Freedom Through Disobedience Part 1

Freedom Through Disobedience.

by C. R.(Chittaranjan) Das.

_The following is the full text of the Presidential Address of Desabhandhu C. R. Das at the thirty-seventh session of the Indian National Congress held at Gaya on 26th December 1922:--_

SISTERS AND BROTHERS,--

As I stand before you to-day, a sense of overwhelming loss overtakes me, and I can scarce give expression to what is uppermost in the minds of all and everyone of us. After a memorable battle which he gave to the Bureaucracy, Mahatma Gandhi has been seized and cast into prison; and we shall not have his guidance in the proceedings of the Congress this year.

But there is inspiration for all of us in the last stand which he made in the citadel of the enemy, in the last defiance which he hurled at the agents of the Bureaucracy. To read a story equal in pathos, in dignity, and in sublimity you have to go back over two thousand years, when Jesus of Nazareth, "as one that perverted the people" stood to take his trial before a foreign tribunal.

"And Jesus stood before the Governor: and the Governor asked him saying, Art thou the king of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.

"And when he has accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.

"Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee?

"And he answered him too never a word; insomuch that the Governor marvelled greatly."

Mahatma Gandhi took a different course. He admitted that he was guilty, and he pointed out to the public Prosecutor, that his guilt was greater than he, the Prosecutor, had alleged; but he maintained that if he had offended against the law of Bureaucracy in so offending, he had obeyed the law of G.o.d. If I may hazard a guess, the Judge who tried him and who pa.s.sed a sentence of imprisonment on him was filled with the same feeling of marvel as Pontius Pilate had been.

Great in taking decisions, great in executing them, Mahatma Gandhi was incomparably great in the last stand which he made on behalf of his country. He is undoubtedly one of the greatest men that the world has ever seen. The world hath need of him and if he is mocked and jeered at by "the people of importance," the "people with a stake in the country"--Scribes and Pharisees of the days of Christ he will be gratefully remembered now and always by a nation which he led from victory to victory.

"LAW AND ORDER"

Gentlemen, the time is a critical one and it is important to seize upon the real issue which divides the people from the Bureaucracy and its Indian allies. During the period of repression which began about this time last year, it was this issue which pressed itself on our attention. This policy of repression was supported and in some cases instigated by the Moderate Leaders who are in the Executive Government. I do not charge those who supported the Government with dishonesty or want of patriotism.

I say they were led away by the battle cry of Law and Order. And it is because I believe that there is a fundamental confusion of thought behind this att.i.tude of mind that I propose to discuss this plea of Law and Order. "Law and Order" has indeed been the last refuge of Bureaucracies all over the world.

It has been gravely a.s.serted not only by the Bureaucracy but also by its apologists, the Moderate Party, that a settled Government is the first necessity of any people and that the subject has no right to present his grievances except in a const.i.tutional way, by which I understand in some way recognised by the const.i.tution. If you cannot actively co-operate in the maintenance of "the law of the land" they say, "it is your duty as a responsible citizen to obey it pa.s.sively. Non-resistance is the least that the Government is ent.i.tled to expect from you."

This is the whole political philosophy of the Bureaucracy--the maintenance of law and order on the part of the Government, and an att.i.tude of pa.s.sive obedience and non-resistance on the part of the subject. But was not that the political philosophy of every English King from William the Conqueror to James II? And was not that the political philosophy of the Romanoffs, the Hohenzollerns and of the Bourbons? And yet freedom has come, where it has come, by disobedience of the very laws which were proclaimed in the name of law and order. Where the Government is arbitrary and despotic and the fundamental rights of the people are not recognised, it is idle to talk of law and order.

