The Great Trial Of 1922 | Speeches By Mahatma Gandhi
The Great Trial Of 1922 | Speeches By Mahatma Gandhi
Sir J.T. Rao Bahadur Girdharlal Uttamram, Public Prosecutor, Ahmedabad along with Strangman, Advocate-General, had pleaded the case on behalf of the British Raj. Reminder of Legal Affairs, Mr. A.C. Wilde, was also present. Mahatma Gandhi and Mr. Shankarlal Banker were Arkshit.
Members of the public present on the occasion included Kasturba Gandhi, Sarojini Naidu, Pandit MM Malaviya, Shri N.C. Kelkar, Mrs. J.B. Petit, and Mrs. Anusuyaben Sarabhai.
The judge assumed his place at 12 noon and said that there was a minor mistake in the allegations read by the registrar. These allegations relate to "an attempt to provoke dissatisfaction with His Majesty's government established by law in British India, and are, therefore, a crime punishable under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code," charges 29 September 1921 and 15 December 1921 and 23 In February 1922, three articles were published on Young India. The offending articles were then read out : first of them was, “Tampering with Loyalty”; and second, “The Puzzle and its Solution”, and the last was “Shaking the Manes”.
The judge said the law requires that the allegations should be explained in detail, rather than read. In this case it would not be necessary for him to say much through explanation. In each case it was alleged to bring hatred or contempt to His Majesty's government established by law in British India, or to attempt to incite hatred or dissatisfaction. Both the accused were charged with three offenses under section 124A by reading the contents of articles written by Mahatma Gandhi and printed by Mr. Banker.
The charge was read, and the judge summoned the accused to advocate the charges. He asked Gandhiji whether he accepted the blame or claimed to be a lawyer.
Gandhiji said, "I accept myself guilty for all the charges. I think that the name of the king has been removed from the charge, and it has been removed properly."]
The judge asked Mr. Banker the same question and he too readily admitted the blame.
The judge wanted to give his verdict soon after Gandhiji admitted the blame, but Sir Strangeman insisted that the trial process should be completed. The Advocate General requested the judge to take note of "the events leading up to the riots and murders in Bombay, Malabar and Chauri Chaura". He admitted that, "these articles as an item of campaign method and creed Ahimsa has been emphasized "but he added" Thus it emphasizes the value of non-violence, if you constantly preach dissatisfaction to the government, and it is called a treacherous act. Car prove, and then you try to provoke throwing openly and deliberately others out to him? " He asked the judge to consider these circumstances at the time of sentencing the accused.
As far as the second accused Mr. Banker is concerned, he was charged with lesser crime. He had published, but not written. Sir Strageman's instructions meant that Mr. Banker was a rich man and requested that a substantial fine be imposed on him in addition to such a period of imprisonment.
Court: Mr. Gandhi, do you want to make any statement on the question of punishment?
Gandhiji: I want to make a statement.
Court: Can you give it in writing to be kept on record?
Gandhiji: I will give it as soon as I complete it.
[After this Gandhiji gave the following oral statement, and then the written statement which was read.]
Before reading this statement, I fully support the Advocate General's remarks regarding my humility. I think they have said so, because it is absolutely true and I do not want to hide from this court the fact that propagating dissatisfaction with the government's existing ERP system has become almost an obsession for me, and I think That when the Advocate General says that my promotion of feelings of dissatisfaction is not due to my association with Young India, but it has started long ago, they are completely The right, and now that statement I'm going to read it to accept it before the court will be painful duty for me that it had begun much earlier than the period stated by the Advocate General. It is a painful duty with me, but I have to discharge my duty as the responsibility rests on my shoulders, and I am all placed on my shoulders by the Advocate General in connection with the events of Bombay, Madras and Chauri Chaura. Want to support the flaws. After thinking deeply about these things and sleeping with them for many nights, I feel that it is impossible for me to separate myself from the dangerous crimes of Chauri Chaura or the insane riots of Bombay. He is quite right when he said that as a responsible man, as a man who has got a good education, who has gained enough experience of this world, I should have known the outcome of all my acts.
