Gandhi and Anarchy

by Sir C. Sankaran Nair

The development from an apparently peaceful to a revolutionary attitude is strikingly illustrated in the Khilafat agitation not only by revolutionary activities but by open declaration. The resolution of the Karachi Conference showed the Mahomedan intention to declare independence and proclaim an Indian Republic at the following Congress at Ahmedabad in December 1921. A resolution for absolute independence was actually passed in the Subjects Committee of the Khilafat Conference at Ahmedabad, but was not passed at the Conference itself only because the President ruled it out of order. But immediately after the meeting formally closed, the motion was passed by the members of the Conference at the instance of the President of Muslim League whose speech as President will amply repay perusal (App. XVIII). He was in effect only carrying out at the Khilafat Conference the intention of the Karachi Conference of which the Ali Brothers were the moving spirits. In his speech he points out, what in effect is apparent to all, that Islam is opposed to non-violence and, as he said in the course of one of his speeches, the Mussalmans accepted it on the promise of Mr. Gandhi to secure Swaraj within a year. It was a legitimate move therefore to proclaim a rebellion. Another difference in principle was pointed out which is productive of frightful consequences and must alienate Hindus from Mahomedans. The Ali Brothers had already said that if the Afghans invaded India to wage a holy war the Indian Mahomedans are not only bound to fight them but also to fight the Hindus if they refuse to co-operate with them. When therefore Gandhi and his followers fraternised with the Khilafatists, the latter had no doubt of their support if eventually it came to rebellion. They were confirmed in this by Gandhi's attitude on the questions in issue between them and the Hindus. He advises the latter Hindus—to submit themselves to Mahomedan dictation. He begs them not to insist on the prohibition of the cow slaughter by Mahomedans and to rely upon Mahomedan forbearance to afford them relief in that direction. On the other hand he advises the Hindus to refrain from irritating the Mahomedans by insisting on carrying their processions past the mosques on their religious occasions. He advises them to study Hindustani as against Hindi; in fact complete submission to the Muslim feelings in all matters in controversy between them. His attitude towards the Mopla outrages shows the extent of his surrender. His alliance with the Khilafat movement has led to frightful results in Malabar. Relying on the assurance of Gandhi and his followers, of Hindu support for the Khilafat movement, and supported by the teaching that the Hindus may be treated as foes on failure to support them in a holy war, the Moplas when they rose against the British Government were furious at the Hindu attitude of loyalty to England. The result was, themselves, armed and organised they took the Hindus unawares and committed atrocities too well known, to need recapitulation here—butchered them and inflicted injuries on them far worse than death.

For sheer brutality on women, I do not remember anything in history to match the Malabar rebellion. It broke out about the 20th of August. Even by the 6th of September the results were dreadful. The Viceroy's speech made on that date deserves careful attention (App. I).

The atrocities committed more particularly on women are so horrible and unmentionable that I do not propose to refer to them in this book. I have selected a few accounts out of literally hundreds that might be selected from the English and vernacular papers (App. III). One narrative is by Mrs. Besant. The resolution passed at a meeting presided over by the Zamorin Maharaja at which, many of the leading Hindus in the District were present enters a strong protest against the attempts made by interested persons to minimize the gravity of the occurrence (App. V). The moving appeal signed by many ladies headed by the senior Rani of Nilambur who belongs to one of the wealthiest families and were rulers in ancient days shows the nature of the atrocities and the apprehensions still entertained after the rebellion is quelled (App. IV). I do not think it advisable to publish any more but I would point out in addition to those mentioned in these articles two other forms of torture credibly reported as having been resorted to in the case of men—flaying alive, and making them dig their own graves before their slaughter. It is now ascertained that the Mahomedans had held frequent meetings in their mosques and, had made all preparations for a rising. Hence it was difficult for the Hindus in these tracts to make any defence or escape. The horrid tragedy continued for months. Thousands of Mahomedans killed, and wounded by troops, thousands of Hindus butchered, women subjected to shameful indignities, thousands forcibly converted, persons flayed alive, entire families burnt alive, women it is said hundreds throwing themselves into wells to avoid dishonour, violence and terrorism threatening death standing in the way of reversion to their own religion. This is what Malabar in particular owes to the Khilafat agitation, to Gandhi and his Hindu friends. The President of the Indian Moslem League, following the Ali injunction, justified the Mahomedan atrocities as an act of war against the Hindus and the Government. Gandhi too pleaded for the Mahomedans. All this was too much even for their dupes who have entered a spirited protest (App. III). It is impossible after all I have said above that there can be any sympathy with the Khilafat agitation. The future may be envisaged. Gandhi and his dupes have led Khilafatists to understand that the Hindus will stand by them in any contingency, impliedly assuring them, as they believed in Malabar, of support even in resistance to British rule. This Islamic consciousness which looks to a brotherhood beyond India and beyond the Empire does not support the claim for early concession of Home Rule, for Home Rule means Home Rule within the Empire, not outside it—the Home Rule enjoyed by the self-governing constituents of the commonwealth. The Empire, it will be reasonably urged, cannot afford to place great power in the hands of a party which would subordinate the interests of the Empire and of India to the interests of a large body outside the Empire who actually stand in opposition to it. The introduction of this religious element in this manner is fatal to the well-being of the Empire, and unless some other basis can be found for the Hindu-Mahomedan entente, it must go. The extent to which Mr. Gandhi is prepared to go in support of the Khilafat claim is stated in this extract:—

