 |
| Lord Irwin, 1919 |
 |
| MK Gandhi, 1919 |
WHY
I REGARD THE BRITISH RULE AS A CURSE!
Dear Friend,
Before embarking on Civil Disobedience and taking the risk I have
dreaded to take all these years, I would fain approach you and find a way out.
My personal faith is absolutely dear. I cannot intentionally hurt any thing
that lives, much less fellow-human beings even though they may do the greatest
wrong to me and mine. Whilst
therefore I hold British rule to be a curse, I do not intend to harm a single
Englishman or any legitimate interest he may have in India.
I must not be misunderstood. Though I hold the British rule in India
to be a curse, I do not therefore consider Englishmen in general to be worse
than any other people on earth. I have the privilege of claiming many
Englishmen as dearest friends. Indeed much that I have learnt of the evil of
British rule is due to the writings of frank and courageous Englishmen who have
not hesitated to tell the unpalatable truth about that rule.
And why do I regard the British rule as a curse?
It has impoverished the dumb millions by a system of progressive
exploitation and by a ruinously expensive military and civil administration
which the country can never afford.
It has reduced us politically to serfdom. It has sapped the
foundations of our culture, and, by the policy of disarmament, it has degraded
us spiritually. Lacking inward strength, we have been reduced by all but
universal disarmament to a state bordering on cowardly helplessness.
In common with many of my countrymen, I had hugged the fond hope
that the proposed Round Table Conference might furnish a solution. But when you
said plainly that you could not give any assurance that you or the British
Cabinet would pledge yourselves to support a scheme of full Dominion Status,
the Round Table Conference could not possibly furnish the solution for which
vocal India is consciously, and the dumb millions unconsciously, thirsting.
Needless to say there never was any question of Parliament's verdict being
anticipated. Instances are not wanting of the British Cabinet, in anticipation
of Parliamentary verdict, having pledged itself to a particular policy.
The Delhi interview having
miscarried, there was no option for Pandit Motilal Nehru and me but to take
steps to carry out the solemn resolution of the Congress arrived at in Calcutta at its Session
of 1928.
But the resolution of Independence
should cause no alarm if the word "Dominion Status", mentioned in
your announcement, has been used in its accepted sense. For, has it not been
admitted by responsible British statesmen that Dominion Status is virtual Independence? What
however, I fear, is that there never has been any intention of granting such
Dominion Status to India
in the immediate future.
But this is all past history. Since the announcement many events
have happened which show unmistakably the trend of British policy.
It seems as clear as day light that responsible British statesmen
do not contemplate any alteration in British policy that might adversely affect
Britain's commerce with India or require impartial and close scrutiny of
Britain's transactions with India. If nothing is done to end the process of
exploitation, India
must be bled with an ever increasing speed. The Finance Member regards as a
settled fact the 1s. 6d. ratio which, by a stroke of the pen, drains India
of a few crores. And when a serious attempt is being made through a civil form
of direct action to unsettle this fact among many others, even you cannot help
appealing to the wealthy landed classes to help you to crush that attempt in
the name of an order that grinds India to atoms. Unless those who
work in the name of the nation understand and keep before all concerned the
motive that lies behind the craving for Independence,
there is every danger of independence itself coming to us so charged as to be
of no value to those toiling voiceless millions for whom it is sought and for
whom it is worth taking. It is for that reason that I have been recently
telling the public what independence should really mean.
Let me put before you some of the salient points. The terrific
pressure of land revenue which furnishes a large part of the total revenue,
must undergo considerable modification in Independent India. Even the much
vaunted permanent settlement benefits a few rich Zamindars not the ryots. The ryot has remained as helpless as ever. He
is a mere tenant at will. Not only then has land revenue to be considerably
reduced, but the whole revenue system has to be so revised as to make the ryot's good its primary concern. But the
British system seems to be designed to crush the very life out of him. Even the
salt he must use to live is so taxed as to make the burden fall heaviest on him
if only because of the heartless impartiality of its incidence. The tax shows
itself still more burdensome on the poor man when it is remembered that salt is
the one thing he must eat more than the rich man both individually and
collectively. The drink and drug revenue too is derived from the poor. It saps
the foundations both of their health and morals. It is defended under the false
pleas of individual freedom, but in reality it is maintained for its own sake.
The ingenuity of the authors of the Reforms of 1919 transferred this revenue to
the so-called responsible part of dyarchy so as to throw the burden of
prohibition on it, thus from the beginning rendering it powerless for good. If
the unhappy Minister wipes out this revenue, he must starve education, since in
the existing circumstances he has no new source of replacing that revenue. If
the weight of taxation has crushed the poor from above, the destruction of the
central supplementary industry, i.e., hand-spinning, has undermined their
capacity for producing wealth.
The tale of India's
ruination is not complete without a reference to the liabilities incurred in
her name. Sufficient has been recently said about these in the public Press. It
must be the duty of a free India
to subject all liabilities to the strictest investigation and repudiate those
that may be adjudged by an impartial tribunal to be unjust and unfair. The
iniquities sampled above are maintained in order to carry on a foreign
administration, demonstrably the most expensive in the world. Take your own
salary. It is over Rs. 21,000 per month besides many other indirect additions.
