Presidential Address to the Special Session of the Indian National Congress, Calcutta

[p. 22] My first duty is to tender to you most cordial thanks for the high honour you have done me in calling me to this office, the highest in your gift and at a session which is perhaps the most momentous in the history of our movement. The honour is the greater because the session is being held at Calcutta, a place which has always been associated in my mind with the best and the truest ideals of Indian Nationalism. It was at Calcutta that the first important political movement of the last century was ushered into existence, and it was a Calcutta orator, the greatest that the country has so far produced under British rule, who was the first standard-bearer of political agitation all over Northern India. It was at Calcutta that the ideals of the new Nationalism that has since then grown into a mighty tree, were first expounded and explained by one of the purest minded and the most intellectual of Bengal's gifted sons. I mean Sri Arabinda Ghosh. It was at Calcutta again that the Grand Old Man of India, the revered and universally respected Dadabhai Naoroji, set the ideal of Swaraj before us in clear and unambiguous language, an ideal which has since guided us in all our political endeavours.

A GREAT STRUGGLE

It was with great reluctance that I made up my mind to accept the call of duty to which the All India Congress Committee by its decision invited me. Our politics are no more of the old humdrum kind, about which practically there was no, or if at all very little difference of opinion. We are no longer contented with resolutions, prayers and memorials. We have advanced beyond the [p. 23] first stage of very humble submission, have crossed the boundaries of respectful demand, and have entered into the arena of backing our demands by vigorous and compelling action of a peaceful kind. The country is at the present moment in the throes of a momentous struggle. The Anglo-Indian press has designated it as revolutionary. There are many people to whom the word revolution is like a red rag to a bull. I am not one of them. Words do not scare me. It is no use blinking the fact that we are passing through a revolutionary period, nay, we are already in the grip of a mighty revolution, a comprehensive and all-covering one, religious, intellectual, educational, social, economic and political. We are by instinct and tradition averse to revolutions. Traditionally, we are a slow going people; but when we decide to move, we do move quickly and by rapid strides. No living organism can altogether escape revolutions in the course of its existence. Our national history records many such. But the revolutionary struggle through which we are now passing has been brought to our shores by our rulers. It is they who completely changed without our consent and sometimes against our wishes, the whole structure of our social life by introducing revolutionary economic changes in the country. We never asked for them, we never desired them; but primarily in their own interests and for their own benefit they introduced them. Along with these economic changes, they have partially, if not completely, changed our outlook on life by their system of education, by their newspapers, by their laws and by their courts. Some of these changes we would very much like to undo, but whether we or even they can do so now is at best problematic. Any way, the present political situation is a natural outcome of their own policy and is their handiwork. If then any one is to be blamed for it (I for one do not blame any one), it is they themselves. Many of them would probably like to set the hands of the clock back but it is no longer in their power nor is it in ours to do so. We are following a course which we shall have to keep to, and whether we wish it or not, we are, I repeat, in the thick of a great struggle, the end of which no one can foresee. The better mind of the country is opposed to the use of any kind of violence, whether of language or of deed, in bringing the struggle to a satisfactory close; we are doing our level best sincerely and honestly to achieve our end by peaceful means and with the sincerest desire to keep our connection with the ruling class on a basis of mutual [p. 24] friendship and reciprocal interest. But there are persons among the latter who are bent upon thwarting us, who professedly and openly claim their right to rule us by the sword, and who maintain that they have a right to exploit us by all the means available to them by virtue of their military and intellectual power. We are thus face to face with a great struggle between the forces of democratic change, English and Indian, and reactionary militarism. In order to go through the struggle successfully, we will require all the manliness and strength, all the wisdom and tact and all the determination and strength we are capable of putting forth. Above all what we need most is calmness and coolness of judgment, moderation in language and firmness in action.

At such a time and under such circumstances, the loss of a leader like the late lamented Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak is a misfortune and a calamity, the magnitude of which it is difficult to encompass by words. Just when we had the greatest need of his unswerving loyalty and steadfast devotion to the cause of his country, his cool and calm judgment, his unfaltering and firm patriotism, an inscrutable providence has snatched him from us. The universal grief which this sad event has evoked, and the unique demonstrations which have followed his death throughout the length and breadth of this vast sub-continent, have been a revelation both to his friends and foes. This extraordinary manifestation of popular feeling is almost unparalleled in the history of India. All sections of people, regardless of caste, creed and colour, regardless of social, religious and political divisions, regardless of economic distinctions have taken part in it, and have given conclusive proof, if any was needed that in estimating the worth of its leaders and its servants, the country knows its mind and has no inclination of allowing its judgment to be affected by the wishes and opinions of the highest amongst the dignitaries of the State. Here and there a few mean attempts were made to insinuate that the deceased leader was anti-Muslim, but our Muslim fellow countrymen have been the most forward and the most fervent in the expressions of their regard and love for him. Some members of the ruling class, too, have behaved with admirable judgment. Great as has been the loss of the country generally, the loss of the Indian National Congress is even greater. The Congress has by his death lost one of its few surviving [p. 25] founders, one who by his indomitable will and energy and his unique sacrifices and sufferings had contributed the most to building up of that life of the country which finds its expression in the present activities of this national movement. It will be one of the first items of business of this Session to put on record in befitting language our sense of the great and irreparable loss we have suffered by death of Lokmanya Tilak.

NATIONAL PROBLEMS

This Session of the Congress has been convened in accordance with an understanding arrived at between the leaders at the Amritsar Congress, for the purpose of considering the Hunter Committee Report and the decision of the Government thereupon relating to the Punjab disturbances of the last year. Since the Amritsar Congress finished its labours, another important question has been added to our national problems, which requires a speedy and immediate consideration both in the interests of peace and good government. The disappointment which has been caused to our Muslim countrymen by the Turkish Peace Treaty and its effects on the Khilafat is keen and bitter. Lastly, there is the important question of Reform Rules on which the success of the Reforms, such as they are, so largely depends. The All-India Congress Committee, therefore, have added the Khilafat question and also the rules and regulations under the Reforms Act, to the subject for which originally, according to the understanding at the Amritsar Congress, this Session was to be convened. These, then, are the subjects which will be before you during this Session for consideration and decision.

PUNJAB DISORDERS

Taking the Punjab disorders first, since we met last at Amritsar, the Congress Commissioners appointed by the Punjab enquiry Sub-Committee of the All India Congress Committee have issued their report. The Hunter Committee appointed by the Government of India have also finished their labours and published their report, and the Government of India and the British Cabinet have passed their orders on that report. The report of the Hunter Committee is not unanimous. All the Indian members have differed from the majority on matters which in my judgment are “basic”. Similarly, the Government of India also are not unanimous. The only Indian [p. 26] member of the Government of India (at the time) has accepted the conclusions of the minority and differed from the majority. The country has with one voice condemned the majority report as well as the decision of the Government thereupon. We, in this Congress are expected to focus the opinion of the country in the matter and recommend such action as we think ought to be taken for the redress of the wrong that has been done.

To arrive at a proper understanding of the position, one has to look into a whole lot of circumstances which preceded the agitation against the Rowlatt Act and to bear in mind that the person who is principally responsible for the Punjab tragedy, the man whose general policy created the atmosphere which made it possible for a Dyer, a Bosworth Smith, an O'Brien, a Doveton, a Frank Johnson and other smaller fry, to commit the unmentionable outrages of which they were guilty, in the five days immediately preceding the introduction of Martial Law, and all through its continuance in the spring of 1919 in the Punjab, is Sir Michael O'Dwyer. From the very moment he took charge of the Province he set before him an ideal of government which was Prussian in conception, Prussian in aim and Prussian in execution. For six long years he occupied himself in working out his ideals and in carrying out his plans. Every item was carefully thought out, and with equal care entrusted to agents who were most fitted and willing to achieve the end desired by the Head of the Government. If ever there intervened an obstacle or a hindrance it was removed without the least pang of conscience, and without the slightest consideration of its morality or even legality, so much so that even the European members of the Indian Civil Service who refused to endorse his opinions or to carry out his mandate had to retire into the background.

