 | SWARAJ IN ONE YEAR Swaraj in one year |  |
SWARAJ IN ONE YEAR
[In moving the resolution on non-co-operation
at the special sessions of the Indian
National Congress held at Calcutta in
September, 1920, Mr. Gandhi spoke as
follows:—]
I am aware, more than aware, of the
grave responsibility that rests on my shoulders
in being privileged to move this resolution
before this great assembly. I am aware that
my difficulties, as also yours, increase if you
are able to adopt this resolution. I am also
aware that the adoption of any resolution will
mark a definite change in the policy which
the country has hitherto adopted for the
vindication of the rights that belong to it,
and its honour. I am aware that a large
number of our leaders who have given the
time and attention to the affairs of my motherland,
which I have not been able to give, are
ranged against me. They think it a duty to
resist the policy revolutionising the Government
policy at any cost. Knowing this I
stand before you in fear of God and a sense
acceptance.
I ask you to dismiss me, for the time
being, from your consideration. I have been
charged of saintliness and a desire for dictatorship.
I venture to say that I do not stand
before you either as a saint or a candidate for
dictatorship. I stand before you to present
to you the results of my many years' practical
experience in non-co-operation. I deny the
charge that it is a new thing in the country.
It has been accepted at hundreds of meetings
attended by thousands of men, and has been
placed in working order since the first of
August by the Mussalmans, and many of the
things in the programme are being enforced
in a more or less intense form. I ask you
again to dismiss personalities in the consideration
of this important question, and bring to
bear patient and calm judgment on it. But
a mere acceptance of the resolution does not
end the work. Every individual has to enforce
the items of the resolution in so far as they
apply to him. I beseech you to give me a
patient hearing. I ask you neither to clap
nor to hiss. I do not mind them so far as I
am concerned, but clapping hinders the flow
process of correspondence between a speaker
and his audience. You will not hiss out of
the stage any single speaker. For non-cooperation
is a measure of discipline and
sacrifice and it demands patience and respect
for opposite views. And unless we were able
to evolve a spirit of mutual toleration for
diametrically opposite views, non-co-operation
is an impossibility. Non-co-operation in an
angry atmosphere is an impossibility. I have
learnt through bitter experience the one
supreme lesson to conserve my anger, and as
heat conserved is transmuted into energy,
even so our anger controlled can be transmuted
into a power which can move the
world. To those who have been attending
the Congress, as brothers in arms I ask what
can be better discipline than that, which we
should exercise between ourselves.
I have been told that I have been doing
nothing but wreckage and that by bringing
forward the resolution, I am breaking up the
political life of the country. The Congress is
not a party organisation. It ought to provide
a platform for all shades of opinions, and a
minority need not leave this organisation, but
majority, in course of time, if its opinion
commended itself to the country. Only let no
man in the name of the Congress advocate a
policy which has been condemned by the
Congress. And if you condemn my policy I
shall not go away from the Congress, but shall
plead with them to convert the minority into
a majority.
There are no two opinions as to the wrong
done to the Khilafat. Mussalmans cannot
remain as honourable men and follow their
Prophet if they do not vindicate their honour
at any cost. The Punjab has been cruelly,
brutally treated, and inasmuch as one man in
the Punjab was made to crawl on his belly the
whole of India crawled on her belly, and if
we are worthy sons and daughters of India we
should be pledged to remove these wrongs. It
is in order to remove these wrongs that the
country is agitating itself. But we have not
been able to bend the Government to our will.
We cannot rest satisfied with a mere expression
of angry feeling. You could not have heard a
more passionate denunciation of the Punjab
wrongs than in the pages of the presidential
address. If the Congress cannot wring justice
existence and its honour? How can it do so
if it cannot enforce clear repentence, before
receiving a single gift, however rich, from
those bloodstained hands.
I have therefore placed before you my
scheme of non-co-operation to achieve this end
and want you to reject any other scheme,
unless you have deliberately come to the
conclusion that it is a better scheme than
mine. If there is a sufficient response to my
scheme I make bold to reiterate my
statement that you can gain Swarajya in the
course of an year. Not the passing of the
resolution will bring Swarajya, but the
enforcement of the resolution from day to day
in a progressive manner, due regard being had
to the conditions in the country. There is
another remedy before the country, and that
is drawing of the sword. If that was possible
India would not have listened to the gospel of
non-co-operation. I want to suggest to you
that even if you want to arrest injustice by
methods of violence, discipline and self-sacrifice
are necessary. I have not known of a
war gained by a rabble, but I have known
of wars gained by disciplined armies, and if
Government and to the combined power
of Europe we must train ourselves in
discipline and self-sacrifice. I confess I
have become impatient. I have seen that we
deserve Swarajya to-day, but we have not got
the spirit of national sacrifice. We have
evolved this spirit in domestic affairs, and I
have come to ask you to extend it to other
affairs. I have been travelling from one end
to the other of the country to see whether the
country has evolved the national spirit,
whether at the alter of the nation it is ready
to dedicate its riches, children, its all if it was
ready to make the initiatory sacrifice. Is the
country ready? Are the title-holders ready
to surrender their titles? Are parents ready
to sacrifice literary education of their children
for the sake of the country? The schools and
colleges are really a factory for turning out
clerks for Government. If the parents are not
ready for the sacrifice, if title-holders not
ready, Swarajya is very nearly an impossibility.
