We have been vilified bitterly, every kind of abuse has been showered on us by non-co-operators, every form of insidious agitation has been tried, and we have stayed our hands.

Violent Agitators

I will mention the case of one of the men who has now been arrested and is undergoing imprisonment as a first-class misdemeanant. He made at least ten speeches up and down the country which our legal advisers informed us were clearly actionable. I allude to Mr. Jawahir Lal Nebru. His final effort was a speech, somewhere in the west of the Province, in which he quoted word by word the sedition section, i.e., the promotion, of disaffection against the Government as by law established and the section which deals with promoting hatred between classes of His Majesty's subjects, and he said that the object of his life was to carry out this promotion of sedition and disaffection. Still we did nothing. You may well ask why. We thought that the forces of reason and sobriety would re-establish their sway. We hoped that the great body of moderate opinion of the Provinces would be sufficiently powerful to assuage this movement and to stop the dissemination of poison. We were wrong. So far from losing any strength I do not hesitate to say that the movement has gone on gaining strength. Then came the time in November when we were confronted with reports from our trusted officers all over the provinces which left no doubt whatever in our minds that the situation had very greatly developed, and that there was imminent possibility (I would go further and say probability) of an outburst of violence in more than one district. I have here a big folio of reports. It is quite impossible for me in debate like this to quote them all. There are copies of reports from districts as wide apart and representative as Meerut, Cawnpur, Fyzabad, Etawah, Balia, Barabanki and the peaceful district of Aligarh, which, according to its member, Thakur Manak Singh, is now the scene of this campaign of repression. I should like, as a typical instance, to read out the description of the procedure which was adopted in the Barabanki district. The Barabanki district, as my friend on my right will bear me out, is a particularly difficult one. It is full of a class whom religious fanaticism particularly affects and when it once gets out of hand it is very difficult to deal with. I remember when I first came to India, there was tremendous outbreak of dacoity and violent crime in that and adjacent districts, which it took months to put down, at the cost of immense suffering to the population. This is one of the districts, which was selected as a focus in work on by these (what should I call them?) advocates of soul force.

Soul Force

Their main activities were directed to stirring up religious fanaticism. In mosques, in bazars mendacious stories were told regarding the bombardment and desecration of the Sacred Places of Islam. They were told that Hindu and Mahomedan women had been outraged and that medicines issued from dispensaries were mixed with wine and that the fat of cows and pigs was used in the manufacture of cloth. There was boycott and intimidation to prevent foreign cloth sellers from importing any more cloth, and to force them to sign a pledge not to do so. This went on until November and the beginning of December when the picketing of schools started. That is a typical report from a district which takes very little to set it ablaze. What has recently happened there you have already read in the papers. There are many other instances which strike me, but there is one typical instance from Etawah. There is a fair which has been held there for many years. It was picketed. People were prevented from coming in by open intimidation and finally attempts were made to blacken the face of a Maulvi on his way to the Islamia High School, of which he is manager. I can multiply these instances, and, if any member of the Council wishes to know the representations which were received from these districts, I am perfectly willing to let him see the reports in order that he may satisfy himself as to what the real condition was. Pandit Radha Kant Malviya: Will the Hon. Member read the report from Allahabad.

Sir Ludovic Porter: We had a report from the Commissioner of Allahabad, on whose judgment I place great reliance, just before we enforced this Act. He expressed his reasoned opinion that if we allowed matters to drift any further, there would be a widespread disaster. He also stated that from information he had received, the whole camp of non-co-operators, in Allahabad were particularly cheerful with regard to the outlook, and they thought great developments in their favour were shortly going to take place. Well that was our position. As to the nature of this non-violent non-co-operation, we had no delusions.

Criminal Intimidation

We know that criminal intimidation had been practised on the widest scale in many districts. I may say that the majority of districts where these associations existed, criminal intimidation of a subtle kind, namely to attack a man in his religious opinions or to attack him in his social relations, had been widely practised. We had an example here in Lucknow of ordinary intimidation. A member of the Council himself witnessed the unfortunate driver of an ekka being dragged off his ekka and beaten because he ventured to ply for hire on the 17th of November.

