Before I begin, I must tell you how much I miss Maulana Shaukat Ali here. He arrived this morning and it is a matter of inexpressible sorrow to me that he should not be here, and I have no doubt you also will share my sorrow. But I may assure you that I shall miss no opportunity, leave no stone unturned, to persuade the Maulana and other Mussalmans to work with us on the same platform. It is a matter for shame that the 'Big Brother' with whom I travelled through the country for over two years and whom I took particular pleasure in describing as capable of carrying me in his pocket should not be here with me today. But if it is a matter for shame, I do not know how far I am responsible for it. I have spared no effort to remove that shame, but I have not succeeded. In this there is nothing surprising, in as much as we find even blood-brothers divided by sharp differences of opinion. But our differences have not in the least affected our friendship. I regard him, even today, as my friend and brother, and I have no doubt that he also has the same regard for me. But that affords me little consolation, for I want him to work shoulder to shoulder with me for the welfare of India, and I want his co-operation on my terms, as indeed he once used to give me. But that work ceased to appeal to him at a certain stage and he left the Congress platform.
That preamble will give you an inkling of what I am about to say today. The settlement that has been just arrived at will fail of effect without a real heart-unity between Hindus and Mussalmans. Without that unity our going to the Conference will be of no avail. No one will pretend that the Conference can help us to achieve that unity. A heart-unity can be achieved between pure hearts purged of distrust and that can be achieved only outside the Conference. In this I seek your co-operation and ask you to count on my doing my utmost.
In a letter I received yesterday the correspondent asks me why I should not make the same advances to the Mussalmans as I did to the Viceroy. Why, he asks, should I not wait on esteemed Mussalman friends who are desirous of unity and beg on bended knees for their co-operation? I like the suggestion and the correspondent may be sure that I shall leave nothing undone to plead with my Mussalman friends. But you must understand that there are limits to the capacity of an individual, and the moment he flatters himself that he can undertake all tasks, God is there to humble his pride. For myself, I am gifted with enough humility to look even to babes and sucklings for help. And that reminds me that in this mission of mine I can count on the hearty and active co-operation of my sisters who beat all previous records of suffering and sacrifice during the last heroic campaign. To them I say : If you are convinced that Hindu-Muslim unity is a sine qua non I ask you to use against your own countrymen the same weapon of satyagraha that you used so effectively against Government. Tell your men that you will non-co-operate with them, you will not cook for them, you will starve yourselves and them so long as they do not wash their hands of these dirty communal squabbles. Assure me of your co-operation, and you will add tremendously to my strength and to my power of pleading.
We Hindus are described, to a certain extent rightly, as the majority community. Well, to them I would say the same thing as I used to do in 1921, viz., that voluntary surrender on the part of either communityΓÇôpreferably by the majority communityΓÇôof all rights and privileges would immediately effect this unity. It would be a great thing, a brave thing, for the Hindus to achieve this act of self-denial. Let them say to the Mussalmans : 'Have as big a share of the spoils as you want; we will be content to serve you.' What after all are the things you are quarrelling for? Not indeed for air and water. It is for seats on legislatures and local bodies. What has the vast majority of you got to do with them? How many of you can go there? And what can you do there? Outside the legislatures you did wonderful things; you defied the ordinances, you defied lathi-charges and 'firing' orders, because you were conscious of your strength. If you retain the same consciousness, what would it matter to you if your Parliament had all Mussalmans in it and no Hindu? I am sick of these squabbles for seats, this scramble for the shadow of power. How I wish I could bring home to all Congressmen that they should have nothing to do with these legislatures? The very act of voluntary surrender will clothe you with a power undreamt of before.
And you my sisters, what would you do by going to the Parliament? Do you aspire after collectorships, commissioner-ships or even the Viceroyalty? And what would you do if one of you were to be the Viceroy of India? I know you would not care to, for the Viceroy has got to order executions and hangingsΓÇôa thing you would heartily detest. Supposing we, the 'leaders', were to run a race for getting the Viceroyalty, we would simply strangle ourselves. That is not the prize we have set our hearts on. We crave to be humble servants of the country. It is this spirit of service which I want to permeate the atmosphere. I want you to join me and share this aspiration. But if it does not appeal to you, you had better give me up, for that is the condition on which I tender my service. I have no other secret but that of voluntary surrender.
'Where is peace?' asks the nameless writer of this leaflet. 'The late Pandit Motilal thought of the Garhwalis on his death-bed. What have you done for them?' that is another question that has been put to me.Well,I may tell you that when on the last day of his presence on earth he referred to the Garhwalis only I was by his side, no one else, not even Jawaharlal.I consider that as his last will and testament to me, as those were the last words I heard from him. But I know, much better than you, what he was thinking of. The writer subscribes himself 'Young India', but I may tell him that I am still the editor of Young India. Let him who would oust me from the editorship come to me and I will tell him what Pandit Motilal was referring to. You must remember that there were no 'peace talks' at that time, the peace ambassadors had not even arrived then, and the question of the freedom of Garhwalis could not be in the late Panditji's mind. He was asking whether the relations and dependants of the Garhwalis were being properly looked after.
