TRIAL OF MAHATMA GANDHI-1922

    The account of this trial is in substance taken from an admirable summary of it given by Sir Thomas Strangman
in his book "Indian Courts and Characters".
 
    In March 1922, Gandhi was tried before Mr. Broomfield, I.C.S., District & Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad, for
sedition in respect of two articles, which he had written in his paper "Young India".  Before that, there was acute
unrest and hostility to government, mainly due to the doctrines preached by Gandhi, and his campaign of non-
cooperation and civil disobedience.  This had resulted in some acts of violence and bloodshed.  The most recent
were attacks on peaceful citizens involving much bloodshed and destruction of property by an infuriated mob in
Bombay on the occasion of the visit of the Prince of Wales in 1921.  Another was the inhuman burning alive of a
number of policemen by a maddened mob at Chauri Chaura near Agra.  Of course, Gandhi deplored and denounced
these acts of violence; and even suspended the campaign for some time, himself going on fast by way of penance.
 
    The situation was further embittered by the discontent of Mussalmans over the treatment of Turkey by the Allies
after the termination of the War.  The Indian Mussalmans looked upon the Sultan of Turkey as their Khaliph, and
deeply resented any indignity shown to him by the European powers, including England.  The Muslim masses in
India were incited and inflamed by the Ali Brothers who had started the Khilafat agitation.  Gandhi joined hands
with the Ali Brothers in their opposition to British rule in India.  According to Strangman, "The Ali Brothers were at
one with Gandhi in one particular only; and that was that they desired a cessation of British rule."   The Hindu-
Muslim unity at this juncture was artificial and ephemeral based on no common grievance.  Hindus had little to do
with Muslim sentiment over the humiliation of Turkey; and the Muslim masses never wholeheartedly shared the
Hindu nationalism; and ultimately by insisting on Partition betrayed the national cause so far as the unity of the
country was concerned.  Neither the Hindu nor the Muslim could forget past history; for history, although it may be
perverted partially, cannot be altogether obliterated.  "They did not share his fantastic dreams either as to the means
by which that end should be attained, or the results which should ensue.  The iniquity of the Turkish Treaty was one
of their main planks-a matter in which the Hindu was not even remotely interested".  "Naturally enough," observes
Strangman in  'Indian Courts And Characters', "after a time the divergence of views as to the method of attack
became apparent.  To teach the militant Mohammedan to adopt the principles of non-violent non-cooperation, is to
teach the lion to display the playful tricks of the lamb.  The Brothers gave utterances to incitements to violence for
which, at Gandhi's instance, they published an apology, as a result of which the Government refrained from
prosecuting them; but it was only for a short duration.  The Brothers had subsequently to be prosecuted and
convicted."
 
    On 29th September 1922, Gandhi published under his own name an article in his paper "Young India".  Among
the most serious features of the seditious incitements of the Ali Brothers was their attempt to tamper with the loyalty
of the Indian troops.  Gandhi wrote in his article that "he was not prepared for the revelation of such hopeless
ignorance on the part of the Governor of Bombay.  It is evident that he has not followed the course of Indian history
during the past twelve months.  He evidently does not know that the National Congress began to tamper with the
loyalty of the sepoy in September last year; that the Central Khilafat Committee began it earlier, and that he himself
began it earlier still."  "I have no hesitation in saying," Gandhi proceeded, "that it is sinful for anyone, either soldiers
or civilian, to serve this Government which has proved treacherous to the Mussalmans of India, and which has been
guilty of the inhumanities of the Panjab.  I have said this from many a platform in the presence of sepoys".  "I shall
not hesitate (when the time is ripe), at the peril of being shot, to ask the Indian sepoy individually to leave his
service and become a weaver.   For, has not the sepoy been used to hold India under subjection, has he not been used
to murder innocent people at Jalianwala Bagh, has he not been used to drive away innocent men, women, and
children during that dreadful night at Chandpur, has he not been used to subjugate the proud Arab of Mesopotamia,
has he not been utilised to crush the Egyptian?  How can any Indian having a spark of humanity in him, and any
Mussalman having any pride in his religion, feel otherwise than as the Ali Brothers have done?  The sepoy has been
used more often as a hired assassin than as a soldier defending the liberty or the honour of the weak and the
helpless."
 