I know myself the case of a shop which was kept open for two or three days. The shopkeeper was surrounded by a howling mob, and he was told what would happen to him, if he did not shut up his shop. In Fatehpur they kept a blackboard, which was exhibited publicly, to show up the people, who ventured to buy foreign cloth. This is also a form of subtle and most cruel intimidation involving social boycott. You all know perfectly well the difficulties that exist in India in getting victims of this kind of tyranny to come forward and seek their legal redress in the ordinary courts of law. The difficulty of proving criminal intimidation is accentuated by the fact that it is not cognizable by the police, and, consequently the complainant has to go to court, but, owing to the difficulty of getting witnesses to prove his case, he usually compromises. Well that is the position which confronted us. There was a system of widespread intimidation. So far from the movement being on the verge of collapse, as certain optimists stated to-day, it was increasing in vigour. There was the usual lip service of non-violence, a profession which in me produces a feeling of nausea. Practice and precept, as we said in a letter to the Government of India, which they quoted in the debate "were poles as under." There were also, as my friend Kunwar Jagdish Parshad in his eloquent speech this morning has stated, constant endeavours to seduce Government servants from their duty. A great deal of pity has been showered on the non-co-operators by certain speakers to-day, but they never spared a moment to think what the police have gone through. Here in Lucknow Chauk, sub-inspectors and the rank and file of your own fellow countrymen have been grossly insulted, abused and their family life rendered intolerable. Are we not going to support them when such facts are brought to our notice? We are bound to support our loyal servants, who, through all these troubles, have served us faithfully. I am only asking for some recognition of the difficulty to which they are exposed in performing their duties, and in their daily life. With these facts before us we came to the conclusion—the Government as a whole came to the conclusion—that the Criminal Law Amendment should be extended to these Provinces. I think there can be no doubt that the whole Council are unanimous that law and order must be enforced. They may differ from us as to the method which we took.

The Arrests

I now come to the arrests which followed. The great majority of arrests were effected by the local authorities under the powers delegated to them. In one instance only so far as my memory serves, the Governor-in-Council issued orders for certain arrests, and that was for the leaders of Allahabad and Lucknow. What are the facts in regard to these particular arrests? These associations had been declared to be illegal. Immediately after their proclamation a manifesto was published on the 6th December with a pledge which was signed by 75 persons, I will read the terms of that manifesto. "Having read and thoroughly understood the Government notification, etc., and knowing full well the consequences of not obeying them, we, etc., hereby pledge ourselves civilly to disobey without any objection all such Government orders and laws as may be determined from time to time by the Provincial Congress Committee, or by a committee appointed by or in this behalf. We further pledge ourselves to obey, in utter disregard of the consequences, all orders of the volunteer corps relating to such disobedience." Now gentlemen, what does that mean? It means that at the bidding of an irresponsible autocrat in Bombay, the members of this association pledged themselves blindly to disobey any law of the land. If that is not the essence of anarchy I do not know what is. We were told this morning in the very moderate speech of my friend Mr. Zafar Husain, that he did not think that this Act was enacted with a view to the present juncture. Of course it was not. Nobody could forsee this madness which has come over India during the last two years. It was enacted to meet an outbreak of anarchy in Bengal. Could there be anything worse than the present position, that a body of men numbering thousands, totally irresponsible, very many of them now of a dangerous character, (not at first, but they are steadily deteriorating) pledge themselves to disobey any law when they were asked to do so by a gentlemen in Bombay, for this is what this pledge means? How could any Government carry on, that would not accept that challenge? In consequence of this, we issued orders for the arrest and production of a certain number, not all, of the leaders. In doing so we have now the support and authority of the Government of India. The Government has informed us that they agree with us in holding that the persons who deliberately organise associations, avowedly intended to break the law, or associations the members of which are pledged blindly to disobey any laws, are liable to criminal prosecution. Following on that came the meeting at Allahabad, at which the Superintendent of Police, who had been deputed to execute a search warrant, was present. This meeting deliberately reaffirmed this pledge in his presence. Now, I think if we analyse the objections that have been taken to the prosecutions they very largely centre round those persons, the leaders and members of this meeting, who have been prosecuted and convicted. In all they number, I, think, something like 100. I have stated the facts, and I accept the responsibility. I see no other way out. As long as any Government exists they have to deal with men who offer a challenge like that, in the method in which we did.