Transcriber's Note.

Variations in the spelling of words associated with the Muslim religion have been retained. Other apparent typographical errors have been corrected.

The tables in Appendix XXII were originally printed sideways. In order to fit into the format of this edition the first three columns of each table (that list the province, date, and place of each riot or incident) have been combined.

GANDHI AND ANARCHY

By
SIR C. SANKARAN NAIR

Published by
TAGORE & CO., MADRAS

First Published March 1922
Second Edition July 1922

All Rights Reserved
Right of Translation not Reserved

CONTENTS

THE TATA PRINTING
WORKS : : MADRAS

PREFACE

The struggle for Indian Home Rule which was started with the inauguration of the Indian National Congress has many difficulties to encounter, has strong and powerful opponents and has received many checks. But its strongest opponent is Mr. Gandhi and perhaps the most severe check it has received is the adoption by the National Congress at his instance in Calcutta and Nagpur of the so-called-Non-violent Non-co-operation. Non-co-operation as advocated by Mr. Gandhi may be a weapon to be used when constitutional methods have failed to achieve our purpose. Non-violence and passive suffering will lead to bloodshed or be unfruitful of any satisfactory results. Moreover, nothing shows the lack of statesmanship more than practically basing the claim for Swaraj upon the Punjab and the Khilafat grievances. As representing Asia against Europe, the fair against the white race, the Hindus regarded the Turkish Empire with sympathy and were disposed to support the Mahomadens as Asiatic representatives. But when by Gandhi and Khilafatist that claim was abandoned; when the Arabs perhaps the noblest of the Mahomadan races who fought as our allies and helped us to defeat Turkey were sought to be brought under Turkish dominion, when other Asiatic races freed by the war were asked to accept Turkish sovereignty on grounds based on the Mahomaden religion which had already produced such baneful result in India, the situation became entirely different. It was rightly realised by many, and the sequel has proved that they were right, that the path of the progress of the Gandhi movement fused with the Khilafat element will be bloody. The claim for Indian Home Rule rests upon very different grounds. The Hindus have nothing to do with the Khilafat agitation. The Mahomadans themselves are not agreed as to the claims advanced on behalf of the Calif. It is even questionable, to put it mildly, whether that claim has the support of the majority of the Mahomadans. While the claim itself rested on such slender grounds, the means first adopted to enforce the claim were grotesque. The methods advocated by Mr. Gandhi and the Congress are directed against Western civilization; against the class which fought for and won the reforms; and the Montague reforms scheme of constitutional progress. They have failed miserably and as was natural more violent methods leading to direct conflict with the forces of Government have been advocated which would in all probability have been carried out but for the arrest and imprisonment of Mr. Gandhi. He belongs to a class of thought which has attracted some of the noblest minds in this world, but in applying his the gospel of life to politics, he has shown himself a babe and his interference has been generally mischievous. In South Africa he is responsible for creating a situation which makes a peaceful and satisfactory solution practically impossible. His factious policy in India stands in the way of further reforms. The opposition to Gandhi was however not strenuous. The so-called Moderates only whispered their protests against his policy so as not to be heard beyond a few feet. They are loud however, in their denunciation of Government action to check the illegal activities of Mr. Gandhi and his followers. It can hardly be doubted that their cautious attitude has contributed to the growth of the Gandhi movement. But the inexplicable conduct of a certain—I won't say class—body of gentlemen has still more contributed to that result.

There is scarcely any item in the Gandhi programme which is not a complete violation of everything preached by the foremost sons of India till 1919; which has not been strongly even vehemently denounced by those old respected members of the Congress who now follow Mr. Gandhi, Pandit Malaviya, Messrs. Vijayaragavachari, Lajapat Rai, Natarajam, S. Kasturiranga Iyengar, the Editor of the 'Hindu.' Mr. Gandhi's emotional outbursts, fastings, penances, Sanyasi waist cloth, may carry away the emotional masses, women and students. But whether this wave of emotionalism submerged the men abovenamed I would not care to guess. No one of course has any right to find fault with his genuine followers like Mr. Prakasam, Editor, 'Swaraj' whose motives, however much we might differ from his politics, no one will question. He is one of those genuine patriots who believes in the efficacy of Mr. Gandhi's methods to obtain Home Rule. By far the great majority however, follow him for other reasons.

The severe simplicity and austerity of Mr. Gandhi's life combined with his appeal to the principle of 'Ahimsa' non-injury inherited from Buddists and now ingrained in Hindu life, has secured him the support of the Hindu masses and particularly vegetarians. His support of the caste system has won over the higher classes and the reactionary elements of Hindu society to his side. The caste system is entirely opposed to the 'Ahimsa' (Non-injury) principle. The former has dedicated one of the main castes to death. Its function is to kill and be killed. It is also the function of some of the sub-castes of the lowest caste or class to slaughter animals. His indiscriminating support of the extreme Khilafat demands has ensured the Mahomedan support. Islam is more opposed than the caste system to "Ahimsa." The trouble with the Hindus over the slaughter of cows is due to this difficulty. Some politicians who naturally desire to use him and the influence he has acquired for putting pressure on the Government to concede further reform, also have joined him. But I am satisfied he is using them all to further his own ends. An attempt in which he is bound to fail. His success i.e. the success of the reactionary forces in India to obtain what they call Dominion status or Home Rule, but, which really means their rule, will not only lead to bloodshed and anarchy and the dismemberment of the Empire; but to the triumph of a reactionary policy, social, moral and economic, against which the democratic policy of the recent reforms and the Legislative Councils is an emphatic protest. I have attempted in the following pages to give my reasons for these conclusions.

Far more important than my narrative are the extracts published in the appendix. They consist of speeches made by the Viceroy, and members of Government in the Legislative Councils. I have on account of considerations of space omitted speeches in many provinces. I have not given any speech in full for the same reason. I have also given a list of riots or disturbances. These give a fair idea of the activities of Mr. Gandhi.

C. Sankaran Nair

GANDHI AND ANARCHY

HIS PHILOSOPHY

All of us are now striving for "Swaraj" or Home Rule. We wish to be masters of our own destiny. We want sooner or later the representatives of the people of the country to govern it. There are some amongst us who consider that Home Rule, is an immediate necessity. Others believe that Home Rule, at present without the fulfilment of certain preliminary conditions would be attended with disastrous results. But all are agreed that we should work for it. The practical difficulties in the way of its attainment due, partly to the relations between the various communities in India, partly to the opposition of powerful interests and the period that must therefore elapse before we overcome them render the discussion of time, ignoring or brushing aside those difficulties, only of academic interest. Mr. Gandhi's great influence is due to the popular belief in the efficacy of his leadership to attain immediate Home Rule. To me his Non-Co-operation Campaign appears to be an egregious blunder for which we are already paying dearly. A long line of illustrious statesmen, Indian and English have just succeeded in leading us out of the house of bondage. How long we shall have to wander in the deserts we do not know. But it is certain that Mr. Gandhi is not leading his followers in the direction of the promised land. He is not only going in the opposite direction but instead of toughening our fibre by a life of toil and struggle is endeavouring to entirely emasculate us and render us altogether unfit for the glorious destiny that, but for him and others like him, is awaiting us.

This will be clear once the nature of his agitation is realised. For that purpose, it is necessary to understand his mentality and his real views on the problems of life and the various questions now in debate.

These are given in various books which have been published and in his paper "Young India", edited by him. His "Indian Home Rule", was first published in 1908. In a publication of 1921, he says "I withdraw nothing except one word of it and that in deference to a lady friend." The reason is the indelicacy of the expression....

The book is in the form of a dialogue between a Reader and the "Editor" the latter being Gandhi himself.

Mr. Gandhi wishes to know the necessity of driving away the English,

Reader:—"Because India has become impoverished by their Government. They take away our money from year to year. The most important posts are reserved for themselves. We are kept in a state of slavery. They behave insolently towards us, and disregard our feelings."

Gandhi:—"Supposing we get Self-government similar to what the Canadians and South Africans have, will it be good enough?"

Reader:—"That question also is useless. We may get it when we have the same powers. We shall then hoist our own flag. As is Japan so must India be. We must own our navy, our army, and we must have our own splendour. Then will India's voice ring throughout the world."

Gandhi:—"You have well drawn the picture. In effect it means this: that we want English Rule without the Englishman. You want the tiger's nature but not the tiger; that is to say you would make India English and when it becomes English, it will be called not Hindustan but Englistan. This is not the Swaraj that I want."

Nothing can be clearer. He does not want the dominion status of Canada or South Africa for India. He does not claim the independence of Japan for India as he points out a few lines below, "What you call swaraj is not truly swaraj."

What is then the real "Swaraj" according to Mr. Gandhi? He proceeds to develop his views by illustrations.

He gives his views on the poverty of India. He says Railways, Lawyers and Doctors have impoverished the country, so much so that, if we do not wake up in time, we shall be ruined.

About railways he says as follows:—

"Man is so made by nature as to require him to restrict his movements as far as his hands and feet will take him. If we did not rush about from place to place by means of railways and such other maddening conveniences, much of the confusion that arises, would be obviated. Our difficulties are of our own creation. God set a limit to a man's locomotive ambition in the construction of his body. Man immediately proceeded to discover means of overriding the limit. God gifted man with intellect that he might know his Maker. Man abused it so that he might forget his Maker. I am so constructed that I can only serve my immediate neighbours, but in my conceit, I pretend to have discovered that I must with my body serve every individual in the Universe. In thus attempting the impossible, man comes in contact with different religions and is utterly confounded. According to this reasoning, it must be apparent to you that railways are a most dangerous institution. Man has gone further away from his Maker".

And he advises all his friends to go into the interior of the country that has yet not been polluted by the railways and live there in order to be patriotic.

I shall not insult the intelligence of my reader by attempting a defence of the railways which have knit India together. I will only observe that according to Mr. Gandhi, the construction and use of railways for locomotion not possible for man in his natural condition, is an abuse of God's gift. And why? Because if he comes into contact with different natures, with different religions he might try to serve others than his neighbour whom alone God intended him to serve!!!

As to lawyers, he will have none of them; without lawyers, courts could not have been established or conducted and without them the British could not hold India. He has yet to learn that there were courts both in pre-British India and British India before lawyers. He thinks the Hindu-Mahomedan quarrels have often been due to the intervention of lawyers. He wants all people to settle their own quarrels; "men were less unmanly if they settled their disputes either by fighting or by asking their relatives to decide them. They became more unmanly and cowardly when they resorted to the Courts of Law. It is a sign of savagery to settle disputes by fighting. It is not the less so by asking a third party to decide between you and me. The parties alone know who is right and therefore they ought to settle it". Such is his opinion of lawyers and of Courts.

He is even more harsh on doctors. His opinion is quoted below as any statement of it in my own words might be regarded as travesty:—

"Let us consider; the business of a doctor is to take care of the body, or, properly speaking, not even that. Their business is really to rid the body of diseases that may afflict. How do these diseases arise? Surely by our negligence or indulgence. I overeat, I have indigestion, I go to a doctor, he gives me medicine. I am cured, I overeat again, and I take his pills again. Had I not taken the pills in the first instance, I would have suffered the punishment deserved by me, and I would not have over-eaten again. The doctor intervened and helped me to indulge myself. My body thereby certainly felt more at ease, but my mind became weakened. A continuance of a course of medicine must, therefore, result in loss of a control over the mind.

"I have indulged in vice, I contract a disease, a doctor cures me, the odds are that I shall repeat the vice. Had the doctor not intervened, nature would have done its work, and I would have acquired mastery over myself, would have been freed from vice, and would have become happy.

"Hospitals are institutions for propagating sin. Men take less care of their bodies, and immorality increases".

He says therefore that a doctor should "give up medicine, and understand that rather than mending bodies, he should mend souls", and he must also understand that "if, by not taking drugs, perchance the patient dies, the world will not come to grief and he will have been really useful to him".

There is no use in arguing with him and his dupes on this subject after this. But his views must be borne in mind when we come to deal with the present agitation.

About education, his views are equally remarkable. If, he says, education simply means knowledge of letters it is merely an instrument and an instrument may be well used or abused. He adds:—

"We daily observe that many men abuse it and very few make good use of it".

He will not give any education to a raiyat or poor peasant:—

"The ordinary meaning of education is a knowledge of letters. To teach boys reading, writing and arithmetic is called primary education".

"What do you propose to do by giving him a knowledge of letters? Will you add an inch to his happiness? Do you wish to make him discontented with his cottage or his lot?"

So much for primary education. As to higher education he says he has learnt Geography, Astronomy, Algebra, Geometry etc., but neither has that learning benefited him nor any body about him. As to knowledge of English, it is only useful to enslave people:—

"The foundation that Macaulay laid of education", he says: "has enslaved us. It is worth noting that by receiving English education, we have enslaved the nation. Hypocrisy, tyranny etc. have increased; English-knowing Indians have not hesitated to cheat and strike terror into the people. Now, if we are doing anything for the people at all, we are paying only a portion of the debt due to them".

I shall have to deal with this question of education later in connection with this appeal to the boys to leave the schools and colleges.

After all this, it will not surprise any one to be told that we must have nothing to do with machinery:—

"It was not that we did not know how to invent machinery, but our forefathers knew that, if we set our hearts after such things, we would become slaves and lose our moral fibre. They, therefore, after due deliberation, decided that we should only do what we could with our hands and feet. They saw that our real happiness and health consisted in a proper use of our hands and feet."

He would not therefore have mills for the reason that machinery is the chief symbol of modern civilisation and it has already begun to desolate Europe. In his opinion it were better for us to send money to Manchester and to use flimsy Manchester cloth than to multiply mills in India. I wonder why he does not ask Lancashire to pay him his crore of rupees. Lancashire would no doubt do so in consideration of the monopoly of supplying India with manufactured goods and India would, according to Mr. Gandhi, get Swaraj. India does not want manufactured goods; he asks:—

"What did India do before these articles were introduced? Precisely the same should be done to-day. As long as we cannot make pins without machinery, so long will we do without them. The tinsel splendour of glassware we will have nothing to do with, and we will make wick, as of old, with home grown cotton, and use hand-made earthen saucers for Lamps". He finally adds: "I cannot recall a single good point in connection with machinery."

