PART ONE

§ 1

Dark, tranquil eyes. A small frail man, a thin face with large protruding ears. His head covered with a little white cap, his body clothed in coarse white cloth, barefooted. He lives on rice and fruit and drinks only water. He sleeps on the floor--sleeps very little, and works incessantly. His body does not seem to count at all. There is nothing striking about him, at first, except his expression of "great patience and great love." W. W. Pearson, who met him in South Africa in 1918, instinctively thought of St. Francis of Assisi. There is an almost childlike simplicity about him.[1] His manner is gentle and courteous even when dealing with adversaries,[2] and he is of immaculate sincerity.[3] He is modest and unassuming, to the point of sometimes seeming almost timid, hesitant, in making an assertion. Yet you feel his indomitable spirit. He makes no compromises and never tries to hide a mistake. Nor is he afraid to admit having been in the wrong. Diplomacy is unknown to him; he shuns oratorical effect or, rather, never thinks about it; and he shrinks unconsciously from the great popular demonstrations organized in his honor. Literally "ill with the multitude that adores him,"[4] he distrusts majorities and fears "mobocracy" and the unbridled passions of the populace. He feels at ease only in a minority, and is happiest when, in meditative solitude, he can listen to the "still small voice" within.[5]

This is the man who has stirred three hundred million people to revolt, who has shaken the foundations of the British Empire, and who has introduced into human politics the strongest religious impetus of the last two thousand years.

§ 2

His real name is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. He was born in a little semi-independent state in the northwestern part of India, at Porbandar, the "White City" on the sea of Oman, October 2, 1868. He comes of an ardent and active race, which to this day has been split by civil strife; a practical race, commercially keen, which established trade relations all the way from Aden to Zanzibar. Gandhi's father and grandfather were both leaders of the people and met with persecution because of their independent spirit. Both were forced to flee for safety, their lives in peril. Gandhi's family was well-to-do and belonged to a cultivated class of society, but it was not of superior caste. His parents were followers of the Jaïn school of Hinduism, which regards _ahimsa_,[6] the doctrine of non-injury to any form of life, as one of its basic principles. This was the doctrine which Gandhi was to proclaim victoriously throughout the world. The Jaïnists believe that the principle of love, not intelligence, is the road which leads to God. The Mahatma's father cared little for wealth and material values, and left scarcely any to his family, having given almost everything away to charity. Gandhi's mother was a very devout woman, a sort of Hindu St. Elisabeth, fasting, giving alms to the poor, and nursing the sick. In Gandhi's family the Ramayana was read regularly. His first teacher was a Brahman who taught him to memorize the texts of Vishnu.[7] In later years Gandhi expressed regret at not being a better Sanskrit scholar, and one of his grievances against English education in India is that it makes the natives lose the treasures of their own language. Gandhi became, however, a profound student of Hindu scriptures, although he read the Vedas and the Upanishads in translation only.[8]

While still a boy he passed through a severe religious crisis. Shocked at the idolatrous form sometimes assumed by Hinduism, he became, or imagined he became, an atheist, and to prove that religion meant nothing to him he and some friends went so far as to eat meat, a frightful sacrilege for a Hindu. And Gandhi nearly perished with disgust and mortification.[9] He was engaged at the age of eight and married at the age of twelve.[10] At nineteen he was sent to England to complete his studies at the University of London and at the law school. Before his leaving India, his mother made him take the three vows of Jaïn, which prescribe abstention from wine, meat, and sexual intercourse.

He arrived in London in September, 1888, and after the first few months of uncertainty and deception, during which, as he says, he "wasted a lot of time and money trying to become an Englishman," he buckled down to hard work and led a strictly regulated life. Some friends gave him a copy of the Bible, but the time to understand it had not yet come. But it was during his stay in London that he realized for the first time the beauty of the Bhagavad Gitâ. He was carried away by it. It was the light the exiled Hindu had been seeking, and it gave him back his faith. He realized that for him salvation could lie only in Hinduism.[11]

He returned to India in 1891, a rather sad home-coming, for his mother had just died, and the news of her death had been withheld from him. Soon afterward he began practicing law at the Supreme Court of Bombay. He abandoned this career a few years later, having come to look upon it as immoral. But even while practicing law he used to make a point of reserving the right to abandon a case if he had reason to believe it unjust.

At this stage of his career he met various people who stirred in him a presentiment as to his future mission in life. He was influenced by two men in particular. One of them was the "Uncrowned King of Bombay," the Parsi Dadabhai, and the other Professor Gokhale. Gokhale was one of the leading statesmen in India and one of the first to introduce educational reforms, while Dadabhai, according to Gandhi, was the real founder of the Indian nationalist movement. Both men combined the highest wisdom and learning with the utmost simplicity and gentleness.[12] It was Dadabhai who, in trying to moderate Gandhi's youthful ardor, gave him, in 1892, his first real lesson in _ahimsa_ by teaching him to apply heroic passivity--if two such words may be linked--to public life by fighting evil, not by evil, but by love. A little later we will discuss this magic word of _ahimsa_, the sublime message of India to the world.

§ 3

Gandhi's activity may be divided into two periods. From 1898 to 1914 its field was South Africa; from 1914 to 1922, India.

That Gandhi could carry on the South-African campaign for more than twenty years without awakening any special comment in Europe is a proof of the incredible short-sightedness of our political leaders, historians, thinkers, and believers, for Gandhi's efforts constituted a soul's epopee, unequaled in our times, not only because of the intensity and the constancy of the sacrifice required, but because of the final triumph.

In 1890-91 some 150,000 Indian emigrants were settled in South Africa, most of them having taken up abode in Natal. The white population resented their presence, and the Government encouraged the xenophobia of the whites by a series of oppressive measures designed to prevent the immigration of Asiatics and to oblige those already settled in Africa to leave. Through systematic persecution the life of the Indians in Africa was made intolerable; they were burdened with overwhelming taxes and subjected to the most humiliating police ordinances and outrages of all sorts, ranging from the looting and destruction of shops and property to lynching, all under cover of "white" civilization.

In 1893 Gandhi was called to Pretoria on an important case. He was not familiar with the situation in South Africa, but from the very first he met with illuminating experiences. Gandhi, a Hindu of high race, who had always been received with the greatest courtesy in England and Europe, and who until then had looked upon the whites as his natural friends, suddenly found himself the butt of the vilest affronts. In Natal, and particularly in Dutch Transvaal, he was thrown out of hotels and trains, insulted, beaten, and kicked. He would have returned to India at once if he had not been bound by contract to remain a year in South Africa. During these twelve months he learned the art of self-control, but all the time he longed for his contract to expire, so that he might return to India. But when at last he was about to leave, he learned that the South-African Government was planning to pass a bill depriving the Indians of the franchise. The Indians in Africa were helpless, unable to defend themselves; they were completely unorganized and demoralized. They had no leader, no one to guide them. Gandhi felt that it was his duty to defend them. He realized it would be wrong to leave. The cause of the disinherited Indians became his. He gave himself up to it, and remained in Africa.

Then began an epic struggle between spirit on one side and governmental power and brute force on the other. Gandhi was a lawyer at the time, and his first step was to prove the illegality of the Asiatic Exclusion Act from the point of view of law, and he won his case despite the most virulent opposition. In this connection he had huge petitions signed; he organized the Indian Congress at Natal, and formed an association for Indian education. A little later he founded a paper, "Indian Opinion," published in English and three Indian languages. Finally, in order to work more efficaciously for his compatriots in Africa, he decided to become one of them. He had a lucrative clientele in Johannesburg (Gokhale says Gandhi was making at that time about five or six thousand pounds a year). He gave it up to espouse poverty, like St. Francis. He abandoned all ties in order to live the life of the persecuted Indians, to share their trials. And he ennobled them thereby, for he taught them the doctrine of non-resistance. In 1904 he founded at Phoenix, near Durban, an agricultural colony along Tolstoian lines.[13] He called upon his compatriots, gave them land, and made them take the solemn oath of poverty. He took upon himself the humblest tasks.

