I know many won’t have time to read such a long extract from Mahatmaji’s writing. But I share this to show how Mahatmaji as a Lawyer can defend others who according to some have done mistake completely from a different point of view. His skill as a Lawyer and upholder of Truth demonstrates once again the way he presents his views with much humility but with unwavering conviction. If I were in his position, I would have found it difficult to give proper response to such question. But Gandhiji is on a different level and hardly I ever come across one person like him. I read several such statements made by Gandhiji in other previous volumes. The following one will help us to understand how the Freedom strugglers stood up against the British Government in a remarkable way.
Gandhi is Gandhi
203. NOTES
ALL ABOUT THE BROTHERS
…It is the privilege of friendship not to be suspicious. But he is a bad friend who does not know his friend’s weaknesses. I know those of the Brothers, but having weaknesses myself I am tender towards theirs. I feel that they are the best and the bravest among co-workers with whom I have had the privilege of working….
So much for the general charge.
THEIR INCONSISTENCY
But here is a particular charge against them. Says a crores-pondent:
May I put before you the following problems, which I have even after a very long and deep deliberation been unable to reconcile with the non-co-operation doctrine. Will you kindly say whether my difficulties are something real or only superficial?
Non-co-operation requires that no accused should give any help whatsoever to the proceedings in the British court in which he is tried. But, is not the statement given by the Ali Brothers, a sort of help given to the court? This the Crown Prosecutor himself made clear, when he said that his work was much lightened by the utterances of the accused. . . .
The second problem which perplexes me is this. We have not as yet launched on civil disobedience. Hence we all must obey at present the orders of the British officials. Even you did not infringe the order which prohibited you from entering Malabar. If so, was it proper for Maulana Mahomed Ali to disobey the Magistrate of Karachi and lose temper with him, when he asked him to sit down? Was this not an express breach of the Magistrate’s order? Was it creditable to Maulana Mahomed Ali to ask the Magistrate whether he did not believe in God, and to decline to sit down when asked to do so and say, “Let me see what you can do”?
To my mind, even when civil disobedience is started, we all must be humble. A non-co-operator must be humility incarnate. He must never under any provocation whatsoever lose temper or show any force. He must not know impudence except in name only. If these remarks be just, this
(p.406)
action of the Ali Brothers is wholly unjustifiable, and may well be reckoned as a piece of impudence, pardon me for using this word.
I think it would have been far better, far more prudent and worthy of leaders like the Ali Brothers to have remained tongue-tied, as it were, in the court instead of helping it in any way or behaving with the authorities impetuously.
I know this last remark may cause unpleasantness to you. If so, I solicit your pardon, but I could not help making this remark. I know you would justify the Brothers’ action anyhow, but how, I know not.
The letter is frank but well meant. Many friends have put the same questions to me, and I have endeavoured to satisfy them to the best of my ability. But the foregoing letter requires public treatment. If there is inconsistency, it is due to the All-India Congress Committee which has permitted statements. One may question the soundness of the Committee’s decision, but one may not charge the Brothers with inconsistency.
The All-India Congress Committee based its decision upon my advice. I owe it perhaps to the public to give my reasons. The statement enables the accused to declare his own position, and if it is made before the court, it is permanently on record. Moreover I have faith in India’s ability to win swaraj during the year. I expect tens of thousands to be in jail before swaraj is established. I expect the swaraj parliament to discharge all non-co-operation prisoners who have not been proved guilty of moral crimes. The statements will be a valuable aid to the judges under swaraj. Again I am most anxious, that criminals do not take advantage of non-co-operation and making no statement leave the public to infer their innocence. A statement to satisfy this test must always be brief, to the point and not at all argumentative.
Maulana Mahomed Ali’s statement does not fall under that category. He entered into a long and elaborate dissertation of the law of Islam. He evidently “used” the court not for defence but for advertising the cause. People have read his statement before the court with avidity. If he had written it as an essay, it would have fallen flat. I am therefore prepared neither to condemn nor defend the statement.
It could certainly have been much briefer. But it has become impossible for Maulana Mahomed Ali to be brief. I have known him to take an hour over his speech under a promise of being brief! The second charge is more serious. In the refusal to sit down, there was no
(p. 407)
question of civil or uncivil disobedience. But it was a question of taste. All the scenes jarred on me. There was certainly no impudence but there was unnecessary defiance. I admit that a non co-operator should be all humility. And the behaviour of the prisoners was far from humble.
