I am glad you have quietly and respectfully listened to Mr. Pratt's lecture. It is only such polite conduct that behoves a Satyagrahi. Unfortunate circumstances have compelled us to dis-obey the Government order as regards payment of revenue dues. But we must never on that account be indifferent to our duty to pay due respect to Government officers. What we want to free ourselves from is fear and slavery, not courteous behaviour. Insolence must be altogether tabooed by us. Good manners are an indispensable feature of Satyagraha.
The Commissioner, Mr. Pratt, pointed out in his speech what your rights and duties were. His advice in both the matters is quite proper, but he neglected to mention one supreme duty, and the right it conferred, which every man by virtue of the mere fact that he is a man possesses. It is man's sacred duty to do nothing out of fear. When therefore an attempt is made to frighten him into doing something it is his right to resist the attempt. It is in pursuance of that universal right of man that the Kaira ryots are respectfully disregarding the order of the Government. We believe that since the crop output this year is less than four annas, the Government should grant us suspension. If therefore we pay up the revenue dues which ought in justice to be suspended, we would do so, simply out of the fear of the sale of our movable property or the confiscation of our lands. If we yield to such fear we would lose our humanness. It is only under that fear that nearly 80% of farmers have paid up their dues. The remaining 20% have therefore to uphold the prestige of the whole class of 100% of ryots. He who has lost his humanness cannot even be sincerely loyal. The quality that specially distinguishes man from beast is his capacity to put forth brave efforts for self-elevation. And this is the fight to prove that we possess the quality.
The British Constitution does not lay down the principle that the people should follow like sheep the orders of the revenue or any other department of the Government even if those orders are not modified in response to public petitions. Nor is such slavish obedience a feature of British politics. It is the birthright as well as the duty of the subjects to resist a Government order which they conscientiously consider as unjust or oppressive. That behaviour which is right for the solution of differences among members of a family is equally right for diffe-rences between the king and his subjects, and conflicts arise between the latter two when this healthy principle is set aside. The subjects become clandestinely disloyal, the king becomes suspicious and distrustful: But we must never fail to remember an important point when we take a firm resolve to disobey the orders of a Government. We cannot affirm fanatically that a particular order of the Government is nothing but unjust. Though on our part we may be convinced that it is so, there is still a possibility of its being just in reality. Hence, as differences in private affairs, between individuals or groups are solved through arbitration, a dispute between the king and the people must also be settled by the same method. That was what the kings of old used to do and that is what the British Government always does. Only, the latter gives the name "Commission" or "Committee" to the board of arbitrators it appoints. And in order that the prestige of the Government could be maintained, the findings of that Commission are not vested with legal authority but are supposed to be mere recommendations whose implementation rests on the will of the Government. All the same the final outcome in political disputes is always exactly the same as in ordinary disputes which are resolved by legal judgments. It is impossible to govern a country without respecting public opinion. But if the king does not appoint an independent tribunal in the form of a "Committee" or a "Commission", what steps should the people take ? Among those peoples where brute force rules supreme, there is violence and counter-violence since the people attempt to secure justice through armed resistance. For myself I can assert that it is my experience that this method of violence is useless. And I believe that all the gospels of the world have unanimously condemned this method of snatching justice by violence. It is certain, moreover, that we do not apply this method for the settlement of family quarrels. The straight course therefore is that, instead of inflicting any injury on others, we should ourselves bear patiently and without anger and malice all the sufferings that come to us in the wake of our disobedience to an unjust order of the Government. That course serves many good purposes. If in the end we are proved to be in the wrong our sufferings serve us right. But if we are on the side of truth and justice, the opposite party, i.e. the Government, is certain to be moved with pity and it cannot but remove our grievance and do us justice in the end. This view has the backing of all the gospels of the world and it believes like them that truth always succeeds in the end. In fact we frequently experience in life the working of this principle of the inevitable victory of truth. The people of Kaira are thus out to suffer for truth or dharma.
Lest we weaken in our resolve, we have bound ourselves down with a solemn vow. No nation ever rises without taking resolves and a vow is nothing more than an inflexible resolve. The man who cannot be resolute is like a rudderless boat tossed hither and thither in an ocean till it meets its doom.