For years the silent colony resisted the Government. It withdrew from the cities, gradually paralyzing the industrial life of the country, carrying on a sort of religious strike against which violence--all violence--was powerless, just as the violence of imperial Rome was powerless against the faith of the first Christians. Yet very few of these early Christians would have carried the doctrine of love and forgiveness so far as to help their persecutors when in danger, as Gandhi did. Whenever the South-African state was in serious difficulties Gandhi suspended the non-participation of the Indian population in public services and offered his assistance. In 1899, during the Boer War, he organized an Indian Red Cross, which was twice cited for bravery under fire. When the plague broke out in Johannesburg in 1904, Gandhi organized a hospital. In 1908 the natives in Natal revolted. Gandhi organized and served at the head of a corps of _brancardiers_, and the Government of Natal tendered him public thanks.

But these disinterested services did not disarm the hatred of the whites. Gandhi was frequently arrested and imprisoned,[14] and shortly after official thanks had been proffered for his services during the war he was sentenced to imprisonment and hard labor, after being beaten by the mob and left behind as dead.[15] But no abuse, no persecution, could make Gandhi renounce his ideal. On the contrary, his faith in it grew stronger for his trials. His only reply to the violence meted out to him in South Africa was the famous little book, "Hind Swaraj,"[16] published in 1908. This pamphlet on Indian home rule is the gospel of heroic love.

For twenty years the struggle lasted, reaching its bitterest phase from 1907 to 1914. Although the most intelligent and broad-minded Englishmen in Africa were opposed to it, in 1906 the South-African Government hastily passed a new Asiatic law. This led Gandhi to organize non-resistance on a large scale.

In September, 1906, a huge demonstration took place at Johannesburg, and the assembled Indians solemnly took the oath of passive resistance. The Chinese in Africa joined the Hindus; and Asiatics of all races, religions, and castes, rich and poor alike, brought the same enthusiasm and abnegation to the cause. The Asiatics were thrown into prison by the thousand, and as the jails were not large enough, they were hurled into the mine-pits. But it was as if the prisons fascinated these people whom General Smuts, their persecutor, called "conscientious objectors." Three times Gandhi was thrown into jail,[17] while others died as martyrs. The movement grew. In 1918 it spread from the Transvaal to Natal. Huge strikes and monster meetings, masses of Hindus marching across Transvaal, alarmed and excited public opinion in Africa and Asia. All India was stirred to indignation, and the viceroy, Lord Hardinge, driven by public opinion, finally lodged a protest against the Government of South Africa.

The indomitable tenacity and the magic of the "Great Soul" operated and won out: force had to bow down before heroic gentleness.[18] The man most bitterly opposed to the Indians, General Smuts, who in 1909 had said he would never erase from the statutes a measure prejudicial to the Indians, confessed, five years later, in 1914, that he was glad to do away with it.[19] An imperial commission backed Gandhi up on almost every point. In 1914 an act abolished the three-pound poll-tax, while Natal was opened to all Indians desirous of settling there as free workers. After twenty years of sacrifice non-resistance was triumphant.

§ 4

When Gandhi returned to India he had the prestige of a leader.

Since the beginning of the century the movement for Indian independence had been steadily gaining ground, Thirty years before, a few broadminded Englishmen, among whom were A. O. Hume and Sir William Wedderburn, had organized a National Indian Congress. Victorian Liberals, they had given the Congress a loyalist stamp and had tried to consolidate India's claims with the demands of England's sovereignty. In the meantime, however, Japan's victory over Russia had awakened the pride of Asiatic peoples, and Indian patriots resented Lord Curzon's provocative attitude. An extremist party was formed in the heart of the Congress, and its more aggressive nationalism corresponded to a general sentiment throughout the country. Until the war of 1914, however, the old constitutional part remained under the leadership of G. K. Gokhale, who was a great Indian patriot, although he believed in loyalty to England.

Although the Indian Congress, reflecting general sentiment, was in favor of home rule, or _Swaraj_, the various members disagreed as to the form this home rule should take. Some members believed in cooperation with England; others wanted to drive the English out of India. Some advocated the dominion system, as in Canada, while others asserted that India should aspire to become an independent nation like Japan. Gandhi proposed a solution. It was religious rather than political, but at bottom it was more radical than any of the others. The principles are to be found in his "Hind Swaraj." But as this solution was based on conditions in South Africa, Gandhi realized it would have to be modified to suit conditions in India. He also realized that while his stay in South Africa had made him unfamiliar with conditions in India, it had proved what an irresistible weapon _ahimsa_, non-violence, could be. And he determined, therefore, to study conditions in India in order to adapt the weapon of _ahimsa_ to them.[20]

At this time Gandhi felt no antagonism for England. On the contrary, when the war broke out in 1914, he went to London to organize an Indian ambulance corps. As he explained in a letter written in 1921, he honestly believed himself a citizen of the empire. He refers to his attitude again and again, as in his letter addressed to "Every Englishman in India," published in 1920. No Englishman, he says, served the Government more faithfully than he during twenty-nine years of public life. He risked his life four times for England, and until 1919 he sincerely believed in cooperating with the Government. But now he can do so no longer.

Gandhi was not the only one to experience this change of feeling. In 1914 all India had been carried away by the hypocritical idealism of the so-called "war for justice." In asking for India's support the English Government had held out the most brilliant hopes. The granting of home rule, which the people longed for, was said to depend on India's attitude in the war. In August, 1917, the clever Indian secretary, E. S. Montagu, promised India a government responsible to the people. A consultation took place, and in July, 1918, the viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, and Mr. Montagu signed an official report recommending constitutional reform in India. The Allied armies were in a most precarious position in the early days of 1918. On April 2 Lloyd George had sent an appeal to the people of India, while the war conference, sitting at Delhi in the end of the same month, had hinted that the hour of India's independence was near. And India had replied as one man while Gandhi promised England his loyal backing. India contributed 985,000 men and made tremendous sacrifices. And she waited confidently for the promised reward.

The awakening was terrible. Danger was over in the end of 1918, and gone was the memory of services rendered. After the signing of the armistice the Government saw no reason for feigning any longer. Instead of granting the promised liberties, it suspended whatever freedom already existed. The Rowlatt bills, proposed at the Imperial Legislative Council at Delhi, expressed an insulting distrust of the country which had given so many proofs of its loyalty. These bills aimed to establish definitively the provisions of the Defense Act imposed on India dining the war, and made secret police services, censorship, and all the tyrannical annoyances of a real state of siege into a permanent reality. There was one burst of indignation all over India. The revolt began.[21] Gandhi led it.

Hitherto Gandhi had been interested in social reforms only, devoting himself particularly to the conditions of agricultural workers. At Kaira, in the Gujarat, and at Champaran, in Behar, he had almost unnoticeably and with success tried out the formidable weapon which he was soon to use in national struggles. This weapon was the will of active passionate non-resistance. We will study it later under the name of _Satyagraha_, which Gandhi has given it.

