Some friends have been expostulating with me for involving myself in the Rajkot affair. I sum up their argument below:
In giving so much attention to Rajkot to the exclusion of all else you seem to have lost all sense of proportion. It was your obvious duty to be at Tripuri. If you had been there, things would have taken a different turn. But you chose to undertake an indefinite fast. You had no right thus to disturb national life without notice. Why should you fast to make a Prince keep his promise ? The people of Rajkot were offering civil disobedience. They would have become stronger in any case if you had not sudenly stopped the movement. Surely, democracy cannot be built by your method. And then you, who taught India to shun Viceroys and Governors and such other functionaries who used to fill us with awe, are now found dancing attendance on the Viceroy and awaiting His Excellency's pleasure when great affairs demand your attention elsewhere. You are believed to oppose Federation, but you recognize the Chief Justice of the Federal Court and will not leave Delhi till His Lordship has delivered his Award. Truly the ways of mahatmas are strange.
To the hasty reader this argument must make a forcible appeal. But one who goes a little deeper into the subject and knows the working of satyagraha should have no difficulty in seeing the falsity of the argument. Nor is there anything new in what I have done and am doing about Rajkot. Geographically Rajkot is a tiny spot on the map of India, but the disturbance which I felt called upon to deal with was symptomatic of a universal malady. My endeavour in Rajkot was meant to nip the evil in the bud. I am of opinion that the result of the endeavour has so far benefited the whole of India. I acted the part of a wise general who never disregards the slightest weakness in his defences. Kheda and Champaran are but instances in point. Whilst they lasted they occupied the attention of the whole of India, and whilst the fight was going on I had to devote the whole of my time and attention to them. It is a rare occurrence to have to deal with the whole front at the same time. We must distinguish
between preparations for war and actual outbreak of a skirmish, be it ever so insignificant in itself. Tripuri was a preparation, Rajkot was a Skirmish.
The fast is a most efficacious weapon in the armoury of non-violence. That it can be used only by the fewest possible persons is no objection to its use. It would be foolish for me not to use the talents given to me by God on the ground that others or all do not possess some of them. I have never heard it said that use of special talents placed at the service of democracy can retard its even growth. I hold that such use stimulates it as the Rajkot fast undoubtedly has. And why is the Rajkot fast to be condemned, if the nation benefited by the previous fasts ? It is open to the critics to say that the previous ones were also criticized. So they were. But my point is that the nation gained by every one of them. What does arrest the growth of the democratic spirit is the outbreak of violence. I must ask the public to believe me when I say that if my fast did nothing else, it prevented much violence.
I have no sense of shame about going to H. E. the Viceroy. I had invited him as the Crown Representative to perform his duty by intervening to enforce performance of a promise by a tributary of the Crown. I had not gone as a petitioner depending upon his mercy. It would have been churlish on my part to have sought his intervention and yet not to respond to his invitation to see him to discuss things. I have already acknowledged the handsome manner in which he acted during the fast. It was open to him to disregard it and take his time in deciding whether and when if at all he should intervene. But he did not do so. He recognized the nation's anxiety. And I have no doubt that his humane instinct, too, had a share in cutting short his tour in Rajputana in order to determine his action with sufficient quickness. I have no apology to offer for my attendances on the Viceroy. It is part of satyagraha to lose no opportunity of converting one's opponent or coming to terms with him on strictly honourable lines. I repeated on a small scale with Lord Linlithgow what I did with Lord Halifax when as Lord Irwin he was Viceroy of India.
Lastly, as to my acceptance of the Chief Justice of India as the interpreter of the Thakore Saheb's letter of 26th December last sent to Sardar Vallabhabhai Patel. The Thakore Saheb interpreted it one way, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel another way. The Viceroy suggested interpretation by the Chief Justice of India. What was I to do ? Was I to say he must not because he was Chief Justice of a Court which was a creation of the Government of India Act ? My sense of propriety would rebel against any such objection. Federation has come no nearer by my accepting Maurice Gwyer's nomination as judge of the meaning of a document. If it comes as an imposition, it will come because of our impotence born of our inability to bring into non-violent subjection the forces of violence that are growing in the country and the increasing indiscipline and corruption in the Congress against which I have been raising my voice for the past twelve months.
It may interest the reader to know that Sir Maurice did not interpret the document in his capacity as Cheif Justice of the Federal Court but as a jurist of established repute. He who reads the judgement cannot fail to notice the pains he bestowed upon it.
