Gandhi and Non-Violent and Non Cooperation movement

Gandhi termed his Non-violent Non Cooperation movement as Satyagraha.
Satyagraha means literally holding on to the truth. The Hindu understanding of Sat is more than conceptual truth but means also being, existence, reality; ultimately we realize that our spiritual beingness is the essence of truth as a reality greater than any concept of the mind. Thus the term “soul-force” or “truth power” conveys the idea of employing our spiritual energies. For Gandhi this truth or spiritual reality is the goal, and the means to the goal must be as pure and loving as possible. He noted that we may always control the means but never the ends. Thus the means must be as good as the goal. Ahimsa therefore is the way of acting without hurting anyone or inflicting oneself against another spiritual being. We may hate an injustice for the harm that it brings to people, but we must always love all the people involved out of respect for human dignity. Satyagraha attempts to awaken an awareness of the truth about the injustice in the perpetrators, and by ahimsa this is done without hurting them. Because humans are subject to error and cannot be sure of judging accurately, we must refrain from punishing. Thus ahimsa is an essential safeguard in the quest for truth and justice.
Gandhi distinguished satyagraha from the passive resistance which does not exclude the use of force or violence. He believed that satyagraha is not a method of the weak, like passive resistance, but it is a tool for the strong that excludes the use of violence in any shape or form. Satyagraha is the law of love for all, and it renounces violence absolutely. The idea is not to destroy or hurt the adversary but to convert them by sympathy, patience, and self-suffering. The satyagrahi hates all evil and never compromises with it but approaches the evil-doer with love. Satyagraha is insisting on the truth and can be offered in relation to one’s family, rulers, fellow citizens, or even the whole world. Gandhi elucidated three necessary conditions for its success:

1. The satyagrahi should not have any hatred in his heart
against the opponent.
2. The issue must be true and substantial.
3. The satyagrahi must be prepared to suffer till the end
for his cause.¹

Gandhi emphasized self-suffering rather than inflicting suffering on others. By undergoing suffering to reveal the injustice the satyagrahi strives to reach the consciences of people. Satyagraha does not try to coerce anyone but rather to convert by persuasion, to reach the reason through the heart. Satyagraha appeals to intelligent public opinion for reform. In the political field the struggle on behalf of the people leads to the challenging of unjust governments or laws by means of non-cooperation or civil disobedience. When petitions and other remedies fail, then a satyagrahi may break an unjust law and willingly suffer the penalty in order to call attention to the injustice. However, one does not hide or try to escape from the law like a criminal, rather one openly and civilly disobeys the law as a protest, fully expecting to be punished. In Hind Swaraj Gandhi wrote, “It is contrary to our manhood if we obey laws repugnant to our conscience.”² By eliminating violence satyagraha gives the opponent the same rights and liberties.
Satyagraha requires self-discipline, self-control, and self-purification, and satyagrahis must always make the distinction between the evil and the evil-doer. They must overcome evil with good, hatred with love, anger with patience, falsehood with truth, and violence with ahimsa. This takes a perfect person for complete success, and therefore training and education are essential to make it workable. Gandhi emphasized that every child should know about the soul, truth, love, and the powers latent in the soul. Both men and women and even children may participate, and it demands the courage that comes from spiritual strength and the power of love. Surely it takes more courage to face the weapons of death without fighting than it does to fight and kill. From his experience Gandhi believed that those who wished to serve their country through satyagraha should observe chastity, adopt poverty, follow truth, and cultivate fearlessness. It is through fearlessness that we can have the courage to renounce all harmful weapons, filling and surrounding ourselves with the spiritual protection of a loving and peaceful consciousness.
Gandhi listed detailed rules to guide the satyagrahi. One should harbor no anger but suffer the anger of the opponent, putting up with assaults without retaliating but not submitting out of fear of punishment nor to any order given in anger. One should not resist arrest by a person in authority nor resist confiscation of property; but if one is the trustee for the property of another, one may refuse to surrender it. One should not swear or curse or insult the opponent nor join cries that are contrary to the spirit of nonviolence. Civil resisters may not salute the Union Jack (British flag), but they should not insult it nor officials. If officials are being assaulted, one should protect them by risking one’s life. In prison one should behave with decorum and observe discipline that is not contrary to self-respect; one should not consider oneself superior to other prisoners nor observe any distinction. One should not fast to gain conveniences. Gandhi believed that civil resisters who have chosen to join the corps should obey all orders of the leader. One should trust the care of dependents to God. One should not cause communal quarrels, but in the event of a disagreement should support the party clearly in the right.
Non-cooperation is a comprehensive policy used by people when they can no longer in good conscience participate in or support a government that has become oppressive, unjust, and violent. Althoughsatyagrahis do not attack the wrong-doer, it is their responsibility not to promote or support the wrong actions. Thus non-cooperators withdraw from government positions, renounce government programs and services, and refuse to pay taxes to the offending government. While challenging the power of the state in this way non-cooperators have the opportunity to learn greater self-reliance. Gandhi held that non-cooperation with an unjust government was not only an inherent right but as much a duty as is cooperation with a just government.
Most of the time Gandhi and his followers were involved in constructive programs, and he considered these the most important part of nonviolent action. For Gandhi they included Hindu-Muslim friendship or communal unity, removing untouchability or racial discrimination, abstaining from alcohol and drugs, practicing spinning, weaving, and other village industries, sanitation, schooling and adult education, uplift of women, education in hygiene and health, cultivating one’s language, working for economic equality, forming labor unions, helping the poor, rural people and lepers, and improving the education and lives of students.
Ahimsa or nonviolence is absolutely essential to Gandhi’s civil disobedience. Satyagrahis are expected to give their lives in efforts to quell violence if it erupts. Gandhi interpreted ahimsa broadly as refraining from anything at all harmful. This principle can be hurt by every evil thought, by undue haste, by lying, by hatred, by wishing ill to anybody, or by our holding on to what the world needs. Thus even greed and avarice can violate ahimsa. Nonviolence has a great spiritual power, but the slightest use of violence can taint a just cause. The strength is not physical but comes from the spiritual will. Nonviolence implies self-purification, and the spiritual power the nonviolent person has is always greater than one would have by using violence. The end of violence is always defeat, but nonviolence is endless and is never defeated. The following is Gandhi’s summary of the implications of nonviolence:

1. Nonviolence is the law of the human race
and is infinitely greater than and superior to brute force.
2. In the last resort it does not avail to those
who do not possess a living faith in the God of Love.
3. Nonviolence affords the fullest protection
to one's self-respect and sense of honor,
but not always to possession of land or movable property,
though its habitual practice does prove a better bulwark
than the possession of armed men to defend them.
Nonviolence, in the very nature of things,
is of no assistance in the defense of ill-gotten gains
and immoral acts.
4. Individuals or nations who would practice nonviolence
must be prepared to sacrifice (nations to the last man)
their all except honor.
It is, therefore, inconsistent with the possession
of other people's countries, i.e., modern imperialism,
which is frankly based on force for its defense.
5. Nonviolence is a power
which can be wielded equally by all-
children, young men and women or grown-up people,
provided they have a living faith in the God of Love
and have therefore equal love for all mankind.
When nonviolence is accepted as the law of life
it must pervade the whole being
and not be applied to isolated acts.
6. It is a profound error to suppose that
while the law is good enough for individuals
it is not for masses of mankind.

Non-Cooperation Movement and Calcutta Session 1920.

The special session of the Congress was held in Calcutta on Sept. 4, 1920 when a national calamity engulfed the whole of India due to the sudden death of Tilak on Aug 1, 1920. It was presided by Lala Lajpat Rai , came from USA recently. The resolution moved by Gandhi read as follows;
" This Congress is of opinion that there be no contentment in India without redress of the two
(Lala Lajpat Rai (1865-1928)
wrongs committed earlier by the British Govt.. This Congress is further of opinion that there is no course left open for the people of India but to approve of and adopt the  policy of
( Bipin Chandra Pal [1858-1932]-left), and Bal Gangadhar Tilak [1856-1920]-right)
progressive non-violent Non-Cooperation inaugurated by Mr. Gandhi until the said wrongs are righted and Swarajya is established."
This Congress earnestly advises,
 a) Surrender of titles and honorary offices and resignation from nominated seats in Local Bodies;
b) Refusal to attend Govt. Levees , Durbars, and other official and semi-official functions held by Govt. officials, or in their honour;
c) Gradual withdrawal of Children from schools and colleges owned, aided or Controlled by Govt. and in place of such schools and colleges, establishment of National Schools and colleges in the various provinces;  
d) gradual boycott of British courts by lawyers and litigants and establishment of of private arbitration courts by their aid, for the settlement of private disputes;
e) refusal on the part of the military , clerical,and labouring classes to offer themselves as recruits for service in Mesopotamia;
f) withdrawal by candidates of their candidature for election to the Reformed councils, and refusal on the part of the voters to vote for any candidate who may, despite the Congress advice offer himself for election;
g) boycott of foreign goods