The doctrine has apparently made its way to this country from England. I shall, therefore, refer to English history to find out the truth about this doctrine. That history has recorded that most of the despots in England who exercised arbitrary sway over the people proposed to act for the good of the people and for the maintenance of law and order. English absolutism from the Normans down to the Stuarts tried to put itself on a const.i.tutional basis through the process of this very law and order. The pathetic speech delivered by Charles I. just before his execution puts the whole doctrine in a nutsh.e.l.l. "For the people," he said, "truly I desire their liberty and freedom as much as anybody whatsoever, but I must tell you that their liberty and freedom consist in having Government, those laws by which their lives and their goods may be their own. It is not their having a share in the Government, that is nothing appertaining to them. A subject and a sovereign are clear different things." The doctrine of law and order could not be stated with more admirable clearness. But though the English kings acted const.i.tutionally in the sense that their acts were in accordance with the letter of law and were covered by precedents, the subjects always claimed that they were free to a.s.sert their fundamental rights and to wrest them from the king by force or insurrections. The doctrine of law and order received a rude shock when King John was obliged to put his signature to the Magna Charta on the 15th of June, 1215. The 61st clause of the Charter is important for our purpose securing as it did to the subject the liberty of rebellion as a means for enforcing the due observance of the Charter by the Crown. Adams, a celebrated writer of English Const.i.tutional History, says that the conditional right to rebel is as much at the foundation of the English Const.i.tution to-day as it was in 1215. But though the doctrine of law and order had received a rude shock it did not altogether die; for in the intervening period the Crown claimed and a.s.serted the right to raise money, not only by indirect taxes but also by forced loans and benevolences; and frequently exercised large legislative functions not only by applying what are known as suspending and dispensing powers but also by issuing proclamations. The Crown claimed, as Hallam says, "not only a kind of supplemental right of legislation to perfect and carry out what the spirit of existing laws might require but also a paramount supremacy, called sometimes the king's absolute or sovereign power which sanctioned commands beyond the legal prerogative, for the sake of public safety whenever the Council might judge that to be in hazard." By the time of the Stuarts the powers claimed by the Crown were recognised by the courts of law as well founded, and, to quote the words of Adams, "the forms of law became the engines for the perpetration of judicial murders."

It is necessary to remember that it was the process of law and order that helped to consolidate the powers of the Crown; for it was again and again laid down by the Court of Exchequer that the power of taxation was vested in the Crown, where it was "for the general benefit of the people." As Adams says, "the Stuarts a.s.serted a legal justification for everything done by them," and, "on the whole, history was with the king."

But how did the Commons meet this a.s.sertion of law and order? They were strict non-co-operators both within and outside the Parliament. Within the Parliament they again and again refused to vote supplies unless their grievances were redressed. The King retorted by raising Customs duties on his own initiative and the courts of law supported him. The Commons pa.s.sed a resolution to the effect that persons paying them "should be reputed betrayers of the liberties of England and enemies to the same." There was little doubt that revolution was on the land; and King Charles finding himself in difficulty gave his Royal a.s.sent to the Bill of Rights on the 17th of June 1626. The Bill of Rights const.i.tutes a triumph for N. C. O's; for it was by their refusal to have any part or share in the administration of the country that the Commons compelled the King to acknowledge their Rights. The events that followed between 1629 and 1640 made the history of England. In spite of the Bill of Rights the King continued to raise customs duties and Elliot and his friends were put on their trial. They refused to plead and the result was disastrous for the arbitrary power of the King. The King levied ship money on the nation. The chief constables of various places replied that the sherrifs had no authority to a.s.sess or tax any man without the consent of the Parliament.

On the refusal on the part of the people to pay the taxes, their cattle was destrained and no purchaser could be found for them. The King took the opinion of the Exchequer Court on the question "when the good and the safety of the kingdom is concerned and the whole kingdom is in danger."

Mark how the formula has been copied verbatim in the Government of India Act. "May not the king command all the subjects of his kingdom, to provide and furnish such a number of ships with men, victuals and munitions and for such time as he shall think fit for the defence and safeguard of the Kingdom from such peril"--again the formula "and by law compel the doing thereof in case of refusal any refractoriness? And whether in such case is not the King the sole judge, both of the danger and when and how the same is to be prevented?" The Judges answered in the affirmative and maintained the answer in the celebrated case which Hampden brought before them.

