gain their co-operation.  Any eruption of violence on the part of the people even under provocation would end in disaster.  Whether therefore it is I or any one else who is arrested during the campaign, the first condition of success is that there must be no resentment shown against it.  We cannot imperil the very existence of a Government and quarrel with its attempt to save itself by punishing those who place it in danger.

AT THE CALL OF THE COUNTRY

Dr. Sapru delivered before the Khilafat Conference at Allahabad an impassioned address sympathising with the Mussulmans in their trouble but dissuaded them from embarking on non-co-operation.  He was frankly unable to suggest a substitute but was emphatically of opinion that whether there was a substitute or not non-co-operation was a remedy worse than the disease.  He said further that Mussulmans will be taking upon their shoulders, a serious responsibility, if whilst they appealed to the ignorant masses to join them, they could not appeal to the Indian judges to resign and if they did they would not succeed.

I acknowledge the force of Dr. Sapru’s last argument.  At the back of Dr. Sapru’s mind is the fear that non-co-operation by the ignorant people would lead to distress and chaos and would do no good.  In my opinion any non-co-operation is bound to do some good.  Even the Viceragal door-keeper saying, ’Please Sir, I can serve the Government no longer because it has hurt my national honour’ and resigning is a step mightier and more effective than the mightiest speech declaiming against the Government for its injustice.

Nevertheless it would be wrong to appeal to the door-keeper until one has appealed to the highest in the land.  And as I propose, if the necessity arose, to ask the door-keepers of the Government to dissociate themselves from an unjust Government I propose now to address, an appeal to the Judges and the Executive Councillors to join the protest that is rising from all over India against the double wrong done to India, on the Khilafat and the Punjab question.  In both, national honour is involved.

I take it that these gentlemen have entered upon their high offices not for the sake of emolument, nor I hope for the sake of fame, but for the sake of serving their country.  It was not for money, for they were earning more than they do now.  It must not be for fame, for they cannot buy fame at the cost of national honour.  The only consideration, that can at the present moment keep them in office must be service of the country.

When the people have faith in the government, when it represents the popular will, the judges and the executive officials possibly serve the country.  But when that government does not represent the will of the people, when it supports dishonesty and terrorism, the judges and the executive officials by retaining office become instrument of dishonesty and terrorism.  And the least therefore that these holders of high offices can do is to cease to become agents of a dishonest and terrorising government.