    Gandhi wrote and published another article in his paper in which he answered Lord Reading, the Viceroy, who
had, in a public speech, said that he felt perplexed and puzzled by the activities of a section of the Indian
community.  Lord Reading had stated: "I ask myself what purpose is served by flagrant breaches of the law for the
purpose of challenging the Government and in order to compel arrest?"  Gandhi's answer was: "We seek arrest
because the so-called freedom is slavery.  We are challenging the might of this Government because we consider its
activity to be wholly evil.  We want to overthrow the Government. We want to compel its submission to the people's
will.  We desire to show that the Government exists to serve the people, not the people the Government.  "In a third
article, he wrote: "No empire intoxicated with the red wine of power and plunder of weaker races has yet lived long
in this world, and this 'British Empire " which is based upon organised exploitation of physically weaker races of the
earth, and upon a continuous exhibition of brute force, cannot live, if there is a just God ruling the universe." .
 
    It must be admitted that in comparison with this stark and strident sedition, the veiled sedition preached by Tilak
for which he was prosecuted in 1908, pales into insignificance.  This was an open and avowed challenge to
Government and an attempt to inflame the masses of the Indian people including the sepoys, to throw off their
allegiance, and destroy the government.  It was impossible for any government to ignore this sort of sedition,
proceeding from a man of such power and influence as Gandhi had by that time acquired over the masses of India. 
Gandhi was prosecuted and committed for trial before the Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad where the paper was
published.  Strangman as Advocate-General of Bombay proceeded to Ahmedabad to prosecute.  Gandhi defended
himself.  Obviously there was no defence.  There was little to do for Strangman and the court; for, Gandhi admitted
all the charges and more than the charges.  He and his co-accused Shankarlal Banker, the printer of "Young India ",
both pleaded guilty.  The Advocate-General suggested that, in view of the seriousness of the charges and the
desirability that they should be fully investigated, the court should proceed with the trial.  The judge, however,
decided to accept the plea of guilty; adding, that he would hear counsel on the question of sentences.  Strangman
stressed the fact that the articles were not isolated instances, but formed part of a regular campaign to spread
disaffection, openly and systematically, to render Government impossible and so to overthrow it.  Further, that the
author was a man of high intellectual power and a recognized leader; that  "Young India" was a paper enjoying a
wide circulation.  Lastly, that a campaign of this nature must, if unchecked, necessarily lead to happenings such as
had taken place in Bombay and Chauri Chaura rioting, murder and destruction of property, involving numerous
persons in misery and misfortune.  "Of what value is it ? he pleaded,  "to insist upon non-violence, if at the same
time, you preached disaffection to the Government, holding it up as sinful and treacherous, and openly and
deliberately sought and instigated others to overthrow it. "Gandhi had prepared a lengthy written statement; but
before reading it, he dealt orally with what the Advocate-General had said: "I would like to state that I entirely
endorse the learned Advocate-General's remarks in connection with my humble self.  I think that he was entirely fair
to me in all the statements that he has made, because it is very true . . .that to preach disaffection towards the
existing system of Government has become almost a passion with me.  The Advocate-General is also entirely right
when he said that my preaching of this disaffection did not commence with my connection with "Young India" but
much earlier. . . . It commenced much earlier than the period stated by the Advocate-General.  I wish to endorse all
the blame that the Advocate-General has thrown on my shoulders in connection with the Bombay occurrences,
Madras occurrences, and the Chauri Chaura occurrences.  Thinking over these things deeply. . . I have come to the
conclusion that it is impossible for me to dissociate myself from the diabolical crimes of Chauri Chaura or the mad
outrages of Bombay.  The Advocate-General is quite right when he says that as a man of responsibility, a man
having received a fair share of education and experience of this world, I should know the consequences of my acts. 
I knew them.  I knew that I was playing with fire.  I ran the risk; and if I am set free, I would still do the same.   I
wanted to avoid violence.  Non-violence is the first article of my faith.  It is the last article of my faith.  But I had to
make my choice.  I had either to submit to a system which I considered has done an irreparable harm to my country,
or incur the risk of the mad fury of my people bursting forth when they understood the truth from my lips.  I know
that my people have sometimes gone mad.  I am deeply sorry for it; and I am, therefore, here to submit not to a light
penalty but to the highest penalty.  The only course open to you, Mr. Judge, is, as I am just going to say in my
statement, either to resign your post or inflict on me the severest penalty."
 