To the misfortune of the Punjabees, the Punjab happens to be practically a military Province on account of its nearness to the Frontier, and because of there being so many military stations in the vicinity of the most important civil stations. The Punjab Commission has, besides, always had on its personnel, a good many representatives of the military service. The Punjab bureaucracy has thus been more or less always dominated by military ideals, and the civil administration of that Province has never been absolutely [p. 27] free from military influence. The Civilians, living in or in the vicinity of military stations and passing about six months in the year in hill stations, where the military predominate, are consciously or unconsciously affected by the opinions and views of their military fellow-officers. No wonder then that in spite of the lavish praises bestowed on the Punjabees by the Anglo-Indian administrators, and in spite of the most extravagant solicitude shown by them in words for the prosperity of the Punjab, the bulk of the Punjabees are the most ignorant and the most abjectly situated of all the people of India. It is extremely painful, specially for a Punjabee to say that under and in consequence of the British rule, the manly races of the Punjab should have lost that independence of character and bearing for which they had a name in Indian history prior to British rule. It will be no exaggeration to say that for military reasons the bureaucracy has kept the martial races of the Punjab ignorant and in conditions of submissiveness bordering on abject servility. The Punjabees are reputed to have a splendid physique. The rural Punjab is the flower of British Indian army. Even urban Punjab has a population which is physically superior to the similarly placed people of other parts of India; yet it is remarkable that whenever plague and influenza have attacked the Province, the Punjabees have been the most willing to die in entirely disproportionate numbers. One may naturally ask, why? The answer is because of the dense ignorance of the Punjab masses, because of the lack of adequate medical staff, because of the inadequate measures of sanitation, and last but not least, because of the lack of that political consciousness which makes men self-reliant and self-respecting. The exigencies of militarism have inspired the policy of keeping the Punjab peasantry illiterate as well as politically dumb. But for the strength of character shown by some of Sir Michael O'Dwyer's predecessors in the office of the Lieutenant-Governor particularly Sir C. Aitchison and Sir Dennis Fitzpatrick the Punjab would have been in a still worse position.

The policy of militarism, however, reached its climax with the advent in the Province of Sir Michael O'Dwyer who had been absent from the Province for about 15 years, having originally served there in minor capacities, returned as the head of the Government with a determination to crush the spirit which had made 1907 and 1910 possible. In 1913 when he took charge of the Province the people [p. 28] had considerably changed from what they had been when he was last there. They were not so very submissive and there was a little political awakening also. To crush this political awakening was one of his principal aims. So when he returned he set before him as his ideal a Prussian system of administration. All through the period of his office he was guided by that ideal.

(i) I charge him with having deliberately intensified the policy of ‘divide and rule’ by keeping apart the Mahomedans from the Hindus and both from the Sikhs.

(ii) I charge him with having created fresh political divisions between the people of the Province by drawing purely artificial and mischievous distinctions between martial and educated classes and between the rural and urban interests and creating unhealthy rivalry between them.

(iii) I charge him with having made illegal use of the process of law and of his authority for recruitment purposes, and for getting contributions for the war loan and other war funds.

(iv) I charge him with having condoned and in a way encouraged the most brutal and diabolic deeds of those who were his tools in recruiting and war loan campaigns and with having failed to check bribery and corruption among the subordinate police and magistracy.

(v) I charge him with having debased and misused the forms and processes of law for the purpose of crushing those who would not bend their knees to him and who showed the slightest independence of spirit and a desire for political advancement.

(vi) I charge him with having deliberately deceived the Government of India as to the necessity of Martial Law, and as to the necessity of trying cases of ordinary sedition under the process of that law. He was guilty of a clear falsehood at this stage when he suggested to the Government of India that the General Officer Commanding in the Punjab agreed with his views.

(vii) I charge him with having deliberately manipulated the continuance of Martial Law for vindictive and punitive purposes when there was no rebellion and there was no likelihood of a recrudescence of disturbances in that Province.

[p. 29] (viii) I charge him with having been instrumental, by express or tacit consent and by encouragement, by word and deed, in the promulgation of barbarous orders and the infliction of barbarous punishments and humiliations on the people of the Punjab.

(ix) I charge him at least with being an accessory after the event of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. By his unqualified approval of the Jallianwala massacre he made himself responsible for all the outrages committed by the Martial Law administrators in pursuance of his policy.

(x) I charge him with having connived at perfectly illegal exactions from the people of the Punjab in the shape of punitive fines and penalties.

(xi) I charge him with culpable neglect of duty in not going to Amritsar, first on the 11th (April 1919) after the deplorable events of the 10th, and then on the 14th after the massacre at the Jallianwala Bagh.

(xii) I charge him, lastly, with having extorted addresses from the people of the Punjab, on the eve of his departure by illegal and mean threats, one of them having been altered in a material particular when in the custody of his minions, and having made a dishonest use of them in his defence in England.

These are serious charges, and I bring them with all the weight of the office to which you have raised me with common consent of the country. I challenge an enquiry and I declare before God and man that my Province and my people will not be satisfied until such an enquiry has been made.

I have now done with the story of the Punjab. I have given the story at some length, because I began by formulating certain charges against Sir Michael O'Dwyer at the commencement of my address, and it was my duty to make out a prima facie case in support of these charges. I hope and trust that I have made out my case to your satisfaction, that of all the persons who had anything to do with the introduction of Martial Law in the Punjab and with the events that preceded and followed it, Sir Michael was the chief [p. 30] culprit. Indeed I may venture to assert that no man in the whole history of British Rule in India has done such a great disservice to the British Empire and has brought such disgrace on the good name of the British nation as Sir Michael O'Dwyer.

The root cause of all this evil, as I have pointed out before, is the Prussian conception of Government which dominates the minds of so many of our Anglo-Indian rulers of whom Sir Michael O'Dwyer was the type and which places the State as something above and beyond the people. It was that conception of Government which made it possible for Lord Chelmsford's Government to pass the Rowlatt Bill into law ; it was this conception which made it possible for Sir Michael O'Dwyer to deport Drs. Kitchlew and Satyapal and subsequently to have Martial Law declared in the Punjab. Every official who has had anything to do with this lamentable affair was filled with the same idea, namely, of making an example, 'teaching a lesson', 'creating moral effect' and 'restoring the prestige of Government' by terrorism and frightfulness. General Dyer boasted that he had acted with that motive. Colonel O'Brien, Captain Doveton, Lieutenant-Colonel Macrae, Lieutenant-Colonel Johnson, Mr. Bosworth Smith, and even some of the Judges who presided at the trial of Martial Law offenders were all inspired by the same ideal, which made many of them inhuman in their dealings with the Punjabees during the terrible days of the Martial Law. We had the sad spectacle of a Government and its high officials neglecting to take the most essential precautions for preventing unnecessary sacrifice of life and property in the carrying out of their plans. They admit that in no cases, where they resorted to firing and shooting, did they make any provision for first-aid to the wounded. In some cases they even refused to make over the bodies of the dead to their relatives. In others they took no notice of the dead. We have also evidence of the fact that troops destroyed property wholesale in the districts through which they passed, that even high officials of the standing of Deputy Commissioners exacted all kinds of contributions from the people within their respective jurisdiction; that they obtained articles of food and other necessities of life without paying for them, and in addition realised levies and fines and penalties from whole populations. We have also evidence of the fact that in giving effect to the orders of Martial Law Tribunals about the forfeiture of property, inhuman cruelties were practised on the women and [p. 31] children of the 'offenders'. In some cases they were thrown on the streets and were not even allowed to take sufficient clothing for the night and this was done not by subordinate officials but by high officers.