I desire to emphasise one point and that is that throughout the long and bitter struggle between the Stuarts and Parliament, the Stuarts acted for the maintenance of Law and Order, and there is no doubt that both law and history were on their side. On the eve of the Civil War, the question that divided the parties was this: could the Crown, in the maintenance of Law and Order, claim the pa.s.sive obedience of the subject or was there any power of resistance in the subject, though that resistance might result in disorder and in breaches of law? The adherents of the Parliament stood for power and the majesty of the people, the authority and independence of Parliament, individual liberty, the right to resist and the right to compel abdication and deposition of the Crown, in a word, they stood by them against the coercive power of the State. The adherence of the Crown stood for indefeasible rights--a right to claim pa.s.sive obedience and secure non-resistance on the part of the subject through the process of Law and Order; in a word, they stood for State coercion and compulsory co-operation against individual liability.

The issue was decided in favour of Parliament but as it must happen in every war of arms, the victory for individual liberty was only temporary.

Though the result of Civil War was disastrous from the point of view of individual liberty, and though it required another revolution--this time, a non-violent revolution--to put individual liberty on a sure foundation "the knowledge that the subject had sat in rude judgment on their King, man to man, speeded the slow emanc.i.p.ation of the mind from the shackles of custom and ancient reverence."

The Revolution of 1688--a bloodless revolution--secured for England that Rule of Law which is the only sure foundation for the maintenance of Law and Order. It completed the work which the Long Parliament had begun and which the execution of Charles I. had interrupted. But how was the peaceful revolution of 1688 brought about? By defiance of authority and by rigid adherence to the principle that it is the inalienable right of the subject to resist the exercise by the executive of wide, arbitrary or discretionary powers of constraint.

The principle for which the revolution of 1688 stood was triumphantly vindicated in the celebrated case of Dr. Sacheverell. In the course of a sermon which he had preached, he gave expression to the following sentiment. "The grand security of our Government and the very pillar upon which it stands is founded upon the steady belief of the subjects'

obligation to an absolute and unconditional obedience to the supreme power in all things lawful and the utter illegality of resistance on any pretence whatsoever." This is the doctrine of pa.s.sive obedience and non-resistance the doctrine of law and order, which is proclaimed to-day by every bureaucrat in the country, foreign or domestic and which is supposed to be the last word on the subjects' duty and Government's rights. But mark how they solved the problem in England in 1710. The Commons impeached Dr. Sacheverell giving expression to a view so destructive of individual liberty and the Lords by a majority of votes found him guilty. The speeches delivered in the course of the trial are interesting. I desire to quote a few sentences from some of those speeches. Sir Joseph Jekyll in the course of his speech said, "that as the Law is the only measure of the Princes' authority and the peoples'

subjection, so the law derives its being and efficacy from common consent; and to place it on any other foundation than common consent is to take away the obligation." This notion of common consent puts both prince and people under, to observe the laws.

"My Lords, as the doctrine of unlimited non-resistance was impliedly renounced by the whole nation in the resolution, so diverse Acts of Parliament afterwards pa.s.sed expressing their renunciation, ... and, therefore I shall only say that it can never be supposed that the laws were made to set up a despotic power to destroy themselves and to warrant subversion of a const.i.tution of a Government which they were designed to establish and defend." Mr. Walpole put the whole argument in a nutsh.e.l.l when he said, "the doctrine of unlimited, unconditional pa.s.sive obedience was first invented to support arbitrary and despotic power and was never promoted or countenanced by any Government that had not designs sometime or other of making use of it." The argument against the doctrine of Law and Order could not be put more clearly or forcibly, for his argument comes to this: "that the doctrine is not an honest one if law and order is the process by which absolution consolidates its powers and strengthens its hand." I will make one more quotation and that is from the speech of Major-Gen. Stanhope. "As to the doctrine itself of absolute non-resistance, it should seem needless to prove by argument that it is inconsistent with the law of reason, with the law of Nature and with the practice of all ages and countries.... And indeed one may appeal to the practice of all Churches and of all states and of all nations in the world, how they behaved themselves when they found their civil and religious const.i.tutions invaded and oppressed by tyranny."