Mr. Gandhi wrote his book in 1908 after a visit to England when the Liberal and the Labour parties were carrying on their great campaign in favour of the working men and against the capitalists and Lloyd George was about to launch his great land campaign. He seems to have been impressed with the horrors of the condition of the wage earners which was then portrayed in dark colours in order to support that campaign. His mind, emotional and ill balanced, seems to have been entirely upset by the descriptions that he had then read. He is on the fringe of a large question about which he seems to have been singularly ill informed. In England there is not at this time and there was not when he wrote, any question of the destruction of machinery which is a necessary adjunct to the industrial system. The questions under debate are the conditions of labour and the distribution of the wealth created by machinery between capitalists and labour. These questions have been under consideration now for some years; the condition of the labourers is being slowly improved, a minimum wage has been introduced and there is a prospect of a still more equitable distribution of the proceeds between capital and labour. Mr. Gandhi says that he has read Dutt's book on the decline of Indian industries but he does not seem to have learnt the lesson inculcated therein—that it is necessary to improve our industries not only to meet the needs of the people of the country, find employment for our labouring population, but also not to force them to compete with the cultivating classes. In India the same problem as in England awaits us. We have to see that the condition of the labourers in the mills and in the other industries is improved. In asking for the ruin of all our manufacturing industries Mr. Gandhi is only playing into the hands of our opponents. He will find strong support in this respect from Lancashire who will, according to some Indian publicists, only be too willing to take any steps to effect the destruction of our competing industries. If he had directed half the energy of his non-co-operation campaign to improving the conditions of the workmen in all our industries he might possibly have succeeded in getting rid of many of those evils which in his opinion require elimination of all machinery and of all industrial undertakings. The other reason for the deplorable condition of the industrial workmen in England is the congestion and overcrowding, in the industrial centres. This is due to a great extent to the action of the landlords who will not allow any expansion of those industrial centres in order to increase the value of their land and thus to exploit the community. In India we have not got that trouble. There is ample room for extension except in Bombay, in all the industrial centres and even in Bombay the difficulty is not due, so far as I am informed to the action of landlords but to natural conditions arising out of the geography of Bombay. Machinery is essential to the creation of wealth by manufacturing industries. The evils that have been portrayed by Mr. Gandhi can be and are being removed by patient effort. His tirade against machinery and mill industries on account of the evils he has witnessed in the West, is due to his ignorance; a little knowledge in his case has proved a dangerous thing. It is this feeling which has led him to advocate the universal use of spinning wheel in India. This might be useful as a cottage or home industry. It might find work for some who would otherwise be idle. But he is living in a fool's paradise if he considers it a substitute for or will supplant, machinery.

It is unnecessary to say that he hates Parliaments:—

"The condition of England at present is pitiable. I pray to God that India may never be in that plight. That which you consider to be Mother of Parliaments is like a sterile woman and a prostitute. Both these are harsh terms, but exactly fit the case. That Parliament has not yet of its own accord done a single good thing; hence I have compared it to a sterile woman. The natural condition of that Parliament is such that without out-side pressure it can do nothing. It is like a prostitute because it is under the control of ministers who change from time to time. To-day it is under Mr. Asquith; tomorrow it may be under Mr. Balfour."

"If the money and the time wasted by Parliament were entrusted to a few good men, the English nation would be occupying to-day a much higher platform. The Parliament is simply a costly toy of the nation. These views are by no means peculiar to me. Some great English thinkers have expressed them.

"That you cannot accept my views at once is only right. If you will read the literature on this subject, you will have some idea of it. The Parliament is without a real master, under the Prime Minister, its movement is not steady, but it is buffeted about like a prostitute. The Prime Minister is more concerned about his power than about the welfare of the Parliament. His energy is concentrated upon securing the success of his party. His care is not always that the Parliament shall do right. Prime Ministers are known to have made the Parliament do things merely for party advantage. All this is worth thinking over."

It is no wonder that he called upon all his followers to boycott the Indian Councils. I shall deal with this when dealing with the boycott question.

After all this one would naturally think that if we expel the English from India we would be happy. Not a bit, says Mr. Gandhi whose views about independence are peculiar. Look, he says, at Italy. He thinks that Italy has not gained anything by independence of Austrian domination. He adds:—

"If you believe that because Italians hold Italy, the Italian nation is happy, you are groping in darkness. What substantial gain did Italy obtain after the withdrawal of the Austrian troops? The gain is only nominal. You do not want therefore to reproduce the same conditions in India. India to gain her independence can fight like Italy only when she has arms and in order to gain her independence India has to be armed and to arm India on a large scale is to Europeanise it. Then her condition will be just as pitiable as that of Europe. This means in short, that India must accept European civilisation ... but the fact is that the Indian nation will not adopt arms and it is well that she does not."

She must not therefore use force to fight the English.

But what is it she has to do. She must obtain Swaraj or Home Rule by 'soul force'. What is it?:—

"When we are slaves we think that the whole universe is enslaved. Because we are in an abject condition, we think that the whole of India is in that condition. As a matter of fact, it is not so, but it is as well to impute our slavery to the whole of India. But if we bear in mind the above fact we can see that if we become free, India is free. And in this thought you have definition of 'swaraj.' It is 'swaraj' when we earn to rule ourselves. It is therefore in the palm of our hands. Do not consider this 'swaraj' to be like a dream. Hence there is no idea of sitting still. The 'swaraj' that I wish to picture before you and me is such that, after we have once realised it, we will endeavour to the end of our lifetime to persuade others to do likewise. But such 'swaraj' has to be experienced by each one for himself."

The assumption made by a few persons that Mr. Gandhi is only condemning parliamentary government for its inutility is unfounded. The extracts already given might lend some colour to that view. But such is not the fact. In England Parliamentary government is denounced by certain persons on the ground that it will always be under the influence of a capitalist Press and therefore unable to redress the evils from which the people of the country other than the capitalists are suffering. Mr. Gandhi's objection is not based on any such ground; he is against not only Parliamentary Government but practically against any Government in any form as is apparent from the extracts given above. The doctrine that Governments have very little to do with our happiness which depends upon self-control or 'soul force' has many advocates, but to deduce it as a doctrine from the alleged failure of Parliamentary Government in England is ludicrous. I shall not stop here to justify Parliamentary government which has justified itself by its results; it is only ignorance of the work that has been done which is responsible for opinions like those to which Mr. Gandhi has given expression.

Towards the end of the book he says:—

Before I leave you, I will take the liberty of repeating:—

1. Real Home Rule is Self Rule or control;

2. The way to it is Passive Resistance; that is soul force or love force.

In my opinion, we have used the term "Swaraj" without understanding its real significance. I have endeavoured to explain it as I understand it, and my conscience testifies that my life henceforth is dedicated to its attainment.

Such is the real Gandhi. Railways, lawyers, courts, doctors, education on Western lines, machinery of every kind or manufacturing industries, parliamentary government should disappear. He is singularly ill informed on every one of the questions he has discussed. 'Soul force' alone should be relied upon. No resistance should be offered to violence. No resistance should be offered to robbery and the robbers are to be left to cut one another's throats. No resistance to be offered to murderers or to those who might want to enslave you. Briefly, no protection is to be given by laws and their administrators to person and property.

There is no harm perhaps as long as such fantastic visionaries restrict the application of these principles to themselves, to their own persons or properties. But it becomes a serious matter when their general application is sought for.

These are the sentiments he expressed in 1908, and it was with these sentiments that he came to India. As it is well to be definite and clear, I will quote from a letter addressed by him in 1909 to a friend in India:—

"Bombay, Calcutta and the other chief cities of India are the real plague spots".

"If British rule were replaced tomorrow by Indian rule based on modern methods, India would be no better, except that she would be able then to retain some of the money that is drained away to England; but then India would only become a second or fifth nation of Europe or America".

"Medical science is the concentrated essence of black magic. Quackery is infinitely preferable to what passes for high medical skill".

"Hospitals are the instruments that the devil has been using for his own purpose, in order to keep his hold on his kingdom. They perpetuate vice, misery and degradation and real slavery".

"India's salvation consists in unlearning what she has learnt during the past fifty years. The railways, telegraphs, hospitals, lawyers, doctors, and such like have all to go, and so called upper classes have to learn to live consciously and religiously and deliberately the simple peasant life, knowing it to be a life giving true happiness".

But he soon found that it was hopeless to carry out his theories in the face of the determination of the people of India to attain Home Rule preached by the Indian National Congress and the Indian politicians. He had accordingly to put on a new garb. Therefore, in 1917, the year of the famous declaration made by the British Government about the progressive realisation of self government, he found it necessary, to obtain a hearing, to accept the Home Rule programme. In his Presidential address at the First Gujarat Political Conference in 1917 he said that without going into the merits of the scheme of reforms approved by the Congress and the Muslim League he will do all that is necessary to get it accepted and enforced. Though the scheme itself is not 'swaraj', he admitted it was a great step towards 'swaraj'. At the same time he said that though he is acting on the propriety of the current trend of thought it does not appear to him to be tending altogether in the right direction as the 'swaraj' put forward is one of Western type. Nevertheless as India is being governed in accordance with the Western system and without Parliament we should be nowhere, he does not hesitate to take part in the Parliamentary swaraj movement and the programme that he sketched out for himself may be described thus in his own words written in 1921:—

"But I would warn the reader against thinking that I am to-day aiming at the Swaraj therein (spiritual swaraj as described in his 'Indian Home Rule'), I know that India is not ripe for it. It may seem an impertinence to say so. But such is my conviction. I am individually working for the self-rule pictured therein. But to-day my corporate activity is undoubtedly devoted to the attainment of Parliamentary Swaraj in accordance with the wishes of the people of India. I am not aiming at destroying railways or hospitals, though I would certainly welcome their natural destruction. Neither railways nor hospitals are a test of a high and pure civilisation. At best they are a necessary evil. Neither adds one inch to the moral stature of a nation. Nor am I aiming at a permanent destruction of law courts, much as I regard it as 'a consummation devoutly to be wished for,' still less am I trying to destroy all machinery and mills. It requires a higher simplicity and renunciation than the people are to-day prepared for".

He also admitted that his acceptance of Parliamentary Swaraj required some modification of his theory of using violence or force. He admitted that though there is no scope for violence or force in spiritual swaraj, and military training is intended only for those who do not believe in it, he was prepared to accept the view that the whole of India will never accept Satyagraha. He added:—

"Not to defend the weak is an entirely effeminate idea, everywhere to be rejected. In order to protect our innocent sister from the brutal designs of a man we ought to offer ourselves a willing sacrifice and by the force of Love conquer the brute in the man. But if we have not attained that power, we would certainly use up all our bodily strength in order to frustrate those designs. The votaries of soul force and brute force are both soldiers. The latter, bereft of his arms, acknowledges defeat, the former does not know what defeat is".

It was a consequence of this acceptance of Parliamentary Swaraj that he should try to work the Montagu Chelmsford Council reforms. Though these reforms may be inadequate yet for one who accepts the goal of Parliamentary Government it was his bounden duty to avail himself of the available Parliamentary scheme to carry out those reforms which were then possible and to take the necessary steps to enlarge the scope of the scheme to carry out the further reforms that might be needed. Accordingly at the Amritsar Congress in December 1919, he resolved to co-operate with the country in working the Reform Scheme.

I have already pointed out that he entirely disagreed with the system of Parliamentary government and his acceptance was one of necessity. At the earliest opportunity at the special sessions of the Indian National Congress held at Calcutta in September 1920 and at the National Congress held at Nagpur in December 1920 he took steps to destroy the Montagu Reform Scheme of Parliamentary Swaraj and everything else to which he had given a reluctant assent and to bring the country to adopt his wild theories already stated by me and in order to do so, he brought into prominence forces entirely opposed to his own principles which he proved himself unable to control with disastrous consequences and had to resort willingly or unwillingly to dishonest methods.

What was the reason for his throwing overboard the Montagu Reform Scheme? The following resolution which at his insistence was passed by the National Congress at Calcutta and practically re-affirmed at Nagpur will explain the situation as then developed.

THE NON-CO-OPERATION RESOLUTION

"In view of the fact that on the Khilafat question both the Indian and Imperial Governments have signally failed in their duty towards the Musalmans of India, and the Prime Minister has deliberately broken his pledged word given to them, and that it is the duty of every non-Moslem Indian in every legitimate manner to assist his Musalman brother in his attempt to remove the religious calamity that has over taken him:—

"And in view of the fact that in the matter of the events of the April 1919 both the said Governments have grossly neglected or failed to protect the innocent people of the Punjab and punish officers guilty of unsoldierly and barbarous behaviour towards them and have exonerated Sir Michael O'Dwyer who proved himself directly or indirectly responsible for the most official crimes and callous to the sufferings of the people placed under his administration, and that the debate in the House of Lords betrayed a woeful lack of sympathy with the people of India and showed virtual support of the systematic terrorism and frightfulness adopted in the Punjab and that the latest Viceregal pronouncement is proof of entire absence of repentance in the matters of the Khilafat and the Punjab.

"This Congress is of opinion that there can be no contentment in India without redress of the two afore-mentioned wrongs, and that the only effectual means to vindicate national honour and to prevent a repetition of similar wrongs in future is the establishment of Swarajya. This Congress is further of opinion that there is no course left open for the people of India but to approve of and adopt the policy of progressive non-violent non-co-operation until the said wrongs are righted and Swarajya is established.

"And inasmuch as a beginning should be made by the classes who have hitherto moulded and represented opinion and inasmuch as Government consolidates its power through titles and honours bestowed on the people, through schools controlled by it, its law courts and its legislative councils, and inasmuch as it is desirable in the prosecution of the movement to take the minimum risk and to call for the least sacrifice compatible with the attainment of the desired object, this Congress earnestly advises:—

(a) surrender of titles and honorary offices and resignation from nominated seats in local bodies;

(b) refusal to attend Government Levees, Durbars and other official and semi-official functions held by Government officials or in their honour;

(c) gradual withdrawal of children from Schools and colleges owned, aided or controlled by Government and in place of such schools and colleges in the establishment of National Schools and Colleges in the various Provinces;

(d) gradual boycott of British Courts by lawyers and litigants and establishment of private arbitration courts by their aid for the settlement of private disputes;

(e) refusal on the part of the military, clerical and labouring classes to offer themselves as recruits for service in Mesopotamia;

(f) withdrawal by candidates of their candidature for election to the Reformed Councils and refusal on the part of the voters for any candidate who may despite the Congress advice offer himself for election; and

(g) the boycott of foreign goods.

"And inasmuch as non-co-operation has been conceived of as a measure of discipline and self-sacrifice without which no nation can make real progress, and inasmuch as an opportunity should be given in the very first stage of non-co-operation to every man, woman and child, for such discipline and self-sacrifice, this Congress advises adoption of Swadeshi in piece goods on a vast scale, and inasmuch as the existing mills of India with indigenous capital and control do not manufacture sufficient yarn and sufficient cloth for the requirements of the nation, and are not likely to do so for a long time to come this Congress advises immediate stimulation of further manufacture on a large scale by means of reviving hand-spinning in every home and hand weaving on the part of the millions of weavers who have abandoned their ancient and honourable calling for want of encouragement."

The Khilafat question first, the Punjab wrongs next are given as the two grounds for discarding the Reform Scheme and demanding Swarajya or immediate Home Rule for the prevention of similar wrongs in future. For the attainment of such Swarajya or immediate Home Rule a policy of what is called non-violent non-co-operation is advocated and as a beginning the people are advised to take certain steps which are therein referred to. Though discarding the Montagu Chelmsford Reform Scheme of Home Rule by certain stages, Mr. Gandhi says he is working for immediate Home Rule in accordance with the Resolution, to me it seems clear what he is really aiming at is not Home Rule of any kind or form i.e. Parliamentary Government with absolute powers, but Swarajya or Home Rule, as he himself has outlined it in his Indian Home Rule, the purport of which I have briefly given above, i.e. anarchy and soul force. I shall now attempt to show that there were no adequate reasons to discard the Reform Scheme of Home Rule for a scheme of immediate Home Rule and that the steps proposed to be taken are not calculated to attain Home Rule of any kind or form but are steps intended for Gandhi Swarajya which means anarchy or soul force.