I have narrated the events of Sir Michael O'Dwyer's administration at some length in order to show that it was all through, a regime of terrorism and frightfulness in the literal sense of these words and that it was only carried to its logical conclusion in the months of April and May, 1919. In the words used by Mr. Montagu with reference to the action of General Dyer the ideals which Sir Michael O'Dwyer had set before himself were 'terrorism, humiliation and subordination' and they reached their climax in the promulgation and administration of Martial Law. Witness after witness has appeared before the Hunter Committee and has practically boasted of his acts of cruelty and oppression. General Dyer himself has justified all that he did. Colonel Frank Johnson is proud of everything that was done by him. He said in one case that that was one of the few brain waves he had in his life. Captain Doveton, Colonel O'Brien, Major Bosworth Smith all testify in the same spirit. There was only one incident for which Colonel Frank Johnson expressed his regret, and that was the flogging of the marriage party. Others were not sorry for anything, and said that they would do the same thing if ever there was a chance of doing so. Here then we have the tragedy of the situation.

We believe that the principles and conduct of these men are entirely opposed to the traditions and the policy of the British Government, particularly the policy that underlies the Reform Scheme. We are afraid, however, that in the Punjab the majority of the bureaucracy are of the same mentality. The vast majority of the non-official European community is also of the same mind and so are a good many of the European and American missionaries. If such is the mentality of so many members of the Indian Civil Service, who, after all, are the real rulers of the country and in whom is vested the task of administration, what is the remedy. In the face of the statements made before the Hunter Committee by European witnesses, the wholesale defence of General Dyer and others by the Anglo-Indian Press and the Anglo-Indian community, the raising of memorial funds for him and in his honour, and last but not the least, the resolution passed by the House of Lords, how [p. 32] can we Indians, possibly, assume that the British in England and the European community in India generally have accepted, in sincerity, the Reform Scheme and the principles that underlie it? These principles imply that if not at once at least in a short time we must be free in our own country, with power to make and unmake our Governments, subject only to the maintenance of the Imperial tie, it being our interest and right to shorten the period of transition as much as possible. The Indian Civil Service and the European community of India and the House of Lords evidently think otherwise. They conceive it to be in their interest to prolong the period of transition by all methods open to them and many of them are frankly anxious to defeat the Reforms Scheme and revert to the old system of Government. If then the struggle between these two interests is to be conducted on the lines that were in evidence in the Martial Law regime, it seems to be absolutely futile to think of friendly co-operation between the two interests. It is all very well for those who are still in power to ask us to drop the matter and let by-gones be by-gones. I wish I could ask you to do the same. I am not actuated by any vindictive and revengeful motive, and I fully believe that my people are not; but how can we sit silent and let the matter drop in the face of all that has happened in India and in England, in connection with the events of last year until full and complete justice has been done and until steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of the tragic state of things. The Government of India and the British Cabinet have gone out of their way to praise and belaud a man whom we consider to be the chief culprit in this whole drama of oppression and tyranny. If that praise is justified and if we acquiesce in by our silence, then surely we deserve what was done to us. If not, then, it is our duty to press for the punishment and prosecution of Sir Michael O'Dwyer.

The Punjab tragedy was not a provincial affair, but a national one. Our manhood, our self-respect, our national dignity, nay, our very existence as a nation, depends on our having the principles and practices of Sir Michael O'Dwyer condemned, and once for all abrogated. We owe it to ourselves, to our women, to our children and also to those unborn, to fight it out and not let the matter drop without obtaining full and unqualified redress, and without obtaining effective guarantees that it will not be possible for any one, however high his position in the Government of the country, to [p. 33] enact such like tragedies again. It is our duty also to repudiate as emphatically as we can the fundamentally erroneous, I was going to say, vicious and Prussian conception, which found frequent expression in Sir Michael O'Dwyer's speeches, that the security of life and property is the primary duty of Government. The security of life and property is only a means to an end. What is the end? The uplifting of the human race and its progress towards the fullness of freedom, which means towards divinity. “Peace is a good thing, but life is still better”, says Rabindranath Tagore in one of his essays on Nationalism.

If the British rulers of India propose to give us mere security of life and property by denying us honour and liberty we must refuse to have them. There is no life without freedom and there is no freedom without “Swarajya” or self-government.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I believe I give expression to your sentiments when I say to our rulers, that although the British Government is mighty enough to crush all our efforts by their military power, any success they achieved by military efforts would be a very expensive one. The British Raj is no longer synonymous with justice and fair-play in the mind of the average citizen and the more it is dragged into the mire by men like Sir Michael O'Dwyer, the more it will lose in what has hitherto constituted its boast.

We, on our part, are determined not to let our morale go under, to fight only a clean fight. We shall continue to condemn unhesitatingly and unequivocally all those who commit violence or insult or humiliate women, irrespective of their nationality, or who commit such acts of inhumanity as characterised the Dyers, Dovetons, Johnsons, O'Briens and others of the Punjab tragedy. If all this fails to bring us the necessary relief, I for one hope and believe that it will not, well, then the future is in the lap of the gods. I want in your name and in the name of the country which we have the honour to represent, to tell Mr. Montagu and through him the British Cabinet, that we accept in full the principles that he has laid down in the speech which he made in the course of the Dyer debate in the House of Commons. For our part we are fully prepared to act on those principles and to cherish the connection with the British Commonwealth as a desirable privilege, but shall be [p. 34] deceiving ourselves as well as Mr. Montagu if we do not tell him also that in the light of the events that happened in the Punjab last year, the people of this country require something more than speeches and resolutions and despatches to prove that the British Cabinet and the British people are equally sincere and equally earnest for the principles laid down by Mr. Montagu. Here let me make one thing clear. If partnership of the Commonwealth means full freedom to us in India, with responsibility for the burden of the Commonwealth to the extent of our interest in it, we accept that ideal of partnership but if partnership in the Empire means and includes the permanence of racial or alien domination in any shape, form or degree in the Government of India, then we do not accept that ideal. We are determined at no distant date to be entirely free in our country, in the same sense as South Africans are free in South Africa, Canadians in Canada, Australians in Australia and the British at home. Any qualification of that ideal we will not admit. All those Europeans who are domiciled in this country are our countrymen, and it shall be our duty to respect their rights in the same way as we shall respect the rights of any other community in India. But beyond this we are not prepared to go. Further we are also determined not to let ourselves be used as willing tools to crush the liberties of the rest of the world. We of the Indian National Congress have declared that we are quite fit for complete autonomy even now, yet we did accept, however inadequate and unsatisfactory, the instalment given to us as evidence of bona fides of the British statesmen. We were prepared to work out the Reform Scheme to the best of our ability as a stepping stone to full responsible Government, but we must frankly tell Mr. Montagu that the events of the Punjab have shaken our faith in the motives of those who seek our co-operation in the ostensible working out of the Reform Scheme.

