"Mass civil disobedience is fraught with such danger to the State that it must be met with sternness and severity."
So says the Government of India (Home Department) in the communique published below in reply to Mr. Gandhi's manifesto offering a postponement of civil disobedience on certain conditions which Government regard as impossible.
The Government statement makes it clear that the issue is between lawlessness and the maintenance of civilised government.
The manifesto issued by Mr. Gandhi on the 4th February justifying his determination to resort to mass civil disobedience contains a series of misstatements. Some of these are so important that the Government of India cannot allow them to pass unchallenged. In the first place they emphatically repudiate the statement that they have embarked on a policy of lawless repression and also the suggestion that the present campaign of civil disobedience has been forced on the non-co-operation party, in order to secure the elementary rights of free association, free speech and of a free press. The Government of India desire to draw attention to the fact that the decision to adopt a programme of civil disobedience was finally accepted on the 4th November, before the recent notification relating either to the Seditious Meetings Act or the Criminal Law Amendment Act, to which Mr. Gandhi unmistakeably refers were issued. It was in consequence of serious acts of lawlessness, committed by persons who professed to be followers of Mr. Gandhi and the non-co-operation movement, that the Government were forced to take measures, which are in strict accordance with the law for the protection of peaceful citizens in the pursuit of their lawful avocations.
A new and dangerous situation
Since the inauguration of the non-co-operation movement the Government of India actuated by a desire to avoid anything in the nature of the repression of political activity, even though it was of an extreme character, have restricted their action in relation thereto to such measures as were necessary for the maintenance of law and order and the preservation of public tranquility. Up to November no steps, save in Delhi last year, were taken against the volunteer associations. In November, however, the Government were confronted with a new and dangerous situation. In the course of the past year, there had been systematic attempts to tamper with the loyalty of the soldiers and the police, and there had occurred numerous outbreaks of serious disorders, directly attributable to the propaganda of the non-co-operation party amongst the ignorant and excitable masses. These outbreaks had resulted in grave loss of life, the growth of a dangerous spirit of lawlessness, and increasing disregard for lawful authority. In November they culminated in the grave riots in Bombay, in which 53 persons lost their lives and approximately 400 were wounded. On the same date dangerous manifestations of lawlessness occurred in many other places, and at this period it became clear that many of the volunteer associations had embarked on a systematic campaign of violence, intimidation and obstruction, to combat which proceedings under the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal procedure had proved ineffective.
More drastic Measures
In these circumstances the Government were reluctantly compelled to resort to measures of a more comprehensive and drastic character. Nevertheless, the operation of the Seditious Meetings Act was strictly limited to a few districts in which the risk of grave disturbance of the peace was specially great, and the application of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908 was confined to associations, the majority of the members of which had habitually indulged in violence and intimidation. It is impossible here to set out in detail the evidence which justified the adoption of these measures in the different provinces. Abundant proof is, however, to be found in the published proceedings of the various legislative bodies, in the Communiques of the different local Governments, and in the pronouncements of the heads of the provinces. While resolute in their determination to enforce respect for law and order and to protect loyal and peaceful subjects of the Crown, the Government have at the same time taken every precaution possible to mitigate where desirable the conditions of imprisonment and to avoid any action which might have the appearance of vindictive severity. Ample proof of this will be found in the orders issued by the local Governments. Numerous offenders have been released, sentences have been reduced and special consideration has been shown in the case of persons convicted of offences under the Seditious Meeting's Act or the Criminal Law Amendment Act. There is thus no shadow of justification for the charge that their policy has been one of indiscriminate and lawless repression.
A statement disproved
A further charge, which has been brought to Mr. Gandhi is that the recent measures of Government have involved a departure from the civilised policy laid down by His Excellency at the time of the apology of the Ali brothers, namely, that the Government of India should not interfere with the activities of the non-co-operators so long as they remained non-violent in word and deed. The following citation from the communique of Government of India issued on the 30th May, conclusively disproves this statement:—