Gandhi and Britain: Loyalty, Disillusionment, LongingIt was truly a remarkable idea. That one man, without so much as raising his staff, could bring to its knees the most powerful empire the World has witnessed. It is the type of story associated with heroic figures of past epics, another narrative depicting the ability to overcome insurmountable odds, to defeat an vastly superior enemy in virtuous fashion. In the West where the advent of mass media allowed for extensive coverage of foreign events, an instant recognition was made between the passive resisters found in its history and Gandhi; a sort of romantic attachment would develop amongst many in the West who naturally gravitated to such figures. It was an idea - woven through fantastic images and breathtaking reports - worthy of an Oscar award-winning movie, a vision that still reverberates in the minds of many. But it is just that an idea. The reality is far from -even directly opposed too - this conception, as one would be hard pressed to find a finer example of a British subject than Gandhi, nor a man with such passionate love which he compared to the high ideal of Truth - for an empire he is supposed to have brought down. Because for him, Britain and its traditions were sacred and deserving of loyalty: Hardly ever have I known anybody to cherish such loyalty as I did to the British Constitution. I can see now that my love of truth was at the root of this loyalty The National Anthem used to be sung at every meeting that I attended in Natal. I then felt that I must also join in the singing. Not that I was unaware of the defects in British rule, but I thought it was on the whole acceptable. In those days I believed that British rule was on the whole beneficial to the ruled. The color prejudice that I saw in South Africa was, I thought, quite contrary to British traditions, and I believed that it was only temporary and local. I therefore vied with Englishmen in loyalty to the throne. With careful perseverance I learnt the tune of the 'national anthem' and joined in singing whenever it was sung. Whenever there was an occasion for the expression of loyalty without fuss or ostentation, I readily took part in it Never in my life did I exploit this loyalty, never did I seek to gain a selfish end by its means. It was for me more in the nature of an obligation, and I rendered it without expecting an award...I likewise taught the National Anthem to the children of my family.1 Of course, as the world knows, upon returning home Gandhi would begin a campaign to free India from colonial rule, so what he wrote in his autobiography seems to have had little influence upon later events; it would appear that he had made a clean break from the loyalty he expressed so eloquently. But when we examine his writings, it becomes difficult to concluded that a man having such a servile devotion to the Empire past his fiftieth birthday, a man equating his loyalty to Britain with the supreme Truth he was seeking, could be expected to completely relinquish something he cherished so profoundly. What occurred instead was a gradual disillusionment with Britain,with the

result of an external opposition to the crown without a full internal disengagement from his emotional attachment to an Empire that would still outwardly at least - professthe ideals he valued. His attachment towards the Empire continued manifest itself from the 1920s onward, the time he began to agitate against it, and remained even during the transfer of power, although by then it was subtle in quality and of a lesser frequency. ***** Having finished his law studies in England in 1893, young Mohandas Gandhi set off for South Africa to try a case for an Indian firm located there. What was supposed to be the beginning of a professional career in a picturesque outpost on the frontiers of the British Empire would, after a series of ugly experiences of discrimination, turn out to be the start of his political life. These incidents, along with requests from Indians to do public work and defend them in court, convinced him to stay in South Africa instead of returning to India as he had planned, and in May 1894 Gandhi organized the Natal Indian Congress. The Congress goal was not the removal of the British from South Africa or India, for to the contrary, the Congress members were proud to be British subjects and were eager to aid British pursuits. On one early occasion, Gandhi helped organize an Ambulance Corps for the British during the Boer war. After the war, Gandhi congratulated the British generals, as noted in a March 15th 1900 Natal Mercury report: He [Gandhi] hoped that they would believe him when he said that the want of the knowledge of English language did not prevent Indians from following the course of events with accuracy and interest. It was the Indians proudest boast that they were British subjects. If they were not, they would not have had a footing in South Africa. 2 One reason for Gandhi's decision to organize an Ambulance Corps was given in a letter he sent to one W. Palmer, who had complained of a few "Arabs" not donating money to the English effort. Gandhi asked her to Please assure the self-sacrificing ladies that no Indian could have declined to assist from want of sympathy. We are all fired by one spirit, viz., the Imperial, and we all know what sacrifice volunteers and those they have left behind have committed. 3 The Boer War presented an avenue for Gandhi's Congress to display their unqualified loyalty to the Crown. Gandhi made this clear in a speech he made to the Ambulance Corps the first day they proceeded to the front, saying, When the ultimatum was presented by the Transvaal, some of them thought it was time when they should sink all differences, and, as they insisted upon rights and privileges as subjects of the Queen, do something to prove their loyalty. They-that is the Englishspeaking Indians-came to the conclusion that they would offer their services to the Colonial or Imperial government, unconditionally and absolutely without payment, in any capacity in which they could be useful, in order to show the colonists that they were worthy subjects of the Queen. 4

Gandhi's Natal Congress had had this lowly aspiration of abject serfdom from its inception, a goal Gandhi outlined in an interview conducted in the late 1890's in response to a question asking about the Congress political mandate: It does not want to exercise any strong political influence, the present object being to ensure the promises made in the Proclamation of 1858 are fulfilled. When the Indians enjoy the same status in the colony as they do in India, the Congress will have attained its end politically. It has no intention to become a political force to swamp any other party. 5 The status of Indian's in India was, to put it mildly, nothing fantastic, although in a few areas it may have been marginally better than the status of Indians in South Africa. A lot of the ill treatment and indifference to the loss of Indian life was due to racialist views that stemmed from the history taught during that time, including the theory that a white "Aryan" race invaded India from the steppes circa 1500 BC and conquered the "flatnosed" dark-skinned Dravidian race. In these theories, based on illogical and superficial interpretations of Vedic scripture by European scholars, the original Aryan race also spread forth into Europe. Thus came to Gandhi the vision and hope for brotherhood with Whites, since both stemmed from the same racial stock: I venture to point out that both the English and the Indians spring from a common stock, called the Indo-Aryan. I would not be able, in support of the above, to give extracts from many authors, as the books of reference at my disposal are unfortunately very few. I, however, quote as follows from Sir W. W. Hunter's Indian Empire: This nobler race (meaning the early Aryans) belonged to the belonged to the Aryan or Indo-Germanic stock, from which the Brahman, the Rajput, and the Englishman alike descend. Its earliest home visible to history was in Central Asia... This belief, whether mistaken or well-founded, serves as the basis of operations of those who are trying to unify the hearts of two races, which are, legally and outwardly, bound together under a common flag. 6 Gandhi would assertively use the argument of Indians being of the same racial stock as Europeans to justify his agitation for Indian franchise, as evident in his letter to the Colonial Secretary: With the greatest respect to your honor, we beg to point out that both the AngloSaxon and the Indian races belong to the same stock. We read your honors eloquent speech at the time of the second reading of the bill with rapt attention and took great pains to ascertain if any writer of authority gave countenance to the view expressed by Your Honour about the difference of the stocks from which both the races have sprung up. Max Muller, Morris, Greene, and a host of other writers with one voice seem to show very clearly that both the races have sprung

