restrictions imposed upon Indian trade and immigration by the Government of South Africa. Early in 1919, he started an opposition to the Rowlatt legislation by calling on all his followers to take the 'Satyagraha pledge of insistence on truth or passive resistance. They were 'faithfully to follow the truth and refrain from all violence to life, person, and property,' but to refuse obedience to the Sedition Law, and all such other laws as a Committee to be hereafter appointed might condemn. We have a description of the effect of the Satyagraha pledge by the Hunter Commission appointed to inquire into the Panjab disorders.

In

FOL

'We have no hesitation in saying that, both in the Panjab and elsewhere, a familiarity and a sympathy with disobedience to law was engendered among large numbers of people by Mr Gandhi's movement, and the law-abiding instincts, which stand between Society and outbreaks of violence, were undermined, at a time when their full strength was required.'

In addition, he proclaimed a universal 'hartal,' or cessation from business, as a protest against the Rowlatt legislation. The most mendacious rumours were circulated as to the effect of this legislation; and the consequent unrest was aggravated by scarcity, following on bad harvests. The first result of Mr. Gandhi's pernicious activity was seen in the riots at Delhi (March 30, 1919). He was on his way to the Panjab, but was turned back by Government order, and fresh outbreaks of disorder followed. On April 10, there were civil disturbances at Bombay, Ahmadabad, and Viramgam; and at Nadiad a troop-train was deliberately derailed. At Lahore, about the same date, the rioters, both Hindus and Mahomedans, banded themselves together against the Europeans. At Amritsar, the excesses of the mob forced the civil authorities to summon the military to restore order, and on April 11, General Dyer, who was in military command, fired on the crowd at Jallianwala Bagh. General rioting and attacks upon Europeans followed, till, on April 15, martial law was proclaimed throughout the Panjab, and military forces, including an armoured train and aeroplanes, were used against the rioters. Sir Michael O'Dwyer proposed that civilian magistrates should advise on the administration of martial law, but the Government

era

The

d

of India refused to consent, on the ground that the responsibility then solely rested with the military. Had Sir Michael's advice been followed, the 'freak' punishments so much complained of, which were imposed by young and inexperienced military officers, might have been avoided. When all this mischief had been done and the forces of disorder unloosed, Mr Gandhi complacently confessed that he had 'underrated the forces of evil,' and ordered the suspension of civil disobedience. On May 22, 1919, Mr Montagu announced his intention to appoint a commission, under the chairmanship of Lord Hunter, a Scottish judge, to inquire, during the winter of 1919-20, into the disorders in the Panjab and helsewhere. The debates in both Houses of Parliament, following the publication of the Hunter Commission Report in April 1920, are so fresh in all memories that it is unnecessary to discuss them beyond remarking that it was a misfortune that, after the Commons had given their decision, the Lords did not allow the fires of racial hatred to die down, but insisted upon reopening the matter, and, by their opposition to the Government and the Lower House, giving Indian malcontents the opportunity to assert that, after all, the opinion of the governing classes in England approved the action of General Dyer.

The penalty of dismissal inflicted on General Dyer for what was called 'preventive massacre' was denounced as totally inadequate in India. To remedy the so-called 'Panjab miscarriage of justice' by the infliction of a heavier penalty on General Dyer and the punishment of all the officers concerned in the administration of Martial Law was one of the objects of the Khalifat agitation. The other object, the amendment of the Treaty of Peace with Turkey, was a result of PanIslamism. The agitation was greatly assisted by the unfortunate delay in the signature of the Turkish Treaty, and the plots of Mustapha Kemal and other Turkish Nationalists. It had no justification, after Turkey had herself signed the Treaty of Peace, but it was continued by Mr Gandhi with the avowed object of ruining the prospects of success of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms. The Khalifat Committee, presided over by

L

ste

the

The

me

Mr Gandhi and Mr Shaukat Ali (who, with his brother Mahomed Ali, was interned during the war for his proTurkish sympathies), has, during 1920, taken up an attitude of constantly increasing aggressiveness towards the British Government. It began by the threat of E boycotting the visit to India of the Prince of Wales. It engineered the movement of the Muhajireen, by which numbers of Mahomedans were induced to sell their goods by the persuasion and assistance of Hijrat (or Migration) Committees, and to emigrate to Afghanistan as a country under Mahomedan rule. In August last the Amir refused to receive any more emigrants from India; and many of the emigrants have since returned to India SE sadder and wiser men.

WO

1.

