Passion for Unity

The Kheda campaign was launched while the deadly War in Europe was still going on. Now a crisis had arrived, and the Viceroy had invited various leaders to a War Conference in Delhi. I had also been urged to attend the Conference. I have already referred to the cordial relations between Lord Chelmsford, the Viceroy, and myself.

The Kheda campaign began while the deadly war in Europe was still going on. A crisis had now arisen, and the Viceroy had invited various leaders to a War Conference in Delhi. I had also been urged to attend the conference. I have already mentioned the friendly relations between Lord Chelmsford, the Viceroy, and me.

In response to the invitation I went to Delhi. I had however objections to taking part in the Conference, the principal one being the exclusion from it of leaders like the Ali Brothers. They were then in jail. I had met them only once or twice, though I had heard much about them. Every one had spoken highly of their services and their courage. I had not then come in close touch with Hakim Saheb, but Principal Rudra and Dinabandhu Andrews had told me a deal in his praise. I had met Mr. Shuaib Qureshi and Mr. Khwaja at the Muslim League in Calcutta. I had also come in contact with Drs. Ansari and Abdur Rahman. I was seeking the friendship of good Musalmans, and was eager to understand the Musalman mind through contact with their purest and most patriotic representatives. I therefore never needed any pressure to go with them, wherever they took me, in order to get into intimate touch with them.

I went to Delhi in response to the invitation. But I had objections to taking part in the Conference. The main one was that leaders like the Ali Brothers had been excluded. They were in jail at the time. I had met them only once or twice, though I had heard much about them. Everyone had spoken highly of their service and courage. I had not yet come to know Hakim Saheb well, but Principal Rudra and Dinabandhu Andrews had praised him greatly. I had met Mr. Shuaib Qureshi and Mr. Khwaja at the Muslim League in Calcutta. I had also met Drs. Ansari and Abdur Rahman. I was seeking the friendship of good Muslims. I was eager to understand Muslim thought through contact with their purest and most patriotic representatives. So I never needed any pressure to go wherever they took me, in order to get to know them closely.

I had realised early enough in South Africa that there was no genuine friendship between the Hindus and the Musalmans. I never missed a single opportunity to remove obstacles in the way of unity. It was not in my nature to placate any one by adulation, or at the cost of self-respect. But my South African experiences had convinced me that it would be on the question of Hindu Muslim unity that my ahimsa would be put to its severest test, and that the question presented the widest field for my experiments in ahimsa. The conviction is still there. Every moment of my life I realise that God is putting me on my trial.

Early in my time in South Africa, I realized that there was no genuine friendship between Hindus and Muslims. I never missed an opportunity to remove obstacles to unity. It was not in my nature to flatter anyone to win them over, or to do so at the cost of my self-respect. But my experiences in South Africa had convinced me that Hindu Muslim unity would be the hardest test of my ahimsa. The question of unity also offered the widest field for my experiments in ahimsa. I remain convinced of this. At every moment of my life, I realize that God is putting me to the test.

Having such strong convictions on the question when I returned from South Africa, I prized the contact with the Brothers. But before closer touch could be established they were isolated. Maulana Mohamed Ali used to write long letters to me from Betul and Chhindwada whenever his jailers allowed him to do so. I applied for permission to visit the Brothers but to no purpose.

When I returned from South Africa, I had strong convictions on this question, so I valued my contact with the Brothers. But before we could become closer, the Brothers were isolated. Maulana Mohamed Ali used to write me long letters from Betul and Chhindwada whenever his jailers allowed him to. I applied for permission to visit the Brothers, but without success.

It was after the imprisonment of the Ali Brothers that I was invited by Muslim friends to attend the session of the Muslim League at Calcutta. Being requested to speak, I addressed them on the duty of the Muslims to secure the Brothers’ release. A little while after this I was taken by these friends to the Muslim College at Aligadh. There I invited the young men to be fakirs for the service of the motherland.

After the Ali Brothers were imprisoned, Muslim friends invited me to attend the Muslim League session in Calcutta. They asked me to speak, so I spoke about the Muslims’ duty to secure the Brothers’ release. A little later, these friends took me to the Muslim College at Aligadh. There, I urged the young men to become fakirs in service of the motherland.

Next I opened correspondence with the Government for the release of the Brothers. In that connection I studied the Brothers’ views and activities about the Khilafat. I had discussions with Musalman friends. I felt that if I would become a true friend of the Muslims, I must render all possible help in securing the release of the Brothers, and a just settlement of the Khilafat question. It was not for me to enter into the absolute merits of the question, provided there was nothing immoral in their demands. In matters of religion beliefs differ, and each one’s is supreme for himself. If all had the same belief about all matters of religion there would be only one religion in the world. As time progressed I found that the Muslim demand about the Khilafat was not only not against any ethical principle, but that the British Prime Minister had admitted the justice of the Muslim demand. I felt, therefore, bound to render what help I could in securing a due fulfilment of the Prime Minister’s pledge. The pledge had been given in such clear terms that the examination of the Muslim demand on the merits was needed only to satisfy my own conscience.