In considering these questions the object of this movement must not be lost sight of. In Mr. Gandhi's own words "Non-co-operation though a religious and strictly moral movement deliberately aims at the overthrow of the Government." Prima facie therefore all steps taken in pursuance of this resolution are intended for this purpose.

I propose first of all to take up the Khilafat question which stands first in the Resolution.

THE KHILAFAT QUESTION

With reference to this Khilafat agitation it is important to bear this in mind. After the armistice of 1918, there were two memorials presented on behalf of Turkey by the Muslim residents in England, one in January 1919 soon after the armistice, which included the names of His Highness the Aga Khan, Abbas Ali Baig, Rt. Hon. Ameer Ali, Messrs: Yusaf Ali, H. K. Kidwai etc.; and one at the end of the year in December 1919, the signatories thereof included such Mahomedans as the following: H. H. Aga Khan, Rt. Hon. Ameer Ali, Hon. Mr. Bhurgi, Mr. M. H. Kidwai. Both included many non-Mahomedans, some of them of great influence and position. They claimed for Turkey, Constantinople, Thrace, Anatolia including Smyrna. There was no claim for the countries occupied by those who were not Turks.

The Indian Mahomedan claim went much further. By the deputation to the Viceroy towards the end of that year and by the subsequent deputation to the Prime Minister and others the claim was advanced for the restoration of Turkey to the pre-war state, giving Home Rule if necessary to the Armenians or the Arabs etc. under Turkish sovereignty. This of course was an impossible demand. The Arabs are entitled to as much consideration as the Turks. Mahomad Ali and Shaukat Ali are really responsible for this claim.

Another claim advocated in the Council of State in India was to let Turkey have Anatolia and Thrace; full independence be given to the Arabs and the countries inhabited by them without any control by any non-muslim power. Whether the evacuation of Aden is included in this, I am unable to say.

The Indian Mahomedan agitation has become a danger to the State on account of the failure of the Secretary of State and Government of India to tell the Indian Mahomedans that they, the Government have nothing to do with the Khilafat question; that their responsibility is confined to representing to the British cabinet the feelings of the Indian Mahomedans, and the ultimate decision will depend upon what is good for the Empire as a whole.

But so far as Gandhi was concerned the position is quite clear. He puts forward whichever is the most extreme demand made by the Khilafat party without any enquiry as to their reasonableness. He relies upon a 'promise' made by Lloyd George in favour of Turkey about their home lands and Thrace discarding at the same time the limitation contained in the promise to the subject races that they will not again be placed under Turkey. He relies upon another statement made by Lloyd George that after this, recruitment went up. The fact is that the recruitment of non Mahomedans also went up and both were due to Sir Michael O'Dwyer. Though he now denies having insisted upon the evacuation of Egypt by England as a necessary condition of satisfaction of the Khilafat claim, he insists upon the withdrawal of the Indian troops. For what purpose he does not explain nor does he say whether he wants England to evacuate Egypt. He knows, I presume, that Egypt has repudiated the Caliph's authority. He was not apparently aware that the Arabs will not recognize the supremacy of any Turkish power. But this is no difficulty to him. For if that turns out to be the case he says the Arab Chief who held sway over Mecca and Medina might become the Khalif. That Syria is not under England did not matter. He wants the non-co-operators to be satisfied by England that she was not in any way responsible for the French occupation or retention of Syria, in which case he is willing to excuse her. He fails to appreciate the weight of what appears to be an insuperable objection that the Turks and their Khalif do not want any domination over Arabia but, as they said in their deputation in January-February, 1919, after the armistice, only wanted to be left alone with economic and political independence in their own ethnological area. Neither Mr. Gandhi nor the Khilafat advocates show any realisation of this fact. With a light heart they maintain that the question is not Turkish but Mahomedan and therefore Turkish opinion alone cannot decide the question. Palestine, of course, according to Mr. Gandhi, must be under Turkish sovereignty. It is enough for him that the prophet of Arabia has so willed it. The prophets of Israel or the founder of Christianity, Jewish or Christian sentiments, are as nothing in the balance. The real truth of course is that in the case of the Khilafat agitation Mr. Gandhi and some of its most active and prominent leaders want to use the agitation to destroy the Government and not to effect a real settlement of the question. The most energetic of the promoters of the movement were Mohomed Ali and Shaukat Ali. They were active members of the Muslim League advocating Mahomedan interests in opposition to the Hindus in the old days of the Bengal Partition agitation. In their public speeches they emphasised the identity of the interests of the Indian Mahomedans with the interests of the Mahomedans elsewhere in Tripoli and Algeria in preference to those of the Hindus, though living under the same Government with them. Since the Balkan wars, however, on account of their intense hatred towards the British Government for their failure to assist their co-religionists in the West, they found it politic to approach the Hindus. Then followed the internment of the brothers which naturally still more embittered their feelings towards the Government. During the internment they did not cease to preach sermons of virulence against the Government, and even after their release they did not cease their propaganda of hatred against the British Government. The independence of India—no doubt as a preliminary step towards a subsequent Mahomedan domination in India—was as much their object as the full restoration of the Khilafat domination to its pre-war condition. This was avowed by the Ali Brothers themselves. Mr. Shaukat Ali said in April 1920:—

"We do not embark on this step without fully realising what it means. It means a movement for absolute independence."

In fact, to those who know them or who have read the proceedings of their trial no evidence of this kind is required.

At the Khilafat Conference in Karachi—of which they were the guiding spirits—held on the 9th of July 1921 the following resolution calling upon the Mohomedan sepoys to desert in the name of religion was passed:

"The meeting clearly proclaims that it is in every way religiously unlawful for a Mussalman at the present movement to continue in the British Army or to induce others to join the army, and it is the duty of all the Mussalmans in general and Ulemas in particular to see that these religious commandments are brought home to every Mussalman in the army and that if no settlement is arrived at before Christmas regarding our campaign an Indian republic will be declared at the Ahmedabad sessions of the Congress."

The two brothers were tried and convicted by the ordinary civil courts, and the judge pointed out that however lawful and constitutional the Khilafat committee may have been in its origin, however permissible the agitation carried on in its earlier stages, those who were controlling it soon began to rely on dangerous religious propaganda. About them he said: "They had seen them in Court, heard their statements in the Lower Court and their speeches here, and they could have no doubt that with the exception of accused No. Six (a Hindu) they openly gloried in their hatred of the Government of India and the British name. They justified the above resolution by the religious law of the Koran which they said the Mussalmans are bound to follow even when opposed to the law of the land. All the Mohamedans in this case including Mohamad Ali and Shaukat Ali maintained, 'first, that their religion compels them to do certain acts, secondly, that no law which restrains them from doing those acts which their religion compels them to do has any validity, and thirdly, that in answer to a charge of breaking the law of the land it is sufficient to raise and prove the plea that the act which is alleged to be an offence is one which is enjoyed by their religion.'"

It is impossible to believe that Gandhi and his adherents are not aware that this claim of the Mahomedans to be judged only by the law of the Koran, is a claim which is the fons et origo of all Khilafat claims of whatever kind. It is as well to be clear about this, for not only does the acceptance of the claim mean the death knell of the British Empire or Indo-British commonwealth, whatever name we may care to give to the great fraternity of nations to which we belong, but specifically as regards India it means a real denial of Swaraj. For it involves Mahomedan rule and Hindu subjection or Hindu Rule and Mahomedan subjection. Let there be no mistake about this, no camouflage. Whatever the Hindus may mean by the Hindu Muslim entente, and I believe they mean a true equality, and whatever the more enlightened Mussalmans may mean, Mohamad Ali, Shaukat Ali, and those of their persuasion, mean a Mussalman dominion pure and simple, though they are of course clever enough to keep the cat in the bag so long as the time for its emergence is yet unripe. They protest, it need hardly be said, that they are animated by no arriere pensee, no sectarian spirit, only by the most loving goodwill towards the Hindu brethren. But there are some of us who are too experienced to be caught by this mischievous and pernicious chaff and must sound the warning to those less experienced and more gullible. Considering the high character of some of the men who follow Gandhi, I can only believe that this realization came to them so late that it was difficult for them to withdraw.

As pointed out in the Karachi trial, these movements at first appear innocuous, then grow dangerous.

The Khilafat associations throughout the country were intended to carry on the "non-violent non-co-operation" campaign against Government. The process of evolution from ostensible non-violence at first to violence is so well described by Mr. Macpherson speaking, in the Legislative Council that I have quoted it (App. XVI). It applies to all organisations, but with greater force to Khilafat for reasons arising out of Islam which will be shortly explained. There is no judicial description of this development in Malabar, the most notorious instance. I shall content myself, therefore, with giving a summary of the judgment convicting certain persons for a riot in Malegaon in April, 1920. So early had lawlessness in this form begun to show itself. It will also explain the methods adopted.

A political movement began in Malegaon on the 15th March 1920, when a "Khilafat Committee" and a body of "volunteers" were formed. The Committee's activities took the shape of lectures and "wazas". The lectures were political and the "wazas" are said to have been religious sermons. In January, 1921, Shaukat Ali visited the town and lectured on the Khilafat movement. It was shortly after this visit that political activity became intensified.

The two Mahomedan schools, the Beitulullum and the Anjuman school, used to receive grants-in-aid from Government. Money was raised to enable the two State-aided schools to refuse the Government grant-in-aid in pursuance of the non-co-operation movement, and a few Hindus were members of the party. The collections were to be made by means of a "paisa" fund, an old idea. Every person selling a "sari", that is all the weavers in Malegaon, were required to pay a "paisa" or quarter of an anna to the fund.

The system left practically no option to the weavers who objected to pay the "paisa". Objecting buyers were encountered by persecution. The fund Committee called a public meeting on the 27th February, at which it was resolved that the buyers refusing to make the collections as directed should be commercially boycotted. The commercial boycott of the recalcitrant buyers was enforced by picketing their shops with volunteers and their business was stopped. The former had appealed for protection to the authorities by applications and petitions, but so long as nothing actually illegal was done these were powerless actively to interfere.

Meanwhile lectures and "wazas" were being continually held in the open spaces in the town and excitement was running high. On the reports made to him the District Magistrate came to the conclusion that in a place like Malegaon which is ill-lighted the carrying of swords and cudgels at public meetings at night by volunteers was likely to lead to a breach of the peace. He therefore issued a proclamation on the 30th March prohibiting the practice. It was a breach of the terms of this proclamation and its enforcement by prosecutions which was the immediate excuse for the riot.

But the local authorities had also tried to allay the friction and excitement in other ways. The Sub-Divisional Officer, had called a meeting on the 13th March with a view to find a method of collection of the Fund which might put an end to the trouble about it and stop enforced contributions. Collection boxes were recommended, but nothing definite was agreed to by the other side.

Some of the leaders were persuaded to issue a manifesto which was signed by eleven persons. This manifesto quotes Mr. Gandhi's dictates to non-violence and exhorts the volunteers not to carry cudgels and recommends that only peaceful methods should be used in collecting the Funds.

It clearly had little effect. One of the men who signed it, on the 4th April (it had been issued on the 1st April) at a public meeting apologized for it on his own and the other signatories' behalf and they were pardoned for having signed it. Meanwhile the boycotting and picketing of the shops of the Anti-Fund people was continued. On the 15th prosecutions were instituted against 24 volunteers for a breach of the District Magistrate's proclamation of the 30th March. On the 24th April, the day before the hearing of these cases, a meeting was again called at night at which a leading Mahomedan is reported to have used the following words:—

"They must not be afraid of Government or of the police and that the volunteers would see about the cases brought against them and may God give the volunteers strength to promote their religion." The next day April 25th twelve of these cases came on for hearing before Mr. Thakar the Resident Magistrate. They ended in the conviction of the 6 volunteers and their being fined Rs. 50 each with the alternative of 4 weeks' simple imprisonment. The fines were not paid.

On the result being known the mob that had collected gave vent to their feelings by loud cries of "Alla-ho-akbar," the war cry used by the mob throughout the riot, assaulted all the police to be found in the town of Malegoan, burned a temple, killed the Sub-Inspector of Police, not the only one killed and threw his body into the fire and looted the houses of all who were opposed to the Khilafat movement, the owners themselves having fled in the meantime.

This illustrates the 'non-violent' methods followed by the Khilafat committees and volunteers. I give another instance in full for illustration Barabanki (App. XI) which shows perhaps more forcibly the violent fanaticism supporting the movement. More instances can be easily given.

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.

The attitude of the Government towards the people of the Punjab and the Punjab officials is stated in the Congress Resolution as the second and the only other reason for this non-co-operation campaign against the Government.

THE PUNJAB ATROCITIES

No one feels for the Punjab more than I do. I doubt whether anybody was in a position to know more of it than I was. Even now with all the enquiries made by the Hunter Commission and by the Congress Sub-Committee many deplorable incidents as bad as any, worse perhaps, than any reported have not been disclosed. At this distance of time it is best that they should remain so. It is with a full knowledge of this that I make the following remarks.

The conditions now have entirely changed. Before the Reforms under a Lieutenant-Governor, a single individual, the atrocities in the Punjab which we know only too well, could be committed almost with impunity. Now instead of one man the Government of the Punjab consist not only of a Governor who no doubt is an Englishman, but of an Executive Council consisting of an Englishman and an Indian, who was a non official before appointment to his seat in the Council and for all practical purposes two Indian Ministers who are also consulted in all important matters. Though, therefore, a repetition of the old incidents may be possible, it is unlikely. The Government of India again, which then consisted of only one Indian, now includes three Indian members, a powerful contingent. Above all, it will be remembered that it was necessary to pass an Act of Indemnity to save the delinquents from proceedings in civil and criminal Courts. Such an Act of Indemnity would scarcely be possible now, with a Legislative Assembly consisting of a majority of elected members under the new constitution. The trouble in the Punjab arose out of the Rowlat Act which is repealed. Many high handed proceedings were taken under the Regulations of 1818 the provisions of which were applied for purposes for which they were never intended. The regulations are now repealed so far as the matters are concerned. Many of these proceedings were taken under the Defence of India Act and they also have gone so that for the future at any rate our position is very different from what it was in the past. In such circumstances what is it that one would expect? If it is an honest endeavour that is being made to solve the difficulties which arose out of the Punjab, one would expect a demand for any further guarantees that may be necessary against a repetition of such occurrences and the punishment of those who have acted not under an error of judgment and not in good faith. But the demands now made are of a very different kind. They do not seek for further guarantees, at least none are formulated.

