Gandhi and Anarchy

by Sir C. Sankaran Nair

APPENDIX XIII
BENGAL

His Excellency's Speech at the St. Andrew's Day Dinner, on 30th November 1920

Gentlemen,

Among other things non-co-operation is to achieve is swaraj in one year. Mr. Gandhi has said so himself. The question is—do the people of Bengal want this particular form of swaraj? Being a shrewd and intelligent people they will doubtless wish to satisfy themselves first of all as to what precisely this swaraj is. Fortunately we are able to answer that question with authority, because Mr. Gandhi had issued a very clear explanation of what he means by swaraj in a small manual entitled 'Indian Home Rule', a new edition of which was published by Messrs. Ganesh & Co., of Madras, last year. I earnestly commend a perusal of it to all who are interested in the future of the land we live in....

Very well, if this is the sort of thing that people want by all means let them adopt non-co-operation. But I do not believe for a moment that this is what people want. And that, no doubt, is why we find so many other reasons advanced for adopting non-co-operation. It is claimed for it for example, that it is a saintly weapon in the hands of an oppressed people engaged in a righteous struggle against a tyrannous and unrighteous Government. Let us examine its credentials so that we may see to what extent the claim to righteousness can be sustained. In its earliest phase, when it was known as Satyagraha, its result were admittedly evil. The Hunter Committee was unanimous in its opinion that its effect was to engender "a familiarity and sympathy with disobedience to laws" and "to undermine the law abiding instincts which stand between society and outbreaks of violence at a time when their full strength was required." And, indeed, Mr. Gandhi himself confessed himself sorry that when he embarked upon a mass movement "he under-rated the forces of evil, and that he was obliged to pause and consider how best to meet the situation." Then again another object of the non-co-operators is to re-impose Turkish Administration upon the non-Turkish peoples who have so long suffered under it. The fact that under Turkish administration calculated attempts have been made to exterminate the Armenian people—one of the most horrible chapters in the whole history of crime—is ignored, a matter for surprise, surely, in view of the innate abhorrence of violence professed by the originator of the movement. Indeed, any one making a comprehensive survey of the non-co-operation movement could scarcely be blamed if he came to the conclusion that the only password required to give admission to the non-co-operation camp was "race-hatred." And is Bengal going to tolerate a movement based upon hatred, and, therefore, rooted in evil? Surely the world has had its fill of hatred. Cast your eyes over the past six years, and what do you see? A world in agony. The peoples of this earth trailing their spectral way across a blood-soaked scene of destruction and desolation—a ghastly phantasmagoria of human suffering; a hideous calvary. Humanity in torment, scourged with sorrow, losing its hold upon hope, drifting derelict in a terrifying ocean of despair. That is what hatred has done for mankind. And is mankind going to tolerate those who would deliberately and of malice aforethought perpetuate this grisly tradition of hatred among men? Let us have the answer of the people of this country to that question. For myself I have faith in the better mind of the people of Bengal. Not for nothing did Job Charnock lay the foundations of this great city. The finger of destiny was even then tracing the future of Great Britain and India upon the rock of doom. For better or for worse our paths lie side by side. The policy of Great Britain has been fairly and frankly stated. We are inviting the people of India to co-operate with us in making and travelling over that road which will lead to an India fashioned in so far as its internal affairs are concerned in ever-increasing accordance with the genius of its peoples, and filling a position of ever increasing pride and honour in the great confederation of the British Empire. Can any one who has faith in the existence of an eternal and immutable principle of justice and right doubt what the final choice of the people of India will be? Surely not. And it is with an unshakeable faith in its future that I give you the toast of "The Land We Live in."

His Excellency's Speech at the St. Andrew's Dinner, on 30th November 1921

India to-day is honoured by another distinguished guest—the most distinguished, indeed save only one, whom the citizens of the British Empire could welcome, namely, the heir to the Empire's Throne—His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. He has come with words of sympathy upon his lips and with feelings of affection in his heart for the "Land we live in." Can it be doubted, then that from all communities and all creeds he will receive a royal welcome? I confess that it was with amazement that I learned that there was a small section of people, in this land of all lands, who had so far forgotten the dictates of courtesy as to urge the boycott of the Royal visitor. The promoters of this movement claim, I believe, to represent the fine flower of the ancient culture and civilisation of India. Well one lives and learns. I had always been brought up to believe that courtesy towards a guest was a deep-rooted tradition with the Indian people. And so I still believe it to be, though there may be some who have forgotten it. I do not believe that this attitude represents the real mind of India. Indeed, I know that it does not—for it was an Indian gentleman whose patriotism is beyond all possible question, who said to me when he read of the proposal "now must we bow our heads in shame for in showing rudeness to a guest we have touched the lowest depths of national humiliation and degradation." That, I believe, represents the best and, indeed, the real mind of India, for in India it has always been realised that discourtesy injures those who are guilty of it rather than those against whom it is practised, for it lowers them in the eyes of all right thinking men and indeed is sooner or later found by the man who is guilty of it to be a wound gnawing at his own self-respect...

Already long strides have been taken along the path towards the ultimate goal. Indian and European have come closer together—mutual understanding and goodwill are springing up between them. How much more could be achieved in this direction were it not for the black cloud of anger and hatred which has been brought into being by the apostles of revolution. From my experience of the past 12 months I have no hesitation in saying that a wonderful new era would have dawned for India already, had it not been for the wild passions which have been let loose upon the land by those who have pinned their faith to revolution.

They call the Government "Satanic". Have they then a monopoly of righteousness? The wild lawlessness and bloodshed at Giridih, Malegaon, Alighar, Malabar, Bombay and many other places—do these things not savour of the work of Satan? These are, indeed, but the heralds of red revolution. Let them look deep into their hearts and ask themselves in all seriousness if the salvation of India lies along such lines....