No nation being under another nation
can accept gifts and kicks at the responsibility
attaching to those gifts, imposed by the conquering
nation. Immediately the conquered
which might come to it is not for the benefit
of the conquered, but for the benefit of the
conqueror, that moment it should reject every
form of voluntary assistance to him. These
are the fundamental essentials of success in
the struggle for the independence for the
country, whether within the Empire or without
the Empire. I hold a real substantial unity
between Hindus and Musalmans infinitely
superior to the British connection and if
I had to make a choice between that unity and
the British connection, I would have the
first and reject the other. If I had to choose
between the honour of the Punjab, anarchy,
neglect of education, shutting out of all legislative
activity and British connection, I
would choose the honour of the Punjab and
all it meant, even anarchy, shutting out of all
schools, etc. without slightest hesitation.
If you have the same feeling burning in
you as in me for the honour of Islam and the
Punjab then you will unreservedly accept my
resolution.
I now come to the burning topic, viz., the
boycott of the councils. Sharpest difference
of opinion existed regarding this and if the
issue, viz., whether Swarajya has to be gained
through the councils or without the councils.
If we utterly distrust the British Government
and we know that they are utterly unrepentant
how can you believe that the councils will lead
to Swarajya and not tighten the British hold
on India?
I now come to Swadeshi. The boycott
of foreign goods is included in the resolution.
You have got here, I confess, an anomaly for
which I am not originally responsible. But
I have consented to it. I will not go into the
history of how it found a place into the
resolution, of which the essence is discipline
and self-sacrifice. Swadeshi means permanent
boycott of foreign goods. It is therefore a
matter of redundancy. But I have taken
it in, because I could not reject it as a
matter of conscience. I know, however, it is a
physical inpossibility. So long as we have to
rely on the pins and needles—figurative and
literal both—we cannot bring about a complete
boycott of foreign goods. I do not hesitate to
say this clause mars the musical harmony, if I
may claim it without vanity, of the programme.
I feel that those words do mar the symmetry of
of the programme as for its workability.
I again ask you not to be influenced by
personality. Reject out of your consideration
any service that I have done. Two things
only I claim. Laborious industry, great
thought behind any programme and unflinching
determination to bring it about. You may
take only those things from me, and bring
them to bear on any programme that you
adopt.
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 nonMoslem
Indian in every legitimate manner to
assist his Musalman brother in this attempt to
remove the religious calamity that has overtaken
him:
And in view of the fact that in the matter
of the events of the April of 1919 both the said
Governments have grossly neglected or failed
to protect the innocent people of the Punjab
barbarous behaviour towards them and have
exonerated Sir Michael O'Dwyer who proved
himself directly or indirectly responsible for the
most of the 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 aforementioned 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 in as much as a beginning should be
made by the classes who have hitherto moulded
and represented opinion and in as much 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 in as
much 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 establishment of National Schools
and Colleges in the various Provinces;
(d) gradual boycott of British Courts by
lawyers and litigants and establishment of
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
to vote for any candidate who may despite the
Congress advice offer himself for election; and
(g) the boycott of foreign goods.
And in as much as non-co-operation has
been conceived as a measure of discipline and
self-sacrifice without which no nation can
make real progress, and in as much 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 advices adoption of
Swadeshi in piece-goods on a vast scale, and in
as much 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
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.
Much laughter has been indulged in at my
expense for having told the Congress audience
at Calcutta that if there was sufficient response
to my programme of non-co-operation Swaraj
would be attained in one year. Some have
ignored my condition and laughed because of
the impossibility of getting Swaraj anyhow
within one year. Others have spelt the `if'
in capitals and suggested that if `ifs' were
permissible in argument, any absurdity could
be proved to be a possibility. My proposition
however is based on a mathematical
calculation. And I venture to say that true
Swaraj is a practical impossibility without
due fulfilment of my conditions. Swaraj
means a state such that we can maintain our
separate existence without the presence of the
English. If it is to be a partnership, it must
be a partnership at will. There can be no
Swaraj without our feeling and being the equals
of Englishmen. To-day we feel that we are
dependent upon them for our internal and
external security, for an armed peace between
and for the supply of daily wants, nay,
even for the settlement of our religious
squabbles. The Rajahs are dependant upon
the British for their powers and millionaires
for their millions. The British know our
helplessness and Sir Thomas Holland
cracks jokes quite legitimately at the expense
of non-co-operationists. To get Swaraj
then is to get rid of our helplessness. The
problem is no doubt stupendous even as it
is for the fabled lion who having been brought
up in the company of goats found it impossible
to feel that he was a lion. As Tolstoy used
to put it, mankind often laboured under
bypnotism. Under its spell continuously we
feel the feeling of helplessness. The British
themselves cannot be expected to help us out
of it. On the contrary, they din into our
ears that we shall be fit to govern ourselves
only by slow educative processes. The
"Times" suggested that if we boycott the
councils we shall lose the opportunity of a
training in Swaraj. I have no doubt that there
are many who believe what the "Times" says.