from the same Aryan stock, or rather the Indo-European as many call it. We have no wish to thrust ourselves as members of a brother nation on a nation that would be unwilling to receive us as such, but we may be pardoned if we state the real facts, the alleged absence of which has been put forward as an argument to pronounce us as unfit for the exercise of the franchise...It has given us no small satisfaction to know that, however unjust Your Honour's speech may have appeared to us from our point of view, it breathed truest sentiments of justice, morality and, what is more, Christianity. So long as such a spirit is noticeable among the chosen of the land, we would never despair of right being done in every case. 7 The more history books Gandhi read, the stronger his acceptance became of the tale of white Aryans" colonizing India, the obvious implication of such a tale being that the British colonists were now just one of the many lighter-skinned foreign colonists of the subcontinent. Indoctrinating that belief into Indians was the prime purpose of the Aryan Invasion Theory, as it provided an intellectual foundation for colonial rule. Gandhi was the type of subject Macaulay would have dreamed of someone with an average intelligence who was likely to accept at face value even the most absurd theory, as long as it came from those considered experts in the eyes of the British: History says that the Aryan's home was not India but they came from Central Asia, and one family migrated to India and colonized it, the others to Europe...It is true England "wafts her scepter" over India. The Indians are not ashamed of that fact. They are proud to be under the British crown, because they think that England will prove India's deliverer. 8 Gandhi viewed his status as a British subject akin to something out of a fairytale, writing that We once again feel that, though in Natal, yet we are British subjects, and that in time of danger the enchanting phrase has not after all lost any of its charm. 9 According to Gandhi (who throughout his life ambitiously claimed to speak for all Indians and Hindus) the hearts of Indians and other subjects contained unsurpassed love for the King of England: In the whole history of the world, no throne has been so firmly established in the hearts of the people as that of the King-Emperor today. That he may live long to add lustre to that throne is the earnest prayer of British Indians, the humblest of his subjects but not the least in loyalty and devotion. 10 Gandhi's view of British rule, prior to the Indian push for independence (beginning in 1905), is best summed up in the very first article he wrote for Indian Opinion, a newspaper he founded and contributed regularly too from its inception in 1903. In the article, Gandhi wrote that the problems between Whites and Indians stemmed from a "misunderstanding" of their historical racial ties and the forgotten fact that Indians were British subjects as well. Gandhi would also write of his belief that it was an act of God that brought India under British rule; Britain, to him, being the mother country:

The Indians, resident in British South Africa, loyal subjects though they are of the King-Emperor, labour under a number of legal disabilities which, it is contended on their behalf, are undeserved and unjust. The reason of this state of affairs is to be found in the prejudice in the minds of the Colonists, arising out of misunderstanding the actual status of the Indian as a British subject, the close relations that render him kin to Colonists, as the dual title of the Crowned Head so significantly pronounces, and the unhappy forgetfulness of the great services India has always rendered to the Mother Country ever since providence brought loyal Hind under the flag of Britannia. It will be our endeavour, therefore, to remove the misunderstanding by placing facts in their true light before the public. We can do very little unaided. We rely on generous support from our countrymen; may we hope for it from the great Anglo-Saxon race that hails His Majesty Edward VII as King-Emperor? For there is nothing in our programme but a desire to promote harmony and good-will between the different sections of the one mighty empire. 11 Part of Gandhi's belief that Indians should have been treated as equal subjects came from his reading of the Proclamation of 1858, which he discussed in a 1903 Indian Opinion piece: This memorable Proclamation, which has been rightly termed "the Magna Carta of the British Indians', is worthy of the attention... the year 1857 was a year of great anxiety and trouble throughout the British dominions owing to the great Sepoy Revolt in India. At one time the cloud looked so black that even the final result had become a matter of uncertainty. An appeal was made to the worst superstitions of the people of India, religion was greatly brought into play, and all that could possibly be done by the evil-minded was done to unsettle people's minds, and to make them hostile to British rule... throughout India did the masses remain faithful, and refuse to make common cause with the Mutineers. All this was known to Lord Canning. He, in due course, transmitted to the late Queen Empress the pathetic incidents that took place when the British Indians, at the peril of their lives, saved hundreds of English men and women. When, therefore, the Mutiny was ultimately stamped out, and when the time came for showing the Royal clemency, Lord Derby, the then Prime Minister, was commanded by the Queen to draft a proclamation... laying stress upon the fact that it was a female foreign sovereign speaking to the millions of her faithful subjects who had just emerged from a terrible time, and that the Proclamation should be a document of freedom for the people of India, which they could treasure and valueIt is superfluous to refer to the numerous occasions on which it has been referred to as the document giving the people of India full privileges and rights of British subjects.....Is it, then, any wonder that the British Indians, no matter where they go, invoke the aid of that Proclamation in their favour whenever any attempt is made to curtail the liberties or their rights as British subjects? We reproduce below the main portions of the Proclamation in it there is absolutely no qualification whatsoever with reference to the place where the people to whom it was given are to enjoy the fulfillment of the promises given therein. It becomes