Non-Cooperation Movement and Gandhiji

Gandhiji's Non-Cooperation movement was  first applied in the   Khilafat Movement by the Khilafatists . Gandhi recommended NCO in a manifesto issued on 10 March 1920 provided their demand was not fulfilled. The Khilafat Committee adopted the ideas of Gandhiji's Non-Cooperation in Khilafat Conference held at Madras on April 17, 1920.
It laid down the four stages in  the progressive scheme of   Non-Cooperation;
1. Renunciation of honorary posts, titles, and membership of Councils, 2. giving up of posts under Govt., 3. Giving up of appointments in the police and military forces, 4. refusal to pay taxes.

Where as the All India Congress Committee which met at Banaras on 30  May 1920, did not endorse the NCO movement of Gandhi and Khilafat committee, and passed the following resolution;
"That in view of the general situation in India public feeling on Turkish peace terms, His Majesty's Govt.'s action in regard to the Punjab atrocities, and the policy pursued by the Govt. of India in giving effect to the reform scheme through the proposed draft rules and regulations, a special session of the Congress be convened at Calcutta as early as possible , not later than the 15th Sept ,1920 to consider the adoption of the policy of Non-Cooperation or any other    

Reaction of Jallianwalabagh in AICC meeting -Banaras, 30 May 1920

A meeting of the All India Congress Committee (AICC)was held at Banaras on 30 May 1920.It passed a large no. of resolutions of which the more important are;
1. AICC records the profound disappointment and dissatisfactionin the Hunter Committee Majority's Report.
, and regards its inquiry as incomplete, one-sided, and unsatisfactory, by reason of shutting out the evidence of the very Punjab leaders whose acts the Committee was called upon to investigate.....
2. A petition be represented to Parliament to take immediate steps to institute proceedings by way of impeachmentor otherwise to bring Sir Michael O'Dwyer to justice and to place General Dyer, Col. Johnson, Col.o'Brien and Bosworth Smith before His Majesty's Court of Justice in Great Britain for the cruelties committed in April-May, 1919, in Amritsar, Gujranwala, Kasur, and other places in the Punjab.That Rai Saheb Sri Ram and Malik Khan be dismissed and prosevcuted.
.........
The AICC strongly urges that in the interest of peace and contentment in India ...be revised.

"

On 1 Aug 1920- Gandhi formally inaugurates Non-Cooperation movement (Khilafat Committee) by returning the three medals which 6he Govt. had awarded him for meritorious services, and addressing a letter to the Viceroy in which he declared that the attitude of the Govt. with regard to Khilafat and the Punjab , as demonstrated by " events that happened during past months." made it impossible for him to continue co-operation wih a Govt. that had acted so unscrupulously and for whom he could retain neither respect nor affection.",    

