I told Maulana Saheb that the resolution before you was of such a nature that he would have to let me speak on it right away, so that before anyone else spoke on it I could explain in my own words how I interpreted it, why at death's door as I was I had taken upon myself this responsibility and what I expected of you. A general discussion could come afterwards. Maulana Saheb and the other members of the Working Committee acceded to my request. I have had to bear many heavy responsibilities in my life but I feel that the responsibility I am today called upon to bear is the heaviest. I have assumed this responsibility with due deliberation. But I must confess that I am besieged by a doubt, I cannot say why, as to how far I shall be able to carry you with me. As to what the upshot will be is quite beyond my telling. Still it is good. It is a lesson I have learnt during fifty years and more that a man should not worry about the end but should address himself only to the means. Herein lies the key to success. Truly we can think only of the means, which is the only thing in our hands. Nothing can interpose itself between us and our means. But who knows about the result? Who can tell whether I shall be able to go where I intend to go. So many obstructions in the way can frustrate me. There are hidden enemies inside myself, too. I shudder even when I think of all this. But it is enough for me that I know where I want to go and by which way. So I set out in the faith that if the path I have chosen is right, straight and true, my quest will lead me to the end I desire and no other. Behind this belief of mine is not only faith but also the accumulated experience of fifty years. Therefore, in assuming this responsibility, I am neither hampered by my hesitation nor subdued by my fear. Before getting into a boat there is scope for a thousand hesitations, fears and reflection. There is none after one is in the boat and the boat is in the stream.
          Why then this fear in me ? Why this hesitation ? I have not the least bit of doubt as to the rightness of the way. What I am not so sure about is whether I shall be able to carry you with me, heart and soul. In the past I used to tour all over the country. Today I am no longer able to do that. Even if I wanted I would not be able to get around the way I used to. I must accept my limitations.I am not so much out of my mind as to forget that I am past seventy and go about thinking that I am fifty.So I confine myself to Sevagram and try to do what service I can from there. Even coming here to Bombay was a strain. But since there was this responsibility to shoulder there was no alternative. What I fear is that the relations that bound me to you at one time no longer obtain. Things change, they are changing today. The people that were in the Congress twenty years ago are not there today. Those who were old then are gone. Those who were young are no longer young.
    	     As you know at Wardha, at my request, the Working Committee had exempted me.I had said that since I was no longer able to keep your hearts and minds with me it was better for me tokeep away from you for even after that I would be serving the Congress. They also felt that if I wanted to create something new I would not be able to do so by keeping them with me.We parted. But since then neither they have known any peace nor I. As to who was at fault no one quite seemed to know. Of course, as I have been saying again and again, man is an erring creature. We went on arguing. In the meanwhile came the Delhi resolution. The Congress made a simple and straightforward proposal to the Government. The Government refused to countenance it. I must confess that this rather pleased me. For I trembled at the very thought that the Congress which had been swearing by ahimsa for the last twenty years, the Congress which had given the call of ahimsa from thousands of platforms to the millions in the country, could take it upon itself to make the people give up ahimsa and cultivate war-mindedness. Has not the Congress, ever since the days of Khilafat and the Ali Brothers, repeated in season and out of season, with the beat of drums, that we seek to solve all questions—whether of the Khilafat or swaraj, whether national or international—only through non-violence and that if we have to resort to civil disobedience it will be purely non-violent? And notwithstanding the fact that our opponent is a Government that spends ten crores of rupees a-day on arms and ammunition,we chose the path of peace and Muslims as well as Hindus all resorted only to non-violent action. You must remember that in the special session of the Congress at Calcutta the main resolution was moved by me and it mentioned only the Khilafat and the Punjab murders and brutalities. "Where is swaraj in this?" asked Pandit Motilalji. In my view, swaraj was inherent in the two demands. If we had been successful in having them accepted, we would have automatically secured swaraj. Even so I accepted his suggestion.Ever since we have been saying that we shall destroy the empire through non-violence, free ourselves from its evils through non-violence. How could we, I thought, ask the Congress now to become war-minded? In Delhi we had declared that if the freedom of India was acknowledged, we would co-operate fully in the war effort. This meant that to secure freedom we were prepared to sacrifice non-violence. How terrible it is that we should be ready to go before the millions, in whose name we speak and to whom we have been preaching non-violence all these years, and tell them something quite opposite!
