pleased; they were able to get free meals and had nothing to do, so later it was found necessary to sentence others to rigorous imprisonment. At once there was a general feeling that this was very unfair, though it was really a very natural consequence. Throughout, however, the Government have been very anxious to avoid any appearance of undue severity; to avoid any appearance of unreasonable harshness we have made various suggestions to the Local Governments with which I will deal later. Apart from this, however, His Excellency was never unmindful of the dangers of a purely regressive policy and, as every Honourable Member knows he received a deputation on the 21st December in Calcutta and listened to their views on the action of Government and the possibility of a conference between different sections of the community and Government. And I should like to read to Honourable Members one or two words from His Excellency's reply to that deputation because, to my mind, his words breathe a lofty tone of statesmanship and indicate a deep desire to find a solution of the problem of all the difficulties with which the Government are faced. He spoke words over which every Member of this Assembly would do well to ponder. Referring to a suggestion that Government should cease making use of measures now enforced and release prisoners convicted under the law, he said:
'I cannot believe that this was the intention, of the deputation, when originally suggested, for it would mean that throughout the country intimidation and unlawful oppression and other unlawful acts should be allowed to continue, whilst Government action to maintain order and protect the law-abiding citizen would be largely paralysed. I need scarcely tell you that no responsible Government could even contemplate the acceptance of such a state of public affairs. I wish with all my heart, that it had been possible to deal with these problems in a large and generous spirit, worthy of such on occasion in the history of India. Had there been indications to this effect before me to-day in the representations which you have made in your address on the part of the leaders of non-co-operation, had the offer been made to discontinue open breaches of the law for the purpose of providing a calmer atmosphere for discussion of remedies suggested, my Government would never have been backward in response. We would have been prepared to consider the new situation in the same large and generous spirit I would have conferred with Local Governments for this purpose.'
Sir, now what was Mr. Gandhi's reply to this? This is what Mr. Gandhi said:
'I am sorry that I suspect Lord Reading of complicity in the plot to unman India.'
I would ask Honourable Members of this Assembly if they would take that view. He proceeded to say:
"I am forced to conclude that Lord Reading is trying to emasculate India by forcibly making free speech and popular organization impossible."
In another article he said:
"I was totally unprepared for what I most respectfully call his mischievous misrepresentation of the attitude of the Congress and the Khilafat organisations in connection with the visit of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales."
This country is, in truth, faced with a very grave crisis: we have civil disobedience looming before us. We have threats of organised violence from an influential section of the Mussalman population. We have had outbreaks of violence of a dangerous character showing what may happen in a more extended degree in future. We have had the most terrible bloodshed and loss of life. We are face to face with a situation in which there may be, I fear, greater loss of life and greater bloodshed. It is for the Assembly to say whether they are now going to encourage the forces which make for ruin and disorder. It is for them to say whether, consistently with their oath of allegiance to the Crown, most solemnly sworn here, they can conscientiously and deliberately encourage those who intend to overthrow this Government by any means that is possible. Lastly, it is for them to ponder their responsibility not only to the Assembly, not only to the Government and to the country, but also to themselves. It is for them to say whether they will take such a course as will facilitate a real and very grave danger to their own properties, to their own lives, to their own honour.
THE TATA PRINTING WORKS, 5, THAMBU CHETTY ST., MADRAS.