This web site doesn't display advertising. Please consider making a donation.

Free texts and images.

March

Pilgrimage to Madras^[1]

On 18-3-1919 Bapu delivered a speech before mammoth meeting held on the Beach. He first made these introductory remarks:

"You will forgive me for saying the few words that I want to say just now sitting in the chair. I am under strict medical orders not to exert myself, having got a weak heart. I am, therefore, compelled to have some assistance from others and to get my remarks read out to you. I wish to say one word to you. Beware before you sign the Pledge. But once you do, you will see to it that you shall never undo the Pledge you have signed. May God help you and me in carrying out the pledge."

The following speech of Bapu was then read out to the audience by Mr. Mahadev Desai:

"You have no doubt attended many meetings, but those that you have been attending of late are different from the others in that at these meetings to which I have referred some immediate tangible action, some immediate definite sacrifice has been demanded of you for the purpose of averting a serious calamity that has overtaken us in the shape of what are known as the Rowlatt Bills. One of them, Bill No.1, has undergone material alterations and its further consideration has been postponed. In spite, however, of the alterations it is mischievous enough to demand opposition. The second Bill has probably at this very moment been finally passed by the Council, though in reality you can hardly call the Bill as having been passed by the august body when all its non-official members unanimously and in strong language opposed it. The Bills require to be opposed not only because they are in themselves bad, but also because Government, who are responsible for their introduction, have seen fit practically to ignore public opinion and some of its members have boasted that they can so ignore that opinion. So far it is common cause between the different schools of thought in the country.

Duty of the Covenanters

I have, however, after much prayerful consideration, and after very careful examination of the Government's standpoint, pledged myself to offer Satyagraha against the Bills, and invited all men and women who think with me to do likewise. Some of our countrymen, including those who are among the best of the leaders, have uttered a note of warning, and have even gone so far as to say that this Satyagraha movement is against the best interests of the country. I have naturally the highest regard for them and their opinions. I have worked under some of them. I was only a babe when Sir Dinshaw Wachha and Babu Surendra- nath Banerji were among the accepted leaders of public opinion in India. Mr. Shastriar is a politician who has dedicated his all to the country's cause. His sincerity and his probity are unequalled. He will yield to no one in the love of the country. There is a sacred and indissoluble tie binding me to him. Naturally I am drawn towards the signatories of the two Manifestoes.^[2] It is not therefore without the greatest grief and much searching of heart that I have to place myself in opposition to their views. But there are times when you have to obey a call which is the highest of all, i.e., the Voice of Conscience, even though such obedience may cost many a bitter tear, nay, even more, separation from friends, from family, from the State to which you may belong, from all that you have held as dear as life itself. For, this disobedience is the law of our being. I have no other defence to offer for my conduct. My regard for the signatories to the Manifesto remains undiminished, and my faith in the efficacy of Satyagraha is so great that I feel that if those who have taken the Pledge will be true to it, we shall be able to show them, when we have come to the end of our struggle, that there was no cause for alarm or misgivings. There is, I know, resentment felt even by some Satyagrahis over the Manifestoes. I would warn Satyagrahis that such resentment is against the spirit of Satyagraha. I would personally welcome an honest expression of difference of opinion from any quarter and more so from friends because it puts us on our guard. There is too much recrimination, innuendo and insinuation in our public life, and if the Satyagraha movement purges itself of this grave defect, as it ought to, it will be a very desirable thing. I wish further to suggest to Satyagrahis that any resentment of the two Manifestoes would be but a sign of weakness on our part. Every movement, and Satyagraha most of all, must depend upon its own inherent strength, not upon the weakness or silence of its critics.

Power of Satyagraha

Let us therefore see wherein lies the power of Satyagraha. As the name implies, it is an insistence on Truth which dynamically expressed means Love; and by the law of love we are required not to return hatred for hatred, violence for violence, but to return good for evil. As Shrimati Sarojini Devi (Mrs. S. Naidu) told you yesterday, the strength of Satyagraha lies in a definite recognition of its intrinsic true religious spirit and action corresponding to it, and when once you introduce the religious element in politics, you revolutionize the whole of your political outlook. You achieve reform then not by imposing suffering on others who resist it, but by taking the suffering upon yourselves and so in this movement we hope by the intensity of our sufferings to affect and alter the Government's resolution not to withdraw these objectionable Bills. It has however been suggested that the Government will leave the handful of Satyagrahis severely alone and not make martyrs of them. But there is here in my humble opinion bad logic and an unwarrantable assumption of fact. If Satyagrahis are left alone, they have won a complete victory, because they will have succeeded in disregarding the Rowlatt Bills and even other laws of the country and in having thus shown that civil disobedience of a Government is held perfectly harmless. I regard the statement as an unwarranted assumption of fact, because it contemplates the restriction of the movement only to a handful of men and women.