This then is the history of the freedom movement in England. The conclusion is irresistible that it is not by acquiescence in the doctrine of Law and Order that the English people have obtained the recognition of their fundamental rights. It follows from the survey that I have made firstly that no regulation is law unless it is based on the consent of the people; secondly where such consent is wanting the people are under no obligation to obey; thirdly, where such laws are not only not based on the consent of the people but profess to attack their fundamental rights the subjects are ent.i.tled to compel their withdrawal by force or insurrections; fourthly, that Law and Order is and has always been a plea for absolutism and lastly there can be neither law nor order before the real reign of Law begins.

I have dealt with the question at some length as the question is a vital one and there are many Moderates who still think that it is the duty of every loyal subject to a.s.sist the Government in the maintenance of Law and Order. The personal liberty of every Indian to-day depends to a great extent on the exercise by persons in authority of wide, arbitrary or discretionary powers. Where such powers are allowed the rule of law is denied. To find out the extent to which this exploded doctrine of Law and Order influences the minds of sober and learned men we have only to read the report of the Committee appointed to examine the repressive laws. You will find in the report neither the vision of the patriot nor the wisdom of the statesman; but you will find an excessive worship of that much advertised but much misunderstood phrase "Law and Order." "Why is Regulation III of 1818 to be amended and kept on the Statute Book?"

Because for the protection of the frontiers of India and the fulfilment of the responsibility of the Government of India in relation to Indian States there must be some enactment to arm the executive with powers to restrict the movements and activities of certain persons, who though not coming within the scope of any criminal law have to be put under some measure of restraint. Why are the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act 1908 and the Prevention of Seditious Meetings Act 1911 to be retained on the Statute Book? For the preservation of law and order? They little think these learned gentlemen responsible for the report that these Statutes, giving as they do to the Executive wide, arbitrary and discretionary powers of constraint, const.i.tute a state of things wherein it is the duty of every individual to resist and to defy the tyranny of such lawless laws. These Statutes in themselves const.i.tute a breach of law and order, for, law and order is the result of the rule of law; and where you deny the existence of the rule of law, you cannot turn round and say it is your duty as law-abiding citizens to obey the law.

We have had abundance of this law and order during the last few years of our National History. The last affront delivered to the nation, was the promulgation of an executive order under the authority of the Criminal Law Amendment Act making the legitimate work of Congress Volunteers illegal and criminal. This was supported by our Moderate friends on the ground that it is the duty of the law-abiding subject to support the maintenance of law and order. The doctrine, as I said before, has travelled all the way from the sh.o.r.es of England. But may I ask--is there one argument advanced to-day by the Bureaucracy and its friends which was not advanced with equal clearness by the Stuarts? When the Stuarts arrogated to themselves a discretionary power of committing to prison all persons who were on any account obnoxious to the Court, they made the excuse that the power was necessary for the safety of the nation. And the power was resisted in England, not because it was never exercised for the safety of the nation, but because the existence of the power was inconsistent with the existence, at the same time of individual liberty. When the Stuarts claimed the right to legislate by proclamation and by the wide exercise of suspending and dispensing powers they did so on the express ground that such legislation was necessary for public safety. That right was denied by the English nation, not because such legislation was not necessary for public safety but because such right could not co-exist with the fundamental right of the nation to legislate for itself. Is the power of the Governor-General to certify that the pa.s.sage of a Bill is essential for safety or tranquility or interest of British India, any different from the power claimed by the Stuarts? There is indeed a striking resemblance between the power conferred on the Governor-General and the Governors of the provinces and the powers claimed by the Tudors and the Stuarts. When the Stuarts claimed the right to raise revenue on their own initiative, they disclaimed any intention to exercise such right except "when the good and safety of the kingdom in general is concerned and the whole kingdom is in danger." That right was resisted in England, not because the revenues raised by them were not necessary for the good and safety of the kingdom, but because that right was inconsistent with the fundamental right of the people to pay such taxes only as were determined by the representatives of the people for the people. Is the power conferred on the Governor to certify that the expenditure provided for by a particular demand not a.s.sented to by the legislature is essential to the discharge of his responsibility for the subjects, any different from the power claimed by the Stuarts? It should be patent to everybody that we do not live under any history of England as proclaimed that it is idle to talk of the maintenance of law and order when large discretionary powers of constraint are vested in the executive. The manhood of England triumphantly resisted the pretensions of "Law and Order." If there is manhood in India to-day, India will successfully resist the same pretensions, advanced by the Indian Bureaucracy.

