But the story didn’t end with this, what followed is very interesting to read. The way Gandhiji exposed the hypocrisy of the magistrate W. E. J. DOBBS tendered his apology for his rude behaviour and the way he treated Sri Tyagi is worth reading further. When we read magistrate Dobbs apology without the comments of Gandhiji we would have left with the impression about the humility and sense of justice of Dobbs. But the way Gandhiji exposed his hypocrisy alone will help us to understand the Lawyer and critic in Gandhi for us to help us to understand such pseudo humility on the part of any aggressor. To understand this the reader has to read both Part One and Two of this extract from CWMG vol. 24 with much patience. Those who have no time and patience to understand our history, particularly the freedom struggle can ignore it.
215. NOTES
The reader will recollect the assault instigated by the District Magistrate of Bulandshahr upon Mr. Tyagi who was being tried in his court and who was therefore under his protection.1 I have now before me the apology he tendered to the accused. Here it is.
PRISONER AT THE BAR,
Before today’s proceedings go any further, I wish to say something.
I do so for two reasons,—the first, that I am trying you, and it is not right that you or anyone else should Suspect that you will not be tried fairly and in a proper manner. The second, that no officer of Government can wish that any incident should happen to give any section of the community reasonable grounds for resentment, especially as unscrupulous persons are ready to exaggerate such incidents.
At the first hearing I was impatient and you were insolent. I did wrong in having you slapped; and I regret that I did so.
I now tell you, that if you are respectful to the Court, you will find me courteous. If you do not behave properly, I shall find proper means of dealing with you. You will in any case be tried fairly and patiently; and you will have a full opportunity at the proper stage to make any relevant remarks you have to offer.
I may add that out of regard to the loyal members of your community who are doing good work in this District, if you are proved innocent of the offence of which you are accused in this or in any other court, I shall send 50/-to the Malabar Relief Fund.
W. E. J. DOBBS
It is evident to me that the apology was offered under pressure, even as Sir Michael O’Dwyer was made to apologize to the late Council for his offensive remarks. Insincere and mechanical as the wording is, at that very sitting the magistrate broke his promise of giving the accused a patient hearing by expunging from his statement a passage which he did not like. His offer to pay Rs. 50/- to the Malabar Relief Fund for the sake of the loyalists if he was proved to be innocent shows the incorrigibility of the magistrate. The donation was meant to purge the offence committed by the magistrate. The “loyalists” could have nothing to do with the innocence or guilt of
1 Vide “Notes”, 13-10-1921, under the sub-title “A Contrast”.
| (p.437) |
the accused. Why then should the donation be conditional upon proof of the accused’s innocence? This assault by the magistrate raises an issue of the gravest import. Could such a man occupy, the position of a magistrate for a single day under any civilized Government? Could for instance the Lord Chief Justice of England assault a prisoner being tried before him and still retain his high office ? If the Government of India was not in reality a lawless and totally irresponsible government, the magistrate would have been suspended and prosecuted as a common felon. An assault by a judge upon an accused whilst he is on his trial before that judge is not an ordinary assault that could be treated lightly.
There should be limit even to co-operating patience. Do the Indian ministers concerned feel an easy conscience over the magistrate’s crime against the nation ? Or do they think that they have no responsibility because the magistrate does not belong to their department ?
A non-co-operator’s duty is simple. Each such violation of law and morals on the part of Government officials must result in making us more determined in our purpose. We may not be satisfied till the system under which such atrocious conduct is possible is uprooted.
ACCUSED’S STATEMENT
Two days before the second hearing of the case Mr. Tyagi sent to the magistrate the following statement:
Vandemataram
In the Court of the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr.
From Mahavir Tyagi accused under Sections 124 and 153 I.P. Code. I, Mahavir Tyagi, an innocent accused, am compelled to file the
following statement: I want to say through this writing that as the said Magistrate, while proving his tyranny and incompetency on the 3rd instant, treated me in the open Court in a way which was calculated to insult and wound myself, my creed and my nationality, by forcing me to stand with “attention”, threatening to have me kicked by the Police and actually getting me slapped, an action on the part of the Magistrate which was absolutely illegal and barbarous, therefore in order to preserve my national, religious and personal honour and self-respect, I have, as a protest, decided to take a vow of silence and make a “speech strike” in this Court which has set every law at naught.
(Note:—The following words here in the statement were, against the wishes of the accused, expunged by the Court and signed and dated : “Jaisi ki
(p438)
Punjab main meri Bahnaun ki behurmati ki gai our voh behurmati insaf ke liye Darbar-i-illahi main pesh hai”, i.e., just as my sisters in the Punjab wereinsulted and their outraged honour is seeking its justice before God, in the same way) I leave to God my own insult which is far less than the outrage on the honour of my said sisters. It is possible that the extraordinary treatment meted out to me was intended to provoke the general public, but, I, from my own experience, would say that now Indian public is sufficiently educated. They can put up with every tyranny but would not go a step behind in the non-violent course chalked out for them by the Mahatma (Gandhi).
Praying to God for the liberation of my country,
I am,
The Silent,
MAHAVIR TYAGI
BULANDSHAHR JAIL ,
October 4, 1921
It is a courageous and outspoken statement, and if it represents Mr. Tyagi’s own sentiments, it requires a modification of the view questioning his courage at the time he was assaulted. As the case is of very considerable importance, involving as it does the question of the bodily safety of prisoners, it is necessary to examine somewhat fully the issues arising from it.
In my opinion the “speech strike” and adopting the title of “the silent,” do not help at all. it was the clear duty of the prisoner on the day he was struck to refuse voluntarily to remain in the court. He should have refused there and then to submit to further trial by the so-called judge. He should certainly have sat down as a mark of disowning the court’s jurisdiction. All this would have probably meant more assault certainly more punishment. But the secret of non-violence treated as a weapon of the strong means the inviting of suffering and personal injury in order to avoid tyranny. Ordinarily the movement requires or permits us to attend courts under warrants, because it did not anticipate duct such as the Bulandshahr magistrate’s. But the extraordinary conduct of the magistrate requires an extraordinary remedy.
The statement rightly emphasizes non-violence. But I do not wish to be misunderstood. The pledge of non-violence does not require us to co-operate in our humiliation. It therefore does not require us to crawl on our bellies or to draw lines with our noses or to
(p.439)
walk to salute the Union Jack or to do anything degrading at the dictation of officials. On the contrary our creed requires us to refuse to do any of these things even though we should be shot. It was therefore, for instance, no part of the duty of the Jallianwala Bagh people to run away or even to turn their backs when they were fired upon. If the message of non-violence had reached them, they would have been expected when fire was opened on them to march towards it with bare breasts and die rejoicing in the belief that it meant the freedom of their country. Non-violence laughs at the might of the tyrant and stultifies him by non-retaliation and non-retiral. We played into General Dyer’s hands because we acted as he had expected. He wanted us to run away from his fire, he wanted us to run on our bellies and to draw lines with our noses. That was part of the game of “frightfulness”. When we face it with eyes front, it vanishes like an apparition. We may not all evolve that type of courage. But I am certain that swaraj is unattainable this year if some of us have not the courage which enables us to stand firm like a rock without retaliating. The might of the tyrant recoils upon himself when it meets with no response, even as an arm violently waved in the air suffers dislocation.
Leave a Reply