The British Prime Minister gets 5,000 per year, i.e., over Rs. 5,400 per month
at the present rate of exchange. You are getting over Rs. 700 per day against India's average
income of less than annas 2 per day. The Prime Minister gets Rs. 180 per day
against Great Britain's
average income of nearly Rs. 2 per day. Thus you are getting much over 5,000
times India's
average income. The British Prime Minister is getting only 90 times Britain's
average income. On bended knee I ask you to ponder over this phenomenon. I have
taken a personal illustration to drive home a painful truth. I have too great a
regard for you as a man to wish to hurt your feelings. I know that you do not
need the salary you get. Probably the whole of your salary goes for charity.
But a system that provides for such an arrangement deserves to be summarily
scrapped. What is true of the Viceregal salary is true generally of the whole
administration.
A radical cutting down of the revenue, therefore, depends upon an
equally radical reduction in expenses of administration. This means a
transformation of the scheme of Government. This transformation is impossible
without independence. Hence, in my opinion, the spontaneous demonstration of
26th January, in which hundreds of thousands of villagers instinctively
participated. To them Independence
means deliverance from the killing weight. Not one of the great British
political parties, it seems to me, is prepared to give up the Indian spoils to
which Great Britain helps herself from day to day, often in spite of the
unanimous opposition of Indian opinion.
Nevertheless if India
is to live as a nation, if the slow death by starvation of her people is to
stop, some remedy must be found for immediate relief. The proposed conference
is certainly not the remedy. It is not a matter of carrying conviction by
argument. The matter resolves itself into one of matching forces. Conviction or
no conviction Great Britain
would defend her Indian commerce and interest by all the forces at her command.
India
must consequently evolve force enough to free herself from that embrace of
death. It is common cause that, however disorganised and for the time being
insignificant it may be, the party of violence is gaining ground and making
itself felt. Its end is the same as mine. But I am convinced that it cannot
bring the desired relief to the dumb millions. And the conviction is growing
deeper and deeper in me that nothing but unadulterated non-violence can check
the organised violence of the British Government. Many think that non-violence
is not an active force. It is my purpose to set in motion that force as well
against the organised violence force of the British rule as the unorganised
violence force of the growing party of violence. To sit still would be to give
rein to both the forces above mentioned. Having unquestioning and immovable
faith in the efficacy of non-violence as I know it, it would be sinful on my
part to wait any longer. This non-violence will be expressed through civil
disobedience for the moment confined to the inmates of the Satyagraha Ashram,
but ultimately designed to cover all those who choose to join the movement with
its obvious limitations.
I know that in embarking on non-violence, I shall be running what
might fairly be termed a mad risk, but the victories of truth have never been
won without risks, often of the gravest character. Conversion of a nation that
has consciously or unconciously, preyed upon another far more numerous, far
more ancient and no less cultured than itself is worth any amount of risk.
I have deliberately used the word conversion, for my ambition is
no less than to convert the British people through non-violence and thus make
them see the wrong they have done to India. I do not seek to harm your
people. I want to serve them even as I want to serve my own. I believe that I
have always served them. I served them up to 1919 blindly. But when my eyes
were opened, and I concieved non-co-operation the object still was to serve
them. I employed the same weapon that I have in all humility successfully used
against the dearest members of my family. If I have equal love for your people
with mine, it will not long remain hidden. It will be acknowledged by them even
as members of my family acknowledged it after they had tried me for several
years. If people join me as I expect they will, the sufferings they will
undergo, unless the British nation sooner retraces its steps, will be enough to
melt the stoniest hearts.
The plan through civil disobedience will be to combat such evils
as I have sampled out.
If we want to sever the British connection, it is because of such
evils. When they are removed the path becomes easy. Then the way to friendly
negotiation will be open. If the British commerce with India is purified of greed, you
will have no difficulty in recognising our independence. I respectfully invite
you then to pave the way for an immediate removal of those evils and thus open
a way for a real conference between equals, interested only in promoting the
common good of mankind through voluntary fellowship and in arranging terms of
mutual help and commerce suited to both. You have unnecessarily laid stress
upon the communal problems that unhappily affect this land. Important though
they undoubtedly are for the consideration of any scheme of government, they
have little bearing on the greater problems which are above communities and
which affect them all equally. But if you cannot see your way to deal with
these evils and my letter makes no appeal to your heart, on the 11th day of
this month I shall proceed with such co-workers of the Ashram as I can take to
disregard the provisions of Salt laws. I regard this tax to be the most
iniquitous of all from the poor man's standpoint. As the Independence Movement
is essentially for the poorest in the land, the beginning will be made with
this evil. The wonder is, that we have submitted to the cruel monopoly for so
long. It is, I know, open to you to frustrate my design by arresting me. I hope
there will be tens of thousands ready in a disciplined manner to take up the
work after me, and in the act of disobeying the Salt Act lay themselves open to
the penalties of a law that should never have disfigured the Statute-book.
I have no desire to cause you unnecessary embarrassment or any at
all so far as I can help. If you think that there is any substance in my
letter, and if you will care to discuss matters with me, and if to that end you
would like me to postpone publication of this letter, I shall gladly refrain on
receipt of a telegram to that effect soon after this reaches you. You will however
do me the favour not to deflect me from my course unless you can see your way
to conform to the substance of this letter.
This letter is not in any way intended as a threat, but is a
simple and sacred duty peremptory on a civil resister. Therefore I am having it
specially delivered by a young English friend, who believes in the Indian cause
and is a full believer in non-violence and whom Providence seems to have sent to me as it
were for the very purpose.
I remain,
Your Sincere friend.
M. K. GANDHI.
Source: Famous
Letters of Mahatma Gandhi, Indian Printing Works, Lahore (1947)
There
was a world free of care,