But I have again been unable to condemn the behaviour of the prisoners. They have answered a purpose and not a bad purpose at that. We are much cowed down. The courts have an overawing atmosphere about them. Respect for law and the courts is one thing. Fear of them is another. In my opinion the Brothers and their fellow-prisoners were out for mischief. They wanted to rob the courts and prisons of their terror. They therefore deliberately hurled defiance at the court. If the magistrate had entered into the humour of the situation, the Brothers would not have been assertive as they were. The court wanted to stand on dignity. The Brothers would have none of it. I do not deny that there was a better way, but I verily believe that the Brothers have rendered a service to the cause even by their defence1 . They could have damaged the cause by putting on humility. They have once more proved themselves to be truthful and natural. That to me is their most lovable trait. We must remember, that we do want the present courts brought into disrepute because we believe them to be disreputable. But whilst I cannot condemn the Brothers’ defiance, I do not present it as a pattern to copy. Those who try will fail. For let me tell the reader, that the Brothers have no feeling against the magistrate, and I have no doubt that they are as courteous to the magistrate when he is off the Bench as they are to me.
AN EYE WITNESS
The reader will perhaps better judge the scene from the following letter received from an eye witness.
You must have read the proceedings of the case in the Press, but 1 consider it my duty to write to you the impressions of a silent Spectator. At the very outset an attempt was made to snub the “Hero” accused, but the unfortunate Mr. Magistrate was facing none else, but Maulana Mahomed Ali. The gentleman had his “well-merited rebuke”.
I confess that it was for the second time in my life that I entered a court to hear a case. . . . The so-called court of justice of Lord Reading’s regime
1 Misprint for “defiance”; vide “Notes”, 27-10-1921 under the sub-title “In Defence of Mr Tyagi”.
(p. 408)
in a country governed by law and order is in no way better than a theatre. Sir, I am wrong. The actors in a theatre play their part honestly to please the spectators who pay for their amusement. But the “Daniel” of the British Court, whether white or black, knows no such thing as fair play, and I am confident that justice is not the word in their dictionary.
I am not a lawyer, so I could not follow the technical irregularities of the case, but if law has anything to do with common sense, then I can dare to say that the whole show in the Khaliqdina Hall was one great farce . . .
It was amusing to hear the witnesses and the way in which the conspiracy was being proved, and the speech made by the Government counsel in summing up the case hardly needs any comment.
I have personally come to the conclusion, that the making of a statement also in these courts is nothing but a cry in the wilderness, unless it be to serve the purpose of propaganda in the form of a last appeal to the countrymen.
A CONTRAST
The following letter from Bulandshahr will still further elucidate the point I am trying to make.
I have to bring to your notice the most unbecoming action of the District Magistrate during the course of a political trial which began on the 3rd instant.
Mahashaya Mahavir Prasad Tyagi1 was prosecuted . . . in the court of Mr. Dobbs, the District Magistrate. . . . When the examination-in-chief of the witness was over, the Court asked the accused if he wanted to cross-examine the witness. Thereupon the accused said that he did not. He only wanted to have the fact noted, that the English translation of the notes2 did not tally with the original as frankly admitted by the Government pleader before the Court…. The Magistrate declined to make the note and said, “You speak nonsense”3 . The accused was offended at the remark and retorted, “I suppose it is yours”. Thereupon the Magistrate ordered Balwant Singh, constable No. 55 who was in charge of the accused to slap him. The constable hesitated and most unwillingly gave the accused a light stroke on the back side of his neck. Thereupon the District Magistrate again ordered him to give a sharp slap on the face which he did when so forced to do. The accused patiently suffered the insult and humiliation. The accused was all along undefended. . . .
The extreme action of the District Magistrate has created a strong
- b. 1899; member, A.I.C.C since 1923
- Of the speech delivered by the accused
- According to Mahavir Tyagi, the Magistrate actually said: “It is your folly”
(p.409)
sense of excitement and indignation amongst the public here. . . . A mass
meeting. . . was held . . . and appropriate resolutions passed. . . .
The resolutions passed at the public meeting held in Bulandshahr congratulate the accused on his self-control, bravery and resignation. But I have grave doubts as to the propriety of the use of the adjectives. Why did not the accused utter a word of protest? Why did he not refuse to be tried by the so-called Magistrate? The Magistrate clearly committed a crime, and so did the unwilling constable. Did the accused remain dumb because of love and humility? Silence or passivity must not be used as a cloak for fear or worse. Was not the attitude of the Brothers more manly and natural ? There are occasions such as the one at Bulandshahr, when a man’s own strength must be his sole protection. And I have no doubt, that the Brothers, when they defied the court, had in mind the political debility of their countrymen. (p.410)— Young India, 13-10-1921
CWMG, vol. 24, pp. 406-410
Leave a Reply