Sul

at fo

sich

are

ce

the

adm

0

Mr Gandhi's failure to obtain the removal of the 'Colour Bar' in South Africa has affected his whole attitude towards British rule in India. He looks on British administrators as hypocrites, falsely professing an interest in India's welfare, when they are really e animated by selfish ends. He is both Mahatma and hi Revolutionary, being a man of ascetic life and and h voluntary poverty, as well as an advocate of the most sweeping political changes. He unites politics with religion, which is the secret of his influence, for, to the ignorant Indian masses, politics mean little, unless connected in some way with religion. He has adopted Non- tis Co-operation from Tolstoy, who, twelve years ago, de advised a Hindu correspondent as to his relations with the British Government in India thus: 'Do not fight against the evil, but on the other hand take no part in h it. Refuse all co-operation in the Government administra-hi tion, in the law courts, in the collection of the taxes, and above all, in the army, and no one will be able to subju-) gate you.' He is an opponent of modern civilisation on account of its materialistic tendencies.

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

In this effort to set the clock backwards, he is not

t

ken

LORD CHELMSFORD'S VICEROYALTY

57

consistent, for, in his agitation, he avails himself freely of the resources of modern civilisation, the railway, the telegraph, and the motor car.

The peculiar means adopted by Mr Gandhi and his party to bring pressure upon the Government is the scheme of Non-Co-operation. On June 24, 1920, ninety Sunni Mahomedans wrote to the Viceroy saying that they would refuse to co-operate with Government from Aug. 1, unless in the mean time the terms of the Peace Treaty with Turkey were revised. They cannot (they said) bear the thought of the temporal power of the Sultan being adversely affected by way of punishment for his having joined Germany under circumstances which need not be examined here.' They further declare that the least a Mussulman can do under the circumstances is not to assist those who are trying to reduce the Khalifate practically to nothingness.' Mr Gandhi wrote an accompanying letter to the Viceroy, which showed that he was not blind to the consequences of the course he was pursuing.

'I admit (he said) that Non-Co-operation practised by the mass of the people is attended with grave risks. But in a crisis such as has overtaken the Mussulmans of India, no step that is unattended with large risks can possibly bring about the desired change. Not to run some risks will be to court greater risks, if not the virtual destruction of law and order.'

In June last the Khalifat Committee resolved that Khalifat volunteer corps should be established all over India to collect subscriptions and to prepare the people for Non-Co-operation. In a speech at Simla, at the opening of the Final Session of the Imperial Legislative Council on Aug. 20, Lord Chelmsford emphasised the risks attendant on Non-Co-operation, but said that he and his colleagues had faith in India's common sense,' and preferred to allow the movement to fail by reason of its intrinsic inanity.' A Resolution of the Government of India dated Nov. 8, 1920, explains and amplifies this policy.

Mr Gandhi gained a further victory at the Congress held at Calcutta, when he defined Non-Co-operation as implying: (1) Renunciation of titles and honorary offices conferred by the British Government; (2) Boycott of

foreign goods and of the elections to the new Legislative Councils; (3) Gradual withdrawal of children from Government schools and of lawyers from practising in the Government law-courts. He promised that, if this programme were adopted, the Government would be compelled to grant completely responsible government within a year, and it was carried.

Where the agitators have power, they adopt a strict social boycott of all opponents of Non-Co-operation, even to the extent of threatening to refuse them burial in Mahomedan graveyards. Loyalty to Government entails social ruin, but, in accordance with its policy of inaction, Government does nothing to help its own friends. In October last, Mr Gandhi endeavoured to enforce the boycott of Government on colleges and schools. He visited Aligarh College, accompanied by Messrs Mahomed and Shaukat Ali. The students to a great extent adopted Non-Co-operation, but the trustees by a large majority rejected the proposals of Mr Mahomed Ali to refuse the Charter raising Aligarh College to the rank of a University, and to abandon the Government Grant in Aid. The Hindu University at Benares was the next object of attack, but, owing to the strenuous opposition of Pandit Madhan Mohan Malaviya, Non-Co-operation was rejected there. The Non-Co-operation plan was adopted by the Sikh Khalisa College at Amritsar, but the Government has quietly accepted the situation. Calcutta was affected by the movement later, but in January last 2,000 students were on strike. It is pathetic to see a great number of the youth of the country content to sacrifice their careers for a mistaken religious obligation, but the agitators care nothing for this.

In October, two Mahomedan extremists at Panipat were prosecuted for seditious speeches and writings inciting to rebellion. Their trial was transferred to the gaol at Rohtak. On the 8th Mr Gandhi, in a public meeting at that place, repeated the exact words, for uttering which the two men had been prosecuted, and defied the Government to bring a case against him, but hitherto it has refused to present him with the political martyr's crown by prosecution. With the exception of the prosecution of a few underlings, the only steps taken