I realise that the eulogium passed by the English Cabinet on Lord Chemsford and Sir Michael O'Dwyer was an outrage on Indian public opinion. I believe also that the Government of India committed a great political blunder in not publishing their proceedings, punishing the subordinate officials in accordance with the orders of the Cabinet. I agree further that it was an egregious mistake to pass the Indemnity Act when India was so excited. The Government should have waited for the result of the proceedings in Civil or Criminal Courts, when they might have pardoned those who acted in good faith reimbursing their expenses. But that is not the question now. Mr. Gandhi and his party want certain persons to be punished on the strength of the report submitted by the Congress Committee who made an ex parte enquiry of their own without hearing the other side. This is not right. Moreover every where it is recognised that the security of the subject, person and property, requires that the punishment of the guilty should be in the hands of the Courts and not within the discretion of an Executive Council. If these officers whose punishment is called for are guilty it is the Courts that ought to punish them, and I speak with knowledge when I say that no steps open to them have yet been taken by those who carry on the agitation to vindicate justice. Is it possible, then, to maintain that the Punjab question in any way justifies the tremendous agitation that is being carried on for the dismemberment of the Empire. Besides how is it possible for any reasonable man to say that this affords any justification for not utilizing the Legislative Councils to help the Punjab and to carry out the reforms of which the country is urgently in need. Besides it must be remembered that some of the Punjab political leaders have failed in their duty. During the crisis they refused to come forward to substantiate their complaints of maladministration of Martial Law, even of those matters within their personal knowledge. They did not give a chance to the Government of India to control the Government of the Punjab or the administration of Martial law. The real truth, of course, is that the Punjab grievances are only a pretext for this agitation, by the violent section headed by Mr. Gandhi. It is really not the redress of the Punjab grievances or prevention of the repetition of atrocities that is sought for, so much as the expulsion of the British Government from India.

SWARAJ OR HOME RULE

The Resolution says that on account of the failure of Government to redress these grievances we must have 'Swaraj.' It is important to remember that long before these occurrences Mr. Gandhi had come to the conclusion that we must have Independence. It would accordingly seem dishonest on his part to say that these events led him to the demand for Swaraj or Home Rule.

In his scheme of "Home Rule for India" Mr. Gandhi said:—

"Now you will have seen that it is not necessary for us to have as our goal the expulsion of the English. If the English became Indianised we can accommodate them. If they wish to remain in India along with their civilisation, there is no room for them. It lies with us to bring about such a state of things."

Then in reply to the question that it is impossible that Englishmen should ever become Indianised, he says:—

"To say that is equivalent to saying that the English have no humanity in them. And it is really beside the point whether they become so or not. If we keep our own house in order only those who are fit to live in it will remain. Others will leave of their own accord."

It is something that he gives a loophole to the Englishman to remain in India. To the question that there may be chaos and anarchy on account of the Hindu Mahomedan position he states:—

"I would prefer any day anarchy and chaos in India to an armed peace brought about by the bayonet between the Hindus and Musalmans."

When it was pointed out to him that the dissensions amongst the Hindus themselves may cause the same result he is not dismayed. He says:—

"We are not to assume that the English have changed the nature of the Pindarries and the Bhils. It is therefore better to suffer the Pindarri peril than that some one else should protect us from it and thus render us effeminate. I should prefer to be killed by the arrow of the Bhil than to seek nominal protection."

When it was pointed out to him that for Home Rule at this stage we have not got an army for our own protection he said the other day:—

"I am here to confess that we are fully able to take charge of all military dispositions in the country and that we feel able to deal with all foreign complications." The worst that may happen is he continued that we may be blotted out from the face of the earth for which he was prepared so long as he can breathe the free atmosphere of India.

The following report is interesting; we give it below from the "Daily Express."

Q:—Are you anxious to take over the whole control of the army at once or would you make an exception of that object?

A:—I think we are entirely ready to take up the whole control of the Army which means practically disbanding three fourths of it. I would keep just enough to police India.

Q:—If the army were reduced to that extent, do you not apprehend anything aggressive from the frontier territories?

A:—No.

Q:—My information, derived from Military sources, is that there are over half-a-million armed men on the frontier.

A:—You are right, I agree.

Q:—These tribes have frequently attacked India hitherto. Why do you think they will refrain from doing so when India possesses Home Rule?

A:—In the first instance, the world's views have changed and secondly the preparations that are now made in Afghanistan are really in support of the Khilafat. But when the Khilafat question is out of the way, then the Afghan people will not have any design on India. The warrior tribes who live on loot and plunder are given lakhs of rupees as subsidy. I would also give them a little subsidy. When the Charka comes into force in India, I would introduce the spinning wheel among the Afghan tribes also and thus prevent them from attacking the Indian territories. I feel that the tribesmen are in their own way God-fearing people.

But for the fact that he is well known to be a Saint and Mahatma, I would have had no hesitation in saying that his last observations about meeting the Afghans show him to be either a fool or a knave.

He said on the 16th February 1921:—

"There must be complete independence, if England's policy is in conflict with the Moslim sentiment on the Khilafat question or with the Indian sentiment in the Punjab."

And in his recent speech at the congress opposing the resolution for Independence it was said that if the Punjab and Khilafat demands are complied with, Independence is not necessary. Well, he knows or ought to know they are impossible demands. The implication is plain and taken in conjunction with what has been said above as to the Western civilisation and the Indianisation of the English people, the conclusion that he is really aiming at Independence is inevitable. To certain Boy Scouts on the 23rd March he was quite plain. He said:—

"No Indian could remain loyal in the accepted sense to the Empire as it was at present represented and be loyal to God at the same time. An Empire that could be responsible for the terrorism of the martial law regime, that would not repent of the wrong, that could enter into secret treaties in breach of solemn obligations could only be reckoned as a Godless Empire. Loyalty to such an Empire was disloyalty to God".

These have to be borne in mind when we consider the question of the Swaraj that he has put forward. The Swaraj that he works for is thus described:—

"Swaraj means full Dominion status. The scheme of such swaraj shall be framed by representatives duly elected in terms of the Congress constitution. That means four anna franchise. Every Indian adult, male or female, paying four annas and signing the Congress creed will be entitled to be placed on the electoral list. These would elect delegates who would frame Swaraj constitution. This shall be given effect to without any change by the British Parliament".

A more preposterous demand cannot be imagined. He excludes all those who do not belong to his Congress. Those who do not pay annas four and sign the congress creed form the majority of the population. Again to ask the British Parliament to accept the scheme framed by his party however absurd, without examination of the same is absolute nonsense. If Mr. Gandhi and his party can frame a scheme of Swaraj for the consideration of the rest of India, have it discussed with others modified if necessary after such discussion, it may be, and it ought to be placed before the Government and Parliament. But this is the last thing he will do, for various reasons. Mr. Gandhi himself will never do it because I doubt whether he has any correct idea of the Dominion status and all that it involves. Mr. Gandhi is not a student but an impulsive fanatic indifferent to facts but obsessed by phantasmagoria. He jumps to what he calls conclusions but which have in fact no premises. Again he will not see it done because what he really desires is not an honest settlement which will give India a further instalment of Swaraj but as the preceding extracts show what he wants is really absolute independence according to his professions but really anarchy or soul force. If he were honest in his desire to secure Swaraj he and his followers would not have boycotted the Councils but would have entered them to take further steps towards its attainment.

I am therefore satisfied that Mr. Gandhi does not aim at a fair settlement of the Punjab difficulties. He does not want an equitable peace satisfying the just claims of the Mahomedans. He does not want Parliamentary Swaraj or Home Rule. But for tactical purposes he is putting them forward to destroy the English Government, in order to attain his object of a society outlined in his "Indian Home Rule," some features of it I have set forth above.—A society without Government, Railways, Hospitals, Schools, Courts, etc. His programme is therefore put forward to clear the way to obtain his object. This Swaraj is to be attained by, in the words of the Resolution, non-violent non-co-operation with Government. And among others the following steps were recommended for adoption: (1) Boycott of Government aided schools and colleges and establishment of National schools and colleges, (2) Boycott of British Courts by Lawyers and Litigants (3) Boycott of Reformed Councils (4) Boycott of Foreign goods and use of spinning wheels. Out of these I shall naturally take up the question of the boycott of Government and aided institutions and the nature of education sought to be imparted by Mr. Gandhi.

EDUCATION

The system of Education which Mr. Gandhi apparently wants to introduce has already been tried in some parts of India. The results of a teaching confined to Eastern classics and vernaculars has already been apparent. It has produced a mentality amongst Hindus and Mahomedans which has divided them from one another. It has separated still further the Brahmins from non-Brahmins, the caste Hindus from the noncaste Hindus. It has again produced amongst those who have received that education a vague longing for speculative theories and a distaste for experiment and research by which, theories may be tested. Of course Mr. Gandhi does not know these results. His speeches and writings do not show that he ever cared to enquire into these questions. He does not want education to be imparted to the masses and Western education to be imparted to anybody for the reason that it would make them discontented with their present lot in life, i.e. in other words he wants each class to remain in its present condition, the lower castes, slaves of their masters—the higher classes. This consequence follows from his acceptance of the caste system. He says "Varanashram (caste system) is inherent in human nature and Hinduism has simply reduced it to a science. It does attach by birth. A man cannot change his Varna by choice. Prohibition against intermarriage and interdining is essential for a rapid evolution of the soul." He would relegate those Hindus outside the pale of caste, the panchamas or the so-called degraded classes, by whatever name they are called, to degradation for the service of the higher castes. His writings or speeches do not show any knowledge of Indian History and having spent the main portion of his life in a far-off country the evils of the system perhaps never came to his knowledge. Otherwise he would have learnt the following facts. It is this caste system which has brought about the conquest of India by the Mahomedans and the Englishmen, both of whom were always supported by the lower castes against the higher. It is responsible for the large conversions to Christianity and Mahomedanism. It is responsible for a degradation of humanity for which no parallel can be found in slavery, ancient or modern. It is responsible for a good deal of Hindu-Mahomedan, Brahmin non-Brahmin problem and stands in the way of our social, economical and political progress. Yet Mr. Gandhi supports the system, though he advocates the removal of one or two blots which hardly affect the main structure. He enters on an elaborate disquisition on the benefits and necessity of caste which will not do credit to Macaulay's fourth form schoolboy. He shows no knowledge of the vast literature on the subject or of the main arguments against it. He is supporting the caste system to secure the support of the higher castes, without whose financial support his agitation must collapse. One of his own followers would have told him that caste has killed all the arts and science in this country. Sir P. C. Ray points out in his history of Hindu chemistry:—"the fear of losing caste was thus responsible for the loss of the faculty of independent enquiry and hence for the decline and decay of all the arts and sciences for which India was once so famous." Of course he does not want that education which is indispensable for those who occupy the higher Government offices in the country. He does not want that education which is essential for the development of Indian manufacturing industries and development of mineral resources.

Mr. Gandhi accordingly made his wicked attempt to destroy the National Hindu University of Benares and the Mahomedan University of Aligarh. They combined Eastern and Western learning. The attempt was happily unsuccessful. Strong pressure was put upon the students to leave the Schools and Colleges. Looking to the final results as disclosed in the Report of the Congress Secretary reviewing the work of 1921, Government have reasons to congratulate themselves. By far the majority of the aided institutions in Bengal have been recognised by the Educational Authorities to be very inefficient and they have been attempting either to disaffiliate them or reduce their numbers to give more efficient instruction to those who remain, as a good number of them were institutions started for commercial purpose. It is remarkable that the great majority of the students who obeyed the Congress cause belonged to these aided institutions. Those who left the Government Schools and Colleges with better discipline and more efficient teaching were very few if any. I would refer the reader for further information as to the results of the education campaign to the speech of the President of the Thana conference, a genuine patriot who happens, however, to be one of Gandhi's followers (App. VI).

Mr. Gandhi asked all the boys to withdraw now from the schools on the pretence that until the Government punishes the Punjab offenders in the manner advocated by him and satisfies the claims of the Khilafatists we should no longer associate with the Government, and we can there-by hasten the advent of Swaraj. This is a mere pretext. He advocated the substitution of the national kind of education as outlined by him in favour of the present system of education long before there was any Punjab or Khilafat questions. He advocated them in 1908 in his book "The Indian Home Rule." To say now that he advocated them on account of those reasons is sheer hypocrisy. The step will not hasten but might retard Swaraj. Even if the Punjab wrongs are redressed in the manner suggested and even if the Khilafatists are satisfied and Parliamentary Swaraj obtained, he will still be an advocate of the abstention from English Schools in favour of the system of national education as above set forth.

VAKILS AND COURTS

The same is the case about his propaganda about the Vakils and the Courts. It never had any chance of success. I shall not dwell however upon this but would refer to Thana President's speech to which in connection with education attention has been already drawn (App. VI). He now puts them forth ostensibly for the purpose of compelling the Government to redress the Punjab and other wrongs. As a fact he advocated them long before that in 1908, as I have already pointed out above. Here again it is sheer hypocrisy to say that they are advocated not as an end in themselves but as a means for the redress of the Punjab and Khilafat wrongs. He dare not openly advocate this as desirable in itself as he would then be laughed at.

BOYCOTT OF COUNCILS

The other step that he advocates is abstention from the new councils. His followers generally have not voted at the elections or have stood for election. His reason given at the Calcutta Congress in September 1920 when he moved his resolution on non-co-operation is this. "I now come to the burning topic viz. the boycott of the councils. Sharpest difference of opinion existed regarding this and if the house was to divide on it, it must divide on one viz. whether Swaraj has to be gained through the councils or without the councils. If we utterly distrust the British Government and we know that they are to-day unrepentant now can you believe that the councils will lead to Swaraj and not tighten the British hold on India"? I can only ask him to read the history of the Parliamentary struggle for freedom in England which will show how freedom is won from reluctant monarchs and privileged classes. Even in India the subsequent history of the Legislative councils has shown that the Government is willing to meet the councils half way and almost every question taken up by the councils has been advanced nearer solution. But I doubt whether there is any use of arguing with Mr. Gandhi. The real truth is as he has candidly avowed in his "Indian Home Rule" that Parliamentary Government is in itself bad and India should not strive after it as it will stand in the way of his spiritual Swaraj. I need not argue this point so far as the followers of Gandhi are concerned as they are heartily sorry that they boycotted the councils. I refer on this point also to the Thana Conference President's speech (App. VII). They feel ashamed of themselves the majority of them desire the dissolution of the present councils and a re-election so that they might utilize these councils for more powerful Parliaments. Perhaps I should add that considering the undisciplined fanaticism of the non-co-operator and his total ignorance of development of political organization, it is probably just as well that the councils were in their inception preserved from such a calamitous invasion. The council and the assembly have even in the short duration of their existence, achieved good results which are carrying us far and quietly on that true road to Home Rule from which Mr. Gandhi seeks to divert us. Had the Non-Co-operators been members of these councils and had they acted in their present temper, they might well have wrecked the Reforms and have set back the clock of India's progress even more than they have done already. The boycotting is therefore in all probability a blessing though designed as a curse. Still the fact remains that the Councils might have done even more had Mr. Gandhi been endowed with the wisdom to see that India's interests would best be served by using the councils and the assembly as levers to obtain further freedom on sane, safe, and constitutional lines.