Until 1919, however, Gandhi did not participate actively in the Indian nationalist movement. Having been united in 1916 by Mrs. Annie Besant, the most advanced elements soon outdistanced her and rallied under the leadership of the great Hindu, Lokamanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, a man of extraordinary energy, uniting, as in a triple sheaf of iron, a great mind, a strong will, and a high character. His intelligence was perhaps even keener than Gandhi's, or, rather, it was more solidly nourished on old Asiatic culture. He was an erudite, a mathematician, who had sacrificed all personal ambitions to serve his country. Like Gandhi, he sought no personal recognition and longed only for the triumph of his ideal in order to be able to retire from the political field and go back to his scientific work. As long as he lived he was the undisputed leader of India. Who can say what would have happened if he had not met with an untimely death in 1920? If Tilak had lived, Gandhi, who revered Tilak's genius, while differing radically from him in regard to methods and policies, would no doubt have remained religious leader of the movement. How magnificently the people of India could have marched on under such a double leadership! They would have been irresistible, for Tilak was a master of action, just as Gandhi is a master of spiritual power. But fate decided otherwise. It is, perhaps, to be regretted, not only for Tilak's sake, but for India's and even for Gandhi's. The rôle of minority leader, of leader of the moral élite, would have been more in accordance with Gandhi's inmost desires and nature. He would have been happy to let Tilak rule the majority, for Gandhi never had any faith in majorities. But Tilak had. Tilak, a born mathematician and master of action, believed in numbers. He was democratic instinctively. He was resolutely a politician, who left religious considerations aside. He claimed that politics were not for _sadhus_ (saints, pious men). This austere scientist would have sacrificed truth to patriotism. And this scrupulously honest and upright man, whose personal life was one of spotless purity, did not hesitate to say that in politics everything is justified. It might be said that Tilak's conception of politics and that of the dictators of Moscow have something in common. Not so with Gandhi's ideal.[22] Tilak's and Gandhi's discussions brought out their different points of view. Between men as sincere as they there is bound to be irreconcilable opposition, since their methods are based on their convictions, which are in fundamental opposition. Each man respected and revered the other. But Gandhi felt that if it came to the point he would always set truth first before liberty and even before his country, whereas Tilak set his country above everything. Gandhi feels that no matter how great his love for his country may be, his faith in his ideal, in religion as expressed in Truth, is greater still.

As he says on August 11,1920:

I am wedded to India because I believe absolutely that she has a mission for the world ... My religion has no geographical limits. I have a living faith in it which will transcend even my love for India herself.[23]

These noble words give the key to the struggle which we now will describe. They prove that the Apostle of India is the Apostle of the World, and that he is one of us. The battle the Mahatma began fighting four years ago is our battle.[24]

§ 5

It should be noted that when Gandhi stepped into the political field as leader of the opposition to the Rowlatt bills, he was moved only by a desire to spare the country from violence.[25] The revolt was bound to come; he knew there was no possibility of avoiding it. The point, therefore, was to turn it into non-violent channels.

To understand Gandhi's activity, it should be realized that his doctrine is like a huge edifice composed of two different floors or grades. Below is the solid groundwork, the basic foundation of religion. On this vast and unshakable foundation is based the political and social campaign. It is not the ideal continuation of the invisible foundation, but it is the best structure possible under present conditions. It is adapted to conditions.

In other words, Gandhi is religious by nature, and his doctrine is essentially religious. He is a political leader by necessity, because other leaders disappear, and the force of circumstances obliges him to pilot the ship through the storm and give practical political expression to his doctrine. These developments are interesting, but the essential part of the edifice is the crypt, which is deep and well built and meant to uphold a very different cathedral from the structure rapidly rising above it. The crypt alone is durable. The rest is temporary and only designed to serve during the transition years, until the plans for a cathedral worthy of the groundwork can be worked out. An understanding of the principles on which the vast subterranean crypt is based is essential, therefore, for here Gandhi's thought finds its real expression. It is into the depths of this crypt that he descends every day to seek inspiration and strength to carry on the work above.

Gandhi believes in the religion of his people, in Hinduism. But he is not a scholar, attached to the punctilious interpretation of texts, nor is he a blind believer accepting unquestioningly all the traditions of his religion. His religion must satisfy his reason and correspond to the dictates of his conscience.

I would not make a fetish of religion and condone evil in its sacred name.[26]

My belief in the Hindu scripture does not require me to accept every word and every verse as divinely inspired. I decline to be bound by any interpretation however learned it may be if it is repugnant to reason or moral sense.[27]

Nor does he look upon Hinduism as the only religion, and this is a very important point.

I do not believe in the exclusive divinity of the Vedas. I believe the Bible, the Koran and the Zend-Avesta to be as divinely inspired as the Vedas.... Hinduism is not a missionary religion. In it there is room for the worship of all the prophets in the world ... Hinduism tells every one to worship God according to his own faith or _Dharma_ and so it lives in peace with all religions.[28]

He sees the errors and vices that have crept into religion through the centuries, and he brands them, but he adds:

I can no more describe my feeling for Hinduism than for my own wife. She moves me as no other woman in the world can. Not that she has no faults; I dare say, she has many more than I see myself. But the feeling of an indissoluble bond is there. Even so I feel about Hinduism with all its faults and limitations. Nothing elates me so much as the music of the Gitâ or the Ramayana by Tulasidas, the only two books in Hinduism I may be said to know. I know that vice is going on to-day in all the great Hindu shrines but I love them in spite of their failings. I am a reformer through and through. But my zeal never takes me to the rejection of any of the essential things of Hinduism.[29]

What are the essential things in which Gandhi believes? In an article written October 6,1921, Gandhi defines his conception of Hinduism:

1. He believes, he says, in the "Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas and all that goes by the name of Hindu scriptures." He believes, therefore, in _Avataras_ and rebirth.

2. He believes in the _Varnashrama Dharma_[30] or the "Discipline of the Castes," in a sense which he considers "strictly Vedic," but which may not correspond to the present "popular and crude sense."

3. He believes in the "protection of the cow in a much larger sense than the popular."

4. He does not "disbelieve in idol worship."

Every Occidental who reads Gandhi's "Credo" and stops at these lines is apt to feel that they reveal a mentality so different from ours and so far removed in time and space as to make comparison with our ideals impossible, owing to the lack of a common measure. But if he will read on, he will find, a few lines below, the following words, which express a doctrine more familiar to us:

I believe implicitly in the Hindu aphorism that no one truly knows the _Shastras_ who has not attained perfection in Innocence [_Ahimsa_], Truth [_Satya_], and Self-Control [_Brahma-Charya_] and who has not renounced all acquisition or possession of wealth.

Here the words of the Hindu join those of the Gospel. And Gandhi was aware of their similarity. To an English clergyman who asked him in 1920 which books had influenced him most, Gandhi replied, "The New Testament."[31]

The last words of Gandhi's "Ethical Religion" are a quotation from the New Testament,[32] and he claims that the revelation of passive resistance came to him after reading the Sermon on the Mount in 1893.[33] When the clergyman asked him, in surprise, if he had not found the same message in Hindu scriptures, Gandhi replied that while he has found inspiration and guidance in the Bhagavad Gitâ, which he reveres and admires, the secret of passive resistance was made clear to him through the New Testament. A great joy welled up in him, he says, when the revelation came to him, and again when the Gitâ confirmed this revelation.[34] Gandhi also says that Tolstoi's ideal, that the kingdom of God is within us, helped him mold his own faith into a real doctrine.[35]

It should not be forgotten that this Asiatic believer has translated Ruskin[36] and Plato[37] and quotes Thoreau, admires Mazzini, reads Edward Carpenter, and that he is, in short, familiar with the best that Europe and America have produced.