My experience of Satyagraha leads me to believe that it is such a potent force that, once set in motion it ever spreads till at last it becomes a dominant factor in the community in which it is brought into play, and if it so spreads, no Government can neglect it. Either it must yield to it or imprison the participators in the movement. But I have no desire to argue. As the English proverb says, 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating'. The movement, for better or for worse, has already been launched. We shall be judged not by our words but solely by our deeds. It is therefore not enough that we merely sign the Pledge. Our signing it is but an evidence of our determination to act up to it, and if all who sign the Pledge act according to it, I make bold to promise that we shall bring about the withdrawal of the two Bills and neither the Government nor our critics will have a word to say against us. The cause is great, the remedy is equally great; let us prove ourselves worthy of them both."

The following are Bapu's answers to questions put to him at the meeting of public workers held in Tanjore on 24-3-1919 :

Ques : Is 'passive resistance' the same thing as 'Satyagraha' or are they different? Can we say that the distinction lies in the fact that the first is a political force while the second is a religious one? A friend says that in 'Satyagraha', 'Satya' means truth and 'agraha' is anger (Satyagraha=Satya+agraha) and so the whole word means righteous indignation. Is he right ?

Ans : I am glad you have drawn my attention to this matter. During the Kaira struggle I had made it a rule for all speakers there that everyone should write down his intended speech and send it to me before delivering it, so that none could say anything about Satyagraha without my approval of its interpretation. You are quite right when you say that when some new idea is put before the people, they understand it only partially, mix up their own views in it and thus completely distort the original idea.

The distinction I have drawn between 'Satyagraha' and passive resistance' is not my recent discovery. I had found out the difference between the two concepts as early as during the South African Struggle. In the first phase of that struggle I found it always difficult to explain the meaning of the word 'Satyagraha' to the audience of Englishmen. And I had realized that there was great danger of the movement being misunderstood by allowing it to be called 'passive resistance'. I was then Editor and Proprietor of The Indian Opinion. I declared a prize to be awarded to one who suggested a word or phrase that most happily expressed the principle behind our struggle. A colleague1 suggested a word that I saw was nearly perfect. I coined the word 'Satyagraha' by a minor change in his suggestion. The word means firm adherence to truth. Truth is one side of the coin and the other side of which is 'love'. Love is the dynamic form of truth. The 'passive resistance', we read of in the history of England, has always been considered as a weapon of the weak. The 'passive resister' there does not believe in the principle of eschewing violence or fraud. Satyagraha, on the other hand, is the weapon of the strongest. A Satyagrahi is more powerful than the mightiest leader of an armed force. You know of the 'passive resistance' of the suffragettes. They had undoubtedly resorted to violent means. I have personally met Mrs. Pankhurst2. I have no words to describe how exceedingly delighted she felt at my account of what we did in South Africa. A well-disposed and benevolent mine-owner in South Africa who did not know of the distinction I made between 'Satyagraha' and 'passive resistance' once declared. "The Indian brothers are weak and they have only this remedy left with them". I had to give him a detailed explanation of the principle of Satyagraha in my reply. We deny altogether the possibility of there being any violence in Satyagraha. 'Passive resistance' is simply a political weapon to be used when circumstances warrant, while Satyagraha is woven into the very fabric of our religious life. We use it in our everyday life also. One of the fundamental bases of Satyagraha is the principle that the methods we employ to end quarrels in a family must be used also in the political field to settle differences between the Government and the people.

Ques : Where do we draw a line between the application of its principle in the affairs of a family and those of a State ? __________________ 1. It was Mr. Maganlal Gandhi (Gandhiji's nephew) who suggested the word 'sadagraha', where 'sad' stands for 'sat' i.e. truth. 2. A well-known suffragette leader of the passive resistance movement in England.