          The strength of the Congress does not reside in the members enrolled in its register. The strength of the Congress is derivedfrom the millions that stand by these members. The Congress does not belong to the Hindus alone. It belongs to all—Hindus, Muslims, Parsis and Christians. It may well have a majority of Hindus but belongs as much to Muslims, Parsis and Christians as it does to Hindus. No one is precluded from joining the Congress because he is a Muslim. An example is there before us. Maulana Saheb has not become our President because he represents a large group of Muslims. And yet he makes you and me and the Congress and its Working Committee dance to his tune. He did not have to become a Hindu for that. Where will you find a Muslim academic as great as he? Then there are the Khan Brothers sitting amongst us. They wield so much influence over me that they can make me do what no one else can. Dr. Khan Saheb told me that plying the charkha was beyond him. I told him that if he found the charkha difficult he could take up the pickaxe. Similarly, is not the Congress of the Parsis? They are numerically a much smaller community than Muslims. But Dadabhai Naoroji became our first President. Then Pherozeshah Mehta, the uncrowned king of Bombay, was our President, who in fact made the Congress. He knew no distinctions. It was all the same to him whether one was a Parsi, a Muslim or a Christian. Since childhood the lesson I have learnt from their example is that anyone who seeks the freedom of the country and serves it can acquire control of the Congress. Who can stop Muslims from acquiring control of the Congress? Who can prevent them from dominating the Congress in the Punjab, in Bengal, in Sind and even in Bombay where they are in a minority? If there are any Hindus who in their pride think that since they are in a majority the Congress is their monopoly, I should ask them to leave the Congress. It is true that the Congress guides itself by majority opinion. But that is because, and only to the extent that, right is on the side of the majority. Many people accuse the Congress of wanting to bring about Fascism. But even such people will concede that the Congress has no weapon except that of non-violence. All its work is conducted wholly through peaceful means. Such being the case the charge of Fascism becomes meaningless. For Fascism cannot carry on without the cudgel and the sword, nor can imperialism, nor can Nazism. But since we want to do everything peacefully we have to carry with us even a minority of a handful of people. If we do not do that, they can obstruct our functioning. The magic of satyagraha, which I have explained to the country, is for all. With its help even eighty thousand people can block the way of eighty million. And, to say nothing of eighty million, we can stop even 210 million from riding on the backs of the whole population. There is a section in the Congress that says that Gandhi's way is not the right way. They want a campaign of widespread labour strikes, mass defiance of laws and such other things. They do not accept the policy of non-violence. It certainly is one way. But it is not the Congress way. Those who accept the policy of non-violence will have to accept that the Congress does not belong to any one community. And if it goes by the principle of majority it is not so as to rule over the minority or brow-beat it but to serve. If the majority remembers this and acts accordingly it will easily be able to win the minority over to its side. The history of the Congress shows this. Records in the Congress office will show that its membership has been steadily increasing. It has also been steadily gaining in prestige. The reason for this is that the strength that the majority represents is moral strength and not the strength of the brute. This is the strength of its right and truth. If in addition it gains also the strength of non-violence, nothing can be more desirable.
          It is possible that this will be my last opportunity to speak to you. And I have to take work from you. So I wish to talk to you to my heart's content. I have explained to you what sort of thing the Congress is. If you cannot swallow what I have said, you may throw out the resolution. If your hearts and minds do not accept it, you and I shall be deceiving one another and the purpose we seek to attain will not be attained. If the captain of a ship does not have the co-operation of the crew heart and soul, the ship must sink. You have accepted me as your captain—and I am your captain. So you must—all of you, from the first officer down to the lowest hand—give me your co-operation with one heart and one mind. If not, not only will you be shipwrecked yourself but history will record that we betrayed the millions in whose name we claimed to speak, that we consigned ourselves to the sea and ruined the country.
          Therefore the first important thing is that with full deliberation you should follow me heart and mind. Of course, I shall be keeping you informed every week. I do not wish to go to jail. The Government may no doubt put me in jail but I will not deliberately court imprisonment. I will not myself offer civil disobedience. If they seek to gag me I will not keep quiet. But the Government knows me to some extent. If I do not wish to go to jail it will not put me in jail. I shall be keeping those of you who are outside posted with instructions from time to time and expect you to act accordingly. If you do not do so and then say, 'How is it you could not see that we would be of no use to you as instruments in your hands?', you will be betraying me. Rather than that you should bid me good-bye now and throw out this resolution. If you do this the Working Committee and I will not be hurt. After all the resolution has been put up to you for your approval. If you do not like it you have every right to reject it.
