‘The Onion Thief’

Champaran being in a far away corner of India, and the press having been kept out of the campaign, it did not attract visitors from outside. Not so with the Kheda campaign, of which the happenings were reported in the press from day to day.

Champaran was in a remote corner of India, and the press had been kept out of the campaign. As a result, the campaign did not attract visitors from outside. The Kheda campaign was different. The press reported its developments day by day.

The Gujaratis were deeply interested in the fight which was for them a novel experiment. They were ready to pour forth their riches for the success of the cause. It was not easy for them to see that Satyagraha could not be conducted simply by means of money. Money is the thing that it least needs.

The Gujaratis were deeply interested in the fight, which was a new experiment for them. They were ready to give generously to help the cause succeed. They found it hard to see that Satyagraha could not be carried out with money alone. Money is what it needs least.

In spite of my remonstrance, the Bombay merchants sent us more money than necessary, so that we had some balance left at the end of the campaign.

Despite my objections, the Bombay merchants sent us more money than we needed. So we had some money left at the end of the campaign.

At the same time the Satyagrahi volunteers had to learn the new lesson of simplicity. I cannot say that they imbibed it fully, but they considerably changed their ways of life.

At the same time, the Satyagrahi volunteers had to learn a new lesson in simplicity. I cannot say they fully learned it, but they changed their way of life considerably.

For the Patidar farmers, too, the fight was quite a new thing. We had, therefore, to go about from village to village explaining the principles of Satyagraha.

The struggle was also new to the Patidar farmers. So we had to travel from village to village, explaining the principles of Satyagraha.

The main thing was to rid the agriculturists of their fear by making them realise that the officials were not the masters, but the servants of the people, inasmuch as they received their salaries from the taxpayer. And then it seemed well nigh impossible to make them realise the duty of combining civility with fearlessness. Once they had shed the fear of the officials, how could they be stopped from returning their insults? And yet if they resorted to incivility it would spoil their Satyagraha, like a drop of arsenic in milk. I realised later that they had less fully learnt the lesson of civility than I had expected. Experience has taught me that civility is the most difficult part of Satyagraha. Civility does not here mean the mere outward gentleness of speech cultivated for the occasion, but an inborn gentleness and desire to do the opponent good. These should show themselves in every act of a Satyagrahi.

The main thing was to free the farmers from their fear. They needed to realize that officials were not their masters, but servants of the people. After all, officials received their salaries from taxpayers. It then seemed almost impossible to make the farmers understand their duty to be both civil and fearless. Once they had lost their fear of officials, how could they be stopped from insulting the officials in return? Yet if they were uncivil, it would spoil their Satyagraha, like a drop of arsenic in milk. I later realized that they had not learned the lesson of civility as fully as I had expected. Experience has taught me that civility is the most difficult part of Satyagraha. Civility here does not mean merely speaking gently for the occasion. It means an inborn gentleness and a desire to do good to one’s opponent. These qualities should show in every act of a Satyagrahi.

In the initial stages, though the people exhibited much courage, the Government did not seem to be inclined to take strong action. But as the people’s firmness showed no signs of wavering, the Government began coercion. The attachment officers sold people’s cattle and seized whatever moveables they could lay hands on. Penalty notices were served, and in some cases standing crops were attached. This unnerved the peasants, some of whom paid up their dues, while others desired to place safe moveables in the way of the officials so that they might attach them to realise the dues. On the other hand some were prepared to fight to the bitter end.

At first, though the people showed great courage, the Government did not seem inclined to take strong action. But as the people remained firm, the Government began to use force. Officials seized and sold people’s cattle and took whatever movable property they could find. Penalty notices were issued, and in some cases crops still in the fields were seized. This frightened the peasants. Some paid what they owed. Others wanted to leave movable property where officials could easily find and seize it to recover the money owed. On the other hand, some were prepared to fight to the bitter end.

While these things were going on, one of Sjt. Shankarlal Parikh’s tenants paid up the assessment in respect of his land. This created a sensation. Sjt. Shankarlal Parikh immediately made amends for his tenant’s mistake by giving away for charitable purposes the land for which the assessment had been paid. He thus saved his honour and set a good example to others.

While these events were unfolding, one of Sjt. Shankarlal Parikh’s tenants paid the land assessment. This caused a sensation. Sjt. Shankarlal Parikh immediately made up for his tenant’s mistake by giving the land to charity. He thus saved his honour and set a good example for others.

With a view to steeling the hearts of those who were frightened, I advised the people, under the leadership of Sjt. Mohanlal Pandya, to remove the crop of onion from a field which had been, in my opinion, wrongly attached. I did not regard this as civil disobedience, but even if it was, I suggested that this attachment of standing crops, though it might be in accordance with law, was morally wrong, and was nothing short of looting, and that therefore it was the people’s duty to remove the onion in spite of the order of attachment. This was a good opportunity for the people to learn a lesson in courting fines or imprisonment, which was the necessary consequence of such disobedience. For Sjt. Mohanlal Pandya it was a thing after his heart. He did not like the campaign to end without some one undergoing suffering in the shape of imprisonment for something done consistently with the principles of Satyagraha. So he volunteered to remove the onion crop from the field, and in this seven or eight friends joined him.

To strengthen the resolve of those who were frightened, I advised the people to remove the onion crop from a field. They were to act under the leadership of Sjt. Mohanlal Pandya. In my opinion, the field had been wrongly seized. I did not consider removing the crop an act of civil disobedience. But even if it was, I suggested that seizing crops still in the field was morally wrong, though it might be legal. It was nothing less than looting. Therefore, I said, it was the people’s duty to remove the onions despite the seizure order. This was a good opportunity for the people to learn to accept fines or imprisonment. These were the necessary consequences of such disobedience. The idea appealed to Sjt. Mohanlal Pandya. He did not want the campaign to end without someone going to prison for an act consistent with the principles of Satyagraha. So he volunteered to remove the onion crop from the field, and seven or eight friends joined him.

It was impossible for the Government to leave them free. The arrest of Sjt. Mohanlal and his companions added to the people’s enthusiasm. When the fear of jail disappears, repression puts heart into the people. Crowds of them besieged the court-house on the day of the hearing. Pandya and his companions were convicted and sentenced to a brief term of imprisonment. I was of opinion that the conviction was wrong, because the act of removing the onion crop could not come under the definition of ‘theft’ in the Penal Code. But no appeal was filed as the policy was to avoid the law courts.

The Government could not leave them free. The arrest of Sjt. Mohanlal and his companions made the people even more enthusiastic. When people no longer fear jail, repression gives them courage. On the day of the hearing, crowds surrounded the courthouse. Pandya and his companions were convicted and sentenced to a short time in prison. I believed the conviction was wrong because removing the onion crop did not meet the Penal Code’s definition of ‘theft’. But no appeal was filed because the policy was to avoid the courts.

A procession escorted the ‘convicts’ to jail, and on that day Sjt. Mohanlal Pandya earned from the people the honoured title of ‘dungli chor’ (onion thief) which he enjoys to this day.

A procession escorted the ‘convicts’ to jail. That day, the people gave Sjt. Mohanlal Pandya the honored title of ‘dungli chor’ (onion thief), which he still enjoys.

The conclusion of the Kheda Satyagraha I will leave to the next chapter.

I will leave the conclusion of the Kheda Satyagraha for the next chapter.