I will conclude this part of my address by stating in brief what we want, (a) We want complete and unequivocal repudiation and condemnation of Sir Michael O'Dwyer and if possible his prosecution and punishment. We also want that an open enquiry be held into the methods adopted by Sir Michael O'Dwyer in the recruiting campaign and in raising war loans and war funds. (b) We want the release of the remaining Martial Law prisoners and all the men that are still rotting in jails under convictions of the Special Tribunals and the Martial Law Courts. We shall be quite ready to have [p. 35] such of them re-tried by ordinary courts as were accused of murders or other charges of that nature ; but we refuse to accept the judgments of the Special and the Martial Law Courts as good judicial pronouncements. (c) We insist that all the loss incurred by the people of the Punjab by the vagaries of the troops and the officials in the course of the Martial Law administration be made good and that all punitive fines and penalties imposed and recovered be remitted and returned. (d) We demand that all the disqualifications that are involved in the conviction of men by the Martial Law Tribunals be set aside, either by law or by a general order of the Government. (e) We further require that an open enquiry be held into the charges of bribery, corruption, extortion and torture that have been made by the witnesses before the Congress Commissioners against Police Officers of whatever rank, and other officials. (f) We also insist that if the authors of the Reform Scheme want a fair trial for it, they must remove from the Punjab all such officers as were connected with the outrages, as a proof of their bona fides. (g) If there be any others in the Punjab or elsewhere who do not accept the principles of the Reform Scheme they also must go, even if they have to be retired on suitable pensions. They should not be there to desert the Reform Scheme by the exercise of powers that are still left to them to a very great extent by the Reform Scheme itself. The Department of Law and the control of the Police is entirely in their hands and unless the people of India get control of these Departments they cannot effectively prevent the higher officials from exercising these powers high-handedly and arbitrarily as they did in the Punjab and as, to our knowledge and regret, they are doing even now in some places. (h) The Government of India too must shoulder their share of the responsibility for the Punjab tragedy. Their decision on the Hunter Committee's Report was a foregone conclusion. All the credit which they were entitled to, for their efforts to shorten the period of Martial Law has been discounted by their present justification of its continuance. If the view which the British Cabinet has taken of General Dyer's action and of the excesses of the Martial Law administration is correct (and it is much below the reality), then I submit the least that Lord Chelmsford can do with honour is to retire from his high office. If Mr. Austen Chamberlain thought it his duty to resign his office on account of the verdict of the Mesopotamia Commission, I [p. 36] submit there is enough in the Hunter Committee's Report (of both the majority and the minority) which should induce Lord Chelmsford, to take the same honourable course. The Viceroy and his Cabinet have been guilty of gross dereliction of duty in failing to check the vagaries of Sir Michael O'Dwyer, and in failing to exercise that power of control which law and tradition vested in them. They let the people of the Punjab sulk and suffer under the impression that there was no one to hear their cries.

Under the circumstances the country's demand for the recall of the Viceroy seems to be just and proper.

Speaking of the Government of India, I must not omit to make mention of the noble stand made by our distinguished countryman, Sir Sankaran Nair, against the policy of the Government relating to the Punjab. His forcible protests, ending in his resignation from his high office, are worthy of the best traditions of Indian patriotism and will be remembered as long as India is articulate. His bold, blunt and burning love of justice and fairplay, his high sense of duty and absolute disregard of personal losses are such as to make every Indian proud of him.

Ladies and Gentlemen, before I close this account of the wrongs inflicted on the Punjab, I must tell you that the narrative is by no means exhaustive. For want of time and space I have omitted many facts and incidents, as telling as those related, and I believe there are many more which have not yet been brought to light. The Punjab Provincial Congress Committee have resolved to undertake the work of investigation from the point where it was left by the Congress Commissioners, so as to complete the record, as far as practicable. Nor must I pass to the next subject without recording the bright side of this gruesome tale. It is true that Sir Michael O'Dwyer did succeed in terrorising and overawing the Punjabees for a while, but as soon as the first shock was over, the people recovered almost instantaneously. Those who were arrested and prosecuted, behaved most heroically, those whom they had left behind including little children and women, bore their misfortunes nobly. To the eternal glory of Indian womanhood, Ratan Devi defied the curfew order of General Dyer, and watched all night by the corpse of her dead husband in the Jallianwala Bagh. The boys [p. 37] who were accused of waging war against His Majesty's the King, never showed the slightest anxiety about their lives.

Of the victims of official aggression there is one man whose name I must mention, who by his cool and calm behaviour, his bold and defiant attitude, his manly notions of self-respect and honour, historic indifference to consequences set an example for others and earned the ever-lasting respect of his countrymen. I refer, of course, to Lala Harkishen Lal.

Having passed through the fire of Martial Law, the Punjab is today purer, stronger, more advanced, more determined, more patriotic and very much more united. The so-called backward Muslim masses are vying with their Hindu countrymen in showing a united political front, and the Sikhs (young and old) are outdoing themselves. No words can describe their enthusiasm for political regeneration and their readiness to suffer and sacrifice.

If Martial Law has produced such good results in the Punjab itself, it has done still greater wonders in the cause of Indian unity. The political consciousness of the people of India has advanced by at least ten years. I believe I am giving expression to your sentiments, Ladies and Gentlemen, when I say that the country owes a deep debt of gratitude to the Hon'ble Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, the Hon'ble Pandit Moti Lal Nehru, the most revered Mahatma M. K. Gandhi and Messrs. C. R. Das, Jayakar and Tyebji. Our immortal Rabindranath Tagore's letter to the Viceroy will ever remain the charter of national self-respect and dignity, for the future generations of India. As a Punjabee I must offer my gratitude to all who have espoused the cause of my province in her hour of affliction. As an Indian I am proud of the stand made by the country. Surely, it is a new day and a most cheering day to find that in this matter the Hon'ble Mian Mahomed Shafi should be on the same side, as the most uncompromising Indian radical politician, be he of Bengal or of Maharashtra. The one Englishman, whose name I must mention with gratitude is Mr. C. F. Andrews, who is now one of us. Nor can we withhold our praise from the Indian members of the Hunter Committee, for their independence of character and for the statesmanlike view they have taken of the affairs in the Punjab. The country's best thanks are due to them for their lucid and masterly report.

[p. 38] They say that every cloud has its silver lining. To me it looks as if the Punjab tragedy has a golden hue, with the memory of the Amritsar martyrs, with the pictures of Ratan Devi, Madan Mohan and Khushi Ram engraved on our hearts, with the recollection of the dying Muslim urchin, who invoked the “Hindu Musalman ki jai” with his last breath, with the example of the sufferers of the Martial Law, we will march on to our goal of national unity and national freedom, with hope and confidence.

KHILAFAT QUESTION

The second question that has been referred to the Special Session of the Congress, for consideration and decision is the question of the “Khilafat”. Seventy millions of our Muslim countrymen are stirred over it. The question has two aspects ; the religious and the political. We of the Indian National Congress have no jurisdiction to go into the merits of the Khilafat question from the religious point of view. In the words of Mr. Leland Buxton “it does not in the least matter what Professor this or Doctor that thinks the Muslims ought to believe. What does matter is, that the vast majority of Sunni Muslims do believe that the Sultan of Turkey is their Khalifa and the interests of Islam require him to be the head of a large, powerful and independent State.” The Mohamedan Law-books define the boundaries of such a State.

There is perfect unanimity among the Mohamedans of India on the religious merits of the question. I do not believe there could be more than one person in a million among the Sunni Mohamedans of India who entertains any doubts in the matter. We may then take it for granted that the interpretation put upon this matter by the Central Khilafat Committee is correct. It was a matter for our Mohamedan countrymen to decide and they have decided it. They contend that the Turkish Peace Treaty violates the fundamentals of Islam, prevents them from fulfilling their religious obligations, makes it impossible for them to maintain friendly relations with a nation which is the cause of it.

They also maintain that the Turkish Settlement has violated the solemn pledges given to the people of India by British statesmen during the War.

