(In early 1922 when the country was agog with excitement from one end to the other and the situation was tense and explosive, Mahatma Gandhi addressed the following letter to the then Viceroy of India—Lord Reading. This letter was as a matter of fact a kind of ultimatum to the Viceroy asking him to restore the elementary rights of civic life to the people and to free the press from all restrictions by a declaration within seven days of the receipt of this letter or in default thereof, the Viceroy was warned, a huge campaign of mass Civil Disobedience, on unprecedentally large scale would be launched. The Mahatma’s counsel of wisdom, however, fell on deaf ears and the Viceroy instead of reciprocating with toleration and goodwill started a campaign of repression of a still more virulent type. Following was the Mahatma’s letter.)
MAKE DECLARATION WITHIN SEVEN DAYS.
To His Excellency the Viceroy, Delhi.
Sir, Bardoli is a small Tehsil in the Surat district in the Bombay Presidency, having a population of about 87,000 all told.
On the 29th ultimo, it decided under the presidency of Mr. Vithalbhai Patel to embark on mass Civil Disobedience, having proved its fitness for it in terms of the resolution of the All-India Congress Committee which met at Delhi during the first week of November last. But as I am perhaps chiefly responsible for Bardoli’s decision, I owe it to Your Excellency and the Public to explain the situation under which the decision has been taken.
It was intended under the resolution of the All-India Congress Committee before referred to, to make Bardoli the first unit for mass Civil Disobedience in order to mark the national revolt against the Government for its consistently criminal refusal to appreciate India’s resolve regarding the Khilafat, the Punjab and Swaraj.
Then followed the unfortunate and regrettable riots on the 17th November last in Bombay resulting in the postponement of the step contemplated by Bardoli.
Meantime repression of a virulent type has taken place with the concurrence of the Government of India in Bengal, Assam, the United Provinces, the Punjab, the province of Delhi and in a way in Bihar and Orissa and elsewhere. I know that you have objected to the use of the word “repression” for describing the action of the authorities in these provinces. In my opinion, when an action is taken which is in excess of the requirements of the situation it is undoubtedly repression. The looting of property, assaults on innocent people, brutal treatment of the prisoners in jails, including flogging can in no sense be described as legal, civilised or in any way necessary. This official lawlessness cannot be described by any other term but lawless repression.
Intimidation by non-co-operators or their sympathisers to a certain extent in connection with hartals and picketing may be admitted, but in no case can it be held to justify the wholesale suppression of peaceful volunteering or equally peaceful public meetings under a distorted use of an extraordinary law which was passed in order to deal with activities which were manifestly violent both in intention and action, nor is it possible to designate as otherwise than repression, action taken against innocent people under, what has appeared to many of us, as an illegal use of the ordinary law nor again can the administrative interference with the liberty of the Press under a law that is under promise of repeal be regarded as anything but repression.
The immediate task before the country therefore is to rescue from paralysis freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of Press. In the present mood of the Government of India and in the present unprepared state of the country in respect of complete control of the forces of violence, non-co-operators were unwilling to have anything to do with the Malaviya Conference whose object was to induce Your Excellency to convene a Round Table Conference. But as I was anxious to avoid all avoidable suffering, I had no hesitation in advising the Working Committee of the Congress to accept the recommendations of that Conference.
Although, in my opinion, the terms were quite in keeping with your own requirments, as I understood them through your Calcutta speech and otherwise, you have summarily rejected the proposal. In the circumstances, there is nothing before the country but to adopt some non-violent method for the enforcement of its deeds, including the elementary rights of free speech, free association, and free Press.
In my humble opinion, the recent events are a clear departure from the civilised policy laid down by Your Excellency at the time of the generous, manly and unconditional apology of the Ali Brothers, viz., that the Government of India should not interfere with the activities of non-co-operation so long as they remained non-violent in word and deed.
Had the Government policy remained neutral and allowed public opinion to ripen and have its full effect, it would have been possible to advise postponement of the adoption of civil disobedience of an aggressive type till the Congress had acquired fuller control over the forces of violence in the country and enforced greater discipline among the millions of its adherents. But the lawless repression (in a way unparalleled in the history of this unfortunate country) has made immediate adoption of mass Civil Disobedience an imperative duty…
But before the people of Bardoli actually commence mass civil disobedience, I would respectfully urge you as the head of the Government of India finally to revise your policy and set free all the non-co-operating prisoners who are convicted or under trial for non-violent activities and declare in clear terms the policy of absolute non-interference with all non-violent activities in the country whether they be regarding the redress of the Khilafat or the Punjab wrongs, or Swaraj or any other purpose and even though they fall within the repressive sections of the Penal Code or the Criminal Procedure Code or other repressive laws subject always to the condition of non-violence. I would further urge you to free the Press from all administrative control and restore all the fines and forfeitures recently imposed.
In thus urging I am asking Your Excellency to do what is today being done in every country which is deemed to be under civilized Government. If you can see your way to make the necessary declaration within seven days of the date of publication of this manifesto, I shall be prepared to advise postponement of Civil Disobedience of an aggressive character till the imprisoned workers have, after their discharge, reviewed the whole situation and considered the position de novo. If the Government make the requested declaration, I shall regard it as an honest desire on its part to give effect to public opinion and shall therefore have no hesitation in advising the country to be engaged in further moulding the public opinion without violent restraint from either side and trust to its working to secure the fulfilment of its unalterable demands. Aggressive Civil Disobedience in that case will be taken up only when the Government departs from its policy of strictest neutrality or refuses to yield to the clearly expressed opinion of the vast majority of the people of India.