I have quoted from English History at length, because the argument furnished by that history appeals to people who are frightened by popular movement into raising the cry of "law and order." Follow the lines laid down in that History. For myself, I oppose the pretensions of "law and order" not on historical precedent, but on the ground that it is the inalienable right of every individual and of every nation to stand on truth and to offer a stubborn resistance to the promulgation of lawless laws. There was a law in the time of Christ which forbade the people from eating on the Sabbath, but allowed the priests to profane Sabbath. And how Christs dealt with the law is narrated in the New Testament.

"At that time Jesus went on the Sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungered, and began to pluck the ear of corn and to eat.

"But when the Pharisses saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the Sabbath day.

"But he said unto them, have we not read what David did, when he was an hungered and they that were with him;

"How he entered into the House of G.o.d and did eat the shew bread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?

"Or have we not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple profaned the Sabbath and are blameless?"

The truth is that law and order is for man, and not man for law and order.

The development of nationality is a sacred task and anything which impedes that task is an obstacle which the very force and power of nationality must overcome. If therefore you interpose a doctrine to impede the task why, the doctrine must go. If you have recourse to law and order to establish and defend the rule of law, then your law and order is ent.i.tled to claim the respect of all law-abiding citizens, but, as soon as you have recourse to it not to establish and defend the rule of law, but to destroy and attack it, there is no longer any obligation on us to respect it, for a Higher Law, the virtual law, the Law of G.o.d compels to offer our stubborn resistance to it. When I find something put forward in the sacred name of law and order that it is deliberately intended to hinder the growth, the development, and the self-realization of the nation, I have no hesitation whatever in proclaiming that such law and order is an outrage on man and an insult to G.o.d.

But though our Moderate friends are often deluded by the battle cry of law and order, I rejoice when I hear that cry. It means that the Bureaucracy is in danger and that the Bureaucracy has realised its danger. It is not without reason that the false issue is raised and the fact a false issue has been raised fills me with hope and courage. I ask my countrymen to be patient and to press the charge. Freedom has already advanced when the alarm of law and order is sounded; that is the history of Bureaucracies all over the world.

In the meantime it is our duty to keep our ideal steadfast. We must not forget that we are on the eve of great changes, that world forces are working all around us and that the battle of freedom has yet to be won.

NATIONALISM: THE IDEAL

What is the ideal which we must set before us? The first and foremost is the ideal of nationalism. Now what is Nationalism? It is, I conceive, a process through which a nation expresses itself and finds itself, not in isolation from other nations but, as part of a great scheme by which, in seeking its own expression and therefore its own ident.i.ty, it materially a.s.sists the self-expression and self-realization of other nations as well.

Diversity is as real as Unity. And in order that the unity of the world may be established it is essential that each nationality should proceed on its own lines and find fulfilment in self-expression and self-realisation.

The Nationality of which I am speaking must not be confused with the conception of nationality as it exists in Europe to-day. Nationalism in Europe is an aggressive nationalism, a selfish nationalism, a commercial nationalism of gain and loss. The gain of France is a loss of Germany, and the gain of Germany is a loss of France. Therefore French nationalism is nurtured on the hatred of Germany and German nationalism is nurtured in the hatred of France. It is not yet realised that you cannot hurt Germany without hurting Humanity and in consequence hurting France; and that you cannot hurt France without hurting Humanity, and in consequence hurting Germany. That is European nationalism; that is not the nationalism of which I am speaking to you to-day. I contend that each nationality const.i.tutes a particular stream of the great unity, but no nation can fulfil itself until it becomes itself and at the same time realises its ident.i.ty with Humanity. The whole problem of nationalism is therefore to find that stream and to face the destiny. If you find the current and establish a continuity with the past, then the process of self-expression has begun, and nothing can stop the growth of nationality.