Ans. : We need not stretch the comparison very far. The head of a family does use a stick at times. You cannot therefore say that the head of a State also is entitled to use rough methods. In my view the relationship between the State and its people is not exactly at par with that between father and child. We do use expressions which indicate parent-and-child relationship between the ruler and the ruled. Manu (author of 'Manusmriti,' code of conduct? religious, legal, political etc., made by Manu) supports the idea, but I differ. The example which is completely pertinent to this question is that of Prahlad. The laws which his father had made for the State went against the Voice of his Conscience. He could have opposed his father by violent means. But he said, "I will resist you non-violently-by civil disobedience. Against your might I will pit my love. Instead of chanting your name I will chant Ramnam (God's name)". There is another point. I go to the Viceroy and discuss things with him but I do not regard him as equal to my father. I do respect him, but because I think that the country's interests can be served through him. If, on the whole, his administration tends to India's welfare, I will bear with his government despite its other faults. But what should I do when, all things considered, I find that the country goes from bad to worse under his regime ? Were I a believer in violence, I would collect as many materials of warfare as I could and use them against it. But being a Satyagrahi, I have taken to civil disobedience against its laws. Now there are laws and laws. Some are based on eternal moral principles. I may, of course, always respect such laws. But there are others which have no bearing on moral conduct, and which are made only for the facility of the State. I may break the laws of this second type, even though they may be very helpful to the State because it is though them that the State is imposing its rule over me.

Ques. : Who is going to discriminate between the two types of laws you have mentioned ?

Ans. : I myself.

Ques.: But should there not be a unanimity of opinion in such a weighty decision ?

Ans. : No. Suppose Hiranyakashipu had five thousand sons. Would Prahlad have waited for the approval of the remaining 4,999 sons ? And would he have postponed chanting Lord Vishnu's name till then ?

Ques. : Then this is a question of individual conviction.

Ans. : Yes. If you get other persons' approval and co-operation, it is well and good. But if you don't, you have to march alone to reach your goal and be ready and prepared for death as a possible consequence. Take the instance of the Rowlatt Bills. When these two bombs exploded in my homeland, I earnestly beseeched Lord Chelmsford to see that those Bills were not passed. I hold him in respect. He is by no means a weak and vacillating individual. I was pained, at first, at the fact that he refused his co-operation. But the non-violent spirit in me woke up soon after. I thought, 'What can the poor man do? He has but to conduct the administration with the help and support of the I. C. S. (Indian Civil Service) officials. He is simply squeezed under the heavy pressure of the steel-frame of the Civil Service'. Then arose the second thought. With a heart so weak as mine, it was foolhardiness to venture to bear the burden of such a gigantic movement. I consulted friends. They were all in full agreement as to the ultra-wickedness of the Bills. And all of them had full faith in Satyagraha also as the only remedy. One of them even said, "Why should we wait for others to join us ?" I was immensely pleased to find this enthusiastic response and we all took the plunge.

Ques. : How are you going to offer Satyagraha against the Rowlatt Acts ? They will never apply the Acts against men of your type.

Ans. : When the Government does some wicked action I should not sit on the fence and desist from opposing the Government under the excuse that particular action is not going to affect me personally. We must mobilise all our forces against an attempt to send our country to rack and ruin. We can disobey other laws also.

Ques. : But which other laws may we break ?

Ans. : I have selected some laws of a character that may help us reach our goal at the cost of minimum disturbance to our society. First of all I am going to tackle the question of proscribed literature. The Government has foolishly confiscated some good books. I have resolved to spread and distribute that kind of banned literature which appears to me quite clean from the Satyagrahi point of view. The second law I have in mind is the law of the registration of newspapers. This Press Act is one of the blackest Acts in the Statute-book. It has enervated our journalists and the whole country. The journalists have learnt to resort to ambiguous language and veiled insinuations in order to escape from the application of the Act and the whole country has begun to catch the infection. All this is morally very degra-ding. I do not expect to get these Acts repealed by our disobediance of them, but there is this consideration also : our news- papers must not be full of 99% of useless, and only 1% of good?and that too doubtfully good? material. So let our paper be only of one page, but it must contain healthy and clean literature. That is my view.

The Salt Tax and the Revenue Act are also in my mind. We have committed a heinous sin against the nation, I feel, by our meek submission to the Salt Tax. We would have long revolted against it, if we had not been a downtrodden people. That Act has been pricking me like a thorn for a long time, ever since I was in South Africa. But I was then like a bird with its wings clipped.

Ques : But who will manufacture salt if the Government stops its production ?

