“Are you satisfied that all efforts at constitutional agitation have been exhausted and that non-co-operation is the only course left us?” “I do not consider non-co-operation to be unconstitutional remedies now left open to us, non-co-operation is the only one left for us.”  “Do you consider it constitutional to adopt it with a view merely to paralyse Government?”—­“Certainly, it is not unconstitutional, but a prudent man will not take all the steps that are constitutional if they are otherwise undesirable, nor do I advise that course.  I am resorting to non-co-operation in progressive stages because I want to evolve true order out of untrue order.  I am not going to take a single step in non-co-operation unless I am satisfied that the country is ready for that step, namely, non-co-operation will not be followed by anarchy or disorder.”

“How will you satisfy yourself anarchy will not follow?”

“For instance, if I advise the police to lay down their arms, I shall have satisfied myself that we are able by voluntary assistance to protect ourselves against thieves and robbers.  That was precisely what was done in Lahore and Amritsar last year by the citizens by means of volunteers when the Military and the police had withdrawn.  Even where Government had not taken such measures in a place, for want of adequate force, I know people have successfully protected themselves.”

“You have advised lawyers to non-co-operate by suspending their practice.  What is your experience?  Has the lawyers’ response to your appeal encouraged you to hope that you will be able to carry through all stages of non-co-operation with the help of such people?”

“I cannot say that a large number has yet responded to my appeal.  It is too early to say how many will respond.  But I may say that I do not rely merely upon the lawyer class or highly educated men to enable the Committee to carry out all the stages of non-co-operation.  My hope lies more with the masses so far as the later stages of non-co-operation are concerned.”

August 1920.

RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY FOR NON-CO-OPERATION

It is not without the greatest reluctance that I engage in a controversy with so learned a leader like Sir Narayan Chandavarkar.  But in view of the fact that I am the author of the movement of non-co-operation, it becomes my painful duty to state my views even though they are opposed to those of the leaders whom I look upon with respect.  I have just read during my travels in Malabar Sir Narayan’s rejoinder to my answer to the Bombay manifesto against non-co-operation.  I regret to have to say that the rejoinder leaves me unconvinced.  He and I seem to read the teachings of the Bible, the Gita and the Koran from different standpoints or we put different interpretations on them.  We seem to understand the words Ahimsa, politics and religion differently.  I shall try my best to make clear my meaning of the common terms and my reading of the different religious.