Throughout the pages of Indian history, I find a great purpose unfolding itself. Movement after movement has swept over this vast country, apparently creating hostile forces, but in reality stimulating the vitality and moulding the life of the people into one great nationality.

If the Aryans and the non-Aryans met, it was for the purpose of making one people out of them. Brahmanism with its great culture succeeded in binding the whole of India and was indeed a mighty unifying force. Buddhism with its protests against Brahmanism served the same great historical purposes and from Magadha to Taxila was one great Buddhistic empire which succeeded not only in broadening the basis of Indian unity, but in creating what is perhaps more important, the greater India beyond the Himalayas and beyond the seas, so much so that the sacred city where we have met may be regarded as a place of pilgrimage of millions and millions of people of Asiatic races. Then came the Mahomedans of divers races, but with one culture which was their common heritage. For a time it looked as if there was a disintegrating force, an enemy to the growth of Indian nationalism, but the Mahomedans made their home in India, and, while they brought a new outlook and a wonderful vitality to the Indian life, with infinite wisdom, they did as little as possible to disturb the growth of life in the villages where India really lives. This new outlook was necessary for India: and if the two sister streams met, it was only to fulfil themselves and face the destiny of Indian history. Then came the English with their alien culture, their foreign methods, delivering a rude shock to this growing nationality; but the shock has only completed the unifying process so that the purpose of history is practically fulfilled. The great Indian nationality is in sight. It already stretches its hands across the Himalayas not only to Asia but to the whole of the world, not aggressively, but to demand its recognition, and to offer its contribution, I desire to emphasise that there is no hostility between the ideal of nationality and that of world-peace. Nationalism is the process through which alone will world-peace come. A full and unfettered growth of nationalism is necessary for world-peace just as a full and unfettered growth of individuals is necessary for nationality. It is the conception of aggressive nationality in Europe that stands in the way of peace; but once the truth is grasped that it is not possible for a nation to inflict a loss on another nation without at the same time inflicting a loss on itself, the problem of Humanity is solved. The essential truth of nationality lies in this, that it is necessary for each nation to develop itself, express itself and realise itself, so that Humanity itself may develop itself, express itself and realise itself. It is my belief that this truth of nationality will endure, although, for the moment, unmindful of the real issue, the nations are fighting amongst themselves and, if I am not mistaken, it is the very instinct of selfishness and self-preservation which will ultimately solve the problem, not the narrow and the mistaken selfishness of the present, but a selfishness universalized by intellect and transfigured by spirit, a selfishness that will bring home to the nations of the world that in the efforts to put down their neighbours lies their own ruin and suppression.

We have, therefore, to foster the spirit of Nationality. True development of the Indian nation must necessarily lie in the path of Swaraj. A question has often been asked as to what is Swaraj. Swaraj is indefinable and is not to be confused with any particular system of Government. There is also the difference in the world between Swarajya and Samrajya. Swaraj is the natural expression of the national mind. The full outward expression of that mind covers, and must necessarily cover, the whole life history of a nation. Yet it is true that Swaraj begins when the true development of a nation begins, because, as I have said, Swaraj is the expression of the national mind.

The question of nationalism, therefore, looked at from another point of view, is the same question as that of Swaraj. The question of all questions in India to-day is the attainment of Swaraj.

NON-VIOLENT NON-CO-OPERATION

I now come to the question of method. I have to repeat that it has been proved beyond any doubt that the method of non-violent non-co-operation is the only method which we must follow to secure a system of Government which may in reality be the foundation of Swaraj. It is hardly necessary to discuss the philosophy of non-co-operation. I shall simply state the different view-points from which this question may be discussed. From the national point of view the method of non-co-operation means the attempt of the nation to concentrate upon its own energy and to stand on its own strength. From the ethical point of view, non-co-operation means the method of self-purification, the withdrawal from that which is injurious to the development of the nation, and therefore to the good of humanity.