Ans : We will produce it. Before the Government made salt monopoly, we used to have enough of it for our consumption. It must be supplied to the public as freely as water. Kaira has taught us many good lessons in the matter of land revenue collection. Kaira was one of the most beautiful districts in India owing to its rich farm produce. But now it is deteriorating, because the Government squeezes from the ryots every pie it wants.

And to add insult to injury they say, "The Government takes all that money because it is needed for the good of the people."

Ques : But what should we do ? We may refuse to pay the land revenue, but where is the necessary unity among us ? All our lands would be simply sold away.

Ans : When Hampden refused to pay the 'Ship-money Tax'1, he did not wait for his people's co-operation and unity. No government will tolerate an interruption in its smooth working by anybody. This government also is certain, therefore, to measure its strength with us. All the same a government becomes helpless when even an entirely unknown person (like Hampden) is bold enough to resist it on righteous grounds.

Ques : But would it not take a very long time to make the government accept the propriety and justice of our resistance ?

Ans : No. The Government quietly accepts it. It is only because I am a Satyagrahi that my contact with the Government continues. Where would I have been, if I had been a believer in violent methods?

Ques : Was not the South African Satyagraha a very simple affair compared to ours?

Ans : No. Perhaps the people there will call this our fight an easy affair. There was in South Africa so much of internecine ________________________ 1. According to an old custom the King of England could requisition for his navy as many private ships as he wanted. The custom then changed and money was given in place of ships by people living on coastal areas. This was called 'Ship-money'. But Charles I, being always in stress owing to his quarrels with the Parliament, imposed the tax on the whole country. A country gentleman named Hampden opposed the payment on the ground that the tax was an encroachment upon the Englishman's liberty and was also unjust. Discontented as the people were against the King's unjust and insolent behaviour, they rallied round Hampden. He had opposed the 'Forced Loans' also which the King exacted from farmers about 5 years ago (after this event) and he did not subscribe anything for the Loan. The King therefore arrested him and he was tried in a court. He was convicted and jailed by judges who were the King's protégés but the whole country was roused and the King was compelled to set Hampden free and even to repeal the Ship-money Tax.

bickering, of groupism with all its evils, of sons at variance with their fathers and so on. Then there were among them quite a good number of murderers, robbers and thieves. There were also the Pathans there who knew no other law than that of a stab for a stab. But all of them were bound by the pledge of non-violence and they did behave properly.

Referring to his proposal of a (24 hours') fast he said :

"I have found out one means which every body can adopt to show his sympathy with the cause. It also teaches one self-restraint and discipline.

Besides its religious effect the fast can be utilised to give to the people a clear idea of the harmful nature of these Rowlatt Bills. In order to enable me to fast, I shall have to explain my reasons to my wife, my children and my servants. That way everyone can be enlightened about the wicked provisions of the Bills. If, moreover, people observe a strike for the day, everyone can attend the meetings that are going to be held all over the country."

The following message from Bapu was published on 24-3-'19 :

"Satyagraha, as I have endeavoured to explain at several meetings, is essentially a religious movement. It is a process of purification and penance. It seeks to secure reforms or redress of grievances by self-suffering. I, therefore, venture to suggest that the second Sunday after the publication of the Viceregal assent to Bill No. II of 1919 (i.e., 6th April) may be observed as a day of humiliation and prayer. As there must be an effective public demonstration in keeping with the observance, I beg to advise as follows :

(1) A twenty-four hours' fast counting from the last meal on the preceding night should be observed by all adults, unless prevented from so doing by consideration of religion or health. The fast is not to be regarded, in any shape or form, in the nature of a hunger-strike, or as designed to put any pressure upon the Government. It is to be regarded, for the Satyagrahis, as the necessary discipline to fit them for civil disobedience.

contemplated in their Pledge, and for all others, as some slight token of the intensity of their wounded feelings.

(2) All work, except such as may be necessary in public interest, should be suspended for the day. Markets and others business places should be closed. Employees who are required to work even on Sundays may only suspend work after obtaining previous leave.

I do not hesitate to recommend these two suggestions for adoption by public servants also. For though it is unquestionably the right thing for them not to take part in political discussions and gatherings, in my opinion they have an undoubted right to express on vital matters their feelings in the very limited man- ner herein suggested.

(3) Public meetings should be held on that day in all parts of India, not excluding villages, at which resolutions praying for the withdrawal of the two measures should be passed.