There is no reason why a Westerner should not understand Gandhi's doctrine as well as Gandhi understands those of our great men, provided the Westerner will take the trouble to study Gandhi a little deeply. It is true that the mere words of Gandhi's creed may surprise him, and that two paragraphs, in fact, if read superficially, may seem so different from our mentality as to form an almost insurmountable barrier between the religious ideals of Asia and Europe. One of these paragraphs refers to cow-protection and the other to the caste system. As for Gandhi's reference to idol-worship, it requires no special study. Gandhi explains his attitude when he says that he has no veneration for idols but believes idol-worship to be part of human nature. He considers it inherent to the frailty of the human mind, because we all "hanker after symbolism" and must needs materialize our faith in order really to understand it. When Gandhi says he does not disbelieve in idol-worship, he means no more than what we countenance in all our ritualistic churches of the West.

"Cow-protection," says Gandhi, is the central fact of Hinduism. He looks upon it as one of the "most wonderful phenomena of human evolution." Why? Because the cow, to him, is taken as the symbol of the entire "sub-human world." Cow-protection means that man concludes a pact of alliance with his dumb brethren; it signifies fraternity between man and beast. According to Gandhi's beautiful expression, by learning to respect, revere, an animal, man is "taken beyond his species and is enjoined to realize his identity with all that lives."

If the cow was selected in preference to other creatures it was because in India the cow was the best companion, the giver of plenty. Not only did she give the milk but she made agriculture possible. And Gandhi sees in "this gentle animal" a "poem of pity."

But there is nothing idolatrous about Gandhi's cow-worship, and no one condemns more harshly than he the fetishism of many so-called believers, who observe the letter of "cow-worship" without exercising a spirit of compassion "for the dumb creatures of God." Whoever understands the spirit of compassion and fellow-feeling that Gandhi would have men feel for their dumb brethren,--and who would have understood this better than the _poverello_ Assisi?--is not surprised that Gandhi lays such stress on cow-protection in his creed. From this point of view he is quite justified in saying that cow-protection is the "gift of Hinduism to the world." To the precept of the gospel, "Love thy neighbor as thyself," Gandhi adds, "And every living being is thy neighbor."[38]

Gandhi's belief in the caste system is almost more difficult for a European or Western mind to understand--it seems more foreign, almost, than the idea of the fellowship of all living beings. I should perhaps say "European or Western mind of to-day," for while we still believe in a certain equality, Heaven knows how we will feel in the future, when we become thoroughly imbued with the consequences of the evolution, democratic in name only, which we are undergoing! I do not imagine that at our present stage of development my explanation of Gandhi's views will make them seem acceptable as regards the caste system; nor am I anxious to have them seem so. But I would like to make it clear that Gandhi's conception of the caste system is different from what we usually mean by that term, since he does not base it on pride or vain notions of social superiority, but on duties.

I am inclined to think [he says] that the law of heredity is an eternal law, and that any attempt to alter it must lead to utter confusion ... _Varnashrama_ or the caste system, is inherent in human nature. Hinduism has simply reduced it to a science.

Gandhi believes in four classes or castes. The _Brahmans_, the intellectual and spiritual class; the the military and governmental class; the _Vaishyas_, the commercial, industrial class; and the _Shudras_, manual workers and laborers. This classification does not imply any superiority or inferiority. It simply stands for different vocations. "These classes define duties, they confer no privileges."[39]

It is against the genius of Hinduism to arrogate to oneself a higher status or assign others to a lower. All are born to serve God's creation, the _Brahman_ with his knowledge, the _Kshatriya_ with his power of protection, the _Vaishya_ with his commercial ability, the _Shudra_ with his bodily labor.

This does not mean that a _Brahman_ is absolved from bodily labor but it does mean that he is predominantly a man of knowledge and fittest by training and heredity to impart it to others. There is nothing again to prevent a _Shudra_ from acquiring all the knowledge he wishes. Only he will best serve with his body and need not envy others their special qualities for service. A _Brahman_ who claims superiority by right of knowledge falls and has no knowledge. Varnashrama is self-restraint and conservation of economy and energy....

Gandhi's caste system is based, therefore, on "abnegation and not on privileges." It should not be forgotten, moreover, that according to Hinduism reincarnation reestablishes a general equilibrium, as in the course of successive existences a _Brahman_ becomes a _Shudra_, and _vice versa._

The caste system, which deals with different classes of equal rank, bears no relation whatsoever to the attitude of Hindus to the "untouchables," or pariahs. We will study later on Gandhi's passionate appeals for the pariahs. His campaign in favor of the "suppressed classes" is one of the most appealing phases of his apostleship. Gandhi regards the pariah system as a blot on Hinduism; it is a vile deformation of the real doctrine, and he suffers intolerably by it.

I would rather be torn to pieces than disown my brothers of the suppressed classes.... I do not want to be reborn, but if I have to be reborn, I should be "untouchable" so that I may share their sorrows, sufferings and the affronts leveled at them in order that I may endeavor to free them from their miserable condition.

And he adopts a little "untouchable" girl and speaks with emotion of this charming little imp of seven who rules the household with her gay prattle.

§ 6

I have said enough to show Gandhi's great evangelical heart beating under his Hindu creed. Gandhi is a Tolstoi in a more gentle, appeased, and, if I dared, I would say, in a more Christian sense, for Tolstoi is not so much a Christian by nature as by force of will.

The resemblance between the two men is greatest, or perhaps Tolstoi's influence has been strongest, in their condemnation of European and Occidental civilization.

Ever since Rousseau our Western civilization has been attacked by the freest and broadest minds of Europe. When Asia began to wake to a realization of her own power and revolt against Western oppression, she had only to peer into Europe's own files to compile formidable records of the iniquity of her so-called civilized invaders. Gandhi did not fail to do so, and in his "Hind Swaraj" he cites a list of books, many of which were written by Englishmen, condemning European civilization. But the document to which there can be no rejoinder is that which Europe herself has traced in the lifeblood of races oppressed and despoiled in the name of lying principles and, above all, in the brazen revelation of Europe's lies, greed, and ferocity as unfolded during the last war, called the "War for Civilization." And in it Europe sank to such depths that in her insanity she even invited the peoples of Asia and Africa to contemplate her nudity. They saw her and judged her.

The last war has shown as nothing else has the Satanic[40] nature of the civilization that dominates Europe to-day. Every canon of public morality has been broken by the victors in the name of virtue. No lie has been considered too foul to be uttered. The motive behind every crime is not religious or spiritual but grossly material... Europe to-day is only nominally Christian. In reality it is worshipping Mammon.[41]

You will find sentiments such as these expressed again and again, during the last five years, both in India and Japan. Leaders too prudent to voice them openly show by their attitude that such is their inmost conviction. This is not the least disastrous result of the Pyrrhic victory of 1918.

Gandhi, however, had seen the real face of Western civilization long before 1914. It had revealed itself to him unmasked during his twenty years' campaign in South Africa, and in 1908, in his "Hind Swaraj," he calls modern civilization the "great vice."

Civilization, says Gandhi, is civilization in name only. In reality it corresponds to what ancient Hinduism called the dark ages. It has set material well-being up as the only goal of life. It scorns spiritual values. It maddens Europeans, leads them to worship money only, and prevents them from finding peace or cultivating the best within them. Civilization in the Western sense means hell for the weak and for the working classes. It saps the vitality of the race. But this Satanic civilization will destroy itself. Western civilization is India's real enemy, much more than the English, who, individually, are not bad, hut simply suffer from their civilization. Gandhi criticizes those of his compatriots who would want to drive out the English, to develop India themselves, and civilize her according to European standards. This, he says, would be like having the nature of a tiger without the tiger. India's aim should be to repudiate Western civilization.

In his arraignment of Western civilization Gandhi scores three categories of men particularly: magistrates, doctors, and teachers.

Gandhi's objection to teachers is quite comprehensible, since they have brought the Hindus up to scorn or neglect their own language and to disown their real aspirations; in fact, the teachers in India have inflicted a sort of national degradation on the schoolchildren in their charge. Besides, Western teachers appeal to the mind only; they neglect the education of the heart and of the character. Finally, they depreciate bodily labor, and to spread a purely literary education in a country where eighty per cent of the population is agricultural and ten per cent industrial is positively criminal.

