Q. What is your ultimate object? Do you want the Congress to accept your principles or to achieve its object?
A. Every plan and programme that I have placed before the Congress has been placed with a view to achieving the goal of independence. Truth and non-violence are a matter of creed for meΓÇöyou may call it my religion, but it has not been my object to propagate that religion through the Congress. Before the Congress they have been placed as effective means to an endΓÇöas political means for a political objective, as I did in South Africa. If it was otherwise, I should cease to be a political worker and occupy the position of a dharmaguru. The political method can be changed whenever expedient, but the change should be honest and deliberate. But one should not pretend to adhere to the method when really in practice one has given it up. That would be deceiving oneself and the world.
Q. We should like to have a glimpse of the next six months of a year as you picture it to yourself. You have often said that this is a fight to the finish, your last fight which will not end until the goal is won. What are likely to be the future developments as you can visualize them?
A. It is a good question, and also a difficult question. Not that I am not clear, but because it takes us into the realm of speculation. I let things and happenings react on meΓÇöthough I confess I do not follow everything as Jawaharlal with his study of foreign affairs can. Jawaharlal is convinced that the British Empire is finished. We all wish that it may be finished, but I do not think it is finished. We know that the Britishers are tough fighters, we know what the EmpireΓÇöespecially IndiaΓÇömeans to every home in Britain, and therefore they will never consent to be 'Little Englanders'. Mr. Churchill has said that they are not "sugar candies", and that they can meet rough with rough. Therefore it will be long before the Empire is finished. There is no doubt, however, that they are nearing the end, and what Jawaharlal has said is very true that, if we could do nothing to prevent the war, we certainly will do much to prevent a peace in which we have no voice. That is what every Congressman has to bear in mind. We have, therefore, to be up and doing. If we sit with folded hands, we may have a peace which we do not desire.
I adhere to the statement that it is my final fight, but we have had to alter our programme because of the latest developments, because war has come to our door. The suspension had nothing to do with my retirement from the official leadership of the Congress. Even if it had continued, how could I today ask Jawaharlal to march back to jail? Of course he will be in jail, if he is prevented from doing the work we have chalked out. But things have happened so rapidly that we had not the slightest idea of what was coming. How then can I talk of a year or even six months ahead? That we are marching swiftly towards independence I have no doubt. There is no doubt about the programme ahead of us. No Congressman should rest content with just paying his four-anna fee. He has to be active all the twenty-four hours. Even the one concrete programme of production of cloth is sufficient to occupy all our energies. There are 4,000 students in the Benares Hindu University. Will they spin an hour every day? I am talking of spinning because it is a thing nearest my heart, but there are a hundred and one other things. Have the villagers enough food to eat? Have they enough to cover themselves in this bitter cold? These are the questions that occur to me again and again. On our capacity to feed the starving and clothe the naked and generally to serve the masses in the time of their need will depend our capacity to influence the peace whenever it comes. What I have said applies to all parties. Whoever serves the purpose best will survive and have an effective voice.
Q. You think they cannot have a treaty just as they like?
A. I do. The days of secret treaties are gone, I hope. If we behave ourselves, we can have a decisive voice at least so far as we are concerned. But Jawaharlal can explain these things better. I am no student of history or even of contemporary events in the world.
Q. Why did you advise the A.I.C.C. members to support the Bardoli Resolution, though at one stage you had decided to divide the house? Rajaji's speeches after the A.I.C.C. are against the Bombay Resolution, and even expediency dictates that there can be no co-operating with a dying Empire.
A. I am afraid you are 'estopped' from asking the question, if I may use a legal term. But as you have asked the question, and there is nothing to hide, I may answer it. In fact I answered it in my speech before the A. I. C. C., if you listened to it with attention. Well, then, let me tell you that, though I am old in age, my mind is not decaying. It is ever growing, and the decision not to divide the house indicates my growth or evolution in my own non-violence.
Mahatma Gandhi said that after he had made his attitude on the question known since the Bardoli decision, he had come to realize that as the majority of the Working Committee members, representing, as they do, the large bulk of Congressmen, were not prepared to go the whole hog with him on the question of non-violence, it would have become unfair to clinch the issue at Wardha, for he was confident that if he had insisted upon the question being decided by a vote, a large number of the A.I.C.C. members, perhaps in spite of their conscience, would have voted in support of his attitude. That could have been a decision obviously misrepresenting the real situation. It would have been harmful in the extreme, and hence he decided that he should plead for the support of the Working Committee's resolution. Wrong assumptions could never lead to right results.
To divide the house appeared to me a piece of violence. If every one of the members of the A. I. C. C. was a pukka believer in political non-violence, it would have been a different matter. But I knew that such was not the case. The Bardoli Resolution was a true reflection of the Congress mind. In such matters majority and minority do not count. And there was nothing to prevent the whole-hoggers to go whatever length they liked.
The contingency of co-operation is, if anything, very remote. Until then all have to act in terms of non-violence. When the contingency does arise the whole-hoggers can secede from the Congress. In fact we can then meet again and put the whole matter to vote.