BOYCOTT OF FOREIGN GOODS

There is not only no objection to the Charka but it is very much to be commended. It is very useful as a cottage or home industry and will find an occupation to many who might otherwise be idle. But it will not displace foreign goods at least without the aid of mills by foreign machinery.

All these with other minor ones are only steps to be taken to carry out the policy of non-violent non-co-operation for the attainment of Swaraj and Mr. Gandhi asks every body, in fact the people of India, to carry on non-violent non-co-operation with the Government so as ostensibly to attain Swaraj but really I have no doubt as an end in itself.

I have already pointed out that non-violent submission to suffering and the consequent attainment of self-control over oneself which he called Swaraj was the end which he had in view. He found that there was no use in directly advocating it. He therefore puts it forward as the chief instrument for obtaining the Parliamentary Swaraj which the people of India wanted. He based his appeal to the Hindus on the well known doctrine of "Ahimsa". I will not stop here to discuss how far suffering for the purpose of inducing another to follow a particular line of conduct is included in the scope of Ahimsa. I myself believe it is not only not so included but is totally inconsistent with it. I will merely point out that this principle has already been condemned by the Penal Code which makes it a crime for a creditor to realise his debt by Dharna. For my purpose it is only necessary to say that this principle of non-violence if accepted in practice generally will lead to chaos and anarchy. If applied to Government alone by refusal to recognise the jurisdiction of the courts it will lead to the same results. How it will lead to 'Parliamentary Swaraj' it is impossible to see. Mr. Gandhi says if all the people of India adopted it the machinery of Government is bound to come to a standstill. But that all will adopt it without leaving sufficient men with the aid of those who will be imported from England and elsewhere to carry out the administration is only the fantasy of a diseased imagination. Non-violence is a guarantee on the part of those who carry it out that the Government has nothing to fear from physical force. If they use force then they abandon the weapon of non-violence. Mr. Gandhi and his followers, are agreed that physical force is now out of the question on ground, according to Mr. Gandhi, that we will be crushed. I cannot help thinking that when we take this aspect of the matter along with others already mentioned that Mr. Gandhi himself does not consider this as any effective step towards the attainment of the 'Parliamentary Swaraj,' but only to attain his "Spiritual Swaraj." This explains what he is so fond of reiterating that when Lajpatrai, Motilal Nehru, and C. R. Das and others were arrested and went to Jail without complaint, or resistance denying the jurisdiction of the courts, in pursuance of the policy of non-violent non-co-operation, though Parliamentary Swaraj was not attained, the spiritual 'Swaraj' of which he was in search has been attained to his intense satisfaction. If he had advocated abstention from schools, boycott of Councils and Courts, non-violence as a means of attaining his (spiritual) Swaraj, giving up Punjab Khilafat and Parliamentary Home Rule, no one would perhaps have any right to complain, and it would have been a straightforward and honest course. But he has adopted underhand methods which appear to me, unless a satisfactory explanation is given, little short of dishonest and fraudulent.

But it may be asked whether anybody would have accepted a policy of non-violent non-co-operation in the circumstances of the case unless there was some reasonable prospect of success within any measurable time. Here we come to the most sinister aspect of the matter. In moving his resolution on non-co-operation in the National Congress held at Calcutta in September 1920, he said, "If there is sufficient response to my scheme I make bold to reiterate my statement that you can gain Swarajya in the course of an year" and he laid down certain conditions, the more important of which have been mentioned. That period has been extended subsequently by a few months. Even that extended period has elapsed. When charged with his failure to attain Parliamentary Swaraj within the period asked for by him he had effrontery to state that the conditions mentioned by him have not been complied with. A political leader has no right to put forward before the country any scheme under conditions which he has no reasonable belief of being likely to be complied with. Did he honestly believe that those conditions named by him would be complied with and Parliamentary Swaraj obtained within the time mentioned by him? Looking to the nature of the conditions I do not think he believed that they would be complied with, not only in one year but at any time; and even if complied with I have no doubt he did not believe that Swaraj would come though he might assert the contrary. He put the lure forward simply for the purpose of persuading the Congress to make an important change in the policy which the country had hitherto adopted. The National Congress, carried away by its hostility towards Government, accepted his programme. Some of the younger men may have believed in it. The older and the most experienced I have no doubt never believed in its possibility but considered it a means, of rousing the people of the country from their political lethargy, to put pressure on the Government for further and more extensive reforms. They may also have felt that this might be a means of Mahomedan co-operation for their policy. I do not deny that according to English political life this is a perfectly legitimate manoeuvre though none of those leaders believed in the soundness of the policy put forward by Mr. Gandhi and many of them said so.

Having attained his purpose by a representation, the truth of which I cannot help thinking he did not believe, and could not have believed, and having committed the Congress to a certain course of action, he is now able to carry the Congress with him for revolutionary action, as it finds it has gone too far on this course to revert to its own natural methods of progress. But as a matter of fact he went further than this.

On 29th December, 1920, i.e. three months after the change of programme, he said, "my experience during the last months fills me with the hope that within the nine months that remain of the year in which I have expected Swaraj for India we shall redress the two wrongs and we shall see Swaraj (Parliamentary) established in accordance with the wishes of the people of India." But I do not think for a moment he believed what he said. He used these words to dupe the people of India to follow him yet a step further and to pay him money. After about a month on the 21st of January 1921—he again confirmed his previous statement. He said: "Four months of this one year have already gone by and my faith has never burnt as brightly as it burns tonight as I am talking to the young men of Bengal." And he added "that in case of his death before the expiry of eight months he is satisfied that the people of India will secure Swaraj before the year is out." Is this not a definite statement that the Indian people are going to get Swaraj? A few days later the purpose comes out. In a public address to the merchants of Calcutta on the 30th January, 1921, he said:—

"What I purposed to do I can accomplish in a certain line. I Must attain Swaraj. If thirty crores of people say that they are not with me yet I shall do my work and win Swaraj.... If you wish to accomplish work of thirty crores of men then come out with your money. Try to have money and ask me to give an account of the same. I appoint some one treasurer.... If you know that you yourself can not attain Swaraj then help one with money. If you do not help with money Swaraj will be difficult but not impossible to attain. If the students of India do not help, me it does not matter. If the pleaders do not help, it does not matter."

The old conditions of the boycott of schools and of the courts as conditions indispensable for the attainment of Swaraj are dropped. And he promises Swaraj and asks for money for getting it in nine months. He collected money on the faith of that representation. Earlier on the same day he got ten thousand rupees, and on the spot a large sum is said to have been collected. On the same date in addressing the students he said: "If the response continues as it has begun there is no doubt of Swaraj coming within the time prescribed". On the 23rd February 1921 he again said: "Last five months experience has confirmed me in the opinion. I am convinced that the country has never been so ready for establishing Swaraj as now." To me only one conclusion is possible that he was collecting the money from the people who understood him to say that Swaraj will be attained within the period mentioned by him. In March he said:—

"The last Congress has given a constitution whose working in itself calculated to lead to Swaraj. It is intended to secure in every part of India representative committees working in conjunction with, and under willing and voluntary submission to a central organisation—The all India Congress Committee. It establishes an adult suffrage open to men and women subject only to two qualifications signing of the creed and a nominal payment of four annas. It is intended to secure due representation of the parties and communities, if then, it is honestly worked, and commands confidence and respect, it can oust the present Government without the slightest difficulty. For, the latter has no power except through the co-operation willing or forced, of the people. The force it exercises is almost through our own people. One lac of Europeans, without our help, can only hold less than one seventh of our villages each and it would be difficult for a man even when physically present, to impose his will on, say four hundred men and women—the average population of Indian village."

He said that we have therefore to concentrate our attention up to the 30th of June on getting:—

(1) One crore of rupees for Tilak Swaraj Fund.

(2) One crore members on the Congress register.

(3) The spinning wheel introduced in twenty lacs of homes.

He added, however:—

"This programme does not mean cessation of the other activities of Non-co-operation. They go on. Drink and untouchability must vanish. The education movement is steadily going forward. The National institutions that have sprung up will, if they are efficiently managed make headway and attract students who are still hesitating. The pleaders, always a cautious and calculating class by training, will, as they see the movement progressing more and more, fall in line with the rest of the country. Boycott of law courts by the public is making fair progress. These things do not now require concentration of universal effort. They apply to special classes. But the three things mentioned by me are the most essential: they must be done now and without them the movement, as a mass movement must be pronounced a failure." "Young India" 30th March.

After this it is impossible to rely upon boycott of schools &c. as conditions for Swaraj within a year. It is now admitted and the Secretaries report that the money demanded has been collected. Such money was paid on the fraudulent representation of Swaraj within the year. Judged by ordinary standards Mr. Gandhi's whole procedure with the promises, the persuasions, the evasions, the subterfuges and all the other manœuvres, would be characterised by men of the world and of sane judgment in language, I hesitate to reproduce, for the simple reason that I believe that Mr. Gandhi is honest in his self hypnotisation. I believe he does not really know what he is doing. At least this is the only possible charitable assumption when we watch his feats of political acrobatics which have the power of deluding such vast numbers of people making them passionately intolerant, violently intolerant often, of the slightest criticism of their hero.

When the Congress was asked in September to change its policy, Mr. Gandhi's idea to start an organisation to supercede the existing Government was not brought before them. It is the first direct step in the path of revolution. His followers have been by this time brought to a proper frame of mind. The use of the money to be collected was, as stated on the 13th April, to be as follows; "The only activity involving financial obligations is that of spinning, organising national service, in some cases supporting lawyers, who might have suspended practice and cannot be included in the national service as for supporting national educational institutions." It will now be understood why some lawyers were willing to suspend practice. Before the expiry of one year period however other conditions were imposed which would put off Swaraj practically for a very long time to come, the removal of untouchability of the lower classes in India without which it was said Swaraj would be a meaningless term. This means, as I have no doubt, Mr. Gandhi knew, he was putting off Swaraj indefinitely. If this had been mentioned as condition when the Congress was asked to change its policy it is very doubtful whether he would have got the Congress to agree with him. As to these two conditions themselves they are admirable. With a little tact the Government might turn the tables on Mr. Gandhi. If proof of untouchability consists only in the admission of the boys of these classes to schools of higher classes, it does not mean much, though it is a notable advance. If a contact with a low class person is placed on the same footing as contact with caste man it may be said that we have got rid of untouchability. But this will not come throughout the greater portion of India for years. On these questions the education of Mr. Gandhi has only commenced. He will find that without abrogating the ceremonial law on which the caste system rests there will be no practical reform. He is apparently not aware of the far more heinous custom of distance pollution, i.e. not only pollution by touch but by approach within a certain distance. This far from being a move against Government would support the Government contention against reform.

About temperance also the move is salutary. If the system of picketing adopted by the volunteers is abandoned and peaceful persuasion alone is attempted no one has any right to complain. What all this has to do with Parliamentary Swaraj or Home Rule one finds it difficult to understand. But they are necessary for the 'Gandhi Swaraj' advocated in his 'Indian Home Rule', and I have little doubt that like his other proposals they were intended to attain that object.

It is admitted in the Report of the Secretaries that the crore of Rupees which was required to be collected, as stated above, has been realised. About the middle of July he said he still looked forward before the next meeting of the Congress for the satisfaction of his demands about the Punjab and the Khilafat and full immediate Swaraj in accordance with the wishes of her chosen representatives. August and September were devoted to the campaign of burning foreign cloth which in his view was an act of non-violent non-co-operation with the Government. This step appeared unintelligible and inaccurate to his followers who believed bona fide that he was striving for political control. But it is quite consistent with and in pursuance of his scheme of spiritual swaraj of sacrifice and self-control. On the 27th of October Mr. Gandhi speaks of his "threat to seek the shelter of the Himalayas should violence become universal in India, and should it not have engulfed me."

As New India points out: "that would be interesting to know when this threat was made. We all know that Mr. Gandhi said that if there was violence he would go to the Himalayas. There was a riot, but he did not go, but excused himself by saying that if it occurred a second time, he would go. A second riot occurred; he said nothing but did not go. Now we hear that he had made a threat to go, should it become universal in India. When and where was this said?"

Towards the end of the month the Times of India observed:—

"Writing in the latest issue of Navajivan, his Gujarati newspaper, Mr. Gandhi makes the interesting announcement that if Swaraj is not obtained by December, he will either die of a broken heart or retire from public life, leaving the heedless people of India to their resources. Were so clear a pronouncement by any other politician, we could say definitely that when the new year dawns Mr. Gandhi will no longer be actively engaged in politics!"

Can there be any possible doubt that all these statements were made by him in order to impress upon his dupes the fact that they were going to get Swaraj within a year and to deceive his followers to follow him and finance him. Yet what was the situation! Almost every item in his programme has been tried and found useless to attain Home Rule. I would again draw attention to the speech of the President of the Thana District conference for a review of the situation as it then stood in the opinion of one of his prominent followers, (App. VI). This is the opinion of most of his prominent supporters who have been opposing Mr. Gandhi's programme from the very beginning and accordingly the programme was practically shelved and at the Congress held at the end of the year it was resolved to suspend all the activities of the Congress on which stress was much laid. The programme of the volunteer organisation throughout the country was to be carried out on a more extensive scale and the laws of the country were to be defied by disobeying the notifications issued by Government. The Congress also recommended civil disobedience as the only civilised and effective substitute for an armed rebellion and recommended individual disobedience as well as mass civil disobedience when the mass of the people have been sufficiently trained in the practice of non-violence. And the activities of the Congress were to be suspended for that purpose (App. XX). "Offensive civil disobedience herein recommended is thus defined. Offensive civil disobedience means deliberate and wilful breach of State made non-moral laws—that is, laws the breach of which does not involve moral turpitude—not for the purpose of securing the repeal of, or relief from hardships arising from obedience to such laws, but for the purpose of diminishing the authority of, or overthrowing, the State."

What took place at the Congress itself was remarkable. The President of the Moslem League, Moulana Hajrat Mohini, who was also a member of the National Congress, proposed his resolution for complete independence. He is reported to have said that although last year they have been promised Swaraj, the redress of the Khilafat and the Punjab wrongs within a year, they had so far achieved nothing (App. XVIII for his view). Mr. Gandhi denied that there was any limitation of one year when the creed was accepted in Nagpur and Calcutta. The special representative of the Congress organ, the Bombay Chronicle says: "The feeling in general appear to be in favour of Moulana Hajrat Mohini's resolution" though it was not carried on account of the passionate appeal of Mahatma Gandhi against it. It is instructive to read the resolutions (Appendix XX) that were then passed. Thus Swaraj was to come on September 1-1921, October 31-1921, December 13-1921. At the Congress in December, 1921, Mr. Gandhi gave up fixing any date for the attainment of Swaraj.