necessary to mention this fact, as attempts have often been made in South Africa to explain away the document by saying that, as it was given in India, its applicability was confined merely to that place. ...Time and circumstances have thus combined to sanctify the Proclamation, and no matter what others may say to the contrary, it will ever remain a cherished treasure to the Indian community, wherever settled, so long as the British Empire lasts. Portions of the Proclamation referred to above: We hold ourselves bound to the natives of our Indian territories by the same obligations of duty which bind us to all our other subjects; and those obligations, by the blessings of Almighty God, we shall faithfully and conscientiously fulfil. And it is our further will that, so far as may be, our subjects, of whatever race or creed, be freely and impartially admitted to offices in our service, the duties of which they may be qualified, by their education, ability, and integrity, duly to discharge. In their prosperity will be our strength; in their contentment, our security; and in their gratitude, our best reward. And may God of all power grant to us, and to those in authority under us, strength to carry out these our wishes for the good of our people. 12 Only someone blindly attached to the British Empire would declare the Proclamation a "Magna Carta" for Indians. All it essentially says is that the British rulers will make sure Indians are kept in decent shape, because as it implies, if the subjects - and subjects is the key word - are not content they are more likely to revolt. As part of this they would provide education, but it would be one that glorified British history and indoctrinated lies such as the Aryan Invasion Theory. This education was meant to create a bureaucracy (the offices of service referred to near the end) - known as the Indian Civil Service - of Indians having no regard for their own culture, whose sole purpose in life was the governing of a British colony. Not only did this utilitarian education spare the British from using their own people to do this sort of work, it also had a demoralizing affect on the populace, spreading life-sapping ideas that would make many, including Gandhi, turn back to the invader in order to find strength. *** During these years, Gandhi displayed a lot of patience towards the injustices of British rule, and even his critiques of such irregularities actually reveal just how deep his loyalty was. In one of his first criticisms of the Empire, he posed the question of what Jesus would say to many of the Whites in South Africa, asking, If he came among us, will He not say to many of us, I know you not? Sir, may I venture to offer a suggestion? Will you re-read your New Testament? Will you ponder over your attitude towards to colored population of the colony? Will you then say you can reconcile it with the Bible teaching or the best British traditions? If you have washed your hands clean of both Christ and

British traditions, I can have nothing to say; I gladly withdraw what I have written. Only it will then be a sad day for Britain and for India if you have many followers. 13" It was in British rule that he saw values Christian and secular that were dear to him, and he expected life under the Crown to be a reflection of those values. Even with plenty of evidence to suggest that life was abominable for Indians in the Empire, he still remained loyal throughout most of his life, because his loyalty was not just based on attachment to the nation itself; the religious and secular ideals that he felt were behind it were of more importance. Thus even if Gandhi saw hatred towards Indians in his daily life, he still believed he could somehow change the hearts of British, as he was described as saying during a Calcutta speech in 1903: Mr. Gandhi, after describing South Africa generally, explained the position of the British Indian in that sub-continent. ... The hatred of the Colonials against them was no doubt intense, but what Mr. Gandhi proposed was to conquer that hatred by love. 14 Gandhi criticized the British for failing to live up to the example of Queen Victoria, whom he believed had done more for the liberty of India than any other person! He came to this earth-shattering realization after learning that Victoria had taken some Indians as servants, had learnt to write Hindustani, and was receiving daily accounts of the Indian situation in the mail. Surely these acts had more to do with practical reasons such as making sure the status of the jewel in the crown was secure than providing more liberty to India! Either Gandhi was desperate to convince himself of the Queens benevolence, or he was utterly innocent in his devotion: To Indians especially, Victoria Day should be sacred. No other person has done so much for the liberty of India as the late Queen-Empress. ...Victoria's interest in India was always personal and profound. Not only did she surround herself with Indian servants; not only did she learn to speak and write Hindustani (no light task to one burdened with the cares of State); but she made the Viceroy send an account of the situation in India by every mail..."The same before God"-that was the spirit which inspired the great Proclamation; and of which the Empire has scarcely proved itself worthy. It is with regret that we have to call the attention of our readers and the authorities to various matters in which the spirit of Victoria the Good has been violated, when we would have wished that this issue of our journal at least should be free from anything that would detract from our satisfaction in belonging to the great British Empire. 15 Gandhi proudly proclaimed the loyalty of the Natal Indians, even if No opportunity is missed of degrading us and humiliating us. We do not wish to burden Your Excellency with such other instances. We have a right, we submit, to expect the British Government to protect us from such humiliation, and insure for us the freedom to which, as loyal British subjects, we are entitled wherever the Union Jack flies. 16

The above, written in 1905, was before he started demonstrations in South Africa, and was also a year of explosive revolutionary activity in India, when all the preparation behind the scenes came to the forefront after Lord Curzon's partition of Bengal in July 1905. It was this act that ignited Hindu Bengal, as the partition - made as a sop to predominantly Muslim East Bengal struck at the hearts of Bengalis. From partition arose the birth of the Swadeshi movement - a movement whose inception is erroneously attributed to Gandhi by some - where goods made only in India were bought, where mass demonstrations were frequent, and where bombs flew freely across the sky. Gandhi, when writing on the original Swadeshi movement, claimed it did not signify that Indians had lost their loyalty to Great Britain: If the Anglo-Indian administrators, who have really built up the Indian Empire, and who depended for its continuance on the goodwill of the people, were to rise from their graves today, they, in our opinion, would be the first to encourage the boycott agitation ...What can be more natural than for the people to wish to clothe themselves, to feed themselves, and to supply their luxuries out of homegrown products and home manufactures? We see such movements worked out more extensively in many Colonies. It is a legitimate and healthy growth amongst the people, not to the slightest degree inconsistent with a feeling of loyalty to the British Crown. 17 Maybe Gandhi was surprised to hear that people in India could possibly have been upset with the British, leading him to frame the events in such a manner. A couple years later though, he gave a lengthier opinion on the revolutionary activities in India. Gandhi took the paternalistic viewpoint that Indians fighting the British were - to use his infamous description of Hindu warriors like Shivaji in essence "misguided patriots." He endorsed the belief that Indians had much to learn from the British, and again shared his opinion that better rights were all that Indians should be fighting for, not independence: Should the British be thrown out of India? Can it be done, even if we wish to do so? To these two questions we can reply that we stand to lose by ending British rule and that, even if we wanted to, India is not in a position to end it. By this we do not suggest that the British Raj is very powerful and that India has had incalculable advantages from it, or that India could not, if it so willed, remove British rule. But we hold that, whatever the motives of the British in coming to India, we have much to learn from them. They are brave and considerate people, and are on the whole honest. Blind where self-interest is concerned, they give unstinted admiration for bravery wherever found. They are a powerful nation, and India enjoys not a little protection under them. It is not, therefore, desirable that British rule in India should disappear. Should we then repudiate such men as Lala Lajpat Rai? That, too, is not possible. In our view, the men of the Punjab and the others who carry on the agitation are brave men. They are patriots and endure hardships for the sake of the country. To that extent they command our respect. However, they appear to be in error in so far as they want to eliminate British rule. In pursuit of this end, they appear