    The judge then proceeded to pronounce sentence.  He said: "Mr. Gandhi, you have made my task easy in one way
by pleading guilty to the charge.  Nevertheless, what remains, namely the determination of a just sentence, is
perhaps as difficult a proposition as a Judge in this country could have to face.  The law is no respecter of persons. 
Nevertheless, it would be impossible to ignore the fact that you are in a different category from any person I have
ever tried or am likely ever to try.  It would be impossible to ignore the fact that in the eyes of millions of your
countrymen you are a great patriot and a great leader; even all those who differ from you in politics look up to you
as a man of high ideals and of noble and even saintly life.  I have to deal with you in one character only.  It is not my
duty, and I do not presume to judge or criticise you in any other character.  It is my duty to judge you as a man
subject to the law, who has by his own admission broken the law, and committed what to an ordinary man must
appear to be a grave offence against such law.  I do not forget that you have consistently preached against violence,
or that you have on many occasions, as I am willing to believe, done much to prevent violence.
 
    "But having regard to the nature of your political teaching and the nature of many of those to whom it was
addressed, how you can have continued to believe that violence and anarchy would not be the inevitable
consequence, it passes my capacity to understand.  There are probably few people in India who do not sincerely
regret that you should have made it impossible for any Government to leave you at liberty.  But it is so, I am trying
to balance what is due to you against what appears to me to be necessary in the interest of the public; and I propose,
in passing sentence, to follow the precedent of the case, in many respects similar to this case, that was decided some
twelve years ago, the case of Mr. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, under the same section.  The sentence that was passed upon
him as it finally stood, was a sentence of simple imprisonment for six years.  You will not consider it unreasonable, I
think, that you should be classed with Mr. Tilak; and that is the sentence two years' simple imprisonment on each
count of the charge, six years in all, which I feel it my duty to pass upon you. "The Judge added, "if the course of
events in India should make it possible for Government  to reduce the period and release you, nobody would be
better pleased than I".
    
    The Judge then rose.  Gandhi bade goodbye to his friends.  Many of them wept but he remained calm and
smiling.
 
    Strangman adds: "So ended the trial.  I confess that I myself was not wholly unaffected by the atmosphere."
 
    This trial is remarkable not only for the personality of the principal accused, but for the calm dignity and utter
absence of any acrimony, conflict or denunciation on the part of either the accused, the judge or the prosecuting
counsel.  In spite of the intense excitement prevailing in the public, there were no untoward incidents marring the
proceedings, no note of jubilation or indignation but only of subdued sadness on all sides.  There was not much of a
trial; but so far as it went, it was absolutely fair.  The address of the Advocate-General, although he had to deal with
a case of flagrant sedition, was marked by exemplary fairness and restraint.  It is almost the only political trial in the
history of Indian unrest which reflects credit on all parties concerned.  It stands out in clear and wholesome contrast
to the previous trial referred to by the judge.  This kind of calmness, fairness, restraint and moderation, is all the
more remarkable when we consider the nature of the sedition which provoked the prosecution, the personality of the
accused, and the prevailing political atmosphere.
 
    From the standpoint of the Government, the situation was peculiarly difficult and dangerous.  Not only the
Hindus under the inspiration of the Mahatma, but the Mussalman masses incited by the Ali Brothers, were in a
turmoil of excitement and agitation.  Counsel for the Government would have been justified, in such an atmosphere
and such a case, to indulge in strong denunciation of the sedition charged and admitted.  The trial is memorable not
so much for its political importance, as for the appositeness, and the felicity and fairness of the speeches of the three
principal actors in the drama.
 
    Great credit is due to the two Englishmen who, in the face of what, from their standpoint, was a wanton,
vehement, virulent and venomous denunciation of their Imperial history, and a gross perversion (as they believed) of
the benevolent role of British rule in India, maintained a fair and calm attitude throughout.  The address of the judge
to Gandhi while passing sentence stands out in notable contrast to the ill advised and utterly uncalled for remarks of
his predecessor in the Tilak trial in 1909.  All the three speeches on the occasion of this trial of Gandhi, viz., of the
Advocate-General, the judge, and of Gandhi himself, are models of moderation, mutual respect, and felicity of
expression.
 
*****