[p. 39] In the first place, after the declaration of the War between England and Turkey in 1914, the Government of India on behalf of His Majesty's Government as also the Government of France and Russia promptly issued a proclamation assuring “His Majesty's most loyal Muslim subjects” that “no question of a religious character was involved” in the War “and disclaiming any British designs against the Holy Places of Islam”. Again in January 1918 speaking in the name of the whole Empire the British Prime Minister made the following unambiguous and remarkable pronouncement :

"Nor are we fighting to deprive Turkey of its capital or of the rich and renowned lands of Asia Minor which are predominantly Turkish in race." Finally, came the armistice with Turkey, and it is important to recall that it was signed on the basis of President Wilson's twelfth point, (one of his famous fourteen points set forth in his message to the Congress dated the 8th January, 1918), which is as follows :

“That the Turkish portions of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured of secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities now under Turkish rule should be assured security of life and autonomous development.”

Now, ask the Muslims, have these promises and pledges been redeemed? It is the bare truth to say that in the treaty presented to the Turkish Plenipotentiaries on May 11th last and since signed by the Turkish Government, every single principle contained in the declarations I have cited above, has been palpably violated. Non-interference with the Muslim religious practices and obligations, non-molestation of Islamic Holy Places and respect for Turkish territorial and National integrity have all been thrown overboard." This is the Muslim contention and the whole of India has accepted it as true.

So much then from the Mohamedan point of view.

But there are in my judgment other issues also involved in the Turkish Peace Treaty which deserve consideration. I maintain that any further extension of the British Empire in Asia is detrimental to the interests of India and fatal to the liberties of the human race. The British have frequently used Indian troops to conquer various parts of Asia and Africa. For a long time there was an [p. 40] unwritten law which every European Chancellory considered binding on itself, that non-European troops were not to be used in any European war. This was abolished in the last war. African troops and Indian troops were used during and after the war by the Allies in Europe. Black troops were in occupation of Germany and possibly they may be still there. Gurkhas were, for some time, stationed in Ireland. I do not, of course, resent the abolition of the invidious social bar. From that point of view, I may even welcome it, but surely it widens the scope of militarism. British suzerainty in Arabia and British occupation of Mesopotamia involves the practical absorption of Persia and Central Asia and perhaps, later on of Afghanistan as well, into the British Empire. What has happened in India will happen in these countries too, i.e., the general population will be disarmed and a number of them enrolled and drilled in the army. With the memory of the Dyer debates fresh in our minds, let my countrymen imagine the effect of that procedure on their own liberties as well as those of the rest of the world. The prospect of having Arabian, Persian and Afghan regiments in India cannot be pleasant to those of us who are working for the freedom of this country. It may be said that the contingency is very remote and fanciful. I am afraid I cannot agree in that view. What is remote today becomes near tomorrow. If the British Imperialist has no scruples in using Indian troops in Egypt, Persia, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Syria and Central Asia, why will he have any in using the troops he raises in these countries against us? The Hindu-Muslim problem will become ten times more troublesome and dangerous, if this turns out to be true.

Then there is another aspect of the question. If the Muslim population of these countries continues to resist British attempts at occupation which they are likely to do for years, the Indian army will be in constant requisition to fight their battles in those regions, which means a constant and never-ending drain on our resources, both human and economic. The best interests of India, therefore, require that the Muslim countries in Western Asia should remain free and independent. Their amalgamation in the British Empire even under the pretence of mandatory jurisdiction, is likely to be extremely harmful to us. We know what these mandates really mean. The British have to maintain 80,000 troops in Mesopotamia [p. 41] and the French the same number in Syria. They have spent money like water on these territories even after the war. This is not being done for the benefit of these backward countries. Several wars are going on at this minute in what were Turkish territories before.

It may be contended that this view ignores the League of Nations and the United States. Well, gentlemen, there is no such thing as the League of Nations. Great Britain and France are the League. As for the United States, they are averse to any entanglements in foreign politics. They will not raise their little finger to save the liberties of the world unless theirs are in danger.

But it may also be said that this view ignores the possibility of Labour coming into power in Great Britain. Well, so long as Labour does not actually come into power it will be foolish for us to count upon the contingency in deciding what attitude we shall take on current problems, which brook no delay. For the present it seems that Junkerism and Militarism have obtained a fresh lease of life in Great Britain. For evidence one has to read carefully the speeches made in the course of the Dyer debate in both the Houses of Parliament. These speeches would not have been delivered in 1917 and 1918.

The question then resolves itself into the following :

(a) Are we voluntarily and of our free will going to acquiesce in British Junkerism crushing Muslim liberties in Western Asia, and trample upon Indian religious susceptibilities without joining our protest with that of our Muslim countrymen against this immoral and unjust attempt?

(b) Are we to sit silent and let the British Junkers ride rough shod over the pledges under which they obtained our country's help in the war against Turkey?

(c) Are we going to lose this opportunity of cementing the Hindu-Muslim Entente for the common purpose of Indian liberties in India, and Muslim liberties in Muslim countries?

(d) We, of the Indian National Congress, have always believed that the fabric of Indian liberties cannot be built safe and secure except upon the foundation of a close understanding between the two communities. The British bureaucrats have from time to [p. 42] time been deliberately playing the one against the other, and for a time they succeeded. Now is the time for us to convince our Muslim brothers that we were and are sincere in our desire for Muslim friendship. The bureaucrats now want to play the Hindus against the Muslims. In fact they were already at the game. It was the spectacle of Hindu-Muslim unity at Amritsar that finally exasperated Sir Michael O'Dwyer and drove him mad. The Hindu-Muslim unity was declared to be anti-British for no reason whatsoever except that to Anglo-Indian bureaucrats, it was an unpleasant spectacle. It was not anti-Indian when they freely used the Muslims to denounce the Hindus, but it became anti-British, the moment Muslims began to fraternise with the Hindus. Such is the mentality of so many of the Anglo-Indian bureaucrats.

I do not believe there are any Indian Muslims who want Muslim sovereignty in India, but if there be any such we should not be afraid of them. If it came to it, we know how to defend our liberties with or without British aid. How long are we going to be afraid of shadows and be deceived by imaginary fears set before us as a justification of despotic rule? But all this is on the assumption that there is going to be a fight. I for one do not believe that there is any likelihood of one. The Muslims of India do not want to turn out the British; even if they wanted it they could not do so. What they need and ask for is our moral and constitutional support in the present crisis regarding the Khilafat, and we should have no hesitation in giving it to them unreservedly.

I think it is a perfectly legitimate and constitutional demand that the Indian troops should no more be used anywhere outside India. They were taken out to defend the Empire when the Empire was in danger. The war which threatened the whole Empire is over and the troops sent by the Dominions have returned to their homes. So should ours. The Indian army exists to defend the Indian Empire and not for an aggressive Imperial policy of extension and expansion.

As to how far the Hindus should go with their Muslim countrymen in the latter's campaign of non-co-operation is a question which it is for you to discuss and decide. All that I can say at this stage is that we should go as far as we can, consistently with our [p. 43] duty to the country, even if we have to suffer. The Hindu-Muslim unity betokens the dawn of a new day in the history of India and it will be extremely foolish and short-sighted to throw this chance which only comes once perhaps in a century on the bidding of those who worship at the shrine of Dyerism.

The prospect of Hindu-Muslim unity has already brightened the horizon and outlook of many an Indian who had taken to despair. It has cheered many a dying patriot at Amritsar and other places.