The resolution passed in September, 1920, was seditious. The resolution passed in December, 1921, is openly revolutionary, and in fact Gandhi made no secret of it. He says: "Lord Reading must clearly understand that the non-co-operators are at war with the Government. They have declared rebellion against it in as much as it has committed a breach of faith with the Mussalmans. It has humiliated the Punjab and insists upon imposing its will upon the people and refuses to repair the breach and repent for the wrong done in the Punjab" (Young India). Mr. Gandhi also said: "The Government want to goad us into violence or abject surrender. We must do neither. We must retort by such civil disobedience as would compel shooting." The volunteer organizations were pledged to act accordingly. Yet when the Government notified those illegal associations and punished those who defied them, the rebels indignantly remonstrate against what they call coercion and interference with the liberty of person and security of property. They want to be in the limelight to evoke the admiration of America and Europe for their patriotism in rebelling against a Satanic Government. But they are wanting in the redeeming features of these rebels elsewhere—their contempt of danger and death. That is left here to the ignorant masses—the dupes of these men who seek to protect themselves from danger by their doctrine of non-violence.

NON-VIOLENT NON-CO-OPERATION

How on earth is it possible to imagine that all activities would be non-violent when those who are carrying them on proclaim themselves rebels against constitutional authority and are bent upon destroying it; when they say that they must commit civil disobedience of a character that would compel the officials to shoot them! when we know that one large section of it, the Mahomedans, follow a militant religion which not only sanctions but requires them to use force to vindicate what they consider to be their religious law. When we consider further the nature of the activities of those who carry on the Non-co-operation movement there can be still less room to doubt that riots ending in bloodshed are bound to follow. In order to carry out the Non-co-operation campaign India is divided into various Congress provinces. Congress committees are formed consisting of members who are also pledged to carry out the Congress principles: there are also volunteer organizations formed. The function of these bodies is to impress upon the people of the country the enormity of Government's crime with reference to the Punjab and the Khilafat and the consequent necessity of Home Rule or Swaraj. For attaining such Swaraj they advocate progressive non-co-operation by "peaceful" methods. Such methods consist of various steps which are described in the speech of Mr. Macpherson, extracted below. Starting, perhaps, peacefully they soon exhibit a tendency to violence and when Mahomedan sentiments are involved, when appeals are made to Mahomedan religious feelings, that tendency becomes almost irresistible in their case. Opposition to constituted authority inflames them into violence and instead of submitting to violence at the hands of authorities according to the dictates of Gandhi—a counsel of perfection—they retort—and murder is the result. The process is so well put by Mr. Macpherson in the Behar Legislative Council that I take the liberty of quoting the following extract from his speech:—

"It is necessary to consider what is the essence of the non-co-operation movement, what are its ultimate objects and what are its methods. From the moment Mr. Gandhi first unfolded his plan of campaign—that was, I think, at a Benares or Allahabad Conference in 1920—there has never been any doubt in my mind that the objects of the movement were entirely unconstitutional, that its methods were illegal and that its prosecution to the bitter end is bound to result in violence, disorder and anarchy, however much non-violence may be proclaimed as the watchword of its leaders. The movement cannot be judged by its earlier and comparatively innocuous stages, as if these stood by themselves. I refer to the resignation of titles, the boycott of Government schools and colleges, the abandonment of their profession by legal practitioners and other such manifestations of non-co-operation, although all these items in the programme have done an infinite amount of harm, especially to the youth of the country, and even these earlier stages have been marked by repeated outbursts of violence, by a concerted system of intimidation and social boycott, and by the excitement of racial hatred which has had deplorable results in individual cases. No, the plan of campaign must be taken as a whole, and judged by its closing stages, the enforcement of civil disobedience towards the laws of the country, interference with the police and the judicial administration, the invasion of police stations, picketing of Courts, the seduction of the troops from their allegiance, and the refusal to pay taxes or rent or revenue. The movement must indeed be judged by its ultimate object, which is the paralysis and subversion of the existing Government and by its inevitable result, general disorder and bloodshed and widespread misery amongst all classes and communities. If pursued to the bitter end, it will assuredly have this result, whether it succeeds or fails, and should it (which God forbid) succeed, the end can only be a state of chaos which will make India the prey of the violent tribes that dwell around her borders or the hungry hordes of Central Asia who, in the course of history, have more than once invaded India. The object of the movement being what it is, the overthrow of the existing Government in India, what is the use of telling us that either its leaders or its followers have signed a pledge of non-violence? The pledge is a farce, it has already been broken a hundred times over, and the longer the movement continues and the further it advances, the more it will be broken."

That this has been the case is illustrated by almost all the riots which have taken place. Malabar stands first in its unenviable notoriety. There the Congress committees were formed; the Khilafat committees also were formed; Gandhi and Shaukat Ali visited Malabar, preached their sermons and the usual result followed. With Mahomedans Swaraj was only their secondary aim, their principal object being the redress of the Khalif's wrongs and the establishment of a Khilafat kingdom in the country. When, therefore, the British Government interfered with the activities of some of the Khilafat leaders the Mohomedan population as a whole rose in rebellion and invited the Hindus to join them. The Hindus as a body remained loyal; and the results were disastrous both to the Mahomedans and to the Hindus, more than two thousand Mahomedans killed by troops according to official estimates, thousands more in other ways; far larger numbers wounded; the number of Hindus butchered in circumstances of barbarity, flayed alive, made to dig their own graves before slaughter, running into thousands; women and purdah women too, raped, not in a fit of passion but systematically for months passed from hand to hand and with calculated revolting and horrible cruelty for which I have not been able to find a parallel in history. Thousands were forcibly converted. All this done in the name of, and to enforce, the Khilafat movement: all this due directly to the visit of Gandhi and Shaukat Ali and to the organization of Khilafat associations. They carried on their activities openly without any obstruction by the authorities; the Government of Madras was prevented from interfering with Khilafat agitators by the Government of India who are therefore as responsible as if they had directly ordered all this frightfulness.

I take the United Provinces next and will refer not only to the activities of the volunteers but to the entire situation as it developed itself from the commencement of the year 1921. That will also show the earnest efforts which were made by the Government to co-operate with the constitutional party to work the Reform Scheme in a sympathetic spirit.

In welcoming the Legislative Council on the 22nd of January, 1921, Sir Harcourt Butler drew attention to the great efforts which were being made by Mr. Gandhi's party to achieve their objects, to their aim, to their failure till that time to achieve any appreciable success (App. VII). By March the situation had become worse and he narrated the circumstances which compelled him to extend the Seditious Meetings Act to some of the districts (App. VIII). By the end of the year the situation became intolerable. Sir Harcourt Butler has described the efforts of the Non-co-operators, and the success they have achieved, in his speech on the 17th December 1921 (App. IX).

And finally Sir Ludovic Porter, a member of the Government, described the whole situation, including the various efforts that were being made by the Non-co-operators on the 23rd of January 1922 (App. X). This will explain also the nature of the associations of volunteers formed under the Resolution of the Congress already referred to, their efforts and their illegal character. And more recently we now hear of far more serious disturbances in Gorakhpur where a mob of volunteers and villagers about 2000 in number led by the former killed 21 policemen and chowkidars (App. XII) and at Rai Bareilly where there was a serious collision. In order to understand the modus operandi I give an official narrative of the events at Barabanki (App. XI). About Behar we have the speech of Mr. Macpherson, a member of Council, in which he refers to the plans of the non-co-operation party to win Swaraj, gives the organization of the national volunteers describes how the Government offices were to be taken possession of, civil disobedience was to be started, gives the deplorable conditions in various districts brought about by the non-co-operation campaign and describes the revolutionary character of the movement in that province (App. XVI). The chief secretary, Mr. Hammond, in his speech gives various instances of tyranny practised by the non-co-operation volunteers, a practical speech which proves his contention (App. XVII). In Bengal, on Nov. 20 Lord Ronaldshay drew attention to the nature of Gandhi Swaraj and Turkish administration (App. XIII). In Nov. 1921, he spoke about the intended boycott of the Prince of Wales (App. XIII). In another speech he pointed out the lies that were being spread about the bombardment of Mecca (App. XIII). In Dec. 1921, he described the activities which led to the interference of Government. A brief extract will be found in (App. XII). Finally, in Feb. 1922, he made a lengthy reference to the political outlook (App. XIII). In the Legislative Council Sir Henry Wheeler a member of Government described the situation (App. XV).

In the Legislative Assembly also the matter was fully discussed in Jan. 1922. Sir William Vincent summed up the situation, various instances of their activities among which will be found a particularly revolting statement about the corpse of a diseased person who was loyal to the Government, and therefore obnoxious to Gandhi's party, being dug out of the grave (App. XXIII).

This completes my review of the situation. Considerations of space have compelled me to exclude many speeches which would throw further light on the situation.

I will, therefore, content myself with giving a list of the disturbances and riots throughout India, due to Gandhi's movement supplied to me by the Legislative Department of the Government of India (App. XXII).

In February 1922 Mr. Gandhi issued an ultimatum to the Government of India that if within a certain period of time his demands formulated in his ultimatum were not conceded he would start what is called mass civil disobedience at Bardoli, that is to say, the people of Bardoli would be asked to refuse to pay taxes etc. The Government of India issued a communique in reply in which reviewing the situation they pointed out the grave dangers that would follow such civil disobedience and gave him a stern warning (App. XIX).

This attitude no doubt surprised him. The Government he thought was on the run, when they had submitted meekly to his contemptuous refusal for a conference at Calcutta and he had apparently therefore expected them to beg for an armistice. There was a remarkable change. He or rather the working committee of the Congress suspended mass civil disobedience having found a pretext in the occurrence of a riot about this time at Gorakhpur. So far as the campaign against the Government is concerned the following are the important resolutions:—

"The working Committee of the Congress resolves that mass civil disobedience contemplated at Bardoli and elsewhere be suspended and instructs the local Congress Committees forthwith to advise the cultivators to pay the land revenue and other taxes due to the Government and whose payment might have been suspended in anticipation of mass civil disobedience and instructs them to suspend every other preparatory activity of an offensive nature." "The suspension of mass civil disobedience shall be continued till the atmosphere is so non-violent as to ensure the non-repetition of popular atrocities such as at Gorakhpur, or hooliganism such as at Bombay and Madras respectively on the 17th November, 1921 and 13th January last. In order to promote a peaceful atmosphere the working Committee advises till further instruction, all Congress organisations to stop activities specially designed to court arrest and imprisonment, save normal Congress activities including voluntary hartals wherever an absolutely peaceful atmosphere can be assured, and for that end all picketing shall be stopped save for the bona fide and peaceful purpose of warning the visitors to liquor shops against the evils of drinking. Such picketing to be controlled by persons of known good character and specially selected by the Congress Committee concerned."

"The working Committee advises, till further instructions, the stoppage of all volunteer processions and public meetings merely for the purpose of defiance of the notification regarding such meetings. This, however, shall not interfere with the private meetings of the Congress and other committees or public meetings which are required for the conduct of the normal activities of the Congress".

The working Committee advised all Congress organisations to be engaged in the following activities:—

"To enlist at least one crore of members of the Congress. The workers should note that no one who does not pay the annual subscription can be regarded as a qualified congressman."

"To continue the Swaraj fund and to call upon every Congressman or Congress-sympathiser to pay at least one hundredth part of his annual income for the year 1921. Every province to send every month 25 per cent of its income from the Tilak Memorial Swaraj fund to the All-India Congress Committee."

The above resolutions were directed to be placed before the All-India Congress Committee for revision if necessary. They were accordingly brought before the All-India Congress Committee whose Resolution runs thus.

"The All-India Congress Committee have carefully considered the resolutions passed by the Working Committee at its meeting held at Bardoli on the 11th and 12th instant, confirms the said resolutions with the modifications noted herein and further resolves that individual civil disobedience whether of a defensive or aggressive character, may be commenced in respect of particular places or particular laws, at the instance of, and upon permission being granted therefore, by the respective provincial Committee.

"Provided that such civil disobedience shall not be permitted unless all the conditions laid down by the Congress or the All-India Congress Committee or the Working Committee are strictly fulfilled.

"Reports having been received from various quarters that picketing regarding foreign cloth is as necessary as liquor picketing, the All-India Congress Committee authorises such picketing of a bona fide character on the same terms as liquor picketing mentioned in the Bardoli resolutions.

"The All-India Congress Committee wishes it to be understood that the resolutions of the Working Committee do not mean an abandonment of the original Congress programme of non-co-operation or the permanent abandonment of mass civil disobedience, but considers that an atmosphere of necessary mass non-violence can be established by the workers concentrating upon the constructive programme framed by the Working committee at Bardoli. The All-India Congress Committee holds civil disobedience to be the right and duty of the people to be exercised and performed whenever the State opposed the declared will of the people."

INDIVIDUAL CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

Note.—Individual civil disobedience is disobedience of orders or laws by a single individual or an ascertained number or group of individuals. Therefore, a prohibited public meeting where admission is regulated by tickets and to which no unauthorised admission is allowed, is an instance of individual civil disobedience whereas a prohibited meeting to which the general public is admitted without any restriction, is an instance of mass civil disobedience.

Such civil disobedience is defensive, when a prohibited public meeting is held for conducting a normal activity although it may result in arrest. It would be aggressive, if it is held, not for any activity, but merely for the purpose of courting arrest and imprisonment.

This shows that there is practically no change in the situation. This may be read with the resolution of the congress 28th Dec. 1921 (App. XX). Gandhi's agitation continues revolutionary.

For more than thirty years the constitutional Reform party have been fighting for various indispensable reforms in the administration of the country with but moderate success. At last however, in 1919 they obtained a Reform scheme which brought India directly on to the path leading to Home Rule. In fact the Reform Act made Home Rule inevitable within a comparatively short time, and indicated the nature of the constitutional methods of its early attainment. Mr. Gandhi was in India for some years before that date. He scarcely lent any assistance to the Reform party. Considering his principles he could not. After having obtained the Act, the Reform party proceeded to work it, to carry out the administrative reforms needed, to educate the masses to enable them to claim and exercise larger political powers, in order to claim at as early a date as possible that further instalment of Reform provided for and contemplated in the act itself. Mr. Gandhi is standing right athwart their path, thus preventing or at least retarding and dangerously imperilling the indispensable reforms, regardless of the sufferings of the people entailed thereby, in order to carry out his own wild principles which have not the slightest chance of acceptance provided they are understood by the people of the country for what they are, emotional speculations without any considered relation to existing conditions. Mr. Gandhi, to take him at his best is indifferent to facts. Facts must submit to the dictates of his theories. The only difficulty in his way is that they don't. Will o'the wisp politics are not of use to a people who have to live in a world which, from long and bitter experience, has at last come to realise that dreams of distorted brains are not the stuff of which contented Nations are made. Gandhi in fact is seeking not only to destroy the fruits of the long endeavour of the constitutional reformers, but blast for ever any hopes of Indian regeneration.