determined to suffer any punishment the law may inflict on them. We have nothing to blame them for. For, their sufferings will lead to India's happiness. They oppose British rule because of its drawbacks. Because of that rule, India is becoming poorer. To some extent, British rule is an important cause of even the plague in India. It adds to the ill-will between Hindus and Muslims. It is also because of that rule that we have been reduced to such a low state and live like cowards. Exasperated by these evils, some Indian leaders will find fault with the entire British nation. ... The fault, in fact, lies with us. If we remove the fault, British rule, which is a cause of misery today, can become a source of happiness. Public spirit is not likely to grow among us without western education and contacts with the West. If that spirit grows, the British may grant our demands without a fight, and may leave India if we want them to do so. The British colonies are what they are, not because the people there are white, but because they are brave and would take offence if their rights were not granted. That is why they are regarded as members of one family. In short, we have no quarrel with British rule. We have to be proud of the courage of those who have been creating this unrest. Let us show the same courage ourselves, but instead of desiring the end of British rule, let us aspire to be as able and spirited as the Colonists are, and demand and secure the rights we want. 18 This was not the only time that Gandhi blamed the drawbacks of British rule on the Indians, except in the following, he blamed it on the general immorality of the Indian people. Thus the deaths due to starvation and plague in India were not due to cruel British practices or even mismanagement by the Indians themselves; instead the deaths occurred because the Indians were a sinful bunch (perhaps they were acts of punishment from a vengeful Biblical God)! After careful thought, we have come to the conclusion that, if the plague, starvation etc have become widespread in India, it is because of the sinfulness of the people. If anyone wants to attribute it to the wickedness of the Government, we shall agree with him. It is common experience that people suffer when the rulers are wicked. But it needs to be borne in mind that it is only a sinful people who have wicked rulers. Besides, it is as a rule more profitable to examine our own faults than to blame others. 19 From the previous two articles, its evident Gandhi believed that if the Indians were to stop being immoral, British rule would then become a source of joy! If Gandhi displayed a general anger to the alleged immorality of the Indians, he reserved a special rage for the "evil" Indians fighting the British, whose rule in India he paradoxically claimed to be morally wrong, even though he was still in favor of them continuing on: It is morally wrong for one nation to rule over another. British rule in India is an evil but we need not believe that any very great advantage would accrue to the

Indians if the British were to leave India. The reason why they rule over us is to be found in ourselves; that reason is our disunity, our immorality and our ignorance. ...If these three things were to disappear, not only would the British leave India without the rustling of a leaf, but it would be real swarajya that we would enjoy. Many people exult at the explosion of bombs. This only shows ignorance and lack of understanding. If all the British were to be killed, those who kill them would become the masters of India, and as a result India would continue in a state of slavery. The bombs with which the British will have been killed will fall on India after the British leave. ...Just as we cannot achieve real swarajya by following the path of evil-that is by killing the British - so also will it not be possible for us to achieve it by establishing big factories in India. 20 Only Gandhi would view the killings of the foreign colonist as ignorance and evil, because to Gandhi, not only were Indians engaging in murder (!), they were also murdering the men he wanted to continue ruling. His misleading argument that the killers of the British would end up keeping India in slavery shows a complete lack of knowledge to the true nature of a movement fighting for the Sanatana Dharma, battling to allow India to live according to its own will and law. Such a revolution would not stand for the slavery of its people under anyone, Indian or foreign. Gandhi, oblivious to the spiritual character of the revolution, maintained a sanctimonious attitude towards the revolutionary leaders. In writing about Tilak, Gandhi, after first acknowledging the work he had done, would then claim it to be just a foundation and that Satyagraha which had yet to accomplish anything in South Africa and would never acquire more than a few meager personal rights - was the best form of action: The sentence passed on Mr. Tilak, the great Indian patriot, is terrible. The few days imprisonment which the Transvaal Indians suffer is as nothing compared to transportation for six years. Yet we should not blindly follow the policies of those whom we regard as great. It would be casting a reflection on Mr. Tilak's greatness that his writings had no bitterness in them or to offer up some such defence. Pungent, bitter and penetrating writing was his objective. He aimed at inciting Indians against British rule. To attempt to minimize this would be to detract from Mr. Tilak's greatness... Mr. Tilak deserves our congratulations. He has, by suffering, attained undying fame and laid down the foundations of India's freedom. What we need to consider is whether Indians should accept the views of Mr. Tilak and his party. We submit, after great deliberation, that Mr. Tilak's views should be rejected. India's welfare does not consist in merely uprooting British rule. It will be harmful, even useless, to use force or violence for uprooting that rule. Freedom gained through violence would not endure. And the sufferings to which the people of Europe submit would also become our lot then. As for the masses, they would merely pass from one form of slavery to another. No one will gain this way and almost everyone will lose-that is what the result will be.

We believe that the easiest way to make British rule beneficient is to adopt the way of Satyagraha. If British rule becomes tyrannical, it will come to an end as soon as the British government attempts to resist Satyagraha. If the same workers who went on strike in protest against the sentence of Mr. Tilak were to become satyagrahis, they would be able to get the Government to agree to any reasonable demands. 21 Interestingly, Gandhi writes that Tilak had achieved undying fame by suffering. Why was this necessary for him to relate to his readers? Was he trying to use the allure of fame to convince his readers to engage in his Satyagraha movement, or was he inadvertently revealing one of the driving forces behind his use of Satyagraha? If Gandhis attitude towards Tilak was paternalistic, then his reaction to the assassination of Sir Curzon Wyllie was one of righteous indignation: The assassination of Sir Curzon Wyllie and Dr Lalkaka was a terrible thing. Sir Curzon Wyllie served as an officer at several places in India. ...On July 2, there was a tea-meeting of the National Indian Association in the Jehangir Hall of the Imperial Institute. Such meetings are arranged with the object of bringing Indian students into contact with EnglishmenSir Curzon Wyllie was [thus] a guest of the assassin. ...It is being said in the defence of Sir Curzon Wyllie's assassination that it is the British who are responsible for India's ruin, and that, just as the British would kill every German if Germany invaded Britain, so too it is the right of any Indian to kill any Englishman. Every Indian should reflect thoughtfully on this murder. It has done India much harmMr. Dhingra's defense is inadmissible. In my view, he has acted like a coward. All the same, one can only pity the man. He was egged on to do this act by ill-digested reading of worthless writings. His defence of himself, too, appears to have been learnt by rote. It is those who incited him to this that deserve to be punished. In my view, Mr. Dhingra himself is innocent. The murder was committed in a state of intoxication...The analogy of Germans and Englishmen is fallacious. If the Germans were to invade [Britain], the British would only kill the invaders. They would not kill every German whom they met. Moreover, they would not kill an unsuspecting German, or Germans who are guests. If I kill someone in my own house without a warning-someone who has done me no harm-I cannot but be called a coward...It may be said that what Mr. Dhingra did, publicly and knowing full well that he himself would have to die, argues courage of no mean order on his part. But as I have said above, men can do these things in a state of intoxication, and can also banish the fear of death. Whatever courage there is in this is the result of intoxication, not a quality of man himself. A man's own courage consists in suffering deeply and over a long period. That alone is a brave act which is preceded by careful reflection.