Mr. Maqbul Mohamed of Amritsar has in his evidence before the Congress Commissioners related two touching incidents which are worth mentioning here. Speaking of the pathetic scenes he witnessed after the firing on the carriage bridge at Amritsar, on the 10th of April, he says :

"I witnessed many pathetic scenes and some gruesome sights. I saw a corpse actually with an eye-ball and the whole brain blown out. I heard a dying man gasping "Hindu Mussalman ki Jai". A boy of 16 or 17 years of age lay wounded with his entrails protruding, having been hit on the belly. When Dr. Dhanpat Rai Salaria and I approached him, he whispered: "I am dying, attend to my brethren. "Hindu-Mussalman ki Jai". The next moment he died. Many similar instances of notable sacrifice I noticed when I was pouring water into the mouths of the dying."

One word more and I will have finished this part of my address. It has been pointed out to me by well meaning friends that in supporting the Muslim claim for the maintenance of the Turkish Empire, I am advocating Imperialism to which I am otherwise so bitterly opposed. Well, Ladies and Gentlemen, I do desire the destruction of Imperialism but I do not desire the destruction of some Empires for the benefit of others. In my judgment, Imperialism should be eliminated from the affairs of men and federation of sisterly states should take its place, but so long as there are Empires, it is not in the interests of humanity that some of them should be dissolved for the enlargement and glorification of others. In the present state of world politics, the liberty of such states as are now being created by the dissolution of the Turkish Empire is not worth even a day’s purchase. Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia are being [p. 44] absorbed in the British and French Empires. Arabia and Kurdistan and Armenia cannot but be vassal States. Turkey itself, under the Treaty, is hardly in a better position than the Nizam of Hyderabad. In an unguarded moment Lloyd George has said : "We have got Constantinople. We have got Mesopotamia. We have got Palestine." The Allies would have been perfectly justified in insisting on establishing autonomous governments in all the component parts of the Turkish Empire, with a tie of federation joining them all for purposes of defence. But as the matter at present stands, Muslim independence is entirely gone. What Arabia, Palestine, Mesopotamia, Syria, Kurdistan and Anatolia are getting is only a shadow and not the substance.

It is impossible to believe that the British and the French quarrels over the oil of Mosul are all disinterested and in the interest of the Muslim world. France, Italy and Great Britain have just made a treaty defining their economic interests in these territories, without consulting Turkey.

In my judgment the position of the Turks in Anatolia and Constantinople is worse than that of Germans in Germany and of the Austrians in Austria. It cannot be said that the Treaty secures them the sovereignty of Thrace or of the Turkish parts of Empire or of the rich and renowned lands of Asia Minor. In an article in the Servant of India, dated 19th August 1920, our friend Mr. C. F. Andrews has explained the meaning of that sentence. He quotes chapter and verse for the following opinion :

"Furthermore, we have now the fact brought to light, that every other Allied power appears to the British as paramount in Aleppo and Damascus and the Greeks as paramount in Smyrna and Adrianople. All the military defences of Constantinople are in the hands of the British. The Sultan himself, his Vizier, and his Cabinet sign dutifully and unanimously British orders. Recalcitrant officials have been effectively dealt with. Financial control has been taken from the Turkish Government; and the Sultan has been made, not only a prisoner in his own palace, to all intents and purposes, but also practically a pauper and a mendicant, dependent on the hated foreigner for every penny of his income. It is this situation, which has made Europe regard the British military occupation as complete and lasting."

[p. 45] REFORM RULES AND REGULATIONS

It is not my intention to detain you long over the Reform Rules and Regulations. The Parliament has finally passed them and they have already been put into operation. My attitude towards the Reform Scheme may be summed up in one sentence. It was one of partial elation in 1918, it sank into one of depression in 1919, it changed almost into one of despair in 1920. From the frankness that characterised the statements made in the Joint Report of the Secretary of State and Viceroy, I concluded that they meant exactly what they had said. But soon after, the resolution relating to the Arms Act and the Local Self-government and the action of the Government in the matter of admitting Indians into the commissioned ranks of the Indian Army, disillusioned me. Then came the Reform Act, with its reservations and limitations. The way in which the Secretary of State has been encumbering Indian finances and sanctioning increase after increase in the salaries and allowances of the Civil and Military service, the rules that have been made for the selection of such Indian Civil Servants as are to be nominated in India, the latest development of policy in regard to Currency, Exchange, Reserve Bills, and last but not the least the tenderness which has been shown in dealing with the culprits in the Punjab tragedy have shattered all my hopes. The Reform Scheme as originally formulated, carried in its bosom the germs of disease. These germs have so fearfully developed since then that Colonel Wedgwood was perfectly justified in arguing that “the people of India think and rightly think, that the rules and regulations and the decisions of the Joint Committee, have whittled down the recommendations of the Montagu-Chelmsford Report and have made the Act, as it is put into operation now, far worse than the recommendation of the original Report led them to expect.” Now I must say that in one or two respects the Reform Act has made an improvement on the original scheme, but on the whole it has disappointed the hopes that were raised by the latter. Nor is this any matter for wonder. The Rules and Regulations have been framed by the bureaucracy and represent their mind. The people of India have had very little to say in the drafting of them, and what little they said has gone unheeded. The restrictions imposed on the selection of candidates, the refusal to enfranchise the wage-earning classes and women, the constitution of the territorial constituencies and the almost autocratic powers given to the Governors, have considerably reduced the [p. 46] value of the Reforms, even such as they were. The distinction between dismissed Government servants and dismissed or suspended lawyers and between rural and urban constituencies is on the face of it absurd. The tenderness shown towards European commercial interests is significant and even more significant is the anxiety to keep out of the Councils the leading victims of Martial Law. In the Punjab, Indian Trade and Commerce remains unrepresented and also the Depressed Classes and the wage-earners. The Rules of procedure are as reactionary as the ingenuity of the bureaucracy could make them. In fact, all round, so far as the Rules and Regulations are concerned, the bureaucracy have won and the Indian people have lost. My friend, Mr. V. J. Patel, has returned to India perhaps sadder and wiser for his troubles. He will, I am sure, throw much more light on the subject than I can. It has been found that blood is thicker than water. It has happened in this case as it did in the case of the Morley-Minto reforms, and it will continue to be like that, until the people of India make up their minds that what they want is the whole loaf and not merely half of it. I would have no objection to take even the half, provided I was sure that the half offered was not selected by the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy is so adept in the art of mixing and cooking that the half which they propose to retain, contains all the nourishment of the whole leaving the other half worse than chaff. They manage it so skilfully that in the process of doughing they mix many a germ of disease in the half which they propose to let you have. It will be a marvel of good fortune, if with all the distinctions of Hindus, Mussalmans, Sikhs and Christians, of urban and rural, of Brahmans and Non-Brahmans, of residents and non-residents, of British subjects and those of Native States, of military and civil, made in the Rules and Regulations, we are still able to evolve a national spirit which will rise above these differences and consolidate us into one people, with a will to live and prosper as a free nation.

NON-CO-OPERATION

At the meeting of the All-India Congress Committee, which sanctioned the convening of this special session, it was proposed by Mr. Gandhi that, as a protest against the Turkish Peace Treaty and the decision of the Government in regard to the Punjab affairs, that Committee should recommend a programme of Non-co-operation to the country. Mr. Gandhi's programme of Non-co-operation includes the boycott of the reformed Councils. The [p. 47] All-India Congress Committee considered that it was not within its competence to accept this proposition as it was opposed to the Resolution of the Amritsar Congress relating to the Reform Scheme. It did not, at the same time, think it right to dispose of the matter without giving the country, as a whole, an opportunity of pronouncing on it. So it has referred the whole matter to this special session.

The question has since then been widely discussed in the country, on the platform and in the press. The Central Khilafat Committee under the leadership of Mr. Gandhi have already started their campaign of Non-co-operation. Some Provincial Congress Committees have, by majority of votes, accepted the principle of Non-co-operation but have recommended no action, pending the decision of this assembly. The question is very much agitating the public mind and has divided the country into two opposing camps. On both sides are ranged revered and respected leaders. Much feeling has been imported into the discussion. Under the circumstances, I have decided that, as President of this assembly, the proper course for me at this stage is to refrain from expressing any opinion on this subject.

