|
SANYAL'S
OPEN
LETTER
TO GANDHIJI*
[It
was
published
in
Young
India
(Ahmedabad),
dated
February
12,
1925,
and
reproduced
by
M.N.
Gupta
in
his
book.
They
Lived
Dangerously,
PPH,
New
Delhi,
1969.]
I
Think
it is
my
duty
to
remind
you
of
the
promise
you
made
some
time
back
that
you
would
retire
from
the
political
field
at
the
time
when
the
revolutionaries
will
once
more
emerge
from
their
silence
and
enter
into
the
Indian
political
arena.
The
experiment
with
the
non-violent
non-cooperation
movement
is
now
over.
You
wanted
one
complete
year
for
your
experiment,
but
the
experiment
lasted
at
least
four
complete
years,
if
not
five,
and
still
do
you
mean
to
say
that
the
experiment
was
not
tired
long
enough?
You
are
one
of
the
greatest
of
personalities
in
the
present
age
and
under
your
direct
guidance
and
inspiration,
your
programme
was
actually
taken
up,
for
some
reason
or
other,
by
the
best
men
in
the
land.
Thousands
young
men,
the
flower
of
the
youth
of
our
country,
embraced
your
cult
with
all
the
enthusiasm
they
could
gather.
Practically
the
whole
nation
responded
to
your
call.
We
can
safely
say
that
the
response
was
phenomenal
if
not
miraculous.
What
more
could
you
want?
Sacrifice
and
sincerity
on
the
part
of
your
followers
were
not
wanting;
the
most
selfish
of
professional
men
gave
up
their
professions,
young
men
of
the
country
renounced
all
their
worldly
prospects
and
joined
the
forces
under
your
banner
hundreds
of
families
were
rendered
destitute
for
want
of
pecuniary
income.
Money
was
not
wanting.
You
wanted
one
crore
of
rupees
and
you
got
more
than
you
wanted.
In
fact
I
shall
perhaps
be
not
far
from
the
truth
if I
say
that
the
response
to
your
call
was
more
than
you
yourself
expected.
I
venture
to
say
that
India
followed
your
lead
to
the
best
of
her
ability,
and
this
I
think
can
hardly
be
denied,
and
still
do
you
mean
to
say
that
the
experiment
was
not
tried
far
enough?
In
fact,
your
programme
failed
for
no
fault
of
the
Indians.
You
have
only
a
programme
to
the
country,
but
you
could
not
lead
the
nation
to a
victorious
end.
To
say
that
non-violent
non-cooperation
failed
because
the
people
were
not
sufficiently
non-violent
is to
argue
like
a
lawyer
and
not
like
a
prophet.
The
people
could
not
be
more
non-violent
than
they
were
during
the
last
few
years.
I
would
like
to
say
that
they
were
non-violent
to a
degree
which
smelt
of
cowardice.
You
would
perhaps
say
that
it
was
not
this
non-violence,
the
non-violence
of
the
cowards,
that
you
wanted.
But
your
programme
did
not
contain
that
item
which
could
transform
cowards
into
heroes
or
which
could
detect
and
ultimately
reject
the
cowards
from
the
bands
of
heroes.
This
was
no
fault
of
the
people.
And
to
say
that
the
majority
of
non-cooperators
was
cowards
and
not
heroes,
is to
shirk
responsibilities.
To
say
this
is
rather
tocommit
an
outrage
on
the
manliness
of
the
nation.
Indians
are
not
cowards.
Their
heroism
can
always
be
compared
with
that
of
the
best
heroes
of
the
world.
To
deny
this
is to
deny
history.
When
I
speak
of
Indians’
heroism
I
mean
not
only
the
heroism
which
sparkled
in
the
annals
of
the
glorious
past,
but I
include
the
heroism
that
is
manifesting
itself
in
the
present,
because
India
is
still
not
dead.
What
India
wants
is a
true
leader,
a
leader
like
Guru
Gobind
Singh
or
Guru
Ramdas
and
Shivaji.
India
wants
a
Krishana
who
can
give
a
worthy
ideal,
to be
followed
not
by
India
alone,
but
buy
all
humanity,
by
all
the
members
of
this
humanity
with
diverse
temperaments
and
capacities.
Non-violent
non-cooperation
movement
failed
not
because
there
was
sporadic
outburst
of
suppressed
feelings
here
and
there
but
because
the
movement
was
lacking
in a
worthy
ideal.
The
ideal
that
you
preached
was
not
in
keeping
with
Indian
culture
and
traditions.
It
savoured
of
imitation.
Your
philosophy
of
non-violence,
at
least
the
philosophy
that
you
gave
to
the
people
for
their
acceptance,
was a
philosophy
arising
out
of
despair.
It
was
not
the
spirit
of
kshama
of
the
Indian
rishis,
it
was
not
the
spirit
of
ahimsa
of
the
great
Indian
yogins.
It
was
an
imperfect
physical
mixture
of
Tolstoyism
and
Buddhism
and
not a
chemical
mixture
of
East
and
West.
