The Honorary Secretary of the Social Service
Department of the Marwadi Relief Society writes:
"I have to place before you a very brief review of the activities of
the Marwadi Relief Society, Calcutta, in connection with rendering
relief to evacuees from Burma and Malaya, absolutely irrespective of
caste, creed and colour, and also to humbly seek your invaluable
advice on a very grave matter. The Society has undertaken to provide
food, medical aid, and facilities for repatriation to thousands of
helpless refugees who are arriving in Calcutta daily by rail, road
and sea. Several emergent cases of delivery have also been attended
to. The Society is also trying to secure suitable jobs for
unemployed evacuees with the kind cooperation of respectable local
firms.
In this connection I beg to report a certain very regrettable incident
to you, and shall be grateful if you kindly advise me as to my
duties in the matter.
On the night of the 14th March, shortly after the arrival of the
Chittagong Mail, as I, in company with a number of volunteers, was
attending to the wants of the evacuees, a British tommy got hold of
a small child belonging to one of the poor evacuees and threw it
under the train. Although I am a humble follower of your noble creed
of non-violence, it was with the greatest difficulty that I
restrained myself and my volunteers from punishing the soldier
bodily for his brutal act. I reported the matter to the station
military authorities, but their attitude was anything but
sympathetic. I later approached Mr. K. C. Sen I.C.S. over the
matter, and though he promised to duly enquire into the matter,
nothing has been done as yet to rectify it. There are still large
numbers of soldiers loitering about the platforms every night, and a
violent clash between these soldiers and relief volunteers and the
public is a possibility which has to be tackled in no time. I have
already placed the matter before the Bengal Congress Civil
Protection Committee.
I should be thankful, if you kindly advised me on the following
points:
1. Should I start an agitation in the press over the matter?
2. Supposing a soldier behaves indecently towards a helpless female evacuee, are
we to put up with it silently, or should the soldier be forcibly
dealt with?
It would help us very greatly, if you kindly issue a statement in Harijan in this connection. I am prepared to accept all responsibility regarding the truthfulness of the above incident."
I have suppressed many letters giving me authentic details about the misbehaviour of soldiers. I have published them
when it would have been wrong, if not cowardly, to suppress them.
The letter in question demands, in my opinion, the widest publicity,
not merely for the safety of the public but also for the sake of the
soldiers and the Government. The Marwadi Relief Society is a big
philanthropic institution of twenty-five years' standing having an
all-India reputation. It has funds and seasoned workers. Its
prestige should have been enough security for the good behaviour of
the soldiers in the presence of its workers. The soldier must have
run amuck or been under the influence of drink to have behaved as
he is reported to have done. I trust that the Marwadi Relief Society
will not leave the matter till it is thoroughly thrashed out; and I
trust too that the authorities will not wish to hush up the matter
but will make ample amends, if the case is proved as reported by my
correspondent.
So much for the case itself. The correspondent desires my guidance about similar cases in future. The action of
Himsa or Ahimsa would have been identical. The volunteers should
have, if they could, bodily prevented the soldier from touching the
child or snatched the child from him, even if the soldier had been
hurt in the act of preventing or snatching. The proceedings after
the delivery of the child or the failure of the attempt would vary
according as the deliverers were actuated violently or
non-violently. Non-violent behaviour would dictate generous and
gentle behaviour towards the culprit. But generosity and gentleness
would have to be thoughtful and reasoned. It is difficult to lay
down in advance the rule of conduct applicable in all cases. I can
say this much that a truly generous act demands sincere recognition
on the part of the culprit. I have known instances of Africans in
South Africa insulted at railway stations saying to the rude white
men, "My brother, God will forgive you for your rudeness", and the
white men giggling, if not adding injury to insult. In similar
circumstances I have myself remained silent and suffered the insult.
I am quite clear that the Africans' so-called generosity was a mere
mechanical act justly evoking derision. Mine was timidity. I did not
wish to evoke further insult. I certainly did not want to take legal
proceedings. I was trying then to shape my non-violent conduct.
I have interpolated an examination of so-called
nonviolent conduct in cases of personal insult or injury. What
about the child injured or the injury imagined by my correspondent?
I think non-violent conduct would not, should not, be different. The
distinction that is often drawn between personal injury and injury
done to wards is unjustified, if not wrong. A man is not expected to
do more for his wards than he would for himself. He would no doubt
sacrifice himself for his ward's honour, but he would be expected to
do likewise for his own. If he did otherwise, he would be voted a
coward and is not likely to protect his ward's honour, if he is not
able to protect his own. But I own that correct non-violent conduct
does not come through mere reasoning. Reason is a necessary
preliminary. But correctness of conduct will come only through
repeated practice, may be even repeated failures.
What violent conduct should be surely needs no
examination.
Sevagram,
23-3-'42
Harijan, 29-3-1942