I am aware that in the past Presidents have generally discussed all important political questions of the day in their presidential addresses, but then until very recently the country was practically unanimous on all questions which the Congress was expected to deal with.

On the other hand, I believe there is an unwritten tradition that the Congress President, as the spokesman of the country, is expected to deal only with questions on which the country is unanimous or almost unanimous. There is a great deal of wisdom in that tradition. If the Congress is to maintain its character as a National Assembly, those who are selected for the office of the President must not be partisans in the ordinary sense of the term. Whatever his personal opinions, the President cannot be speaking for, and in the name of the country, if he makes a pronouncement on which the country is not unanimous. If his views do not happen to coincide with those of the majority, both he and the Congress would find the situation rather awkward. The President should not try to anticipate the decision of the Congress on a question on which the country is so sharply divided, as it is on the question before us.

[p. 48] I, therefore, think that the best interests of the country and the traditions of the high office to which you have elected me, require that for the present, and in this address, I should say nothing on this much-debated question. In deciding to do so, I am adopting a course which, in my judgment, will enable you hereafter to maintain the national character of this assembly, and which will also have the additional merit of not narrowing the field from which to select your future Presidents. In these days of active political life, when every new day the country may be expected to be confronted with problems on which there is room for differences of opinion among the best and the most respected of the country's leaders, you cannot afford to select your Presidents from amongst men who have kept aloof from active political life. No person who is actively interested in the political life of his country can possibly remain neutral on any important questions on the merest chance of being called upon to preside over a session of the Congress. Nor would such an office-seeker be worthy of this high office. The Congress Presidents must continue to be selected, as far as possible, from among men who have been in the forefront of the political life of the country. It should not be difficult for many among them, to be absolutely impartial when presiding over discussions of controversial subjects, in spite of their having their own personal opinions one way or the other.

In my humble judgment, the President of the Indian National Congress is the mouth-piece of the country only on questions on which the country is unanimous or practically unanimous. Acting on this principle, the moment I decided to accept the honour to which I was called by the vote of the All-India Congress Committee, I made up my mind to follow this course. Since then I have devoted much thought to it but I have not seen any reason to change my opinion. I hope and trust that my decision will meet with your approval. I have my personal opinion on the questions involved in the programme of Non-co-operation but during the session of the Congress I will conduct the proceedings without taking sides.

This, however, does not prevent me from making some general observations on the subject. Before we consider Non-co-operation let us start with co-operation. Co-operation of the people with the Government is based on one of the two assumptions, either that the Government represents them, or that the Government is there to [p. 49] protect their interests. Now in India the first of these two assumptions cannot hold good. The second is unhappily in the course of being shattered to pieces, if not already gone. Co-operation with Government, again, is of two kinds ; one enforceable by law and, therefore, compulsory, for example the payment of taxes, or serving the army under conscription ; the other is voluntary; for example accepting Government service or joining the Councils and so. In the case of the former, every refusal is punishable. As for the latter, there again you have to distinguish between co-operation which is obviously for the country's benefit and that which is not so. Co-operation determined solely or mainly by economic considerations can only be refused, if we can find economic alternatives. Co-operation inspired by the considerations of honour and dignity can be easily refused if the mentality of the people regarding honour and dignity can be changed. Last, but not the least, in the same class you may consider co-operation which gives you opportunities of serving your country by attacking the citadels of power and privilege from the inside.

Co-operation or refusal of it, then, must be judged by (a) its obligatory or voluntary nature (b) by its economic consequences, (c) by its inherent morality and (d) by its utility as a weapon of attack or defence.

Co-operation which is immoral or which makes you a tool of a foreign bureaucracy or which leaves you no option but to give effect to their orders, stands on an entirely different footing from one which is obviously for the benefit of the country. Similarly co-operation, which is inspired by economic necessity stands on a different footing from the one which is solely or mainly based on considerations of honour and dignity. Then again you must consider if your refusal of co-operation proceeds from the desire to make an immediate effective impression on the Government or from the motive of habituating the people to take their destiny in their own hands.

These, then, are the issues involved in the great question of Non-co-operation.

With your permission, I may also sound a general note of warning. We are passing through critical times. The minds of men are in ferment not only in this country of ours, but all over the world. Ideals, ideas, principles, convictions, sentiments, opinions, beliefs, [p. 50] creeds and all things, for which men have so far lived and fought are in the melting pot. Democracy is in the air but not that democracy which has brought the old world near its end in one great war. We are promised a new kind of democracy which would make no distinctions of colour, creed, caste, civilisation or culture. It would recognise no barrier between men and men which are the outcome of artificial social distinctions. It aims to raise the dignity of man as such. Under the circumstances, it is our duty to take into consideration more than we ever did before, the interests of those who are for the present mere men and women, with no adjectives or prefixes before their names to enable them either to vote for the legislative assemblies of the country or to exercise any other political right, giving them a voice in the determination of their destinies. These men and women have begun to think, not that they did not think before. Thank God, the masses of this country have never been unthinking animals. But what they used to think of before is different from what they are thinking now. In one word, they have begun to think politically. Bitter experience, economic want, Rowlatt Bills and the Martial Law orders, have indeed not only taught them to think politically but also to think vigorously. They feel and realise more keenly and more actively than they perhaps ever did before, the difference between politically free men and those that are not so. In certain respects they are already ahead of those who are supposed to have a stake in the country. They feel that the men without property have a greater and more real stake in the country than men with property. The latter can go and settle and live wherever they like. The whole world is open to them. They are perfectly welcome in every civilised country. But the former can go nowhere except as indentured coolies or as mercenary soldiers, privileges of which they are already quite sick. They want their country for themselves and they are keen on getting it as soon as circumstances permit. Under the circumstances, let me beg of you to think well before you decide the momentous question before you. Whatever you decide, be prepared to act up to your decision regardless of the consequences to your personal interest. Let not your decisions be vitiated by considerations of personal or class interests.

THE MASSES

The general public, including the masses, are in no mood to [p. 51] be trifled with either by the Government or by yourselves. They have waited sufficiently long, and they want immediate relief from economic want and from political bondage. They may not understand complicated questions of Finance, Currency, Military organisation, or the like. They may not be able to express opinions on abstract theories of State, but they do know that the country at present is not being governed in their interests. They are quite aware of the supercilious claims that are being put forward by British statesmen of all kinds from the O'Dwyers, Sydenhams and Sumners of the Tory school to the Mestons, MacDonnels and Montagus of the democratic wing, that the British can and do look after the interests of the masses of this country even better than their educated countrymen. They know that when the question arises whether vote should be given to “the man on the soil, the man behind the plough, and the man whose life is a question between a crop and a crop” it is the British statesman who stands between them and their right. They know also that when the question arises of how best to spend the revenue raised from them, the people whose interests get precedence over theirs, are the British Civilian, the British Army man, the British manufacturer, the British banker and the British trader. They have seen through the newspapers how lavishly and generously the British Secretary of State has been solicitous of conciliating the British and the allied highly paid Indian servants of the Crown by giving them large increments in the princely salaries which they are already enjoying. While the British Government readily recognises that the man drawing from Rs. 500 to Rs. 3,000 or 4,000 a month is hard hit by the increase in the cost of living, they shut their eyes to the fact that the said increase has cut the very ground from under the feet of ordinary wage-earner, the small agriculturist and the low-paid clerk. Last, but not the least, they have seen that, however tyrannical and oppressive the conduct of a British or Indian officer may be, the greatest punishment that can be meted out to him is to be compulsorily retired on a pension, a punishment which really falls on the tax-payer.