The profession of magistrate is immoral. In India the courts are an instrument of British domination; they encourage dissensions among Indians, and in a general way they foster and increase misunderstanding and animosity. They stand for a fattening, lucrative exploitation of the worst instincts.

As for the medical profession, Gandhi admits he was attracted to it at first, but he soon realized it was not honorable. For Western medical science is concerned with giving relief to suffering bodies only. It does not strive to do away with the cause of suffering and disease, which, as a rule, is nothing but vice. In fact, Western medical science may almost be said to encourage vice by making it possible for a man to satisfy his passions and appetites at the least possible risk. It contributes, therefore, to demoralize people; it weakens their will-power by helping them to cure themselves with "black magic" prescriptions instead of forcing them to strengthen their character by disciplinary rules for body and soul.[42] In opposition to the false medical science of the West, which Gandhi has often criticized unfairly, he places preventive medical science. He has written a little pamphlet on the subject entitled "A Guide to Health," which is the fruit of twenty years' experience. It is a moral as well as a therapeutic treatise, for, according to Gandhi, "disease is the result of our thoughts as much as of our acts." He considers it a relatively simple matter to establish certain rules that will prevent disease. For all disease springs from the same origin, i. e., from neglect of the natural laws of health. The body is God's dwelling-place. It must be kept pure. There is truth in Gandhi's point of view, but he refuses a little too obstinately to recognize the efficacy of remedies that have really proved to be useful. His moral precepts are also extremely rigid.[43]

§ 7

But the nucleus of modern civilization, its heart, so to speak, is machinery. Age of iron! Heart of iron! The machine has become a monstrous idol. It must be done away with. Gandhi's most ardent desire is to see machinery wiped out of India. To a free India, heir to British machinery, he would prefer an India dependent on the British market. It would be better to buy materials manufactured in Manchester than to set up Manchester factories in India. An Indian Rockefeller would be no better than a European capitalist. Machinery is the great sin which enslaves nations, and money is a poison as much as sexual vice.

Indian progressives, however, imbued with modern ideas, ask what would become of India if she were to have no railroads, tramways, or industries? To this Gandhi asks if India did not exist before they were invented? For thousands of years India has resisted, alone, unshaken, the changing flood of empires. Everything else has passed. But thousands of years ago India learned the art of self-control and mastered the science of happiness. She has nothing to learn from other nations. She does not need the machinery of large cities. Her ancient prosperity was founded on the plow and the spinning-wheel, and on a knowledge of Hindu philosophy. India must go back to the sources of her ancient culture. Not all at once, of course, but gradually. And every one must help in the evolution.[44]

This is Gandhi's fundamental argument. It is a very important one, and demands discussion. For it stands for a denial of progress and, virtually, of Europe's scientific achievement.[45] This medieval conception is apt, therefore, to clash with the volcanic forward march of the human mind and incurs the risk of being blown to bits. But, first of all, it would perhaps be wiser to say, the "forward march of a certain _phase_ of the human mind," for if one may believe, as I believe, in the symphonic unity of the universal spirit, one must realize that it is made up of many different voices, each one singing its own part. Our youthful Occident carried away by its own score, does not realize sufficiently that it has not always led the song, nor that its own law of progress is subject to eclipses, backslidings, and recommencements; that the history of human civilization is really a history of human civilizations, and that while within the domain of each civilization a certain progress may be discernible, a progress irregular, chaotic, broken, and at times completely halted, it would be wrong to say that the predominance of one great civilization over another necessarily implies general human progress.

But without entering into a discussion as to the European dogma of progress and merely bearing in mind that this dogma, such as it is, conflicts with Gandhi's faith, we must realize that no conflict will weaken Gandhi's faith. To believe anything else would be to show a total ignorance of the workings of the Oriental mind. As Gobineau says: "Asiatics are much more obstinate than we, in every way. They will wait centuries, if necessary, for the fulfilment of their ideal, and when it rises triumphant after such a long slumber it does not seem to have aged or lost any of its vitality." Centuries mean nothing to a Hindu. Gandhi is prepared for the triumph of his cause within the year. But he is equally prepared for it within the course of several centuries. He does not force time. And if time makes haste slowly, he regulates his gait by its march.

If, therefore, in the course of his campaign Gandhi finds India insufficiently prepared to understand and practise the radical reforms he wishes to impose, he will adapt his doctrine to conditions. He will bide his time. That is why it is not astonishing to hear the irreconcilable enemy of machinery declare, in 1921:

I would not weep over the disappearance of machinery or consider this a calamity. But for the time being I have no designs on machinery as such.[46]

Or:

The law of complete Love is the Law of my being. But I am not preaching this final law through the political measures I advocate. I know that any such attempt is foredoomed to failure. To expect a whole mass of men and women to obey that law all at once is not to know its working.[47] I am not a visionary. I claim to be a practical idealist.[48]

Gandhi never asks men for more than they can give. But he asks for all that they can give. And this is much in a nation like India--a formidable nation, through its numerical power, its force of duration, and its abysmal soul. From the very first Gandhi and India have formed a pact; they understand each other without words. Gandhi knows what he can demand of India, and India is prepared to give whatever Gandhi may demand.

Between Gandhi and India there reigns, first of all, absolute agreement as to goal: _Swaraj_, home rule, for the nation.[49]

"I know," he says, "that _Swaraj_ is the object of the nation and not non-violence."

And he adds--words amazing on his lips, "I would rather see India freed by violence than enchained like a slave to her foreign oppressors."

But, he continues, correcting himself at once, this is an impossible supposition, for violence can never free India. _Swaraj_ can only be attained by soul-force. This is India's real weapon, the invincible weapon of love and truth. Gandhi expresses it by the term _Satyagraha_, which he defines as truth-force and love-force.[50] Gandhi's genius revealed itself when, by the preaching of this gospel, he revealed to his people their real nature and their hidden strength.

Gandhi used the word _Satyagraha_ in South Africa to explain the difference between his ideal and that of passive resistance. Particular stress must be laid on the difference between these two movements. Nothing is more false than to call Gandhi's campaign a movement of passive resistance. No one has a greater horror of passivity than this tireless fighter, who is one of the most heroic incarnations of a man who _resists._ The soul of his movement is active resistance--resistance which finds outlet, not in violence, but in the active force of love, faith and sacrifice. This threefold energy is expressed in the word _Satyagraha._

Let not the coward try to hide his cowardice under Gandhi's banner! Gandhi drives him out of the community. Better violence than cowardice!

Where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I advise violence....[51] I cultivate the quiet courage of dying without killing. But to him who has not this courage I advise that of killing and of being killed, rather than that of shamefully fleeing from danger. For he who runs away commits mental violence; he runs away because he has not the courage to be killed while he kills.[52]

I would risk violence a thousand times rather than emasculation of the race.[53] I would rather have India resort to arms to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless victim to her own dishonor.[54]

But I believe that non-violence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness more manly than punishment. Forgiveness adorns a soldier. Abstinence is forgiveness only when there is power to punish; it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature.... I do not believe India to be helpless. One hundred thousand Englishmen need not frighten three hundred million human beings.

Besides.

Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will. Non-violence does not mean meek submission to the will of the evil-doer but the putting of one's whole soul against the will of the tyrant. Working under this law of our being it is possible for a single individual to defy the whole might of an unjust empire and lay the foundation for that empire's fall or its regeneration.