Q. Would it be proper or improper to defend oneself with arms against atatayis (confirmed offenders) in case of disturbances?
A. The answer has been already given by me and also by the Congress. And the word atatayi is bad for our purpose. And don't ask what is proper and improper. If you were to ask me, I should say it is improper. If you are non-violent, do not have resort to arms. If you cannot muster non-violence of the brave, defend yourself as best [as] you can. The law gives everyone the right of self-defence against a dacoit, and the Congress does not take away the legal right. But in riots or communal disturbances, he who calls himself a Congressman has to act non-violently. That is the resolution of the Congress. Even there if your courage fails you and you use force, the Congress will not censure you, for the simple reason that the Congress never intended to encourage cowardice.
Q. You are said to have permitted khadi bhandars to sell blankets to Government. It is not co-operation in the war effort?
A. I did. It was not proper for me to ask whether the blankets were for the use of soldiers or for someone else. The case is different when a man sells fire-arms or swords or poison. The vendor has to inquire how the fire-arms are to be used, and the chemist has to ask for the doctor's certificate. On the other hand a riceseller will not, and is under no obligation to inquire who is going to consume the rice.
Admitting that it was very difficult to draw the line of demarcation, Mahatma Gandhi said the principal criterion from his point of view was for the supplier to consider how his supply would be utilized. Of course, his view on the question was not necessarily that of the Congress and Congressmen were free to object to it without acquiescing in the butchery in which the soldiers were engaged. It was quite conceivable that the blankets supplied to them served to spare them the hardships of a severe winter, the more so when they were maimed or wounded in the battle. There was the underlying humanitarian motive in making these supplies and that could not be questioned as co-operation in the war effort.
But you may go further than I did. If you think I erred, you are at liberty to denounce me. If you think a non-violent man may not sell rice or blankets to soldiers, you are welcome to your interpretation of non-violence. I for one will not hesitate to give water or food to a soldier who comes to me with hands red with murder. My humanity would not let me do otherwise.
The question of spurious khadi was next discussed, and Gandhiji said :
A great deal depends on intelligent and wide-awake public opinion. If the public takes it into its mind to prevent the spread of this khadi, it can easily do so. But we have not cultivated what Lord Willingdon used to call the courage to say 'No'. Those who are interested in khadi are all shareholders of the A. I. S. A., and it is their duty to take up this work. To feed the hungry and clothe the naked is our immediate programme, and you have all to lend a hand effectively. If you all do so, the question of spurious khadi will not arise. No Congressman can deal in spurious khadi.
Stressing the importance of Congressmen concentrating on khadi, Mahatma Gandhi said that by virtue of their commitment to the Congress constructive programme whereof the khadi movement was the most important part, the responsibility of clothing Indians in the immediate future was devolving upon the shoulders of Congressmen and they would soon be tested as to their ability to discharge it. Inquiries made by him from Indian millowners had revealed that cloth stocks were very limited and fast diminishing. And such of them as were held were being manipulated by persons dealing in futures (satta). Not only the public, said Mahatma Gandhi, but also the Government of the country would knock at his doors for more and ever more of khadi in the near future. That time was fast approaching. He hoped that Congressmen would not be found unprepared to meet the situation.
The last question was about the Congressmen's duty in times of raids and scares and consequent disturbances.
The emergency is there today. Dacoities are rampant, and unless the Congress asserts itself effectively, the situation will go out of our hands. The need for peace brigades was never more urgent than now. The risk of death is there, whether you choose violence or non-violence. Why not then prepare yourselves to die non-violently? It will also enable you to offer effective resistance in case of a civil war. As for the protection of the wounded in air raids, the bulk of the work will come upon yourselves. You will not join the A. R. P., simply because you will be then parts of a machine over which you have no control and you would be active participants in the war effort. But it is certain that the Government will not be able to render assistance everywhere. Did they do so in Rangoon? We have harrowing tales of the dead and wounded lying on the streets of Rangoon uncared for. Wherever, therefore, the authorities fail there will be enough scope of work for us. We have to prepare volunteers for this work ready to take risks and to act with initiative. We may have to remove the dead and wounded, take charge of vacant houses, and so on. In this work you will heartily co-operate with the authorities wherever they will accept your co-operation.
Mahatma Gandhi said that . . . nothing was expected to deter them from organizing volunteer squads and offering such relief as was possible in emergencies in co-operation with the Government organization, if necessary, and in spite of it, if possible, regardless of the consequences. For instance, after an air raid if there were persons trapped in a crumbling house or a house on fire, it was the duty of Congressmen to extricate them and pull down the house, lest it should collapse and take a toll of life, without waiting to see whether the official organization's aid, sanction or a request for co-operation was forthcoming.
Mahatma Gandhi was all humour at the conference and Acharya J. B. Kripalani, General Secretary of the Congress, was the butt of it. Mahatma Gandhi said :
Kripalani was morose formerly, because I thought he was not married. But, even when he is married and has a very good partner in life, his mood haunts him.