Just imagine, Ladies and Gentlemen, the inequity of the fact that the Indian tax-payer, whose women were insulted, whose crops were ruined, whose sons were flogged, who in his own person, or in that of his relatives or countrymen was humiliated, imprisoned and trodden under foot, is being made to pay for the comfortable living [p. 52] in Great Britain of a Michael O'Dwyer and Bosworth Smith. The other day, when I mentioned Bosworth Smith to a senior Punjab Civilian, he said, "that fellow was mad". Yet this same mad man not only ruled districts as big in size perhaps as Wales for a number of years, but still is to be a burden on the Indian revenue.

Believe me, Ladies and Gentlemen, the masses of this country are feeling the hardship of the present system of administration even more keenly than the educated Indian. I do not wish to be an alarmist but let me tell you quite frankly that if the Government and the more comfortably placed among ourselves do not desire a revolution, they have to do something tangible, material and substantial, to remove these impressions and do it quick. The persecution of a few educated leaders will only make the situation worse. Educated leaders, on the whole, exercise a restraining influence. Remove that influence as was done by deporting Drs. Kitchlew and Satyapal and the consequences will be disastrous.

The recent appointments of Lord Sinha and Mr. Sharma and Dr. Sapru, are excellent in themselves. I may even congratulate these gentlemen on their good luck and the Government on their wisdom but as remedies for the existing discontent they are hopelessly inadequate. A few years before, they might have thrilled our imagination but coming after the Punjab tragedy, they have naturally fallen flat. What people want are not appointments but the power to make them. As nominees of Mr. Montagu upon the people Lord Sinha and Messrs. Shafi, Sharma and Sapru, are the servants of the British Ministry and not of the Indian people. We have every reason to be happy that some of our countrymen will share the loaves and fishes that were so far reserved only for the Britishers. We are also happy that they will have opportunities of serving their country in positions of responsibility and we are confident that they will discharge their duties very well and possibly to the credit of their country. All that may be true, yet we cannot help feeling that they are not the servants of the people of India, but their masters. Ladies and Gentlemen, what we want are not masters, imposed from without, but servants selected and honoured from within. The fact that Lord Sinha might get a salary of a lakh of rupees or more, or that our other friends might get salaries of Rs. 80,000 or so does not make us forget that about forty per cent. of the Indian revenues are spent on the maintenance of an army [p. 53] which is being used for aggressive Imperial purposes, that millions of our countrymen and countrywomen are denied the ordinary amenities of human life and that they are being ruled by many who share the sentiments of O'Dwyer and Bosworth Smith.

Whatever you decide, remember these facts. The greatest need of the situation is the uplift of the masses, educational, social, as well as economical. Co-operation or Non-co-operation, that must be our aim and purpose and that must be our motive and inspiration. The masses must feel that we are working for them, and in their interests.

This leads me to another point. How far we must lead or be led by the masses? During the last six months since I landed on the 20th February last, I have been in close touch with the masses of my countrymen. I have seen them in their thousands, in processions, at meetings and have met their representatives in private. I have seen their political awakening. It has exceeded my wildest expectations. Under the circumstances, we have to remember that in any programme we make, we must carry the masses along with us. While it will be wrong on our part to allow our deliberate judgment to be over-ruled by the masses, it will be equally unwise and perhaps fatal to ignore them. There are some worthy men who are disposed to confound the people with mobs; they believe that true leadership requires the disregard of the opinions and wishes of the people. With due respect to them I have no hesitation in saying that I do not share their belief. The masses change their character into mobs when they are inflamed by passion and anger, and are filled with a desire for revenge and as a rule this happens only under grave provocation. In that situation it becomes the duty of the leaders to be firm and save the situation by tact and skill. (The Punjab leaders at Lahore, Amritsar, Gujranwala and Kasur tried to do this and would, I verily believe, have saved the situation but for the meddling and blundering of the bureaucracy who were out for producing a moral effect. The situation at Delhi was actually saved by the tactful leadership of Swami Shraddhanand and the equally wise behaviour of the Chief Commissioner. Such, however, are exceptional occasions). Under ordinary circumstances wise leadership involves understanding of the mass mind in a spirit of sympathy and respect. There may be occasions when majority or no majority, one has to go by the voice of one's own conscience [p. 54] but in practical politics such occasions are not frequent nor many. I will, therefore, beg of my fellow Congressmen to bear these considerations in mind when deciding the question before them. We must arrive at a conclusion satisfactory to the general body of our countrymen in whose interests and for whose welfare we are striving. We must not lose the lead of the people either by marching too far ahead of them, or by lagging behind. Both will be fatal to the best interests of the country.

In their present mood, the masses demand that we shall do something over and above the mere passing of resolutions. But I believe they want also that we shall not lose such opportunities of alleviating their condition and helping them in their little things, as we possess or which the law allows us.

DESPOTISM OF A DEMOCRACY WORSE THAN THAT OF A MONARCH

Ladies and Gentlemen, before I conclude, let me submit for your consideration one more thought. There is no such thing as benevolence in international politics, although there is such a thing as enlightened self-interest. The despotism of a democracy is in my judgment more fatal for subject people than that of an absolute monarch. The situation which you have to face is from this point of view more difficult and complex than the one your ancestors had to face even under the despotism of an Aurangzeb.

I would, therefore, very much like to warn my countrymen against being under any delusion as to the justice-loving nature or high-mindedness of any democracy in the world, British or other. I was in this matter disillusioned by my first visit to England in 1905. Since then I have had many opportunities of studying the nature and the character of several democracies (British, American and Japanese) and you may take it from me, that although there are men and women in these democracies who are absolutely just and high-minded, guided by the purest of motives in dealing with subject peoples and backward races, the bulk of them, be they of England or of America, not to speak of Japan, know only one thing, namely, their own interest or the interest of their race. There are sections of these democracies whose own class interests require the destruction of militarism and imperialism and who will, therefore, sympathise with those of the subject people who are struggling for emancipation. It is wise on your part to ally yourselves with them. But place no [p. 55] faith in the professions of those who, however liberal, worship at the shrine of Imperialism. The recent Parliamentary debate on the Punjab affairs ought to dispel all illusions if there were any still left, on that score. The Imperialist Liberals in the House of Commons with a few noble exceptions, showed no sympathy for the sufferings of the Punjabees, in spite of the eloquent pleadings of men like Mr. T. J. Bennet, Colonel Wedgwood and Mr. Ben Spoor. Liberals in the House of Lords were among the most violent supporters of the military rule. It was a sight for the gods to see. Lords Curzon, Milner and Birkenhead pleading for conciliation and Lords Ampthill and MacDonnel supporting brute force.

Have as many friends as you can have, among Englishmen and others, but have faith in yourselves alone.

It is much better to go rather slowly than deluded by promises held out to us by people who are not in a position to fulfil those promises, or who do not mean what they say or who promise in diplomatic language. Our progress depends more than anything else upon the volume and vigour of our own public opinion in this country. It will be wise to have this supplemented by the moral support of the great nations of the world, since by virtue of being a member of the League of Nations, we can now legitimately appeal to them for such moral support.

Our success will be determined by the extent of our earnestness, the spirit of self-sacrifice in the leaders, the spirit of self-denial in the rank and file, the power to lead righteously and to be led by righteous men. The time has come when we must decide between the freedom of body and soul and the life of convenience and comparative ease which is allowed to a few of us under the present system. If we decide former we must be prepared for the consequences. But if we choose the latter we must not cry if we do not get the moon. That is the real issue before you and I know I can leave this issue with confidence in your hands.