Hunter Committee Report,1919-1920

On the 29 Oct 1919, the legislative Council of the Govt. of India named an investigatory Committee to be led by Lord William Hunter(1865-1957)and assisted by 5 Englishmen and four Indians.This was named as the Hunter Committee.The Hunter Committee was charged with the examination of the violence which had occurred in Amritsar and elsewhere in Punjab, in consequence of the catastrophic Jallianwalabagh Amritsar massacre,. In Nov. the Hunter Committee convened in Delhi and then took further testimony in Ahmedabad, Bombay and Lahore over a period of 46 days.On 14th Nov, the Indian National Congress appointed a Punjab sub-committee with Mahatma Gandhi at its head. He was to conduct his own investigation of events in Punjab and at Amritsar 1919. As a counter measure to the Hunter Committee , its work also possessed some shortcomings..
On 19th Nov, Brigadier General Reginald Dyer appeared before the Hunter Committee to produce evidence. He testified that he had planned to fire in advance of arrival at the gardens and not only for the purpose of of dispersing the crowd, but to produce a moral impact in order to prevent the spread of mutiny. He indicated that if possible he would have used machine guns and armoured cars Finally, he acknowledged that he had left the wounded unattended . On 8th March 1920, the Hunter Committee's majority reprimanded Brigadier general Dyer in its final report for hi mistaken concept of duty. Likewise , several other civil and military officials of Punjab received censor of early retirement..
On 26th May, the Hunter Report was published. It concluded that the Indian gathering was not the result of a pre-arranged conspiracy. It asserted that the rioting in Amritsar had turned into rebellion. The declaration of martial law was viewed as justifiable in firing  and that its application was ,in the main ,  not oppressive. The report concluded that Brigadier General Dyer was justified in firing on the mob, though notice should have been given and its duration shortened . The Indian members of the Hunter Committee issued a minority report. It questioned the need for martial law to have been used and disputed the level of severity of the Indian disturbances.
After the Hunter Committee completed its work, the Govt, of India provide 15,000 rupees for dependents of those killed at Jallianwalabagh living in Amritsar and with 12,000 rupee for those living outlying villages.
On 8th July, the House of Commons debated the Dyer issue. It supported the decision of the Army Council  that no further employent should be offered to Brigadier-General Dyer. The house of Lords concorded to this decision in the course of debates on July 19 and 20, 1920.  .  

Reaction of Jallianwalabagh massacre in India and abroad

Udham Singh (26 December 1899 – 31 July 1940) was an Indian revolutionary, best known for assassinating Michael O'Dwyer on 13 March 1940 in what has been described as an avenging of the Jallianwalla Bagh Massacre. Singh is a prominent figure of the Indian independence struggle. He is sometimes referred to as Shaheed-i-Azam Sardar Udham Singh (the expression "Shaheed-i-Azam, means "the great martyr")

In 1919, while traveling on a train, Nehru overheard British Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer gloating over the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. The massacre, also known as the Massacre of Amritsar, was an incident in which 379 people were killed and at least 1,200 wounded when the British military stationed there continuously fired for ten minutes on a crowd of unarmed Indians. Upon hearing Dyer’s words, Nehru vowed to fight the British. The incident changed the course of his life.

This period in Indian history was marked by a wave of nationalist activity and governmental repression. Nehru joined the Indian National Congress, one of India's two major political parties.

Singh was born Sher Singh on 26 December 1899, at Sunam in the Sangrur district of Punjab, India, to a Kamboj Sikh farming family. His father, Sardar Tehal Singh Jammu (known as Chuhar Singh before taking the Amrit), was a railway crossing watchman in the village of Upalli. His mother died in 1901, and his father in 1907.

After his father's death, Singh and his elder brother, Mukta Singh, were taken in by the Central Khalsa Orphanage Putlighar inAmritsar. At the orphanage, Singh was administered the Sikh initiatory rites and received the name of Udham Singh. He passed his matriculation examination in 1918 and left the orphanage in 1919.

Massacre at Jallianwala Bagh

On 10 April 1919, a number of local leaders allied to the Indian National Congress including Satya Pal and Saifuddin Kitchlew were arrested under the Rowlatt Act. Protestors against the arrests were fired on by British troops, precipitating a riot during which British banks were burned and four Europeans were killed. On 13 April, over twenty thousand unarmed protestors were assembled in Jallianwala Bagh, Amritsar. Singh and his friends from the orphanage were serving water to the crowd.

Troops were dispatched to restore order after the riots, under the command of Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer. Dyer ordered his troops to fire without warning on the assembled crowd in Jallianwala Bagh. Since the only exit was barred by soldiers, people tried to escape by climbing the park walls or jumping into a well for protection. An estimated 379 people were killed and over 1,200 were wounded although that has been debated.

Singh was deeply affected by the event. The governor of Punjab, Michael O'Dwyer, had supported the massacre, and Singh held him responsible.