If my advice is deemed worthy of acceptance, the responsibility will lie in the first instance on the various Satyagraha Associations for undertaking the necessary work of organisation, but all other associations too will, I hope, join hands in making this demonstration a success.

M. K. Gandhi"

After visiting Tanjore and Trichinopoly Bapu proceeded to Madura. Speaking at a public meeting there Bapu said :

"The Government have committed a double wrong and it is your duty, my duty and that of every man and woman in this country, to undo the wrong by every legitimate means in his or her power. We have exhausted all the orthodox measures in order to gain the end. We have passed resolutions; we have petitioned and our representatives in the Imperial Legislative Council have endeavoured their best to secure a withdrawal of this legislation but all our attempts have failed. And yet we must somehow or other undo this wrong because it is like poison corroding the whole of the body politic. When the national conscience is hurt, people whose conscience is hurt seek redress either through methods of violence or through methods which I have described as Satyagraha. I think that methods of violence prove in the end to be a complete failure. They are moreover wholly unsuited to the genius of our people. Methods of violence are not consistent with human dignity. It is no answer to say that all Europe today is saturated with strong belief in brute force. True paurusha, true bravery consists in driving out the brute in us and then only can we give freest play to our conscience. The other force which I have described in various places as Satyagraha, soul-force or love-force is best illustrated in the story of Prahlad."

As Gandhiji had to go to Bezwada he sent the following written message for the meeting which was being held in Madras on 30-3-'19 in the evening :

"Dear Mr. Rangaswami,1

I am sorry that I shall not be with you for this evening's meeting, as I must take the train for Bezwada in order to keep my engagement with our Andhra friends. But before my departure, I would like to put in writing my impressions of the tour through the southern part of the Presidency, which I have just completed, and to answer some criticism made and doubts raised by friends.

I have visited Tanjore, Trichinopoly, Madura, Tuticorin and Nagapatam; and taking the lowest estimate, the people addressed by me must not have been less than thirty thousand. Those who have a right to give us warnings or to express misgivings, and have just as great a love of the motherland as we claim to, have pointed out the danger that, however well-meaning we may be, and however anxious we may be to avoid violence, the people who may join the movement under an enthusiastic impulse would not be able to exercise sufficient self-control and may break out into violence, resulting in needless loss of life and, what is more, injury to the national cause. After embarking upon the movement, I began addressing meetings at Delhi. I passed then through _______________________ 1. Chairman of the meeting.

Lucknow, Allahabad and Bombay to Madras. My experience of all these meetings shows the advent of Satyagraha has already altered the spirit of those who attend the Satyagraha meetings. In Lucknow, upon an innocent remark by the chairman as to the manifesto signed by some of the members of the Imperial Legislative Council disapproving of our movement the audience cried out "Shame ! Shame !" I drew their attention to the fact that Satyagrahis and those who attend Satyagraha meetings should not use such expression and that the speeches at our meetings ought not to be punctuated with either marks of disapproval or approval. The audience immediately understood the spirit of my remarks and never afterwards made any demonstration of their opinion.

In the towns of this Presidency as elsewhere, whilst it is true that the large crowds have refrained from any noisy demonstration out of regard for my health, they have fully understood the necessity of refraining from it on the higher ground. The leaders in the movement have fully understood the necessity for selfrestraint. These experiences of mine fill me with the greatest hope for the future. I never had any apprehension of the danger our friends fear; and the various meetings I have described have confirmed my optimism. But I venture to state that every precaution that is humanly possible is being taken and will be taken to avert any such danger.

It is for that reason that our Pledge commits the signatories to the breach of only those laws that may be selected for the purpose by a committee of Satyagrahis; and I am glad that our Sind friends have understood their Pledge, and obeyed the prohibition of the Hyderabad Commissioner of Police to take out their inoffensive procession, for it is no part of the present movement to break all the laws of the land, the breach of which is not inconsistent with the Pledge. A Satyagrahi is nothing if not instinctively law-abiding, and it is his law-abiding nature which exacts from him implicit obedience of the highest law, i.e. the Voice of Conscience, which over-rides all other laws. His civil disobedience even of certain laws is only seeming disobedience.