To push forward the working of the Act has been the work before the Reform party which he is thus so perniciously thwarting. They had to take up in the Legislative Councils the question of the redress of the grievances under which the people suffered, not only to agitate for their removal, but to show the people that by constitutional agitation sooner or later they can get what they want. The most important question with which the constitutional Reformers had to deal was one concerning the great poverty of the country. For this it is necessary to consider the question of the Land Tax—its nature, incidents, relation to other taxes, its necessity, the distribution of the land produce between the Government and the classes that own the land. This is a question in which the landholding classes are very much interested. They would have understood the arguments addressed to them and therefore it would have served as a means of political and social education. The Councils have already been dealing with it, and, considering the conditions, satisfactorily. The Government have been meeting them in a sympathetic spirit and are trying to give effect to their proposals as much as possible. What is Mr. Gandhi's advice? He does not seek to co-operate to make the tax less oppressive. He would have the people pay no land tax to Government. Only the dreadful consequences that would ensue prevent him in this case, from giving full effect to his intentions. In any case, it is not the oppressive nature of the tax that he relies on, nor is it alleged that it is an innovation of the British Government, which of course it is not. He objects to the tax, not for itself, but because it is another weapon with which to destroy the Government.

A cognate question is that which arises between the landlords and tenants. In this also all the landholding classes are deeply interested, and a discussion of the nature of the distribution of the produce between the landlord, farmer and agricultural labourer would have been of great educative value. The Legislative Councils are dealing with the question. Government in this matter also are showing the greatest possible consideration for the feelings of the people of the country. Yet Mr. Gandhi and his friends would not only take no part in the deliberations of the council but would prevent an amicable settlement by steps which have produced riots between the classes interested in the land, with the object of discrediting the Reform Scheme and paralysing the Government of the country.

Closely connected with this is the question of Indian manufactures, industries and the development of mineral resources, which, besides, conferring other benefits, will relieve undue pressure on the land. Our industries have been destroyed by English competition and constitutional reformers are determined to take all the steps necessary to enter into healthy competition with English industries in Indian interests and to develop their own mineral and other resources. In so doing they have to take care that the conditions which accompanied the rise of industrial prosperity in the West are not reproduced in India. They have to see that wage earners received adequate protection. What are the tactics of Mr. Gandhi and his friends? All these industries are to him the devil's-own agency to destroy the soul. He says they cannot add an inch to India's moral stature. Starvation due to the absence of industries may destroy the body and certainly hinders the development of the soul. But to him this does not matter. He and his followers would taboo machinery, without which competition or development is hopeless. Without attempting to promote an amicable settlement between English capitalists and Indian labourers they have on the contrary been responsible for a deliberate widening of the chasm between the races.

The administration of justice is another matter in which all are interested; and already the Legislative Councils are dealing with the question of the separation of Judicial and Executive functions. The Government again are not only not standing in their way but are rendering every assistance towards the solution of the problem. This is also the case with reference to the removal of discriminations between Europeans and Indians in the administration of justice. The people of the country understand this question well as they are deeply interested in it. Mr. Gandhi is asking the people of the country to avoid all courts and thus not to interest themselves in the improvement of judicial administration.

I might take many other questions relating to finances, army, etc., and show the baneful influence of his propaganda. In all these Mr. Gandhi's campaign against Government has hampered the reformers who would otherwise have made the redress of these grievances a more effective plank in their platform; these questions would have been more widely discussed throughout the country. But such discussion is now almost impossible with the result that these questions are not settled as satisfactorily as they might otherwise be. But it is as regards education that the reformers have most felt the want of that popular support necessary to carry out the reforms needed.

Mr. Gandhi will never be forgiven by all true lovers of sound National Education for India for the campaign he has carried on against real education. The education that has been hitherto imparted had been as everybody, including Mr. Gandhi also recognised, lamentably defective. The reformers had to insist on the imparting of suitable primary education to the masses, to the workers, to the labouring men and others, to enable them to improve their condition, because no class can generally rise except under the ultimate stress of its own will and ability. They had to demand suitable higher education, which was required not only in the interests of the culture but also for the industrial regeneration of the country and for the development of India's natural resources. In the laboratories of Europe, America and Japan students are devoting themselves to discover means for the alleviation of misery and pain. Nay, higher claims are advanced, for it has been declared by scientists that we are on the eve of discovery of means for a practically indefinite prolongation of life under certain conditions which make us intensely expectant to know whether they are the same as described in our ancient books as efficacious for that purpose, descriptions which have hitherto been contemptuously discarded as worthless. Archaeologists are almost every day unveiling to us ancient remains and writings which give us a different and a startling conception of ancient History and Civilisation. Indian History is being rewritten. When we hear of the Marconi wireless, our young men turn to our own ancient descriptions of the training of human body and mind which make these fit to receive and convey messages regardless of space and distance and they show eagerness to take part in experiment and research. When we find rays penetrating solid matter, our young scientists wonder whether after all the stories of great seers whose vision, not of the material eye, is not bounded by time or space or distance, may not be true and wonder whether we should not now take up the training prescribed to attain those results. Researches are made in the laboratories to control the forces of nature, to increase human comforts and happiness, to increase productivity in all directions. Researches have already attained brilliant results. The lessons of the survey of the regions above by the telescope, of all below by the microscope, and generally speaking all these marvels of science which lend fresh light and new significance to the lesson of ancients as to the all pervading of the universe are all anathema to Mr. Gandhi.

He wants to hold back our boys from the Universities and post-graduate studies and research that they may go back to their ploughs while the Universities of the Western world are sending their delegates all over the world to take stock of what has been done and to devise means for the intellectual and moral uplift of the Nations.

The constitutional reformers and the Councils have the great task before them of reconciling the Hindus and Mahomedans on a basis for their unity other than the one which arose out of the Mahomedan fury against the British Government for its failure to support Mahomedan interests in the West. They have also to promote goodwill between the Hindus and the Mahomedans on the one side and the Europeans on the other, both in India and in the colonies. They have to face the rising antagonism between the dark, the fair and the white—an antagonism which threatens in course of time to engulf the whites with all that modern civilisation, whatever be its faults, is standing for. The Reform party want India to take her rightful place in the Indo-British commonwealth, the first place, in fact, to which her natural genius and her resources entitle her, with all its responsibilities. The conditions are all favourable to India. Governorships of Provinces are thrown open to Indians. There are Indians in the Viceroy's and other Councils. But Mr. Gandhi and his friends will not only do practically nothing in that direction but they have created what threatens to be a permanent gulf between the Mahomedans and non-Mahomedans, and they are dangerously widening the gulf between the Indians and Europeans. The reformers have to improve the conditions of women both amongst the Mahomedans and the Hindus, as without such improvement India is not entitled to take her place among civilised nations. They have practically to get rid of the caste system as with such a cancer political progress is impossible. Mr. Gandhi, on the other hand, panders to Mahomedan vanity and justifies the racial differences as between different classes of Hindus. He insists upon the necessity of our going back to our own caste system, which is responsible for the condition of our women and of the lower classes. He has given a handle to those who want to maintain the repressive laws, and is really responsible for the retention of them. He has not only thrown doubts as to our fitness for Self-Government but has rendered it possible for our opponents to urge with plausibility that danger would accrue to the Empire and to India itself by granting Home Rule to India. He has thus to the best of his sinister ability attempted to prevent all reforms and has tried to paralyse all the efforts of the reformers in every direction, fomenting racial and class differences, as I have already explained.

Everywhere we see a class of narrow thought in the white world raising the colour sentiment against the Asiatics, and against Indians in particular, proclaiming that there is no place for Indians in British Empire on terms of equality. These are not the intellectual leaders of the white races, nor are they those who set the best standards of morality. On the other hand, we see the noblest of them proclaiming and striving with all their might, with varying degrees of success, to enforce the opposite ideal. We know also that in India the question is only one of time and within a short period absolute equality in every respect will be carried out. We see further that our countrymen elsewhere are weak and comparatively helpless, and till we in India attain our manhood they must continue at the mercy of the white races. What is it, then, that not only Religion, Universal morality, or good, but also policy and prudence, dictate? There can be only one answer. We must strengthen the hands of those who are fighting for race equality and give no opportunity to those who maintain that the Indians are a peril to the white race. What is Mr. Gandhi doing? He is doing everything possible to increase racial and class hatred.

We see the wonderful phenomenon of Australian ladies begging pardon for the atrocious treatment of their Indian sisters by a few Englishmen in Fiji and elsewhere. We see the Universities and Professors, ashamed of themselves for their aberration during the great War, hastening to make amends by trying to bring together all classes and races of men. We see white women trying to band themselves and other women of whatever colour and creed into one sisterhood, without any difference, to throw themselves into all social and political movements for sex enfranchisement and uplift; to work for the good not only of themselves but of children in particular, and generally to devote themselves to all activities of mercy. We find various Nations calling to one another across seas, deserts and mountains to join in a common fellowship, not to work in opposition to one another. Every where, after the fearful cataclysm through which we have passed, there is wistful yearning for fellowship and brother-hood to carry out in practice the teachings of the ancient prophets and seers, Buddha, Confucius, Zoroaster, the seers of the Upanishads, Christ, Mahomed, in opposition to the Churches and the dogmatic religions identified with their names. And is it not extraordinary, we see this man, uninfluenced by this tremendous intellectual and moral up-heaval, waging a bloody and racial struggle for what? that if successful Indians may not take part in any of these movements, shun them all, since God has not created man with his limited means of natural locomotion to labour for general good, and may therefore, retire to their village to lead a solitary life.

If he had followed this advice for himself, or had retired to the Himalayas to live a mahatmaic life he would have saved the lives literally of thousands, prevented horrible outrages worse than death, saved thousands from incalculable misery. Instead of paying the penalty themselves, he and his lieutenants stalk about the country dripping with the blood of the victims of their policy.

Who is responsible for all this? The Government of India cannot divest themselves of their responsibility and India will hold the Indian members primarily responsible for the present situation. For no Viceroy will venture to disregard their advice in a matter of this sort. They do not seem to have strengthened the fibre of the Government. Nor have the Legislative Councils who also must share the responsibility advanced the claim for the transfer of the administration of justice to popular control. The Gandhi movement will no doubt collapse by internal disruption as it is composed of various elements, drawn from Tolstoy Lenin communism, socialism, Rigid Brahmanism, militant Mahomedanism mutually repellent and explosive when they come into contact with one another and already producing the natural terrible results. But before the final collapse comes it will have produced appalling misery and bloodshed unless it is dealt with firmly and with statesmanship. The Government should give Mr. Gandhi and some of his chief lieutenants who accept the whole programme the rest, they sadly need. And the Congress and the Khilafat associations must be treated as they themselves wish to be treated as disloyal illegal associations.

Since the above lines were written Mr. Gandhi has been arrested, tried and convicted. He pleaded guilty to the charges framed against him. His statements are worthy of careful attention (App. XXI). He said "I wish to endorse all the blame that the learned Advocate-General has thrown on my shoulders in connection with the Bombay occurrences, Madras occurrences and the Chauri Chaura occurrences. Thinking over these deeply and sleeping over them night after night, it is impossible for me to dissociate myself from the diabolical crimes of Chauri Chaura or the mad outrages of Bombay." He is quite right when he says, that "as a man of responsibility, a man having received a fair share of education, having had fair share of experience of this world, I should have known the consequences of every one of my acts. I knew that I was playing with fire. I ran the risk and if I was set free I would still do the same. I have felt it this morning that I would have failed in my duty, if I did not say what I said here just now." A man who says that if set free he would still pursue the same course though aware of the consequences of his acts is not a safe leader. There are signs however of a general recognition throughout the country that Mr. Gandhi's theories are no longer suitable as a guide for political action. The Maharashtra party have apparently resolved to seek admission into the Legislative councils. The Central Provinces are also apparently of the same opinion. A large section of Bengal represented by the Chitagong conference apparently hold the same view. In Madras a considerable section is inclined to agree. But there is little doubt that it would take a long time to eradicate the feeling of hatred that has been roused by Mr. Gandhi throughout the country.

As I left the Government of India long before the campaign of non-co-operation was launched, perhaps there is nothing inappropriate in the few observations which I propose to make regarding the delay in taking action against Mr. Gandhi and his followers. In September 1920 the Congress adopted the non-co-operation resolution. The Government might then have taken action with the support of a large majority of Indian politicians. After the final adoption of a non-co-operation programme by the Nagpur Congress it was felt that the Government should have stopped the activities of the party which from that moment had openly declared their disloyalty. They maintained their silence however even after Gandhi and the Congress party resolved on the recruitment of volunteers and the organisation of a parallel Government. On the arrest and trial of the Ali Brothers Mr. Gandhi challenged the Government to arrest him as he maintained that the conduct of the Ali Brothers in tampering with the loyalty of the Sepoys and uttering sedition was only in pursuance of the policy adopted by himself and the congress. His words are remarkable. "The National Congress began to tamper with the loyalty of the sepoys in September last year, i.e. 1920 the Central Khilafat Committee began it earlier and I began it earlier still, for I must be permitted to take the credit or the odium of suggesting, that India had a right openly to tell the sepoy and everyone who served the Government in any capacity whatsoever that he participated in the wrongs done by the Government."—"Every non-co-operator is pledged to preach disaffection towards the Government established by law. Non-co-operation, though, a religious and strictly moral movement, deliberately aims at the overthrow of the Government, and is therefore legally seditious in terms of the Indian Penal Code. But this is no new discovery. Lord Chelmsford knew it. Lord Reading knows it" ... "we must reiterate from a thousand platforms the formula of the Ali Brothers regarding the sepoys, and we must spread disaffection openly and systematically till it pleases the Government to arrest us." It will hardly be believed that even after this no steps were taken against him. Towards the end of the year he said "Lord Reading must clearly understand that the non-co-operators are at war with the Government. They have declared rebellion against it." It was after this that there was an attempt to bring about a conference between him and the Government which was contemptuously brushed aside by him. One of the mopla leaders when tried for rebellion pleaded that he was under the impression that the British Government no longer ruled the country and had abdicated. There is very little doubt of the unfortunate fact that there was a general belief that the Government was powerless and could be safely defied by Gandhi and his congress.

APPENDIX I
VICEROY'S SPEECH.

"A few Europeans and many Hindus, have been murdered, communications have been obstructed, Government offices burnt and looted and records have been destroyed, Hindu temples sacked, houses of Europeans and Hindus burnt, according to reports Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam and one of the most fertile tracts of South India is faced with certain famine. The result has been the temporary collapse of the Civil Government, the offices and Courts have ceased to function and ordinary business has been brought to a standstill. European and Hindu refugees of all classes are concentrated at Calicut and it is satisfactory to note that they are safe there. One trembles to think of the consequences if the forces of order had not prevailed for the protection of Calicut. The non Muslim in these parts was fortunate indeed that either he or his family or his house or property came under the protection of the soldiers and the police. Those who are responsible for causing this grave outbreak of violence and crime must be brought to justice and made to suffer the punishment of the guilty.