I know them I knew that I was playing with fire. I risked and I was freed, then I would do the same again. This morning I realized that if I had not said what I just said here, I would have failed in my duty.
I wanted to avoid violence. Ahimsa is the first article of my faith. This is also the last article of my passage. But I had to make my choice. Either I would have surrendered to a system which I thought had caused an irreparable loss of my country, or risked the insane rage of my people which they instilled in me after knowing the truth from my lips. I know my people go crazy sometimes. I am deeply sorry for this and so I present myself not for a light sentence but for the highest punishment. I do not pray for mercy. I do not advocate any current act. Therefore, I submit myself to receive the highest punishment and gladly for the act which is a deliberate crime committed in the eyes of law, and which is the highest duty of a citizen to me. Only one way is open for you as a judge, that either you resign from your post, or if you feel that the system and law administration you are helping is right for the people. Impose severe punishment on me I do not leave this type of conversation. But by the time I finish my statement you will get a glimpse of what fire was burning in my chest which would have motivated a sensible man to run that crazy threat.
[He then read his written statement:] It is necessary for me to tell the Indian public and the people of England that, as the prosecution has mainly stated, I am a staunch loyalist and ally, discontent and non-ally Why I have become I will also tell the court why I have held myself guilty for promoting dissatisfaction with the government established by law in India.
My public life began in South Africa in 1893 in a turbulent season. My first contact with British power in that country was not good. I found that as a man and an Indian, I had no rights. Rather more correctly, I came to know that as a person I had no right because I was an Indian.
But I was not surprised. I thought that such behavior towards Indians was a rasauli on a system which was intrinsically and mainly good. I freely criticized it wherever I found it flawed but gave my voluntary and heartfelt support to the government, never wanted its destruction.
As a result, when the Boer Challenge threatened the survival of the Empire in 1899, I offered it my services, took up the ambulance corps as a volunteer and took part in many of the tasks to the relief of Lady Smith. Similarly in 1906, at the time of the Zulu 'rebellion', I formed a stretcher carrier party and served until the end of the 'rebellion'. On both occasions I received medals and even I was mentioned in dispatches. I was awarded the Gold Medal of Saffron-i-Hind by Lord Hardinge for my work in South Africa. When the war between England and Germany started in 1914, I started volunteer ambulance cars in London consisting of overseas Indians, mainly students. The importance of this work was acknowledged by the authorities. Finally, in 1918 when a special appeal was made by Lord Chelmsford at the conference in Delhi to recruit recruits for the war in India, I struggled to form a detachment at Kheda at the cost of health, and when the war stopped. Gone and received the order and did not want recruits then responded. In all these endeavors of service, I was inspired by the belief that it was only through such services that it was possible for our countrymen to achieve full equality status in the empire.
The first blow to me was the Rowlatt Act - a law designed to snatch all forms of real freedom from people. I felt a call to lead a deeper movement against it. Then began the horrors in Punjab with the massacre and orders in Jallianwala Bagh, public physical punishment and other indescribable insults. I saw the promise given by the Prime Minister to the Muslims of India regarding the integrity of Turkey and the holy places of Islam. Was unlikely to be completed. But despite the strong warning and refusal of friends in the Amritsar Congress in 1919, I cooperated with the hope and fought for the work of Montague-Chelmsford Reform, that the Prime Minister would fulfill his promise to Indian Muslims and the Punjab The wounds would be healed, and the reforms, though inadequate and unsatisfactory, would mark a new era of hope in India's life.
But all hope was shattered. The Khilafat promise was not fulfilled. The crime of Punjab was punished and most of the criminals were not only saved from punishment, but they also remained in service, and some continued to be given pension from Indian revenue and in some cases were even rewarded. I found that the reforms did not mark any change of heart, rather they were merely a way of furthering the exploitation of India's wealth and the times of its slavery.
Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that I felt that British relations had rendered India politically and economically more helpless than it had ever been before. A disarmed India has any power of resistance against any invader, even if it wants to wage an armed struggle with it. It is such a situation that some of our best people are of the opinion that many generations of India will have to end in achieving the status of dominion. He has become so poor that he has little power to resist famine. Before the British arrival, spinning and weaving were done in every hut in India, giving him the supplementary income needed to grow his meager agricultural resources. The cottage industry, extremely important to the existence of India as described by the English witness, has been ruined by incredibly ruthless and inhuman processes. What can the people living in small cities of India do for the lifeless people suffering from hunger. Little do they know that their pathetic comfort represents the profits and brokerage they receive from the public's money being paid for their work for foreign exploiters. Little do they know that the public is exploited by the government established by law in British India. No sophistry, any manipulation of data, cannot prevent the interpretation of the evidence of skeletons currently seen with the naked eye in many villages. I have no doubt that if there is a God above, the inhabitants of the cities of England and India will have to answer for this crime against humanity, which has hardly any resemblance in history. In this country the law has been used to serve foreign exploiters. My unbiased investigation into the martial law cases of Punjab has shown me that at least ninety-five percent of the accused have been wrongly convicted. My experience of India's political affairs leads me to the conclusion that nine out of every ten oppressed people were completely innocent. His crime was that he loved his country. In India's judicial courts, in ninety-nine out of a hundred cases, justice has been denied to Indians more than whites. This is not an exaggerated picture. This is the experience of almost every Indian who is involved in such matters. In my opinion, in the administration of law knowingly or unknowingly, such adultery prevails, which is for the benefit of the exploiters.
The biggest misfortune is that the British and their Indian colleagues in the administration of the country are not aware that they are engaged in committing the crimes which I have tried to describe. I am satisfied that many English and Indian officials have stated that the system has been devised in the world with integrity, and India is making steady, though slow progress. They are not aware that in the absence of a subtle but effective system of terrorism and an organized demonstration of force on the one hand, and all the powers of vengeance or self-defense on the other, people are impotent and are driven by the habit of imitation. This terrible habit leads to increased ignorance and deception of administrators. Section 124A, under which I have been charged probably holds the status of prince in those laws which are designed to suppress the freedom of citizens in the political sections of the Indian Penal Code. Affection cannot be manufactured or regulated by law. If one does not have any affection for a person or system in mind, he should be free to give full expression to dissent, as long as it does not provoke thought, propagation and use of violence. But this is the section under which mere expression of dissatisfaction is a crime. I have studied some cases under it; And I know that most of India's favorite patriots have been convicted under this. Therefore, I consider the accusation under this section a privilege. I have tried to give a brief outline of the reasons for my dissatisfaction. I have no personal grudge against any one administrator or any hatred for the officials. I but I feel that being disgruntled to a government which in its entirety has done more harm to India than any previous system should be considered a virtue. India has been less courageous under British rule than it has ever been before. Having such beliefs, having love for a system I consider it a sin. And I consider myself fortunate to be able to write what I have written in various articles presented as evidence against me.
In fact, I believe that I have served them by showing a path of non-cooperation towards the unnatural situation both India and England are living in. In my opinion, non-cooperation with evil is a more essential duty than cooperating with good. But in the past, non-cooperation has been expressed as violence perpetrated by willful perpetrators. I am trying to show my countrymen that violent non-cooperation only increases evil, and to believe that evil is only created by violence To be kept, there is a need to remain completely separate from violence in order to withdraw the support of evil. Ahimsa is the voluntary surrender to punishment for non-cooperation with evil. Therefore, I am here to gladly invite the highest penalty to be paid, which is a deliberate crime committed in the eyes of law, and the highest duty of a citizen to me. Judge and those who evaluate you, there is only one way before you, that if you think that the law which is being asked to be used against evil is bad, then resign from your posts and thus yourself from evil Set aside and accept that I am truly innocent, or if you accept the law that you are enforcing, it is right for the people of this country and in this way my activity is common Describe harmful to people and punish me harshly.
Mahatma, Vol. II, (1951) pp. 129-33
This speech is taken from Selected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. VI
The Voice of Truth Part-I Some Famous Speeches, p.14-24
0 Comments