It even resorts to a falsehood. It audaciously
says that Lord Milner's Mission listened to the
the boycott of the Egyptian Council. For me
the only training in Swaraj we need is the
ability to defend ourselves against the whole
world and to live our natural life in perfect freedom
even though it may be full of defects.
Good government is no substitute for self-government.
The Afghans have a bad government
but it is self-government. I envy them.
The Japanese learnt the art through a sea of
blood. And if we to-day had the power to drive
out the English by superior brute-force, we
would be counted their superiors, and in spite
of our inexperience in debating at the Council
table or in holding executive offices, we
would be held fit to govern ourselves.
For brute-force is the only test the West has
hitherto recognised. The Germans were defeated
not because they were necessarily in the
wrong, but because the allied Powers were found
to possess greater brute strength. In the end
therefore India must either learn the art of war
which the British will not teach her or she
must follow her own way of discipline and self-sacrifice
through non-co-operation. It is as
amazing as it is humiliating that less than one
hundred thousand white men should be able to
Indians. They do so somewhat undoubtedly
by force but more by securing our co-operation
in a thousand ways and making us more and
more helpless and dependent on them as time
goes forward. Let us not mistake reformed
councils more law-courts and even governorships
for real freedom or power. They are but
subtler methods of emasculation. The British
cannot rule us by mere force. And so they
resort to all means, honourable and dishonourable,
in order to retain their hold on India. They
want India's billions and they want India's
man power for their imperialistic greed. If we
refuse to supply them with men and money,
we achieve our goal, namely, Swaraj, equality,
manliness.
The cup of our humiliation was filled
during the closing scenes in the Viceregal
council. Mr. Shastri could not move his
resolution on the Punjab. The Indian victims
of Jallianwalla received Rs. 1,250, the English
victims of mobfrenzy received lacs. The
officials who were guilty of crimes against
those whose servants they were, were reprimanded.
And the councillors were satisfied.
If India were powerful, India would not
injury.
I do not blame the British. If we were
weak in numbers as they are, we too would
perhaps have resorted to the same methods as
they are now employing. Terrorism and deception
are weapons not of the strong but of the
weak. The British are weak in numbers, we
are weak in spite of our numbers. The result
is that each is dragging the other down. It is
common experience that Englishmen lose in
character after residence in India, and that
Indians lose in courage and manliness by
contact with Englishmen. This process of
weakening is good neither for us, two nations,
nor for the world.
But if we Indians take care of ourselves the
English and the rest of the world would take
care of themselves. Our contribution to the
world's progress must therefore consist in setting
our own house in order.
Training in arms for the present is out of
the question. I go a step further and believe
that India has a better mission for the world.
It is within her power to show that she can
achieve her destiny by pure self-sacrifice, i.e.,
self-purification. This can be done only by
possible only when those who commenced to
co-operate begin the process of withdrawal. If
we can but free ourselves from the threefold
maya of Government controlled schools,
Government law-courts and legislative councils,
and truly control our own education, regulate
our disputes and be indifferent to their
legislation, we are ready to govern ourselves,
and we are only then ready to ask Government
servants, whether civil or military, to resign,
and the ta-xpayers to suspend payment of
taxes.
And is it such an impracticable proposition
to expect parents to withdraw their children
from schools and colleges and establish their
own institutions or to ask lawyers to suspend
their practice and devote their whole time
and attention to national service against
payment, where necessary, of their maintenance,
or to ask candidates for councils
not to enter councils and lend their passive or
active assistance to the legislative machinery
through which all control is exercised. The
movement of non-co-operation is nothing but
an attempt to isolate the brute-force of the
British from all the trappings under which it
itself cannot, for one single moment, hold
India.
But I frankly confess that, until the three
conditions mentioned by me are fulfilled, there
is no Swaraj. We may not go on taking our
college degrees, taking thousands of rupees
monthly from clients for cases which can be
finished in five minutes and taking the keenest
delight in wasting national time on the council
floor and still expect to gain national self-respect.
The last though not the least important
part of the Maya still remains to be considered.
That is Swadeshi. Had we not abandoned
Swadeshi, we need not have been in the
present fallen state. If we would get rid of the
economic slavery, we must manufacture our
own cloth and at the present moment only by
hand-spinning and hand weaving.
All this means discipline, self-denial, self-sacrifice,
organising ability, confidence and
courage. If we show this in one year among
the classes that to-day count, and make public
opinion, certainly gain Swaraj within a one
year. If I am told that even we who lead
have not these qualities in us, there certainly
shall have no right to blame the English
for what they are doing. Our salvation and
its time are solely dependent upon us.
| SWARAJ IN ONE YEAR Swaraj in one year | |