          Now I come to the resolution. It is a short one. One part of it says what we believe in. We believe in peace. We want to take peace as far as it can go. Not only do we want to secure swaraj through non-violence, but we also want to run our affairs after swaraj is secured in a non-violent way. But the government under swaraj will not be wholly in the hands of Congressmen. Other parties—including those opposed to the Congress—will be represented. There will be adult franchise. That is to say, adult Hindus, Muslims and those whom we today consider untouchables will elect their representatives for the parliament. Who knows what this mixed parliament will do? But I hope that those representing the Congress will vote for non-violence and if they are in a majority they will conduct the affairs of State through non-violence. The Congress, as Congress, has no other way. We have been saying all along that we shall secure swaraj through non-violence, through peace. How then can we, in order to secure swaraj, assist the empire in its war today? There are other reasons besides for not giving such assistance. Supposing the Government accepted all our demands and said, 'You may do what you like later, but you must mobilize an army today.' Even then in the present circumstances I feel we have to tell them, 'No, we cannot go along with you.We do not wish you to lose the war. It is in the hands of God whether you win or lose. But we can under no condition help you with money or men. No matter what rewards you promise, the Congress will never agree to the step.'
          There is another thing in this resolution. At a time when the British people are fighting for their very existence and are risking their lives and their all, no satyagrahi will ask, 'Are you going to give us swaraj now or not?' He will remain quiet. He will say, 'Why fight against an opponent in trouble?' We cannot start the battle of swaraj now on the assumption that they will give us nothing after they have won the war. It is not the way of satyagrahis to take advantage of the opponent's weak position to wrest political power from him. We have to wrest power with our own strength. We, therefore, tell them: 'At this hour of your trial we do not wish to harass you.'
          The question then may be asked: Why bring the resolution at all? For, whatever we may do in pursuance of the resolution is bound to create difficulties for them. The answer is that the position today is such that if we do nothing, our very existence will be imperilled. Even if they do not seek to destroy us the result will be the same. The answer of those who are opposed to the war is that ever since Ramgarh we have been shouting from the house-tops that it is our right to persuade others not to assist in the war. We shall tell them that India cannot be forced into supporting them, that we do not wish to gain even our independence by supporting them in the war. We must have the freedom to say this. Right of free speech is included among civic rights and so far as it has not been gained, swaraj cannot become a reality. So long as we adhere to non-violence and can do what we like, we can have no quarrel with the Government. And if vast masses of our people give expression to this feeling how can the Government claim that India is with it in the war? We have a right to tell them without mincing words that they made a serious mistake in declaring India at war. They themselves enacted legislation and gave us provincial autonomy. It used to be believed that the provinces enjoyed the status of virtual 'Dominion Status'. 'Safeguards' were certainly there. But that was merely to provide against the possibility that owing to inexperience we might not know how to manage Governmental affairs. These safeguards never had to be invoked in practice. Notwithstanding all this the central authority abused its powers and proclaimed that India was at war. The Government may very well count the Princes on their side but who can claim that the people of the princely States are also with the Government in the war? Was it not necessary even to consult the provinces which were supposed to be autonomous? Leaving aside other provinces did they consult even Bengal or the Punjab? Did they ask N.W.F.P., where ninety per cent of the population is Muslim? All this has showed that what is called provincial autonomy is a farce, a mere toy. So we cast it away. Even after casting it away we patiently waited for a year. I do not regret it. We gained in strength thereby—at least I did. For without it we could not have spoken up as we are speaking up today.
	         After this we made a proposal which was hurtful to us but that too was not accepted by the British Government. Nor did they care. They have made the Viceroy the supreme ruler over 300 million people. The Viceroy4 is my friend and I hope he will continue to be my friend. But what is the meaning in entrusting one individual with so much power ? This is what pinches me. With whose consent does he declare today that India is with Britain in the war? If nothing else, he could have at least kept the Congress out of it when he made the declaration. But nothing of the sort happened. Under the circumstances if we do not make our opposition known we shall cease to exist. At a time when our very existence hangs in the balance what can we say or do? We can at least say this: 'Send us to jail if you want, but we will make our feelings known. We will not let ourselves go out of existence.'
          Still we are observing this restraint: the fight will not be on a mass scale. As I have said, this is not going to be a fight for swaraj.Today they tell us:'Come aboard our ship. Save yourselves and save us too.' We say: 'No.' For we do not depend on them for our existence. We do not depend on anyone for our existence. I fear neither Japan nor Germany nor anyone else. I do not seek the defeat of the British. I want them to win. They are a brave nation. But I cannot bear that their rule over my country should be perpetuated and we for ever remain under their protection. So I shall not board their ship. If I do, we shall be faced with what Germany and Britain are faced with today. I shall not be party to the barbarous business they are engaged in today. I shall keep on addressing them from a distance: 'Why are you cutting each other's throats? Throw away your weapons. Become brothers. You belong to the same Europe and are therefore brothers. Are you fighting for the possession of India? Then you should understand that India will not be possessed either by Germany or Japan. It belongs and will continue to belong to the Indians.' So long as there is a single Congressman alive no foreigner shall occupy it. What may happen after he falls is another matter. A satyagrahi has faith that whatever God does, He does for good, so he will die smiling. And even while dying he will bear no enmity towards his assailant. He will say that the assailant is steeped in ignorance and has lost his senses.