I must say that those who believe and argue that such murders may do good to India are ignorant men indeed. No act of treachery can ever profit a nation. Even should the British leave in consequence of such murderous acts, who will rule in their place? The only answer is: murderers. India can gain nothing from the rule of murderers-no matter whether they are black or white. Under such a rule, India will be utterly ruined and laid waste. This train of thought leads to a host of reflections, but I have no time to set them down here. I am afraid some Indians will commend this murder. I believe they will be guilty of a heinous sin. We ought to abandon such fanciful ideas. 22 A telling piece, as this time the murderers were not merely misguided patriots they were outright traitors. How dare they murder this Englishmen, a high-ranking figure initially in the Army, later in the Government, highly influential in the management of the Indian colony! For killing is always bad according to the blanket judgement of Gandhi, and those who do it are most obviously intoxicated (but why is not desiring to suffer over long periods of time a form of intoxication?). It was fallacious for Gandhi to say that the rule of murderers would achieve nothing for India, because history is full of examples to the contrary, such as the murderous French Revolution and subsequent Napoleonic wars, which had the terrible effect of protecting democratic values in France. It was a case - along with the American Revolution - where freedom from violence did endure, and one form of slavery was not replaced with another, even though murderers came to power. It is true that the tactics of the Indian revolutionaries could have been better (there was never any widespread guerilla warfare), and Gandhi does make a good point that it was not necessary to kill all Englishmen. But the majority of targets were important Englishmen and Indians working to prolong British rule in India, so the charges Gandhi levels against them are exaggerations that any British patriot would make. ***** As the revolution was growing bloodier in India, Gandhi was initiating his campaign in South Africa. Gandhi and his Congress had been politely complaining for years, but in 1906 they decided to take a stronger stance after the passing of the Asiatic Law Amendment Ordinance. Even while adopting this new position, Gandhi continued to stress their loyalty to the Crown, as he voiced in a September 1906 meeting: Even the legislation of the ORC, drastic as it was, was far superior to that now introduced here, which was so bad that no self-respecting Indian could live under it. He admitted that the responsibility for the serious step he had taken was upon his shoulders, and he took the responsibility in its entirety. He felt he had done the right thing in advising them to take this step as loyal British subjects. In all their action in this respect they were full of loyalty. No shadow of disloyalty could rest upon them. 23

At the meeting many resolutions were passed, including Resolution II, highlighting some of the reasons for Indian opposition to the law, including its reduction of British Indians to a status lower than that of the aboriginal races of South Africa and the Coloured people. The new law was decidedly Un-British and unduly restricts the liberty of inoffensive British subjects and constitutes compulsory invitation to British Indians in the Transvaal to leave the country. In his speech, after stating the resolution, Gandhi would declare a path of resistance for Indians to follow: Rather than submit to the galling, tyrannous, and un-British requirements laid down in the above Draft Ordinance, every British Indian in the Transvaal shall submit himself to imprisonment and shall continue so to do until it shall please His Most Gracious Majesty the King-Emperor to grant relief.24 At the end of the meeting the Natal Congress, besides pledging to go to jail if necessary, gave a proclamation of loyalty to the British that they gave at all of their meetings the singing of God Save the King. At another meeting a year later where yet more resolutions of the same type were passed, one member of the Congress, Nadirshah Cama, best defined the character of the men in the Congress: I move this resolution. We must understand the nature of this law. It is very humiliating. We wish to live in peace and amity with the whites, but we will not be their slaves. ...We demand no political rights. We have changed our permits several times. We have changed our permits several times. ...This law is not meant for the Hottentots or Kaffirs; why then should it apply only to us. I believe that though my skin is black, my heart is whiter than any white's. 25 Perhaps because of this mentality, Gandhi chose to ignore the obvious racism towards Indians, indulging in his favorite activity, self-flagellation, under the guise of superficially plausible arguments. For how on earth was the Indian continuing to take blows albeit with courage going to change the racism? Could it not make the racism even worse by providing another reason for the racist to ridicule the Indian? After all, how much respect can one have for an opponent who doesnt even rise up to fight? And how does one stand up to the opponent by letting him kick one while lying down? Why do the Dutch and the British both hate us? We believe the root cause is not the colour of our skin, but our general cowardice, our unmanliness and our pusillanimity. They will begin to respect us the moment we impress on them that we can stand up to them. There is no need actually to fight, but courage is necessary. If a man kicks us, we take it lying down. He therefore thinks we deserve nothing better. This is the cowardice within us. There is a kind of courage in receiving a blow without returning it; but we are not speaking of that courage here. We receive kicks passively out of fear. 26 Gandhis deep admiration of the British continued to cause reversals in his public writings, as the following article he wrote in 1906 would contradict other writings where he described foreign rule in India an "evil:

I find that the Englishman is not only full five cubits tall, a host in himself, match for five hundred but is capable in every other way. When he chooses to enjoy wealth and power, he excels in doing it and he makes the best of poverty, too. He alone knows how to give orders; and he knows how to take them too. In his behaviour he is great with the great and small with the small. He knows how to earn money and he alone knows how to spend it. He knows how to converse and move in company. He lives in the knowledge that his happiness depends on the happiness of others. The [English] man I observed during the war seems to be an altogether different person now. Then he did all his work himself, trekked over long distances and felt happy with dry bread. Here on board the ship he does not do any work. He presses a button, and an attendant stands before him. He must have nice dishes of all kinds to eat. Every day he puts on a new dress. All this becomes him, but he does not lose his balance. Like the sea, he can contain all within himself. Though, generally speaking, he has little sense of religion, yet living in society, he is disciplined and observes Sabbath. Why indeed should such a people not rule? 27 Gandhi continued to emphasize that his South African movement was of a different nature than the one taking place in India, writing, Happenings in India have received the colour of an insurrection, and they have been interpreted to mean a revolt against the British Raj. The crusade of the Indianshas not the slightest resemblance to an insurrectionary movement. It simply means an offer on the part of the community to suffer much physical hardship rather than allow its moral sense to be atrophied. It is an endeavour to follow the precept of the Prophet of Nazareth, Resist not Evil. 28" In the same year, 1907, Gandhi explicitly stated that he was a "lover" of the Empire while declaring opposition to the Asiatic Act, in a letter to The Star: I consider myself a lover of the British Empire, a citizen (though voteless) of the Transvaal, prepared to take my full share in promoting the general well-being of the country. And I claim it to be perfectly honourable, and consistent with the above profession, to advise my countrymen not to submit to the Asiatic Act as being derogatory to their manhood. 29 Gandhi's love for the Empire was like a child's love for his father: To Gandhi, Indians were children of the British, and in a touching extension, Gandhi hoped the parents would show their children more affection: The Colonies are like the children of the British. It is nothing surprising if a father meets his children with warmth and enthusiasm, unmindful of their faults and perceptive only of their virtues. Where such a relationship obtains, the family prospers; a people, similarly, thrive on such relationships. 30 Gandhi would later express his disappointment at being treated like neglected sons by the Empire, even though they were begging for more. Unlike the Indian revolutionaries, who worshipped India as the Divine Goddess, Gandhis mother nation was England:

Indians have been begging for something to be brought to them from England [as a gift]. This shows our utter helplessness. The whites of the Colonies are the strong and favoured sons [of the Empire]. We are the weak and neglected ones. How can the neglected sons get a hearing from the mother against the favoured ones? By petitioning? It is impossible. 31 Though he still referred to England as the mother, in the same year, 1909, Gandhi would at last begin to consistently criticize the Empire. In previous years, Gandhis writings would hint at a loss of the blind devotion to British rule that had characterized his early life. Gandhi had, as especially evident in the writings on the Revolutionaries, started to admit although not in a developed or specific manner the defects of British rule, even while remaining loyal to it. By 1909, Gandhi had become angry that his resistance movement - one he believed was beneficial to British rule at large - was not being reciprocated by the South African government. In late December of 1908, he castigated a British colonel and warned that the Colonels views might bring about the end of the Empire: His [Colonel Seely's] speech in fact implies that Indians residing in lands where whites had already settled should be gradually eliminated. The Transvaal Indians therefore have to shoulder a burden on behalf of the whole of India. We shall show later that they can easily do so, and they certainly will. Colonel Seely's views suggest a change [for the worse] in British policy and, if they gain currency, they will herald the decline of the Empire. Therefore, the Indians' resistance tends to the good of the British Empire, too. Colonel Seely's views will be endorsed only by those who wish that the British Empire should be destroyed. They are the enemies of the British Empire. Indian [passive] resisters, who have been opposing this view and will continue to do so, may be said to be the friends of the Empire. 32 By 1909, not only was Gandhi admonishing British rule in his public writings and speeches more than before, he had also started corresponding with Lord Ampthill, a member of the British House of Lords. Ampthill had become interested in Gandhis cause, but had to face questions from superiors as to Gandhis true intentions, given the seditious nature of the movement in India. Thus Ampthill wrote to Gandhi regarding allegations that connected Gandhi to the Indian revolutionaries, claims Gandhi vehemently denied in an August 1909 written response: I am fully aware of the allegation that we are acting in co-operation with the Extremist Party in India. I however give Your Lordship the emphatic assurance that the charge is totally without foundation. ...Our movement is absolutely unconnected with any [extremist] movement in India. ...We are in close contact with the Editor of The Times of India and I used to be in personal touch with the late Mr. Saunders of the Englishman who, I may say, gave me valuable assistance and advice when I first undertook public work in South Africa. Our complaint has always been that our countrymen in India have, as it might have appeared until

recently, almost studiously ignored the question of its Imperial importance...now Henry S.L Polak is in Bombay, from the Transvaal, in order to place the position before the Indian public. He has gone there with definite instructions not to come in contact with the Extremist Party, but to be guided largely by the Editor of the Times of India, Professor Gokhale and the Aga Khan. ... I am quite aware that this exposition of my own view may not be of any use to Your Lordship and possibly is devoid of any interest whatsoever. The only reason I mention it is to guard myself against being misunderstood. I am most anxious not to withhold anything at all from Your Lordship and I am anxious to retain, in any work that I undertake, the support of one who so loves the Empire and the country of my birth such as yourself. 33 Here Gandhi mentions as two influences the editor of the Times of India and Professor G.K Gokhale, a long time leader of the Congress (Moderate) party that opposed the "Extremist" party trying to free the country (In the 1907 Surat Congress the two factions had come to blows). Gokhale, in one of his writings, noted the difference between the English language media, which functioned primarily as a British organ, and the vernacular papers like Bande Mataram, which spread revolutionary fervor and were subject to closure by Imperial authorities: The attitude of the Vernacular Press, deplorable as it may at time be, depends largely on a number of circumstances. For one thing, the normal relations between the English and the Indians in the country determine it; and the special questions which for the moment may happen to agitate the public mind may also largely influence it. And then there are the writings in the columns of the Anglo-Indian press. What happens very often is that writers in the Vernacular Press take up the articles or attacks in the Anglo-Indian papers and reply to them. The officials, who read these replies, apply them to themselves, because the writers in the Vernacular press often express themselves generally against Europeans as such, taking the Anglo-Indian Press to represent European views. 34 Representing the European views, as the Anglo-Indian press generally did, meant support for the Empire hardly surprising considering that the editors of these papers were English. It was from these editors that Gandhi hoped to spread the word about the status of Indians in South Africa, as clearly it was of grave importance for the Indian public to agitate for the status of a mere fraction of their populace in South Africa! While he may have been the beneficiary of useful advice from these parties, it was Gokhale who was more of a true mentor, a man who Gandhi held in such high esteem that he declared him Mahatma Gokhale after his death. Thus it comes as no surprise that Gokhale held similar political - though not religious - views to Gandhi. In a recorded speech entitled "Three Questions of Vital Importance," Gokhale speaks of English rule being completely necessary for the evolution of India, and of the desire for equal rights being given the Indians, similar to the rights Gandhi wanted in South Africa all held under the British Crown:

My Lord, behind all grievances of which I have spoken today, three questions of vital importance emerge to view. First, what is the status of us, Indians, in this Empire? Secondly, what is the extent of the responsibility which lies on the Imperial Government to ensure to us just and humane and gradually even equal treatment in this Empire? And thirdly, how far are the self-governing members of this Empire bound by its cardinal principles? Are they to participate in its privileges only and not to bear their share of its disadvantages? My Lord, it is not for me to frame replies to these questions; it is for the Imperial and Colonial Statesmen to do that. But I must say this, that they are bound to afford food for grave reflection throughout this country. My Lord, only a fortnight ago this Council passed an important Bill imposing serious restrictions on what is known as the liberty of the Press. I was one of those who gave their support to that measure, and I did this in spite of my strong disapproval of some its provisions. I supported the Bill because I felt that something deeper and even more fundamental than the liberty of the Press was at stake in several parts of the country and was likely to be at stake sooner or later in other parts, unless preventative action was taken now, namely, the unquestioned continuance of British rule, with which all our hopes of a peaceful evolution are bound up. But, my lord, what is the good of continued existence of British rule, if causes are allowed to be at work which forcibly suggest such ideas to men's minds? I think I am stating the plain truth when I say that no single question of our time has evoked more bitter feelings throughout India - feelings in the presence of which the best friends of British rule have to remain helpless - that the continued ill treatment of Indians in South Africa. 35 As evident from the speech, Gokhale had taken a significant interest in Gandhi's cause in Natal while at the same time supporting plans to curb the growing Nationalist press that was expressing aspirations for independence! Somehow Gokhale had managed to remain above, or oblivious to, the degraded state British rule had produced. Nevertheless, of prime importance here is that Gokhale, being an ardent Loyalist even after 1905, would have never taken up Gandhi's cause if he suspected Gandhi to be anything other than a Loyalist. Another person who would not have supported Gandhis cause if he suspected him of disloyalty to the crown, was the aforementioned Lord Ampthill. Ampthills asking of Gandhi to respond to allegations concerning Gandhis loyalty was nothing but a way for Ampthill to confirm his intuition that Gandhi was pure in his devotion. Ampthill response to Gandhi's letter shows such faith: Your answer is exactly what I expected, and while I have not failed hitherto to deny the charge indignantly from my own inward conviction, I shall now be able to do so armed with the certainty of your complete and candid explanation. I have never had a moment's doubt myself as to your freedom from complicity with conspirators in India, but I have found myself obliged to meet suggestions to that effect proceeding from high and responsible quarters. 36

Gandhi, upon receiving the boon of having an established member of Parliament support his satyagraha, was quick to let doubters of his loyalty know whose blessings he had: Sir, In your leading article in the current number, you state that: Mr. Gandhi, of Natal and Transvaal fame, admits that the campaign of himself and his friends will be dictated by sympathisers in England, whose names by the way are unfortunately associated with the dangerous movement in India, which has been brought into such startling prominence of late. Will you kindly allow me to say in reply that what I said to the Reuter's agent was that our movements will be guided by the advice that may be given to us by Lord Ampthill and his Committee. I am not aware that Lord Ampthill or his colleagues are associated with what you call "the dangerous movement in India." 37 Indeed Lord Ampthill, belonging to Parliament, would hardly desire or dare to associate with someone viewed as a threat to the Empire. If Gandhi was in truth an enemy of the Empire, there is no possibility that Ampthill could have corresponded with him without risking the charge of treason. In Ampthill, Gandhi had found his first access to the influential men of the Empire, through whom he undoubtedly hoped to accomplish his political goals. But if Gandhi was using Ampthill to help his struggle for Indians in South Africa, he was also being set up for manipulation. The first public example of this manipulation was the 1909 release of a book, with a foreword from Ampthill, entitled MK Gandhi: An Indian Patriot in South Africa. This book portrays Gandhi as an Indian patriot the idea of a patriot being an Indian loyal to Britain, the type of patriotism Ampthill and company would have wished to instill in all Indians. For instance, it quotes Gandhi as being opposed to any severance of the connection between righteous Britain and India: Whatever may have been the motives of the British rulers in India, there is a desire on the part of the nation to see that justice is done. It would be a calamity to break the connection between the British people and the people of India. If we are treated as, or assert our right to be treated as, free men, whether in India or elsewhere, the connection between the British people and the people of India can not only be mutually beneficial, but is calculated to be of enormous advantage to the world religiously, and, therefore, socially and politically. In my opinion, each nation is the complement of each other. 38 Ampthill had taken a serious interest in Gandhi, and in response Gandhi (who for a long time sent countless letters to higher British officials without response), evidently elated to have such a correspondent, offered himself - in a October 1909 letter - to Ampthill like a Bhakta to Sri Krishna:

To me, who am so inexperienced in high politics and diplomacy, the draft enclosed in yesterday's letter to Your Lordship, appeals as the more correct letter to be sent, after an addition to it sketching roughly the plan of campaign to be followed here and the intended visit to India. However, I am entirely in Your Lordship's hands, and would be guided by the advice you will kindly give. 39 Words like this must have pleased Ampthill and would have given his superiors pause for thought, because here was an Indian willing to be under the directions of British officials. But for the time being, that guidance would be limited to Ampthill, who had to relay the bad news to Gandhi that the colonial secretary could not correspond with him: I note that on further reflection you are not inclined to adopt the more elaborate procedure which I the suggested: I dare say that your instinct is quite right and there is, of course, ample reason for thinking that in present circumstances Lord Crewe will not be able, even if he were inclined, to pay much attention to your business. In these circumstances I should be very sorry to interfere with your discretion and I agree with you that you cannot go wrong if you write as you first intended, with the addition of a brief explanation of the methods by which you propose to inform the public. 40 Ampthills responses show a constant encouragement of Gandhi, indicating that he likely was a genuine admirer of Gandhis mission, a cause limited only to South Africa, loyal to the Crown, and based on the idea that its actions were beneficial to the Empire. Ampthill agreed that the elimination of racist South African policies was a principle the Empire should stand for, and debated this point in British Parliament. Ampthill would continue to correspond with Gandhi even after the publication of Gandhis Hind Swaraj in late 1909. Gandhi wrote the book, which advocated Indian home rule, after a four-month stay in England in 1909. As the book is written in a question and answer format, with a significant portion written as an argument against the tactics of the Indian revolutionaries, it is likely that Gandhi was in contact with nationalists in England, their views impelling him to write a refutation. The book did not add anything of significance to Gandhis previous complaints about British rule, but does give an early framework as to what he believed constituted Indian civilization; a schema based more on his dislike of modern civilization leading to reactionary theories as to what defined Indian culture. Besides his well known distaste for industrialization, Gandhi also expressed his dislike for the medical and legal professions, calling for an Indian home rule where a lawyer would give up his profession, and take up a handloom, a home rule in which a physician would take up a hand-loom, and if any patients come to him, will advise them to remove the cause rather than pamper them by giving useless drugs; he will understand that if by not taking drugs, perchance the patient dies, the world will not come to grief and that he will have been merciful to him. It may be true that too much reliance on drugs is not to be desired from a physician, but to call for complete non-use of drugs is reactionary. Gandhi, who in his life would receive medical treatment for malaria inside a hospital, would in Hind Swaraj describe hospitals as institutions for propagating sin. Wealthy men were not spared the wrath of Gandhi, as the wealthy man