Effect of violent preaching

"But apart from direct responsibility, can it be doubted that when poor unfortunate and deluded people are led to believe that they should disregard the law and defy authority, violence and crime must follow? This outbreak is but another instance on a much more serious scale and among a more turbulent and fanatical people, of the conditions that have manifested themselves at times in various parts of the country and, gentlemen, I ask myself and you and the country generally what else can be the result from instilling such doctrines into the minds of the masses of the people? How can there be peace and tranquility when ignorant people, who have no means of testing the truth of the inflamatory and too often deliberately false statements made to them, are thus misled by those whose design is to provoke violence and disorder. Passions are thus easily excited to unreasoning fury.

The Leader of the Movement

"Although, I freely acknowledge that the leader of the movement to paralyse authority, persistently, and, as I believe, in all earnestness and sincerity, preaches the doctrine of non-violence and has even reproved his followers for resorting to it, yet again and again it has been showed that his doctrine is completely forgotten and his exhortations absolutely disregarded when passions are excited as must inevitably be the consequence among emotional people.

Its inevitable result

"To those who are responsible for the peace and good government of this great Empire and I trust that to all men of sanity and common sense in all classes of society, it must be clear that the defiance of the Government and constituted authority can only result in widespread disorder, in political chaos, in anarchy and in ruin."

APPENDIX II
DIABOLICAL ATROCITIES.

Calicut, Sept. 7—In my first article I dealt with the prime causes of the present outbreak, the dangerous game played by the leaders of the Khilafat and Non-Co-operation movements in Malabar which set the whole of Ernad and Walluvanad ablaze, and the extent of plunders, murders and forcible conversions committed by the Mopla rebels. In this article I intend to confine myself to the nature of the atrocities committed by them and other details.

The experiences I am about to relate will satisfy every Hindu endowed with ordinary common sense that the Moplas resorted to most repugnant fanaticism, which may be ascribed to nothing but selfishness, love of money and love of power, which are the prominent features of the present outbreak. Refugees narrate that, after forcibly removing young and fair Nair and other high caste girls from their parents and husbands, the Mopla rebels stripped them of their clothing and made them march in their presence naked, and finally they committed rape upon them. In certain instances, devoid of human feelings and blinded by animal passion, the Moplas are alleged to have utilised a single woman for the gratification of the carnal pleasures of a dozen or more men. The rebels also seem to have captured beautiful Hindu women, forcibly converted them, pierced holes in their ears in the typical Mopla fashion, dressed them as Mopla women and utilised them as their temporary partners in life. Hindu women were threatened, molested and compelled to run half-naked for shelter to forests abounding in wild animals. Respectable Hindu gentlemen were forcibly converted and the circumcision ceremony performed with the help of certain Musaliars and Thangals. Hindu houses were looted and set fire to, will not all these atrocities remain as a shameful image of the Hindu Muslim "unity", of which we have heard much from the Non-Co-operation Party and Khilafat-wallahs? The ghastly spectacle of a number of Hindu damsels being forced to march naked in the midst of a number of licentious Moplas cannot be forgotten by any self respecting Hindu, nor can it be erased from their minds. On the other hand, I have never heard of the modesty of a Mopla woman being outraged by a Mopla rebel. "Times of India."

APPENDIX III
MALABAR'S AGONY.

By Annie Besant

It would be well if Mr. Gandhi could be taken into Malabar to see with his own eyes the ghastly horrors which have been created by the preaching of himself and his "loved brothers," Muhommad and Shaukat Ali. The Khilafat Raj is established there; on August 1, 1921, sharp to the date first announced by Mr. Gandhi for the beginning of Swaraj and the vanishing of British Rule, a Police Inspector was surrounded by Moplas, revolting against that Rule. From that date onwards thousands of the forbidden war-knives ware secretly made and hidden away, and on August 20, the rebellion broke out, Khilafat flags were hoisted on Police Stations and Government offices. Strangely enough it was on August 25th 825 A.D. that Cherman Perumal ascended the throne of Malabar, the first Zamorin, and from that day the Malayalam Era is dated that is still in use; thus for 1096 years a Zamorin has ruled in Calicut, and the Rajas are mostly Chiefs who for long centuries have looked to a Zamorin as their feudatory Head. These are the men on whom the true pacification of Malabar must ultimately depend. The crowded refugees will only return to their devastated homes when they see those once more in safety in their ancestral places. Their lands, which they keep under their own control, are largely cultivated by Moplas, who are normally hardy, industrious agricultural labourers.

Our correspondent has sent accounts of the public functions connected with my hurried visit to Calicut and Palghat, and that which I wish to put on record here is the ghastly misery which prevails, the heart-breaking wretchedness which has been caused by the Mopla outbreak, directly due to the violent and unscrupulous attacks on the Government made by the Non-Co-operators and the Khilafatists and the statements scattered broadcast, predicting the speedy disappearance of British Rule, and the establishment of Swaraj, as proclaimed by the N.C.O. and Khilafat Raj as understood by the Moplas from the declarations of the Khilafatists. On that, there is no doubt whatever, so far as Malabar is concerned. The message of the Khilafats, of England as the enemy of Islam, of her coming downfall, and the triumph of the Muslims, had spread, to every Mopla home. The harangues in the Mosques spread it everywhere, and Muslim hearts were glad. They saw the N.C.O. preachers appealing for help to their religious leaders, naturally identified the two. The Government was Satanic, and Eblis, to the good Muslim, is to be fought to the death. Mr. Gandhi may talk as he pleases about N.C.O.s accepting no responsibility. It is not what they accept; it is what facts demonstrate. He accepted responsibility for the trifling bloodshed of Bombay. The slaughter in Malabar cries out his responsibility. N.C.O. is dead in Malabar. But bitter hatred has arisen there, as fighting men from the dragon's teeth of Theseus. That is the ghastly result of the preaching of Gandhism, of N.C.O. of Khilafatism. Every one speaks of the Khilafat Raj, and the one hope of the masses is in its crushing by the strong arm of the Government. Mr. Gandhi asks the Moderates to compel the Government to suspend hostilities, i.e., to let loose the wolves to destroy what lives are left. The sympathy of the Moderates is not, I make bold to say, with the murderers, the looters, the ravishers, who have put into practice the teachings of paralysing the Government of the N.C.O.'s, who have made "war on the Government" in their own way. How does Mr. Gandhi like the Mopla spirit, as shown by one of the prisoners in the Hospital, who was dying from the results of asphyxiation? He asked the surgeon, if he was going to die, and surgeon answered that he feared he would not recover. "Well, I'm glad I killed fourteen infidels," said the Brave, God-fearing Mopla, whom Mr. Gandhi so much admires, who "are fighting for what they consider as religion, and in a manner they consider as religious." Men who consider it "religious" to murder, rape, loot, to kill women and little children, cutting down whole families, have to be put under restraint in any civilised society.

Mr. Gandhi was shocked when some Parsi ladies had their saries torn off, and very properly, yet the God-fearing hooligans had been taught that it was sinful to wear foreign cloth, and doubtless felt they were doing a religious act; can he not feel a little sympathy for thousands of women left with only rags, driven from home, for little children born of the flying mothers on roads in refuge camps? The misery is beyond description. Girl wives, pretty and sweet, with eyes half blind with weeping, distraught with terror; women who have seen their husbands hacked to pieces before their eye, in the way "Moplas consider as religious"; old women tottering, whose faces become written with anguish and who cry at a gentle touch and a kind look waking out of a stupor of misery only to weep, men who have lost all, hopeless, crushed, desperate, I have walked among thousands of them in the refugee camps, and some times heavy eyes would lift as a cloth was laid gently on the bare shoulder, and a faint watery smile of surprise would make the face even more piteous than the stupor. Eyes full of appeal, of agonised despair, of hopeless entreaty of helpless anguish, thousands of them camp after camp, "Shameful inhumanity proceeding in Malabar," says Mr. Gandhi. Shameful inhumanity indeed, wrought by the Moplas, and these are the victims, saved from extermination by British and Indian swords, For be it remembered the Moplas began the whole horrible business; the Government intervened to save their victims and these thousands have been saved. Mr. Gandhi would have hostilities suspended—so that the Moplas may sweep down on the refugee camps, and finish their work?

I visited in Calicut three huge Committee camps, two Christian, and the Congress building and compound where doles of rice are given daily from 7 A.M. to noon. In all, the arrangements were good. Big thatched sheds, and some buildings shelter the women and children, the men sleep outside. They are all managed by Indians, the Zamorini's Committee distributing cloths and money to all, except the Congress committee, which work independently and gives food from its own resource. At Palghat, similar arrangements are made by the Zamorini's Committee, and the order and care in feeding are good to see.

Let me finish with a beautiful story told to me. Two Pulayas, the lowest of the submerged classes, were captured with others, and given the choice between Islam and Death. These, the outcaste of Hinduism, the untouchables, so loved the Hinduism which had been so unkind a step-mother to them, that they chose to die Hindus rather than to live Muslim. May the God of both, Muslim and Hindus send His messengers to these heroic souls, and give them rebirth into the Faith for which they died. New India, 29 November 1921.

Wilful murders of Hindus and arson were first begun in my own place by Chembrasseri Thangal and his Lieutenant, another Thangal. You might have read accounts written by me in the Malabar journal which was sent to you last time. This contagion began to spread like wild fire and we began to hear of murders daily. Within a fortnight cold-blooded murders of Hindus became very common. From within the borders of Calicut and Ernad taluks refugees come in large numbers with tales of murders and atrocities committed by the rebels. At Puthur Amson in Ernad only 12 miles northeast of Calicut—One day in broad daylight twenty-five persons who refused to embrace Islam were butchered and put into a well. One out of these who narrowly escaped death got out of the well when the rebels left the place and ran to Calicut for life. He is now in the hospital. So the accounts must be true as he himself was one of the victims.

During the last week news of numerous murders and forcible conversions came from another quarter also, Mannur near Aniyallur and Kadalundi railway station in Ernad taluk. This place also is only 14 miles away from Calicut. Every train to Calicut was carrying with it daily hundreds of refugees during the last week. If there were ten thousand refugees fed by the Relief Committee last week, it must have fed fifteen thousand this week. According to the statements given by them there must be at least fifty murders and numerous cases of conversions and house-burning. Can you conceive of a more ghastly and inhuman crime than the murders of babies and pregnant women? Two days back I had occasion to read a report given by a refugee in Calicut. A pregnant woman carrying 7 months was cut through the abdomen by a rebel and she was seen lying dead on the way with the dead child projecting out of the womb. How horrible! Another: a baby of six months was snatched away from the breast of his own mother and cut into two pieces. How heart-rending! Are these rebels human beings or monsters? From the same quarters numerous forcible conversions are also reported. One refugee has given statement that he had seen with his own eyes that the heads of a dozen people were being shaved by the rebels and afterwards they were asked to recite some passages from the Quran. This he witnessed from a tree. I wonder what is the authority of some people who contradict the news of murders, and forcible conversions of Hindus. Let them come here and test the veracity of these statements for themselves.

'Yesterday another report of murders came from a place very near Kottakal. The report says that eleven Hindus (males and females), were murdered by the rebels.

'A fortnight ago fifteen dead bodies of Hindus were seen under culvert on the road between Perinialmanna and Melatur.'

Will you not be sick of these stories of murders? All these reports are, as far as possible, proved also to be correct.

Words fail to express my feelings of indignation and abhorrence which I experienced when I came to know of an instance of rape, committed by the rebels under Chembrasseri Thangal. A respectable Nayar Lady at Melatur was stripped naked by the rebels in the presence of her husband and brothers, who were made to stand close by with their hands tied behind. When they shut their eyes in abhorrence they were compelled at the point of sword to open their eyes and witness the rape committed by the brute in their presence. I loathe even to write of such a mean action. I thank God that my family and relatives reached safe at Calicut without being dishonoured by these brutes, though we sustained serious loss of property and the loss of four lives (two servants and two relatives,—More afterwards). This instance of rape was communicated to me by one of her brothers confidentially. There are several instances of such mean atrocities which are not revealed by people. New India 6th Dec. 1921.

Truth is infinitely of more paramount importance than Hindu-Muslim unity or Swaraj, and therefore, we tell the Maulana Sahib and his co-religionists and India's revered leader Mahatma Gandhi—if he too is unaware of the events here—that atrocities committed by the Moplahs on the Hindus are unfortunately too true and that there is nothing in the deeds of Moplah rebels which a true non-violent non-co-operator can congratulate them for. What is it for which they deserve congratulation? Their wanton and unprovoked attack on the Hindus, the all but wholesale looting at their houses in Ernad, and parts of Valluvanad, Ponnani, and Calicut Taliques; the forcible conversion of Hindus in a few places in the beginning of the rebellion and the wholesale conversion of those who stick to their homes in its later stages, the brutal murder of inoffensive Hindus, men, women, and children in cold blood, without the slightest reason except that they are "Kaffirs" or belong to the same race as the Policemen, who insulted their Tangals or entered their Mosques, the desecration and burning of Hindu Temples the outrage on Hindu women and their forcible conversion and marriage by Moplahs; do these and similar atrocities proved beyond the shadow of a doubt by the statements recorded by us from the actual sufferers who have survived, deserve any congratulation? On the other hand should they not call forth the strongest condemnation from all right-minded men and more especially from a representative body of Mohamedans like the Khilafat Conference pledged to non-violence under all provocation? Did the Moplahs, who committed such atrocities, sacrifice their lives in the cause of their religion?

(Sd.) K. P. Kesahava Menon,
Sec. Kerala Pro. Cong. Comit.

(Sd.) K. Madhavan Nair,
Sec. Calicut Dis. Cong. Comit.

(Sd.) T. V. Mohamad,
Sec. Ernad Khilafat Comit.

(Sd.) K. Karunakara Menon,
Treas. Kerala Pro. Comit.

(Sd.) K. V. Gopal Menon.

Maulana Mohani justifies the looting of Hindus by Moplahs as lawful by way of commandeering in a war between the latter and the Government or as a matter of necessity when the Moplahs were forced to live in jungles. Maulana perhaps does not know that in the majority of cases, the almost wholesale looting of Hindu houses in portions of Ernad, Valluvanad and Ponani Taluques was perpetrated on the 21st, 22nd, and 23rd of August before the military had arrived in the affected area to arrest or fight the rebels even before Martial law had been declared. The Moplahs had not betaken themselves to jungles at the time as Moulana supposes nor had the Hindus as a class done anything to them to deserve their hostility. The out-break commenced on the 20th of August, the police and the District Magistrate withdrew from Tirunangadi to Calicut on the 21st and the policemen throughout the affected area had taken to their heels. There was no adversary to the Moplahs at the time whom the Hindus could possibly have helped or invited, and the attack on them was most wanton and unprovoked.

Madhavan Nair.

APPENDIX IV
Proceedings of the conference at Calicut presided over by the Zamorin Maharaja.

VI. That the conference views with indignation and sorrow the attempts made in various quarters by interested parties to ignore or minimise the crimes committed by the rebels such as

a. Brutally dishonouring women;

b. Flaying people alive;

c. Wholesale slaughter of men, women and children;

d. Burning alive entire families;