"What will the Imperial Government do if France were to attempt to deprive England of Dover and India were secretly to help France or openly to show indifference or hostility to England's struggle to retain Dover? Can Indians be expected to sit idle when the Khilafat is vivisected?"

It is one thing to ask the Empire or India to go to war in favour of an oppressed class—but to ask her to do it in the interests of co-religionists of a community living outside the Empire is very different.

What is the present position? I shall describe it in the words of one of Mr. Gandhi's dupes, a secretary of a District Congress Committee, Mr. K. Madhavan Nair of Calicut, who writes on January 4th as follows:—

Now the position is this:—

The Hindus and Mohamedans have been waging a common war with non-violence as the fundamental creed. It has to be noted however, that there is a party led by the Maulana that advocates violence for the achievement of their object. Suppose to-morrow that party takes to violence and the other remains non-violent, what will be the fate of the non-violent party if Maulana's views are pushed to their logical conclusion? Is freedom worth having if in the attainment of it you have to loot, murder and outrage your innocent neighbour who does not agree with you or approve of your methods and is Swaraj possible of achievement and the Khilafat likely to be righted by such means? Maulana's views make those who have absolutely no faith in violence to think over these facts deeply and anxiously.

The Indian Non-Mahomedans, did not trouble themselves about the Khilafat claims. Mr. Gandhi and his followers took it up as an anti-British movement to secure Mahomedan support to his non-co-operation movement. Even that non-Mahomedan sympathy with the Khilafat movement, has vanished. That movement acquired its strength on account of such unfortunate statements that the Secretary of State and the Government of India are in hearty sympathy with the Moslim demands; statements like those reported to have been made by His Highness Aga Khan that Mr. Montagu is doing as much as it is possible to support the Mahomedan claim and Gandhi himself could not have done more. I doubt whether any influential newspaper or any publicist in America, England or the continent support the Khilafat claim as advanced by Indian Mahomedans or by Gandhi. However, the reputed sentiments of Mr. Montagu and the Government of India have influenced even moderate Mahomedans and Hindus to support them against the cabinet in starting and supporting an agitation, which has now assumed dangerous proportions.

The Khilafat movement does not want, and Mr. Gandhi is not for, any reasonable settlement of the Mahomedan grievance or for Home Rule. They wish to get rid of the British Government. Such being the objective naturally the Khilafat Indian agitators have put forward demands which the Turks themselves recognise as outside practical politics. They have hampered the efforts of their friends for a revision of the treaty of Sevres. Everybody now realises that this attitude of the Khilafat movement under the guidance of Gandhi and Mahomed Ali stood in the way of any reasonable settlement. It is a futile endeavour of the Indian and British Governments to satisfy Mr. Gandhi or the Khilafat agitators led by the Ali brothers. Gandhi and his followers have greatly encouraged the growth of Indian Pan Islamism which will in future be always opposed to other Religions and civilizations. I can well understand the adherent of large numbers of Mussulmans to the idea of Pan-Islamism. It must naturally have a fascination for devotees of Islam by reason of the splendour of its promise that Mussulmans the world over shall one day be united under one flag, but we have to take the world as it is and to take into the consideration the forces actually at work in reconstruction. The world has passed the stage of religious empires. It has gone beyond the stage of religious crusades. We are on the threshold of an era of a brotherhood transcending religious differences, transcending even national differences and of which one of the dominant notes is a unity of purpose in which religious differences of race and customs are to be merged and harmonised. Pan-Islamism or Pan-Christianity or Pan-Budhism—one can hardly speak of Pan-Hinduism—belong to the world that is dead and not to the world that is living. They mean destruction, proselytisation, the assertion of superiority the world war was waged to destroy. This also shows the dangerous foundation on which the Gandhi movement rests. Home Rule or Swaraj is claimed not as an end in itself but for the purpose of righting the alleged wrongs sustained by foreigners. We know Gandhi's principles which I have set forth above. Swaraj or political independence is not what he really wants. It is not the Caliph grievances that have led him to claim political independence. He wants to destroy the British Government, as a hater of all Governments.