Revolutionary politics

Singh became involved in revolutionary politics and was deeply influenced by Bhagat Singh and his revolutionary group. In 1924, Singh became involved with the Ghadar Party, organizing Indians overseas towards overthrowing colonial rule. In 1927, he returned to India on orders from Bhagat Singh, bringing 25 associates as well as revolvers and ammunition. Soon after, he was arrested for possession of unlicensed arms. Revolvers, ammunition, and copies of a prohibited Ghadar Party paper called "Ghadr-i-Gunj" ("Voice of Revolt") were confiscated. He was prosecuted and sentenced to five years in prison.

Upon his release from prison in 1931, Singh's movements were under constant surveillance by the Punjab police. He made his way to Kashmir, where he was able to evade the police and escape to Germany. In 1934, Singh reached London, where he planned to assassinate Michael O'Dwyer.

Shooting in Caxton Hall

On 13 March 1940, Michael O'Dwyer was scheduled to speak at a joint meeting of the East India Association and the Central Asian Society (now Royal Society for Asian Affairs) at Caxton Hall. Singh concealed his revolver in a cut-out book, entered the hall, and stood against the wall. As the meeting concluded, Singh shot O'Dwyer twice as he moved towards the speaking platform, killing him immediately. Others hurt in the shooting include Luis Dane, Lawrence Dundas, 2nd Marquess of Zetland, and Charles Cochrane-Baillie, 2nd Baron Lamington. Singh did not attempt to flee and was arrested on site.

Trial and execution

Singh (second from the left) being taken from 10 Caxton Hall after the assassination of Michael O'Dwyer

On 1 April 1940, Singh was formally charged with the murder of Michael O'Dwyer. While awaiting trial in Brixton Prison, Singh went on a 42-day hunger strike and had to be forcibly fed. On 4 June 1940, his trial commenced at the Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey, before Justice Atkinson. When asked about his motivation, Singh explained, "I did it because I had a grudge against him. He deserved it."

Singh was convicted and sentenced to death. On 31 July 1940, Singh was hanged at Pentonville Prison and buried within the prison grounds.

Reactions

Many Indians regarded Singh's action as justified and an important step in India's struggle to end British colonial rule.

In press statements, Mahatma Gandhi condemned the 10 Caxton Hall shooting saying, "the outrage has caused me deep pain. I regard it as an act of insanity...I hope this will not be allowed to affect political judgement." The Hindustan Socialist Republican Army condemned Mahatma Gandhi's statement, considering it to be a challenge to the Indian Youths.

Pt Jawaharlal Nehru wrote in The National Herald, "[The] assassination is regretted but it is earnestly hoped that it will not have far-reaching repercussions on [the] political future of India." In its 18 March 1940 issue, Amrita Bazar Patrika wrote, "O'Dwyer's name is connected with Punjab incidents which India will never forget".

The Punjab section of Congress in the Punjab Assembly led by Dewan Chaman Lal refused to vote for the Premier's motion to condemn the assassination.

In April 1940, at the Annual Session of the All India Congress Committee held in commemoration of 21st anniversary of the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, the youth wing of the Indian National Congress Party displayed revolutionary slogans in support of Singh, applauding his action as patriotic and heroic.

Singh had some support from the international press. The Times of London called him a "fighter for freedom", his actions "an expression of the pent-up fury of the downtrodden Indian people." Bergeret from Rome praised Singh's action as courageous. In March 1940, Indian National Congress leader Jawahar Lal Nehru, condemned the action of Singh as senseless. In 1962, Nehru reversed his stance and applauded Singh with the following published statement: "I salute Shaheed-i-Azam Udham Singh with reverence who had kissed the noose so that we may be free.

General Dyer reported to his superiors that he had been "confronted by a revolutionary army", Lieutenant-Governor Michael O'Dwyer wrote in a telegram sent to Dyer: "Your action is correct and the Lieutenant Governor approves." O'Dwyer requested that martial law should be imposed upon Amritsar and other areas, and this was granted by Viceroy Lord Chelmsford.