Every law gives the subject an option, either to obey the primary sanction or the secondary; I venture to suggest that the Satyagrahi by inviting the secondary sanction only obeys the law. He does not act like the ordinary offender who not only commits a breach of the laws of the land, whether good or bad, but wishes to avoid the consequences of that breach. It will be seen, therefore, that everything that prudence may dictate has been done to avoid any untoward results.

Some friends have said, "We understand your breach of the Rowlatt legislation, but as a Satyagrahi there is nothing for you in it to break. How can you however break the other laws which you have hitherto obeyed, and which may also be good ?" So far as the good laws are concerned, i.e., laws which are based on moral principles, the Satyagrahis may not break them, and their breach is not contemplated under the Pledge. But there are other laws that are neither good nor bad, neither moral nor immoral. They may be useful, or may even be harmful. These laws one obeys for the supposed good government of the coun- try. Such laws are laws framed for purposes of revenue, or they are political laws creating statutory offences. These laws enable the Government to continue its power. When therefore a Government goes wrong to the extent of hurting the national fibre itself, as does the Rowlatt legislation, it becomes the right of the subject, indeed it is his duty, to withdraw his obedience to such laws, to the extent it may be required to bend the Government to the national will.

A doubt has been expressed during my tour, and by friends who have written to me, as to the validity in terms of Satyagraha of the entrustment of the selection of the laws for breach to a committee. For, it is argued that it amounts to a surrender of one's conscience to leave such selection to others. This doubt betrays a misunderstanding of the Pledge. A signatory to the Pledge undertakes, so far as he is concerned, to break if necessary all the laws which it would be lawful for a Satyagrahi to break. It is not however obligatory on him to break all such laws. He can therefore perfectly conscientiously leave the selection of the laws to be broken to the judgment of those who are experts in the matter and who in their turn are necessarily subject to the limitations by the Pledge. The worst that can happen to any signatory is that the selection may not be exhaustive enough for him.

I have been told that I have been diverting the attention from the one and only thing that matters, viz., the forthcoming Reforms. In my opinion the Rowlatt legislation, in spite of the amendments which, as the Select Committee very properly says, do not affect its principles, blocks the way to progress, and there-fore the attainment of substantial reforms. To my mind the first thing needful is to secure a frank and full recognition of the principle that public opinion properly expressed shall be respected by the Government. I am no believer in the doctrine that the same power can at the same time trust and distrust, grant liberty and repress it. I have a right to interpret the coming Reforms by the light that Rowlatt legislation throws upon them; and I make bold to promise that if we do not gather sufficient force to remove from our path this great obstacle in the shape of the Rowlatt legislation, we shall find the Reforms futile as a whitened sepulchre.

Yet another objection to answer. Some friends have argued, "Your Satyagraha movement only accentuates the fear we have of the onrush of Bolshevism" The fact, however, is that if anything can positively prevent this calamity descending upon our country, it is Satyagraha. Bolshevism is the necessary result of modern materialistic civilization. Its insensate worship of Matter has given rise to a school which has been brought up to look upon material advancement as the goal and which has lost all sense of appreciating the finer things of life. Self-indulgence is the Bolshevic creed, self-restraint is the Satyagraha creed. If I can but induce the nation to accept Satyagraha only as a predominant factor in life, whether social or political, we need have no fear of the Bolshevic propaganda. In asking the nation to accept Satyagraha, I am asking for the introduction in reality of nothing new. I have coined a new word for an ancient law that has hitherto mainly governed our lives, and I do prophesy that if we disobey the law of the final supremacy of the Spirit over Matter, of Truth and Love over brute force, in a few years' time we shall have Bolshevism rampant in this land, which was once so holy."

Left Bezwada by the night train. Missed the connecting train as our first train was late in reaching the junction in the morning.

1. ↑ Mahadevbhai does not seem to have written his diary during the period of this pilgrimage. But he had preserved press cuttings reporting Bapu's speeches as well as Bapu's parting message sent to Mr. Rangaswami. In addition, he had jotted down on loose pieces of paper the answers Bapu gave to questions put to him at Tanjore. The above account of those days has been compiled from all that material. It was during this pilgrimage the Rajaji (C. Rajagopalachariar) first met Bapu. See for the account of the meeting the chapter headed "That Wonderful Spectacle" in Gandhiji's Autobiography. Translator's note.
2. ↑ The first was signed by Sir Dinshaw Wachha, Surendranath Banerji, V.S.Shrinivas Shastri and other Moderate leaders and the second by the Madras Moderates.

</div>