          Let me now say something about how the resolution was drafted. Up to now I have been drafting Congress resolutions. However we now have a very able man to do the drafting. So the wording of the resolution is mine but it has been touched up by Jawaharlal. I am not such a master of English as Jawaharlal is. So I asked him to improve my draft. I must say that the exposition of non-violence in the resolution is Jawaharlal's. I had wanted to omit it. Jawaharlal had also agreed. But Maulana Saheb did not permit it. In saying all this I wish to emphasize that the resolution is whollymine. The resolution says: 'We have no ill will against the British. We want friendship of all.' I am profoundly hurt even if a single English child dies. The thought of St. Paul's Cathedral being damaged hurts me as much as it would hurt me to see the temple of Kashi Vishwanath or the Jama Masjid damaged.
          I was therefore shocked to hear that bombs had fallen on St. Paul's. What harm had this Cathedral caused to anyone? But what is the use of merely expressing sorrow? I am a disciple of the British in this regard. Today when bombs are raining over London, the Londoners are going on with their everyday business without showing any panic. They dance, they make merry, they jest. An eleven-year-old boy writes to his father from school that he will not leave England and go to Canada. In this kind of bravery the British people deserve to be our gurus. How then can I forget this thing that I have learnt from them? While I sympathize with them, how can I forget my dharma? They are today in a very delicate plight. But even if they should lose London, even if they should lose England they will not accept defeat. They will go to Canada, they will go to New Zealand, they will go to Australia and continue the war from there. While sympathizing with them we cannot forget our duty. That is why I have said that though our fight this time will not be for swaraj how can we forget the foundation of swaraj which is in danger? We have to resort to satyagraha to defend it.
          But even here we have accepted restraints. The Working Committee says: 'We have placed everything in Gandhi's hands. We have learnt the art of civil disobedience from him. We shall let him make one more throw. So long as he is alive let him do the fighting.' So they have made me the sole leader. That includes civil disobedience, non-violence, non-co-operation and everything. I do not know what step I shall ask you to take today. Right now there is darkness in front of me. You must understand that in passing this resolution you are appointing a man who finds himself in the dark as arbiter of your destiny.
          Those who do not want compromises and negotiations should know that this resolution gives scope for both. I have always believed in via media. I shall go to the Viceroy with the resolution and ask him why he has taken away our liberty. If he says, 'No, that is not so; keeping within the bounds of non-violence you may say what you like', then I shall not fight. Nor shall I advise you to fight. Thus the resolution spells out the limitation of the objective of the fight. We cannot save one who chooses the path of violence. We do not wish toembarrass the Government. At the same time we do not wish to carry the policy of non-embarrassment to the point of suicide.
          In the end the resolution expresses the conviction that if we accept non-violence within our hearts and minds and act according to it, a day will come when the world will come to us and ask us how it can extricate itself from the war. Today England is spending anything from ten to twelve crores of rupees every day on the war. Why can't 300 million of India's people tell them not to indulge in this senseless expenditure? With that amount millions here can be saved from starvation. I commend the bravery of the British but I cannot compliment them for good sense. What they are doing today is foolish in the extreme. If we can tell them plainly what we feel and peacefully secure our independence we can show to the world how a peaceful social order can be established. Today it is merely a dream, tall talk of small men.
          But if we can do this, freedom is in our pocket. And not only this. We can also set a magnificent example to the world. Hitler's astuteness baffles me. But this astuteness is of no worth to me. The thing I have placed before India today is such that even if Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Churchill all put together oppose it they cannot defeat it.
          Just one word more in the end. I do not know what I shall ask you to do. But I know what is not on the cards. Even if we have to resort to civil disobedience it will not be mass civil disobedience. What I have in mind is individual civil disobedience and also some other things. I hope to give you a full account of the responsibility I have today assumed. But should a time come when I find myself bankrupt and cannot do anything, I shall ask Maulana Saheb or whoever else from amongst you is outside jail to try your resources. I pray to God to give you and me the sense and courage and ability to keep on the right path.
          If you do not care for the things I have said,I must ask you to throw out this resolution. If you approve of what I have said, I shall hope that you will become the bearers of my message. To those who have violence at heart, those who believe in cutting wires, derailing trains and creating disorder, my request is: There is a great experiment going on; please do not put obstacles in the way, otherwise the lead I can give will become ineffective. If I give up the leadership or the Congress gives up non-violence they may do as they like.

C.W.M.G.: Vol 79