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 elsewhere. 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

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 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 sadder and wiser men.

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 animated by selfish ends. He is both Mahatma and Revolutionary, being a man of ascetic life and 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 NonCo-operation from Tolstoy, who, twelve years ago, 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 it. Refuse all co-operation in the Government administration, in the law courts, in the collection of the taxes, and above all, in the army, and no one will be able to subjugate 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

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

to check Mr Gandhi's agitation have been the application by the Panjab Government of the Seditious Meeting Act to the Lahore and Sheikhpura areas, and its proscription of the Gandhi Volunteer Corps as illegal associations.

Under Mr Gandhi's auspices the National Congress held at Nagpore in November last, adopted a definitely revolutionary attitude. He carried a resolution that 'the object of Congress is the attainment of Swaraj (Home Rule) by the people of India by all legitimate and peaceful means,' thus omitting all mention of connexion with the British Empire, which was always a proviso in all previous Congress utterances. Mr C. R. Das also carried a resolution that 'the non-violent Non-Co-operation scheme, with the renunciation of co-operation with the present Government at one end, and the refusal to pay taxes at the other, should be put into force at a time to be determined by the Indian National Congress or the All-India Congress Committee.' These resolutions show that the Extremists have captured the National Congress, and that there has been a complete split between them and the Moderates.

The Non-Co-operators made a great vaunt of boycotting the new Legislative Councils. The elections for these are now over, and, speaking of the attempt to boycott them, the 'Times' says: 'It has neither succeeded nor failed. It stopped a large number from going to the poll, but it has not stopped the elections.' The attempt to boycott the Duke of Connaught's visit was apparently equally unsuccessful, and the ceremonies inaugurating the new regime at which the Duke was present, took place successfully at Delhi at the beginning of February. One result of the attempt of the Extremists to boycott the elections, is that the members returned to the new Councils almost all belong to the Moderate party, and show a disposition to make the Reforms a success. The Indian Legislative Assembly has passed a resolution repudiating the recommendation of the Esher Commission, and asserting that the Indian Army must remain under the exclusive control of the Indian Government. The Mahomedan members of the Council of State and the Indian Legislative Assembly have requested the Secretary of State to suggest to the London Conferences that Adrianople, Thrace, and Smyrna, 'which