The next question is about Bhagat Singh and others who are under sentence to death. How can there be peace, I am asked, when a sentence of death is hanging over the heads of these patriots? It is unfortunate that the young men distributing these pamphlets should not understand such a simple thing. They ought to understand that we have entered into no peace treaty. It is a provisional, temporary settlement we have arrived at. I beseech the young men not to bid good-bye to common sense, to cool courage, to patience, to reason. I have claimed to be a young man of 62. But even if I were to be labelled as a dilapidated old fogey, I have a right to appeal to your good sense. I do not want you to take for granted all that old men say to you, but I want you to consider it and weigh it, and if you find that we 'old' men have bungled, that we have been guilty of weakness get us to abdicate, and assume the reins yourselves. But that presupposes cool courage and solid common sense.
But let me tell you why Bhagat Singh and the rest have not been released.Maybe, if you had been negotiating you might have secured better terms from the Viceroy, but we the Working Committee would secure no more than what we have. I may tell you that throughout the negotiations I was not acting on my own, I was backed by the whole Working Committee. We brought all the presssure we could to bear on our negotiations and satisfied ourselves with what in justice we could have under the provisional settlement. We could not as negotiators of the provisional truce forget our pledge of truth and non-violence, forget the bounds of justice.
But it is still open to us to secure the release of all you have namedΓÇôand that can be done if you will implement the settlement. Let 'Young India' stand by the settlement and fulfil all its conditions, and if, God willing, Bhagat Singh and others are alive when we have arrived at the proper stage, they would not only be saved from the gallows but released.
But I will address to 'Young India' a word of warning. These things are sooner asked for than obtained. You want to secure the freedom of those condemned of violence. There is nothing wrong about it. My creed of non-violence does not favour the punishment of thieves and dacoits and even murderers. I cannot in all conscience agree to anyone being sent to the gallows, much less a brave man like Bhagat Singh. But I tell you, even you could not save them unless you fulfil the conditions of the settlement. You cannot do so by violent means. If you pin your faith to violence, take it from me that you will not only not secure Bhagat Singh's release but will have to sacrifice thousands of Bhagat Singhs. I was not prepared to do so, and hence I preferred the way of peace, of non-violence. The way that you have adopted has been on trial for centuries and history records numerous instances of the truth that those who use the sword shall perish by the sword. You will not stop at using the violent weapon against your rulers, you will use it against your brothers and sisters too, and others of your way of thinking will use it against you.
I beseech you then,if you want the release of the prisoners, to change your methods, to accept the settlement, and then come and ask me about the Garhwalis and Bhagat Singh. Come to me six months hence, after you have implemented the settlement and gained in strength, and ask me the question you are asking today and I promise to satisfy you.
Having suspended civil disobedience we now enter a period of disciplined obedience. We are now pledged to eschew all passive and active violence, direct and indirect violence in picketing foreign-cloth and liquor shops, but we are further pledged to relax our boycott of British goods minus British cloth. The settlement is an attempt at re-establishing friendly relations and it therefore means that we must lay down all weapons of punishment. Boycott of British goods was conceived, essentially, as a weapon of punishment and has, therefore, to be suspended. But we have to go ahead, even more energetically with the constructive programme, i.e., boycott of foreign cloth and liquor, the programme which means the economic and moral salvation of our poor starving millions.
I must also explain that the relaxation of the boycott of British goods does not mean that we should prefer British goods to Indian goods. Indian goods you will prefer to all foreign goods for all time. Under the settlement you are pledged not to direct the weapon of punishment against the Britisher and accord a favoured treatment to other foreigners. And even that condition does not bind you to prefer British goods to other foreign goods; it binds you not to pursue the policy of aggressive boycott that you did heretofore.
The boycott of foreign cloth and liquor, as I have said before, should not be relaxed, cannot be relaxed. It is our permanent programme; but it should be purged of all its aggressive forms, e.g., social boycott, and persecution of the seller and the consumer. If you say boycott without these elements will lose all its edge, I will tell you that it argues want of faith in the efficacy of non-violence. Work achieved through aggressive picketing will be of doubtful worth, work achieved through loving persuasive pressure will be lasting. I ask you therefore to plead with the foreign-cloth seller and liquor seller to give up dealing in foreign cloth and liquor and take to some more honourable and cleaner calling. As to the constructive part of foreign-cloth boycott I want you to understand that it is impossible to achieve it without khadi. Mill-cloth is for those whom the Congress has not been able to reach; for Congressmen there can be no cloth other than khadi. It is a pity that where a few months ago there were thousands of taklis working, they should now be conspicuous by their absence. The period that follows should be one entirely devoted to constructive efforts.
In conclusion, I would beseech you to realize the supreme importance of discipline. It is open to you to press for a different policy and different programme at Karachi. But let it not be said that we are a people incapable of maintaining discipline. Indiscipline wil mean disaster, and make one like me who is pining to see swaraj in his lifetime perish in sorrow and grief.
It is my earnest prayer that God may give you the power to appreciate what I have said and to attain swaraj by pursuing the path of truth, justice and non-violence.