Both Secretary of State for War Winston Churchill and former Prime Minister H. H. Asquith however, openly condemned the attack. Churchill referring to it as "monstrous", while Asquith called it "one of the worst outrages in the whole of our history". Winston Churchill, in the House of Commons debate of 8 July 1920, said, "The crowd was unarmed, except with bludgeons. It was not attacking anybody or anything… When fire had been opened upon it to disperse it, it tried to run away. Pinned up in a narrow place considerably smaller than Trafalgar Square, with hardly any exits, and packed together so that one bullet would drive through three or four bodies, the people ran madly this way and the other. When the fire was directed upon the centre, they ran to the sides. The fire was then directed to the sides. Many threw themselves down on the ground, the fire was then directed down on the ground. This was continued to 8 to 10 minutes, and it stopped only when the ammunition had reached the point of exhaustion." After Churchill's speech in the House of Commons debate, MPs voted 247 to 37 against Dyer and in support of the Government.

Rabindranath Tagore received the news of the massacre by 22 May 1919. He tried to arrange a protest meeting in Calcutta and finally decided to renounce his knighthood as "a symbolic act of protest". In the repudiation letter, dated 30 May 1919 and addressed to the Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, he wrote "I ... wish to stand, shorn, of all special distinctions, by the side of those of my countrymen who, for their so called insignificance, are liable to suffer degradation not fit for human beings"

Gupta describes the letter written by Tagore as "historic". He writes that Tagore "renounced his knighthood in protest against the inhuman cruelty of the British Government to the people of Punjab", and he quotes Tagore's letter to the Viceroy "The enormity of the measures taken by the Government in the Punjab for quelling some local disturbances has, with a rude shock, revealed to our minds the helplessness of our position as British subjects in India ... [T]he very least that I can do for my country is to take all consequences upon myself in giving voice to the protest of the millions of my countrymen, surprised into a dumb anguish of terror. The time has come when badges of honour make our shame glaring in the incongruous context of humiliation..." English Writings of Rabindranath Tagore Miscellaneous Writings Vol# 8 carries a facsimile of this hand written letter.

Cloake reports that despite the official rebuke, many Britons "thought him a hero for saving the rule of British law in India..

 Subhas Chandra Bose was going to Cambridge when he heard the news. He was always in favour of armed struggle to make India free. His father Janaki Nath Bose renounced the "title Roychoudhury" given to him by the British.
Two committees were formed to enquire about the incident, 1. By the Govt. and 2 . by the Congress.
All India Congress Committee in a meeting held at Banaras on 30 th May 1920 took several resolution ;

Reaction of Gandhiji to Jallianwalla Bagh

The Jallianwala Bagh massacre (April 13, 1919) proved to be a key turning point in Gandhi’s life. He was not in any way personally, directly involved in the events leading up to the massacre. But the massacre – or rather the British reaction to the massacre – convinced Gandhi that new tactics would be needed to obtain social justice in India: in effect, Gandhi concluded that his social aims could never be obtained without self-government for India. 

Up until the massacre at Amritsar, Gandhi had been trying to work with the British administration to alleviate the suffering of India’s rural peasants under oppressive landlords and faced with excessive taxes, and had succeeded in gaining some cooperation toward that end. He had also continued to try to negotiate with Viceroy Chelmsford to reconsider the Rowlatt Bills (the “Black Bills”) which extended martial law and therefore suspended rights to freedom from arrest and imprisonment without charge. 

Gandhi consistently preached non-violence to his followers. But at that time few Indians understood and accepted Gandhi’s non-violent philosophy. Civil disturbances, including both peaceful protests and violent riots, were becoming frequent in many parts of India. In Amritsar itself, the Jallianwala Bagh massacre was not an isolated incident, but rather was part of a chain of disturbances (some of them very violent) in the area, that had led to the British authorities temporarily losing control of the city to rioters. 

When Gandhi learned about the massacre (it took many weeks for the whole story to emerge), his initial reaction was criticize not only the British for the massacre itself, but also the Indians for the mob rampage (including the murders and assaults on British residents) that followed. This was consistent with Gandhi’s insistence that ALL violence is evil, no matter the provocation. 

But, when the British authorities in India praised General Dyer’s behavior in Amritsar instead of condemning it, Gandhi concluded that India’s only hope of social justice lay in achieving full self-government.