(In the year 1931 when the relations between the Congress and the British Government were straitened to a rather ‘dangerous’ extent, a queer situation arose. Gandhiji was scheduled to see the Viceroy — Lord Willingdon to discuss with him the political situation of the country with a view to arrive at some solution of the impasse. Parallel to the extension of invitation to Gandhiji, the Viceroy started a campaign of shooting in the Frontier and arrests in other parts of India. Gandhiji sent a wire to the Viceroy asking whether ‘friendly relations between us are close or whether you expect me to see you’. His Excellency sent a reply that he was willing to see him but he was not prepared to discuss anything with regard to any of the ‘repressive measures’. He also held Gandhiji responsible for various measures of lawlessness. To this Gandhiji issued the following rejoinder on 31st December 1931.)
IT IS NOT YET TOO LATE.
I thank His Excellency for the wire in reply to mine of the 29th instant, It grieves me, for His Excellency has rejected, in a manner hardly befitting his high position, an advance made in the friendliest spirit. I had approached as a seeker wanting light on questions upon which I desire to understand the Government version of every serious and extraordinary measures to which I made reference. Instead of appreciating my advance, His Excellency has rejected it by asking me to repudiate my valued colleagues in advance and telling me that even if I became guilty of such dishonourable conduct and sought interview, I could not even discuss these matters of vital importance to the Nation.
In my opinion the constitutional issue dwindles into insignificance in the face of the Ordinances and Acts which must, if not met with stubborn resistance, end in utter demoralisation of the Nation. I hope no self-respecting Indian will run the risk of killing national spirit for a doubtful contingency of securing a constitution to which no Nation with stamina may be left.
Let me also point out that as to the Frontier Province your telegram contains a narration of facts which on the face of them furnish no warrant for arrest of popular leaders passing extra-legal Ordinance making life and property utterly insecure, and shooting unarmed peaceful crowds for daring to demonstrate against the arrests of their trusted leaders. If Khan Saheb Abdul Ghaffar asserted the right to complete independence, it was a natural claim and a claim made with impunity by the Congress at Lahore in 1929 and by me with energy put before the British Government in London. Moreover let me remind the Viceroy that despite the knowledge on the Government’s part that the Congress mandate contained such a claim, I was invited to attend the London Conference as the Congress delegate. Nor am I able to detect in a mere refusal to attend a Durbar an offence warranting summary imprisonment. In refusing to attend a Darbar if Khan Saheb was fomenting racial hatred, it was undoubtedly regrettable. I have his own declarations to the contrary made to me, but assuming that he did foment racial hatred, he was entitled to an open trial where he could have defended himself against the accusation.
Regarding the United Provinces, His Excellency is surely misinformed because there was no no-rent campaign authorised by the Congress. But whilst negotiations were proceeding between Government and Congress representatives, the time for collection of rents actually arrived and rents began to be demanded. Congressmen were therefore obliged to advise tenants to suspend payment pending the result of negotiations, and Mr. Sherwani had offered on behalf of the Congress to withdraw this advice if the authorities on their initiative suspended collections pending negotiations. I venture to suggest that this is not a matter which can be so summarily dismissed as your wire has done. The controversy in the United Provinces is of long standing and involves the well-being of millions of peasantry known to be economically ground down. Any Government jealous of the welfare of the masses in its charges would welcome voluntary co-operation of a big body like the Congress, which admittedly exercise greater influence over the masses and whose one ambition is to serve them faithfully and let me add that I regard the withholding of payment of taxes as an inalienable ancient and natural right of a people who have exhausted all other means of seeking freedom from an unbearable economic burden.
I must repudiate the suggestion that the Congress has the slightest desire to promote disorder in any shape or form. As to Bengal, the Congress is at one with the Government in condemning assassinations and should heartily co-operate with Government in measures that may be found necessary to stamp out such crimes. But whilst the Congress would condemn in unmeasured terms methods of terrorism, it can in no way associate itself with Government terrorism as is betrayed by the Bengal Ordinance and the acts done thereunder but must resist within the limits of prescribed creed of non-violence such measures of legalised Government terrorism.
I heartily assent to the proposition laid down in your telegram that co-operation must be mutual. But your telegram leads me irresistibly to the conclusion that His Excellency demands co-operation from the Congress without returning any on behalf of Government. I can read in no other way his pre-emptory refusal to discuss these matters, which, as I have endeavoured to show, have at least two sides. The popular side I have put as I understand it, but before committing myself to a definite judgment I was anxious to understand the other, that is, the Government side and then tender my advice to the Congress.
With reference to the last paragraph of your telegram I may not repudiate moral liability for the actions of my colleagues whether in the Frontier Province or United Provinces, but I confess that I was ignorant of the detailed actions and activities of my colleagues whilst I was absent from India, and it was because it was necessary for me to advise and guide the Working Committee of the Congress, and in order to complete my knowledge, I sought with an open mind and with the best of intentions an interview with His Excellency and deliberately asked for his guidance.
I cannot conceal from His Excellency my opinion that the reply he has condescended to send was hardly a return for my friendly and well-meant approach. And if it is not yet too late I would ask His Excellency to reconsider his decision and see me as a friend without imposing any conditions whatsoever as to the scope or subject of discussion, and I on my part can promise that I would study with an open mind all the facts that he might put before me. I would unhesitatingly and willingly go to the respective provinces and with the aid of the authorities study both sides of the question and if I came to the conclusion after such a study that the people were in the wrong and that the Working Committee including myself were misled as to the correct position and that the Government was right I should have no hesitation whatsoever in making that open confession and guiding the Congress accordingly.
Along with my desire and willingness to co-operate with the Goverment, I must place my limitations before His Excellency. Non-violence is my absolute creed. I believe that civil disobedience is not only the natural right of a people, especially when they have no effective voice in their own Government, but that it also is an effective substitute for violence or armed rebellion.
I can never therefore deny my creed. In pursuance thereof, and on the strength of uncontradicted reports supported by the recent activities of the Government of India to the effect that there may be no other opportunity for me to guide the public, the Working Committee has accepted my advice and passed a resolution tentatively sketching a plan of civil disobedience. I am sending herewith the text of the resolution. If His Excellency thinks it worthwhile to see me, the operation of the resolution will be suspended pending our discussion in the hope that it may result in the resolution being finally given up. I admit that the correspondence between His Excellency and myself is of such grave importance as not to brook delay in publication. I am, therefore, sending my telegram, your reply, this rejoinder and the Working Committee’s resolution for publication.