But at the cost of what? Of _suffering_--the _great law._

Suffering is the mark of the human tribe. It is an eternal law.[55] The mother suffers so that her child may live. Life comes out of death. The condition of wheat growing is that the seed grain should perish. No country has ever risen without being purified through the fire of suffering.... It is impossible to do away with the law of suffering which is the one indispensable condition of our being. Progress is to be measured by the amount of suffering undergone ... the purer the suffering, the greater is the progress.[56]

Non-violence in its dynamic condition means conscious suffering.... I have ventured to place before India the ancient law of self-sacrifice, the law of suffering. The _Rishis_ who discovered the law of non-violence in the midst of violence were greater geniuses than Newton, greater warriors than Wellington. Having themselves known the use of arms they realized their uselessness and taught a weary world that salvation lay not through violence but through non-violence.... The religion of non-violence is not meant merely for the _Rishis_ and saints. It is meant for the common people as well. Non-violence is the law of our species as violence is the law of the brute. The dignity of man requires obedience to a higher law--to the strength of the spirit.... I want India to practise non-violence being conscious of her strength and power. I want India to recognize that she has a soul that cannot perish and that can rise triumphant above every physical weakness and defy the physical combination of a whole world.[57]

Exalted pride, his proud love of India, demands she should scorn violence as unworthy and be ready to sacrifice herself. Non-violence is her title of nobility. If she abandons it she falls. Gandhi cannot bear the thought.

If India made violence her creed I would not care to live in India. She would cease to evoke any pride in me. My patriotism is subservient to my religion. I cling to India like a child to its mother's breast because I feel that she gives me the spiritual nourishment I need. If she were to fail me, I would feel like an orphan, without hope of ever finding a guardian. Then the snow altitudes of the Himalayas must give what rest they can to my bleeding soul....[58]

§ 8

But Gandhi does not doubt India's endurance. In February, 1919, he decided to start the _Satyagraha_ movement, whose efficacy had already been tested during the agrarian revolt in 1918.

The campaign is not at all political, as yet: Gandhi is still a loyalist. And he remains one as long as he retains a grain of faith in England's loyalty. Until January, 1920, he advocated cooperation with the empire, even though the nationalists criticized him bitterly therefore.[59] Gandhi's arguments are inspired by his sincere conviction, and during the first year of his campaign against the Government he could truthfully assure Lord Hunter that he believed the disciples of _Satyagraha_ to be the most loyal supporters of the Constitution. Only the narrow-minded obstinacy of the Government forced India's moral guide finally to tear up the contract of loyalty by which he considered himself hound.

To begin with, therefore, the _Satyagraha_ campaign takes the form of constitutional opposition to the Government. It is a respectful appeal for certain urgent reforms. The Government is guilty of passing an unjust law. The _Satyagrahi_, who are law-abiding people, will disobey this law deliberately, because they consider it unjust. If their attitude does not convince the Government of the necessity of repealing the law, they will extend their disobedience to other laws, and eventually they may cease all cooperation with the Government. But how different is the meaning which India gives to this word from that which we in the West give to it! Such extraordinary religious heroism as is contained in it!

As the _Satyagrahi_ are not allowed to use violence in advancing their cause (the idea being that the adversary, too, is sincere, since what seems truth to one person may seem untruth to another, while violence never carries conviction),[60] they must rely solely on the love-force that radiates from their faith and on their willingness to accept suffering and sacrifice joyously, freely.[61] This constitutes irresistible propaganda. With it the cross of Christ and his little flock conquered the Roman Empire.

In order to emphasize the religious character of the people's willingness to sacrifice themselves for the eternal ideals of justice and liberty, the Mahatma inaugurated the movement by setting April 6, 1919,[62] aside as a day of prayers and fasting, by imposing a _hartal_ of all India.[63] This was the first step.

This first step went right to the heart of the people, stirred their inmost consciousness. For the first time all classes of India united in the same ideal. India found herself.

Order reigned everywhere. At Delhi only there were a few disturbances.[64] Gandhi set out to quiet them. But the Government had him arrested and sent him back to Bombay. The news of his arrest caused riots in Punjab; at Amritsar some houses were looted, and a few people were killed. In the night of April 11 General Dyer arrived with his troops and occupied the city. Order reigned everywhere. The fifteenth was a great Hindu feast-day. A meeting was to take place at an open space called Jallianwalla Bagh. The crowd was peaceful and numbered many women and children. The night before General Dyer had sent out an order forbidding public meetings, but no one had heard about it. The general, however, came to Jallianwalla Bagh with his machine-guns and without warning opened fire on the defenseless mass of people. The firing lasted about ten minutes, till the ammunition was used up. As the grounds were surrounded by high walls, no one could escape. From five to six hundred Hindus were killed, and a much larger number wounded. There was no one to care for the dead and wounded. As the result of the massacre, martial law was proclaimed, and a reign of terror spread over Punjab. Aëroplanes threw bombs on the unarmed crowds. The most honorable citizens were dragged to court, flogged, and forced to crawl on their knees, and subjected to the most shocking indignities. It was as if a wind of madness swept over the English rulers. It was as if the law of non-violence, proclaimed by India, stirred European violence to frenzy. Gandhi saw bloodshed and suffering were ahead. But he had not promised to lead his people to victory along a white road. He had warned them that the path would be washed with blood. Jallianwalla Bagh was only the beginning:

We must be prepared to contemplate with equanimity not a thousand murders of innocent men and women but many thousands before we attain a status in the world that shall not be surpassed by any nation.... We hope, therefore, that all concerned will take rather than lose heart and treat hanging as an ordinary affair of life.[65]

Owing to the rigorous military censorship, the news of the horrors of Punjab did not leak out for several months. But when it did leak out[66] a wave of indignation swept over India and alarmed even English opinion. An investigation was ordered, and Lord Hunter presided over the commission.

In the meantime, the National Indian Congress formed a subcommission to carry on investigations independently of the Government, but along the same lines. It was to the obvious interest of the Government, as all intelligent Englishmen realized, to punish those guilty of the massacre of Amritsar. Gandhi did not demand as much as that. In his admirable moderation he did not ask for the punishment of General Dyer and the guilty officers. While denouncing them, he felt no bitterness and sought no vengeance. One bears no ill will to a madman. But one must put him where he can do no damage. Gandhi, therefore, merely asked that General Dyer be recalled. But _quos vult perdere._... Before the results of the investigation could be published, the Government passed an indemnity act to protect official employees. Though Dyer was removed from his post, he was rewarded with money contributed from private sources.

While India was still in effervescence after the Punjab affair, a second conflict arose between the Government and the people, a more serious one this time, because it implied a flagrant violation of solemn promises. The Government's attitude shattered whatever confidence India still had in the good faith of the English rulers, and brought on the great revolt.

The European War had placed the Moslems of India in a very painful dilemma. They were torn between their duty as loyal citizens of the empire and faithful followers of their religious chief. They agreed to help England when she promised not to attack the sultan's or the caliph's sovereignty. It was the sense of Moslem opinion in India that the Turks should remain in Turkey in Europe and that the sultan should retain not only authority over the Holy Places of Islam, but over Arabia as delimited by Mohammedan scholars with the enclaves of Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine. This Lloyd George and the viceroy solemnly promised. When the war was over, however, all pledges were forgotten. And when the rumors of the peace terms to be imposed on Turkey began to circulate in 1919, the Moslems in India began to grow restless, and their discontent finally started the Khilafat or Califat movement.