Next I began writing to the Government to seek the release of the Brothers. In connection with this, I studied their views and activities concerning the Khilafat. I discussed the matter with Muslim friends. I felt that if I wanted to become a true friend of the Muslims, I must give all possible help. I must help secure the Brothers’ release and a just settlement of the Khilafat question. It was not for me to judge the question solely on its merits, as long as their demands were not immoral. Religious beliefs differ, and each person’s belief is supreme for that person. If everyone held the same beliefs about all religious matters, there would be only one religion in the world. As time went on, I found that the Muslim demand concerning the Khilafat did not violate any ethical principle. I also found that the British Prime Minister had acknowledged that the demand was just. I therefore felt obliged to do what I could to secure proper fulfillment of the Prime Minister’s pledge. The pledge had been given in such clear terms that I needed to examine the Muslim demand on its merits only to satisfy my own conscience.

Friends and critics have criticised my attitude regarding the Khilafat question. In spite of the criticism I feel that I have no reason to revise it or to regret my cooperation with the Muslims. I should adopt the same attitude should a similar occasion arise.

Friends and critics have criticized my position on the Khilafat question. Despite their criticism, I see no reason to change my position or regret my cooperation with the Muslims. I would take the same position if a similar situation arose.

When, therefore, I went to Delhi, I had fully intended to submit the Muslim case to the Viceroy. The Khilafat question had not then assumed the shape it did subsequently.

So, when I went to Delhi, I fully intended to present the Muslim case to the Viceroy. The Khilafat question had not yet taken the form it would later.

But on my reaching Delhi another difficulty in the way of my attending the Conference arose. Dinabandhu Andrews raised a question about the morality of my participation in the War Conference. He told me of the controversy in the British press regarding secret treaties between England and Italy. How could I participate in the Conference, if England had entered into secret treaties with another European power, asked Mr. Andrews. I knew nothing of the treaties. Dinabandhu Andrews’ word was enough for me. I therefore addressed a letter to Lord Chelmsford explaining my hesitation to take part in the Conference. He invited me to discuss the question with him. I had prolonged discussion with him and his Private Secretary Mr. Maffey. As a result I agreed to take part in the Conference. This was in effect the Viceroy’s argument: ‘Surely you do not believe that the Viceroy knows everything done by the British Cabinet. I do not claim, no one claims, that the British Government is infallible. But if you agree that the Empire has been, on the whole, a power for good, if you believe that India has, on the whole, benefited by the British connection, would you not admit that it is the duty of every Indian citizen to help the Empire in the hour of its need? I too have read what the British papers say about the secret treaties. I can assure you that I know nothing beyond what the papers say, and you know the canards that these papers frequently start. Can you, acting on a mere newspaper report, refuse help to the Empire at such a critical juncture? You may raise whatever moral issues you like and challenge us asmuch as you please after the conclusion of the War, not today.’

But when I reached Delhi, another difficulty arose that threatened to keep me from attending the Conference. Dinabandhu Andrews questioned whether it was moral for me to participate in the War Conference. He told me about the controversy in the British press over secret treaties between England and Italy. Mr. Andrews asked how I could participate if England had entered into secret treaties with another European power. I knew nothing about the treaties. Dinabandhu Andrews’ word was enough for me. So I wrote to Lord Chelmsford, explaining why I hesitated to take part in the Conference. He invited me to discuss the question with him. I had a long discussion with him and his Private Secretary, Mr. Maffey. As a result, I agreed to take part in the Conference. This was, in essence, the Viceroy’s argument: ‘Surely you do not believe that the Viceroy knows everything the British Cabinet does. I do not claim that the British Government is infallible, and no one else does. But suppose you agree that the Empire has, on the whole, been a force for good. Suppose, too, that you believe India has, on the whole, benefited from its connection with Britain. Would you not then admit that every Indian citizen has a duty to help the Empire in its hour of need? I too have read what the British papers say about the secret treaties. I can assure you that I know nothing beyond what the papers say. And you know the false stories these papers frequently start. Can you refuse to help the Empire at such a critical moment based only on a newspaper report? You may raise whatever moral issues you like and challenge us as much as you please after the War ends, but not today.’

The argument was not new. It appealed to me as new because of the manner in which, and the hour at which, it was presented, and I agreed to attend the Conference. As regards the Muslim demands I was to address a letter to the Viceroy.

The argument was not new. But it seemed new to me because of how and when it was presented. So I agreed to attend the Conference. I was to write a letter to the Viceroy about the Muslim demands.