You
adopted
the
western
method
of
congresses
and
conferences
and
tried
to
persuade
the
whole
nation
to
accept
the
spirit
of
ahimsa,
irrespective
of
desh,
kal
and
patra
like
like
Tolstoy,
but
which
was a
matter
of
individual
sadhana
with
the
Indians.
And
above
all,
you
were
and
are
still
vague
as
regards
India’s
ultimate
political
goal.
This
is
miserable.
Your
idea
of
independence
is
not
in
consistence
with
Indian
ideals.
India
stands
for
Sarvan
paravasham
dukkham
sarvamatmavasham
sukham
and
for
the
ideal
that
individual
existence
is
solely
for
the
purpose
of
humanity
and
through
humanity
serving
god,
jagathitaya
cha
krishnaya
cha.
The
non-violence
that
India
preaches
is
not
non-violence
for
the
sake
of
non-violence,
but
non-violence
for
the
good
of
humanity,
and
when
this
good
for
humanity
will
demand
violence
and
bloodshed,
India
will
not
hesitate
to
shed
blood
just
in
the
same
way
as a
surgical
operation
necessitates
the
shedding
of
blood.
To an
ideal
Indian,
violence
or
non-violence
has
the
same
significance,
provided
they
ultimately
do
good
to
humanity.
Vinashay
cha
duskkritama
was
not
spoken
in
vain.
To my
mind,
therefore,
the
ideal
that
you
gave
to
the
nation
or
the
programme
of
action
that
you
laid
before
it,
is
neither
consistent
with
Indian
culture
nor
practicable
as a
political
programme.
It is
simply
inconceivable
and
incomprehensible
to
think
that
you
still
dare
to
entertain
the
slightest
hope
that
England
can
be
just
and
generous
out
of
her
free
will-this
England
‘which
believes
in
Jallianwalabagh
massacres
as a
legitimate
means
of
self-defence’,
this
England
which
tried
the
O’Dwyer-Nair
case
and
gave
Judgement
in
favour
of
barbarism.
If
you
have
an
iota
af
faith
left
in
you
in
the
good
sense
of
the
British
government,
then
according
to
you
where
is
the
necessity
of
any
programme
at
all?
If
there
is
any
necessity
of
any
movement
in
order
to
bring
the
British
government
to
their
senses,
then
why
speak
of
the
honesty
and
good
intentions
of
the
British
government?
It
seems
that
the
prophet
in
you
is
gone
and
you
are
once
more
a
lawyer
defending
a
weak
case;
or
perhaps
you
are
always
an
exponent
– a
mighty
exponent
–
of
half-truths
only.
A
sovereign
independent
Indian
Republic
in
alliance
or in
federation
with
the
other
independent
nations
of
the
earth
is
one
thing,
and
self-governing
India
within
this
imperialistic
British
empire
is
perfectly
another
thing.
Your
sentiment
of
remaining
within
the
British
empire
reminds
one
of
the
many
Himalayan
miscalculations,
that
you
have
compromised
a
worthy
ideal
with
the
present
needs
of a
false
expediency,
and
this
is
the
reason
that
you
have
failed
to
capture
the
imagination
of
the
youths
of
the
country-youths
who
could
dare
and
who
are
still
daring
to go
against
your
wishes
although
they
unhesitatingly
recognise
you
as
one
of
the
greatest
of
personalities
of
the
modern
age.
These
are
the
Indian
revolutionaries.
They
have
now
decided
to
remain
silent
no
more
and
therefore
they
request
you
to
retire
from
the
political
field,
or
else
to
direct
the
political
movement
in a
way
so
that
it
may
be a
help
and
not a
hindrance
to
the
revolutionary
movement.
They
suspended
their
activities
so
long
simply
to
comply
to
your
request
direct
and
indirect,
and
they
went
further.
They
actually
helped
you
in
the
carrying
out
of
your
programme
to
the
best
of
their
abilities.
But
now
the
experiment
is
over
and
therefore
the
revolutionaries
are
free
from
their
promise,
or,
as a
matter
of
fact,
they
promised
to
remain
silent
only
for a
year
and
no
more.
Further,
I
would
like
to
point
out
that
you
have
misjudged
the
revolutionaries
in
many
respects
when
you
blamed
them
in
your
recent
presidential
address
in
the
39th
Congress.
You
said
that
the
revolutionaries
are
retarding
India’s
progress.
I do
not
know
what
you
mean
by
this
word
‘progress’.
If
you
mean
political
progress,
then
can
you
deny
that
every
political
progress
that
India
has
already
made,
however
little
that
might
be,
has
been
made
chiefly
by
the
sacrifices
and
the
efforts
of
the
revolutionary
party?
Can
you
deny
that
the
Bengal
partition
was
annulled
through
the
effort
of
the
Bengal
revolutionaries?
Can
you
doubt
that
the
Morley-Minto
reform
was
the
outcome
of
the
Indian
revolutionary
movement
which
was
mainly
though
not
wholly
instrumental
in
bringing
about
the
Montford
reform?