It began October 17,1919 (Khilafat day), with an imposing peaceful demonstration, which was followed, about a month later (November 24), by the opening of an All-India Khilafat Conference at Delhi. Gandhi presided. With his quick glance he had realized that the Islamic agitation might be made into the instrument of Indian unity. The problem of uniting the various races in India was a most difficult one. The English had always taken advantage of the natural enmity between Hindus and Moslems; Gandhi even accuses them of having fostered it. At any rate, they had never tried to conciliate the two peoples, who challenged each other childishly. To annoy the Mohammedans, for instance, the Hindus used to make a point of singing when they passed the mosques where silence should reign, while the Mohammedans lost no opportunity of jeering the Hindus' cow-worship. Mutual ill will and persistent animosity reigned between the two races, who never associated with each other and were not allowed to intermarry or even eat in common. The English Government rested sweetly on the cushion of implicit trust in the impossibility of the two ever agreeing and adopting a common policy. When Gandhi's voice, therefore, proclaimed the identity of the Hindu and the Moslem cause, it awoke with a start. In an outburst of generosity, which happened to be sound politics, Gandhi urged the Hindus to do all in their power to advance Mohammedan claims.

Hindus, Parsees, Christians, or Jews, if we wish to live as one nation, the interest of any one of us must be the interest of all. The only deciding consideration can be the justice of a particular cause.

Mohammedan blood had already mixed with that of the Hindus in the tragic massacre of Amritsar. The two people now had to seal their alliance, an unconditional alliance. The Moslems were the most advanced and audacious element in India. And they were the first to announce, at this Khilafat Conference, that they would refuse to cooperate with the Government if their demands were not met. Gandhi approved of this measure, but in his innate horror of going to extremes he refused at the time to advocate the boycott of British goods, for he looked upon the boycott as an expression of weakness or thirst for vengeance. A second Khilafat Conference met at Amritsar in the end of December, 1919, and decided to send a deputation to Europe to inform the English Government and the Supreme Council of India's attitude. It also voted for the sending of an ultimatum to the viceroy, warning him of trouble if the peace terms should prove unsatisfactory. Finally a third conference, meeting in Bombay in February, 1920, issued a manifesto which, in its violent arraignment of Great Britain's policy, was a forerunner of the coming storm.

Gandhi realized the storm was brewing, and instead of trying to call it forth he did all in his power to break its violence.

It seemed as if England also realized the danger. By belated concessions she seemed to be making desperate efforts to avert the consequences of her former attitude. An Indian Reform Act based on the Montagu-Chelmsford report gave the people in India more influence in the Central Government as well as in local administrations. The king approved the act by a proclamation of December 24, 1919, in which he invited the people of India and the functionaries to cooperate with the Government in every way, while he also urged the viceroy to pardon political offenses and recommended a general amnesty. Gandhi, always ready to believe in the adversary's good faith, interpreted these measures as signifying a sort of tacit agreement to deal more justly with India, and he called upon the people to welcome the reforms. He confessed that they were insufficient, but he said they should be accepted as the starting-point for greater victories. He urged the conference to approve them unreservedly. After a heated debate the National Indian Congress adopted his view.

But soon it became evident that Gandhi's hopes were built on illusions. The viceroy did not heed the king's appeal for clemency, and instead of setting prisoners free, the doors of the jails opened only for executions. It became evident that the promised reforms would remain inoperative.

On top of this came the news of the peace conditions imposed on Turkey, May 14, 1920. In a message to the people the viceroy admitted they would prove disappointing, but he advised the Moslems to resign themselves to the inevitable.

Then came the publication of the official report on the Amritsar massacres. It was the last straw.

India's national consciousness was aroused. All ties were broken.

The Khilafat Committee, meeting at Bombay, May 28, 1920, passed a resolution adopting Gandhi's non-cooperation policy, and this resolution was ratified unanimously by the Moslem Conference of Allahabad, June 80, 1920.

Gandhi, in the meantime, wrote an open letter to the viceroy informing him that the movement of non-cooperation would begin. He explained why he had recourse to it, and his arguments are worth studying, for they prove that even then Gandhi was hoping to avoid a break with England. In the bottom of his heart he still hoped that the Government might be brought to mend its ways by purely legal methods:

The only course open to me is either in despair to sever all connection with British rule or, if I still retain faith in the inherent superiority of the British Constitution, to adopt such means as will rectify the wrong done and thus restore confidence. I have not lost faith in the superiority of the British Constitution and it is because I believe in it that I have advised my Moslem friends to withdraw their support from Your Excellency's Government, and advised the Hindus to join them.

And this noble citizen of the empire the blind pride of the empire spurned.

[Footnote 1: As C. F. Andrews says, "He laughs like a child and adores children."]

[Footnote 2: "Few can resist the charm of his personality. His bitterest enemies become courteous when confronted with his beautiful courtesy." (Joseph J. Doke.)]

[Footnote 3: "Every departure from truth, no matter how trifling, is intolerable to him." (C. F. Andrews.)]

[Footnote 4: "He is not a passionate orator; his manner is calm and serene and he appeals particularly to the intelligence. But his serenity places the subject he discusses in the clearest light. The inflexions of his voice are not varied but they are intensely sincere. He never makes any gestures with his arms, in fact he rarely even moves a finger. But his luminous words, expressed in terse, concise sentences, carry conviction. He never abandons a subject before he feels that he has made it perfectly clear." (Joseph J. Doke.)]

[Footnote 5: "Young India," March 2, 1922. The dates cited in the motes of this volume refer to the date of publication of Gandhi’s articles in "Young India."]

[Footnote 6: _A_, privative, _himsa_, to do evil. Hence, _ahimsa_, principle of not harming any form of life, nonviolence. It is one of Hinduism's most ancient precepts, proclaimed by Mahavira, the founder of Jaïnism, by Buddha, as well as by the disciples of Vishnu.]

[Footnote 7: He attended the elementary school of Porbandar till the age of seven and then the public school of Rajkot till ten. After that he went to the high school of Katyavar until, at the age of seventeen, he entered the University of Ahmedabad.]

[Footnote 8: He described his childhood in a speech at the Pariah Conference, April 13, 1921.]

[Footnote 9: Long afterward he told Joseph Doke of the anguish he had suffered after eating meat. He was unable to sleep; he felt like a murderer.]

[Footnote 10: He is not in favor of child marriages, however, and made a campaign against them, on the ground that they weaken the race. In exceptional cases, however, he says that such unions, sealed before the individual's character is molded, may build up between husband and wife an exceptionally beautiful relationship of sympathy and harmony. Gandhi's own wife is an admirable example of this. Mrs. Gandhi shared all her husband's trials and adversities with unfailing steadfastness of purpose and indomitable courage.]

[Footnote 11: Speech of April 13, 1921.]

[Footnote 12: These two men, precursors, have suffered from the ingratitude and forgetfulness of younger generations. Their political ideal having been surpassed, their efforts in paving the way have been deprecated. Gandhi, however, always realized their contribution to the cause and remained true to them, particularly to Gokhale, for whom he felt a deep and almost religious affection. He frequently speaks of Gokhale and Dadabhai as men whom Young India should venerate. (See "Hind Swaraj, Letter to the Parsecs, Young India," March 23, 1921, and the Confession of Faith, July 13, 1921.)]

[Footnote 13: A long letter from Tolstoi to Gandhi is published in the "Golden Number" of "Indian Opinion." It was written September 7, 1910, shortly before Tolstoi's death. Tolstoi had read "Indian Opinion," and he was gratified to hear of the Indian non-resisters. He praised their campaign and says that non-resistance is the law of love, an aspiration to form part of the communion of human souls. It is the law of Christ and of all the spiritual leaders of the world.

My friend Paul Biroukoff found several other letters from Tolstoi to Gandhi in the Tolstoi archives at Moscow. He is planning to publish them in a volume entitled "Tolstoi and the Orient," adding them to several other letters written by Tolstoi to various great men of the East.]

[Footnote 14: Gandhi himself tells in his quiet humorous way of his experiences in prison in a curious article printed in the volume, "Speeches and Writings of M. K. Gandhi," Natesan, Madras, pp. 152-178.]

