MR. MONTAGU ON THE KHILAFAT AGITATION

Mr. Montagu does not like the Khilafat agitation that is daily gathering force.  In answer to questions put in the House of Commons, he is reported to have said that whilst he acknowledged that I had rendered distinguished services to the country in the past, he could not look upon my present attitude with equanimity and that it was not to be expected that I could now be treated as leniently as I was during the Rowlatt Act agitation.  He added that he had every confidence in the central and the local Governments, that they were carefully watching the movement and that they had full power to deal with the situation.

This statement of Mr. Montagu has been regarded in some quarters as a threat.  It has even been considered to be a blank cheque for the Government of India to re-establish the reign of terror if they chose.  It is certainly inconsistent with his desire to base the Government on the goodwill of the people.  At the same time if the Hunter Committee’s finding be true and if I was the cause of the disturbances last year, I was undoubtedly treated with exceptional leniency, I admit too that my activity this year is fraught with greater peril to the Empire as it is being conducted to-day than was last year’s activity.  Non-co-operation in itself is more harmless than civil disobedience, but in its effect it is far more dangerous for the Government than civil disobedience.  Non-co-operation is intended so far to paralyse the Government, as to compel justice from it.  If it is carried to the extreme point, it can bring the Government to a standstill.

A friend who has been listening to my speeches once asked me whether I did not come under the sedition section of the Indian Penal Code.  Though I had not fully considered it, I told him that very probably I did and that I could not plead ‘not guilty’ if I was charged under it.  For I must admit that I can pretend to no ‘affection’ for the present Government.  And my speeches are intended to create ‘disaffection’ such that the people might consider it a shame to assist or co-operate with a Government that had forfeited all title to confidence, respect or support.

I draw no distinction between the Imperial and the Indian Government.  The latter has accepted, on the Khilafat, the policy imposed upon it by the former.  And in the Punjab case the former has endorsed the policy of terrorism and emasculation of a brave people initiated by the latter.  British ministers have broken their pledged word and wantonly wounded the feelings of the seventy million Mussulmans of India.  Innocent men and women were insulted by the insolent officers of the Punjab Government.  Their wrongs not only unrighted but the very officers who so cruelly subjected them to barbarous humiliation retain office under the Government.