It was on the 18th instant that I expressed the following hope in Harijan:
"If my argument has gone home, is it not time for us to declare our
changeless faith in non-violence of the strong and say we do not
seek to defend our liberty with the force of arms, but we will
defend it with the force of non-violence?"
On the 21st the Working Committee felt unable to
enforce such faith in action when the time for it came. For the
Committee never before had an occasion to test their faith. At the
last meeting they had to lay down a course of action for meeting
impending anarchy within and danger of aggression from without.
I pleaded hard with the Committee: “If you have faith
in non-violence of the strong, now is the time to act up to it. It
does not matter that many parties do not believe in non-violence
whether of the strong or of the weak. Probably that is all the
greater reason for Congressmen to meet the emergency by non-violent
action. For if all were non-violent, there could be no anarchy and
there would be no question of anybody arming for meeting aggression
from without. It is because Congressmen represent a party of
non-violence, in the midst of parties who do not believe m it, that
it becomes imperative for Congressmen to show that they are well
able to act up to their faith.
But the members of the Working Committee felt that
Congressmen would not be able to act up to it. It would be a new
experience for them. They were never before called upon to deal with
such a crisis. The attempt made by me to form peace brigades to deal
with communal riots and the. like had wholly failed. Therefore they
could not hope for the action contemplated.
My position was different. With the Congress
nonviolence was always a policy. It was open to it to reject if it
failed. If it could not bring political and economic independence,
it was of no use. For me non-violence is a creed. I must act up to
it whether I am alone or have companions. Since propagation of
non-violence is the mission of my life, I must pursue it in all
weathers. I felt that now was the time for me to prove my faith
before God and man. And so I asked for absolution from the
Committee. Hitherto I have been responsible for guiding the general
policy of the Congress. I could no longer do so when fundamental
differences were discovered between them and me. They readily
recognized the correctness of my attitude. And they gave me the
absolution. Once more they have justified the trust imposed in them.
They have been true to themselves. They had not the confidence in
themselves or those whom they represented, that they could express
in their actions the required measure of non-violence. And so they
made the only choice they could honestly make. It was a tremendous
sacrifice they made — the sacrifice of the prestige that the
Congress had gained in the world for unadulterated non-violence, and
the dissolution of the unwritten and unspoken bond between them and
me. But though it is a break in the common practice of a common
ideal or policy, there is no break in the friendship of over twenty
years' standing.
I am both happy and unhappy over the result. Happy
because I have been able to bear the strain of the break and have
been given the strength to stand alone. Unhappy because my word
seemed to lose the power to carry with me those whom it was my proud
privilege to carry all these many years which seem like yesterday.
But I know that, if God shows me the way to demonstrate the efficacy
of non-violence of the strong, the break will prove to have been
temporary. If there is no way, they will have justified their wisdom
in bearing the wrench of letting me go my way alone. If that tragic
discovery of my impotence is in store for me, I hope still to retain
the faith that has sustained me all these years and to have humility
enough to realize that I was not fit enough instrument to carry the
torch of non-violence any further.
But this argument and doubt are based upon the
assumption that the members of the Working Committee represent the
feeling of the vast majority of Congressmen. They would wish, and I
hope, that the vast majority of Congressmen had in them the
non-violence of the strong. No one would be more glad than they to
discover that they had underrated Congressmen's strength. The
probability, however, is that there is no majority but only a good
minority which represents the non-violence of the strong. It should
be remembered that the matter does not lend itself to argument. The
members of the Working Committee had all the argument before them.
But non-violence, which is a quality of the heart, cannot come by an
appeal to the brain. Therefore what is required is a quiet but
resolute demonstration of non-violent strength. The opportunity
comes to everyone almost daily. There are communal clashes, there
are dacoities, there are wordy duels. In all these things those who
are truly non-violent can and will demonstrate it. If it is shown in
an adequate measure, it will not fail to infect their surroundings.
I am quite clear that there is not a single Congressman who
disbelieves in the efficacy of nonviolence out of sheer cussedness.
Let the Congressmen who believe that the Congress should adhere to
non-violence in dealing with internal disorders or external
aggression, express it in their daily conduct. Non-violence of the
strong cannot be a mere policy. It must be a creed, or a passion, if
£ creed is objected to. A man with a passion expresses it in every
little act of his. Therefore he who is possessed by non-violence
will express it in the family circle, in his dealings with
neighbours, in his business, in Congress meetings, in public
meetings, and in his dealings with opponents. It is because it has
not expressed itself in this way among Congressmen that the members
of the Working Committee rightly concluded that Congressmen were not
ready for non-violent treatment of internal disorders or external
aggression. Embarrassment caused by non-violent action would move
established authority to yield to popular will. But such action has
obviously no play in the face of disorders. We have to court death
without retaliation and with no malice or anger towards those who
bring about disorder, it is easy enough to see that non-violence
required here is of a wholly different type from what the Congress
has known hitherto. But it is the only non-violence that is true and
that can save the world from self-destruction. This is a certainty
sooner or later, sooner rather than later, if India cannot deliver
the message of true non-violence to a world which wants to be saved
from the curse of wars and does not know how to find the
deliverance.
Sevagram,
24-6-'40
Harijan, 29-6-1940