I
shall
not
be
very
much
surprised
if
you
will
answer
these
queries
in
the
affirmative
but I
can
assure
you
that
the
British
government
realises
the
potentiality
of
this
movement.
Even
the
late
Mr.
Montague
expressed
to an
Indian
of
position
and
rank
that
he
took
the
trouble
of
coming
to
India
and
risked
his
life
simply
due
to
the
activities
of
the
young
Indian
revolutionaries.
If
you
mean
that
these
reforms
are
no
index
to
true
progress,
then
I
would
venture
to
say
that
this
revolutionary
movement
has
achieved
no
mean
progress
in
the
moral
advancement
of
India.
Indians
were
miserably
afraid
of
death
and
this
revolutionary
arty
once
more
made
the
Indians
realise
the
grandeur
and
the
beauty
that
lie
in
dying
for a
noble
cause.
The
revolutionaries
have
once
again
demos-trated
that
death
has a
certain
charm
and
is
not
always
a
dreadful
thing.
To
die
for
one’s
own
beliefs
and
convictions,
to
die
in
the
consciousness
that
by so
dying
one
is
serving
God
and
the
nation,
to
accept
death
or to
risk
one’s
life
when
there
is
every
probability
of
death,
for a
cause
which
one
honestly
believes
to be
just
and
legitimate
–
is
this
no
moral
progress?
You
have
said
to
the
revolutionaries,
“You
may
not
care
for
your
own
lives,
but
you
dare
not
disregard
those
of
your
countrymen
who
have
no
desire
to
die a
martyr’s
death.”
But
the
revolutionaries
are
at a
sad
loss
to
understand
the
meaning
of
this
sentence.
Do
you
mean
to
say
that
the
revolutionaries
are
responsible
for
the
death
of 70
men
who
were
condemned
in
the
Chauri
Chaura
trial?
Do
you
mean
to
say
that
the
revolutionaries
are
responsible
for
the
bombing
and
killing
of
innocent
people
at
Jallianwalabagh
and
Gujranwalla?
Did
the
revolutionaries,
during
their
struggle
for
the
last
twenty
years,
in
the
past
or in
the
present,
ever
ask
the
starving
millions
to
take
part
in
the
revolutionary
struggle?
The
revolutionaries
have
perhaps
a
better
knowledge
of
the
mass
psychology
than
most
of
the
present
leaders.
And
this
was
the
reason
that
they
never
wanted
to
deal
with
the
masses
until
they
become
sure
of
their
own
strength.
They
always
believed
that
the
masses
of
northern
India
were
ready
for
any
emergency
and
they
were
also
right
in
thinking
that
the
masses
of
northern
India
are a
dense
matter
of
high
explosive,
dangerous
to be
handled
carelessly.
It
was
you
and
your
lieutenants
who
misjudged
the
sentiments
of
the
masses
and
dragged
them
into
the
satyagraha
movement
people
who
were
groaning
under
a
thousand
oppressions
from
within
and
without,
where
the
lightning
of
anger
lay
unperceived,
and
you
had
to
pay
the
penalty
for
it.
But,
Can
you
given
any
instance
where
the
revolutionaries
dragged
unwilling
souls
into
valley
of
death?
Lastly,
I
would
like
to
say
something
about
the
remarks
you
have
made
in
connection
with
the
strength
of
the
British
empire.
You
have
said
to
the
revolutionaries,
“Those
whom
you
seek
to
depose,
are
better
armed
and
infinitely
better
organised
than
you
are.”
But
it is
not
shameful
that
a
handful
of
Englishmen
are
able
to
rule
India,
not
by
the
free
consent
of
the
Indian
people
but
by
the
force
of
the
sward?
And
if
the
English
can
be
well-armed
and
well-organised,
why
cannot
the
Indian
be
better
armed
and
better
organised
still-Indians
who
are
saturated
with
the
high
principles
of
spirituality?
Indians
are
men
in
the
same
sense
as
the
Englishmen
are.
Then,
what
on
earth
makes
the
Indians
so
helpless
as to
think
that
they
can
never
be
better
organised
than
their
English
masters?
By
what
argument
and
logic
of
fact
can
you
disprove
the
possibilities
in
which
the
revolutionaries
have
immense
faith?
And
the
spirit
of
non-violence
that
arises
out
of
this
sense
of
helplessness
and
despair
can
never
be
the
non-violence
of
the
strong,
the
non-violence
of
the
Indian
rishis.
This
is
tamas,
pure
and
simple.
Excise
me
Mahatmaji,
if I
am
severe
in
criticising
your
philosophy
and
principles.
You
have
criticised
the
revolutionaries
most
unsympathetically
and
even
you
went
so
far
as to
describe
them
ass
the
enemies
of
the
country,
simply
because
they
differ
from
your
views
and
methods.
You
preach
tolerance
but
you
have
been
violently
intolerant
in
your
criticism
of
the
revolutionaries.
The
revolutionaries
have
risked
their
everything
to
serve
their
motherland,
and
if
you
cannot
help
them,
at
least
be
not
intolerant
towards
them.
|