[Footnote 15: In 1907 Gandhi was the victim of the violence of his own compatriots, for his moderation was eyed with suspicion by certain Indians, while, the Government, on the other hand, did all in its power to compromise him. Gandhi, therefore, suffered from the violence of the oppressed as well as of the oppressors.]

[Footnote 16: I will dwell on "Hind Swaraj" a little more at length, later on.]

[Footnote 17: Joseph J. Doke, interesting because of his interviews with Gandhi, tells in the last chapter of his book how, in 1908, Gandhi was led to the fort of Johannesburg in prison garb and thrown into a cell with Chinese common-law criminals of the worst sort.]

[Footnote 18: Two high-minded Englishmen, C. F. Andrews and W. W. Pearson, seconded Gandhi's efforts by all means within their power.]

[Footnote 19: Gandhi refers to this in an article dated May 12, 1920.]

[Footnote 20: Shortly before he died, Gokhale, Gandhi's beloved master, had suggested that Gandhi make a trip through India and study conditions at first hand, before going into politics. And Gandhi had promised not to take an active part in the political life of India for a year.]

[Footnote 21: The Satyagraha movement may be said to have begun February 28, 1919.]

[Footnote 22: Gandhi explained his attitude toward Bolshevism on November 24, 1921.]

[Footnote 23: August 11, 1920: Gandhi protests against the doctrine of the sword.]

[Footnote 24: "Humanity is one. There are different races, but the higher a race the greater its duties." ("Ethical Religion")]

[Footnote 25: November 5, 1919.]

[Footnote 26: October 27, 1920.]

[Footnote 27: October 6, 1921.]

[Footnote 28: All religions are like different roads leading to the same goal. ("Hind Swaraj.") "All religions are founded on the same moral laws. My ethical religion is made up of laws which bind men all over the world." ("Ethical Religion.")]

[Footnote 29: October 6, 1921.]

[Footnote 30: Etymologically, _varna_, color, class or caste; _ashrama_, place of discipline; _dharma_, religion. Society, in other words, stands for "discipline of the castes."]

[Footnote 31: February 25, 1920. In a second line Gandhi adds, "Ruskin and Tolstoi."]

[Footnote 32: "Seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you."]

[Footnote 33: "Young India," February 25, 1920.]

[Footnote 34: He says to Joseph J. Doke in 1908 that God has been incarnate throughout the ages, in different forms, because, as explained in the Gitâ, Krishna says: "When religion falls into decadence and unbelief prevails, I manifest myself. For the protection of all that is good, and the destruction of all that is evil, for the establishment of Dharma, I must be born and reborn, for ever and ever." Christianism is part of Gandhi's theology. Christ is a radiant revelation of God. But not the only revelation. He is not seated on the throne alone.]

[Footnote 35: The "Hind Swaraj" contains a list of about sixty of Tolstoi's works which Gandhi recommends to his followers, among them, "The Kingdom of God Is within You, What Is Art?" and "What Shall We Do?" He tells Joseph Doke that Tolstoi influenced him deeply, but that he does not agree with Tolstoi's political ideals. To a question asked him in 1921 as to his feeling for and opinion of Count Tolstoi, Gandhi replies (in "Young India" of October 25, 1921), "My relation to him was that of a devoted admirer who owes him much in life."]

[Footnote 36: He was particularly fond of Ruskin's "Crown of Wild Olives."]

[Footnote 37: "Apologia and Death of Socrates," translated by Gandhi, was one of the books confiscated by the Indian Government in 1919.]

[Footnote 38: In regard to cow-worship see "Young India," March 16, June 8, June 29, August 4, 1920, and May 18, October 6, 1921. In regard to castes see articles December 8, 1920, and October 6, 1921.]

[Footnote 39: This is in accordance with the Upanishads, for when the primitive classes hardened into proud castes, in the course of centuries, these Hindu scriptures express protest and disapproval.]

[Footnote 40: A term often used by Gandhi. "Untouchability is an invention of Satan." (June 19, 1921.)]

[Footnote 41: September 8, 1920.]

[Footnote 42: It should not be forgotten that one of Gandhi's main arguments against the medical science of Europe is its use of vivisection, which he brands as "man's blackest crime."]

[Footnote 43: Particularly in regard to sexual relations. Gandhi's doctrine resembles that of St. Paul in its rigorism.]

[Footnote 44: "Hind Swaraj."]

[Footnote 45: Although Gandhi does not approve of European science, he realizes the necessity of scientific achievement. He admires the disinterested zeal and the spirit of self-sacrifice of European men of science and frequently calls their abnegation greater than that of Hindu believers. But he disapproves the goal they are pursuing even though he admires their state of mind. There is an evident antagonism between Gandhi and European science. And in this connection we will see, later on, how Tagore protests against Gandhi's medievalism.]

[Footnote 46: January 19, 1921.]

[Footnote 47: March 9, 1920.]

[Footnote 48: August 11, 1920.]

[Footnote 49: Etymology: _Swa_, self; _raj_, government, autonomy. The word is as old as the Vedas, but it was adopted by Dadabhai, Gandhi's Parsee master, who made it part of the political vocabulary.]

[Footnote 50: Etymology: _Satya_, just right; _Agraha_, attempt, effort. Hence, _Satyagraha_, a just effort, in the sense of meaning non-acceptation of or resistance to injustice. Gandhi defines it, November 5, 1919, as meaning "holding on to truth, hence, truth-force." And he adds, "I have also defined it as love-force or soul-force."]

[Footnote 51: August 11, 1920.]

[Footnote 52: October 20, 1921.]

[Footnote 53: August 4, 1920.]

[Footnote 54: August 11, 1920. One of the rules of the _Satayagraha Ashram_, the school founded by Gandhi, is "absence of fear." The spirit must be freed from fear of kings, nations, castes, family, men, wild beasts, and death. It is also the fourth condition of non-violent resistance in the Hindra. The others are chastity, poverty, and truth.]

[Footnote 55: June 16, 1920.]

[Footnote 56: August 11, 1920.]

[Footnote 57: April 6, 1921.]

[Footnote 58: A few months before his imprisonment Gandhi replies to the criticisms as to "illogic" of his conduct. His critics jeer at the assistance he tendered England in South Africa and during the World War. Gandhi, in replying, does not try to evade the issue. He honestly believed, he says, that he was a citizen of the empire; it was not his business to judge the Government. He would consider it wrong for every man to look upon himself as justified in criticizing the Government. He had confidence in England's wisdom and loyalty as long as possible. The Government's aberration has destroyed his faith in it. Let the Government take the consequences! (November 17, 1921.)]

[Footnote 59: April 6, 1921.]

[Footnote 60: On the contrary, violence degrades the person who makes use of it. The Allies' violence made them like unto the Germans, whose acts they flayed, in the beginning of the war. (June 9, 1920.)]

[Footnote 61: The hardest fiber must melt in the fire of love. If it does not melt it is because the fire is not strong enough. (March 9, 1920.) Those joining the _Satyagraha_ movement had to promise to disobey the laws declared by the _Satyagraha_ committee to be unjust, to follow in the path of truth, and to abstain from all violence against the lives, persons, or property of their adversaries.]

[Footnote 62: March 23, 1919.]

[Footnote 63: This Hindustani word of Mohammedan origin means cessation of work.]

[Footnote 64: Delhi, incidentally, made a mistake in the date of the _hartal_ and celebrated it March 30.]

[Footnote 65: April 7, 1920.]

[Footnote 66: Gandhi, to quiet the effervescence instead of trying to exploit it as an ordinary revolutionary leader would have done, suspended the movement on April 18.]