The Commissioner avers that our vow is improper and taken without due consideration. As shown above, it is not at all unjust because resistance to an unjust order is a sacred right vested with every human being. Nor is our vow taken hastily and without serious reflection, as everyone who has taken it knows. Let the heavens fall but this solemn vow taken after great deliberation is not going to be rescinded.
I am sorry that Mr. Pratt's reference to the mill-workers' strike is contrary to facts. By alluding to it in the way he has done, he has also committed a breach of courtesy, justice, decorum and friendship. I hope that this has happened unconsciously. If anybody in the world ever adhered to a pledge, it was the mill-workers of Ahmedabad. They had always maintained that they would be prepared to accept any wage that the arbitrators fixed It was just because the millowners refused to accept this principle of arbitration that a demand for an increase of 35% in wages was made by the workers during the strike. But even after this demand the workers had never abrogated the principle of arbitration. They kept their vow by taking 35% increase for the first day and then agreeing to abide by any decision that the arbitrators, appointed for the dispute, arrived at after full inquiry. During the interim period it was settled that the middle figure between the mill-owners' offer of 20% and the workers' demand of 35% increase must be accepted by both the parties and a retrospective effect of the arbitrator's decision was to be given even for the interim period. The spirit of the vow was thus maintained. Be it as it may, one thing is certain. Unlike what Mr. Pratt alleges, the millworkers have never deliberately broken their plighted word. He is, of course, free to hold the view that the mill- workers went back on their vow. That is his private business. What really matters is the conviction of the millworkers themselves. They have no doubt that they have kept their vow. Mr. Pratt misrepresents this conviction which was clearly evidenced at the meeting of the workers. He was present in person at the meeting where the terms of the cessation of the strike were declared and explained to the millworkers. They were shown how their vow was maintained and they warmly welcomed the clarification. Mr. Pratt was an eye-witness of the scene of the enthusiastic response of the mill-workers to the proposals for ending the strike. Besides, he had himself said the following at that meeting :
"I am very glad that a compromise has been settled between you and the millowners. I am fully convinced that so long as you take Gandhi Saheb's advice and follow it you will stand to gain in life and get justice. You must bear in mind that Gandhi Saheb and his associates?both men and women?have suffered much for you, taken great trouble and showered their love on you."
When despite his own exhortation to the workers, Mr. Pratt talks of the breach of the vow, I must humbly say that I cannot understand him.
The Commissioner has issued many threats. He has even said that he will see to it that they do not remain empty threats. That means that he will confiscate the lands of all those who have taken this pledge and will deprive even their heirs of the right of property to the land. This is a very cruel and stern threat. I believe that behind it is his deep-seated anger. When the Commissioner's anger is somewhat cooled he will be sorry for having uttered such a cruel threat. He seems to regard the relationship between the Government and the people as similar to that between parent and child. If so, has anyone seen in the whole history of the world any instance of parents having turned their children out of their homes for having resisted them in a non-violent manner ? The pledge you have taken may be a mistaken one, but there is in the pledge neither rudeness, nor insolence, nor threat of force. I am still unable to understand how punishment of this serious nature could be meted out for taking a pledge in a more or less religious spirit for one's own development. Such a punishment the country will not tolerate nor will it ever be acceptable even to British politicians. The British public would be horrified at it. If such gross injustice is possible in the British Empire, I will unhesitatingly become a low-resister. But I have far greater faith in British political good sense than has the Commissioner. And I will repeat what I said to you before, that I consider it impossible that you should lose your lands for action undertaken with such pure motives. Nevertheless, we must be ready also to lose our lands. On the one hand there is your pledge, and on the other there is your property. Compared to the value of your pledge, the total value of your property is as nothing. The heritage of your adherence to your pledge which your children will receive will be worth hundreds of rupees. For therein lies the real way for India to rise. I am convinced that you will never depart from the role you are privileged to play, and I pray to God that He may give you strength to adhere to your pledge.
Nadiad, 17-4-1918