under home rule was to devote his money to establishing hand looms - handlooms obviously being central to the greatness of the ancient Indian civilization Gandhi claimed would accompany a home rule achieved using his methods! He drew his conclusions regarding doctors and lawyers under home rule a rule he claimed would be like ancient India through the ideas of western writers, conclusions he admitted were adopted. They are not original: Western writers have used stronger terms regarding both lawyers and doctors. As for education, Gandhi expressed his belief in the sincerity of Macaulays intentions, rightly complained about the modern state of education, yet only provided the vague offer of character-building as a foundation for a new education. When it came to the removal of the British, Gandhi was guilty of much absurdity, exaggeration, and naivete. Curiously, he chose to answer the British charge of cowardice by assuring the reader that our agriculturists sleep fearlessly on their farms today. He repeated past hyperbole that violent revolution would Europeanize India (writing as if India had never experienced war) and that violence was the means of Satan. He dismissed the British fear of a Russian invasion, warmly offering to look after her if she came. As he had done in earlier writings and speeches, he placed most of the blame on the morality of Indians themselves, asserting that the British would leave or change themselves if the Indians were to reform themselves first.41 If such an idea had ever been tried, if would have given the British the perfect excuse to maintain their rule; they could simply use any single incidence of Indian misbehavior such as violence to claim that the Indians had not reformed themselves. Even though Hind Swaraj doesnt inspire in the way that other revolutionary writings did, it nevertheless can be considered a somewhat developed divergence from his earlier writings. This change was only partially to do with the principles such as his stance on civilization that he believed in; otherwise he would not have restored his faith in the Empire again the next year. This period of his political life, culminating with Hind Swaraj, was more a reaction to being ignored by the British evident in writings where he described the Indians in Natal as the neglected sons than a transformation of his principles. It was his frustration at having yet to garner anything positive for South African Indians, even while corresponding with the likes of Ampthill, that caused him to reflect upon and spend some more time reading the works of certain western authors, eventually culminating with his attacks on the West. But with the advent of assistance and response from British officials, came the revival of Gandhis enthusiasm. Having placed himself completely in their hands, he was naturally elated when rewards came for his tireless letter writing. Ampthill for one did not let the publication of Hind Swaraj deter him from arguing against the deportation of British Indians less than a year later: Lord Ampthill, who has rendered signal services to the cause of British Indians in South Africa and, thereby, we venture to think, the Empire, has again raised the question in the House of Lords. 42

Here Gandhi returns to his old self and the view of his resistance movement as important for the Empire. It was not that Gandhi had simply forgotten or changed his opinion once again as to whether England should rule India. Instead, Gandhi had now decided to lay his faith on the British Empire on its principles as opposed to its peoples or the present state of its civilization. There would be fewer articles praising the Englishmen or their country; now the focus of his praise was for its documents and for the ideals of the Empire that Gandhi believed were not being fulfilled: It may seem somewhat anomalous to a stranger why and how British Indians of South Africa should tender their loyalty to the Throne or rejoice over the crowning of Sovereigns in whose dominions they do not even enjoy the ordinary civil rights of orderly men. The anomaly would, however, disappear, if the stranger were to understand the British Constitution. British Sovereigns represent, in theory, purity and equality of justice. The ideal of King George is to treat his subjects with equality. His happiness depends upon that of his subjects. British statesmen make an honest attempt to realize his ideals. That they often fail miserably in doing so is too true but irrelevant to the issue before us. The British monarchy is limited and rightly so under the existing circumstances. Those who are content to remain under the British flag may, ought to, without doing any violence to their conscience, tender their loyalty to the Sovereign for the time being of these mighty dominions, although, like us, they may be labouring under severe disabilities. In tendering our loyalty, we but show our devotion to the ideals just referred to; our loyalty is an earnest of our desire to realize them. The genius of the British Constitution requires that every subject of the Crown should be as free as any other, and, if he is not, it is his duty to demand and fight for his freedom so long as he does so without injuring anyone else. There is no room for helotry and slavery in this constitution, though both exist abundantly. Largely it is the fault of the helots and the slaves themselves. The British constitution provides a happy means of freedom but it must be confessed that it is not easy of adoption. There is no royal road to freedom. British people themselves have reached what they mistake for freedom through much travail and suffering. If, however, we understand the spirit of the British Constitution, though we suffer from disabilities in this subcontinent and though we are far from happy in the sacred land of our birth, we are bound happily to shout Long live the King! 43 Continued talks with and support from higher officials fed confidence to Gandhi that the glorious principles of the Empire would inevitably be applied on the ground; thus the ideals alone made it permissible for Indians to remain loyal to the King, who was a mere extension of the true genius of the Empire, its constitution. And to remain loyal to such a constitution was not only loyalty to King George, but also to ones manhood! We believe, however, that we can remain loyal to His Majesty despite our untold sufferings. Our sufferings are to be blamed on the local authorities, and more so on ourselves. If we can become truthful [that is] if we rebel against ourselves (against the Satanic within us), thus exorcizing the devil, and ourselves manage

our affairs instead, we will not have to put up with any hardship whatever and shall be able to declare, 'Oh, how happy we are under the reign of King George!' To the extent that we are unable to exorcize Satan in us, we shall have to take to entreating the local authorities, and we might thereby slake our burning woes. If we do not do either, how is King George to blame? Someone may answer saying that everything is being done in the name of King George, and therefore the credit for the good things and blame for the wrong things should both be his. What we have said above disposes of that argument. The British monarchy is not free, but is confined within limits... Moreover, the British Constitution aims at securing equality of rights and equality before the law for every subject. Those who do not enjoy such equality are free to fight for it, the only restriction being that the mode of agitation shall not harm others. Not only is every British subject free to fight in this way, but it is his duty to do so. It is a duty to express one's loyalty to such a constitution and to its head, the King-Emperor, for that will only be an expression of loyalty to one's manhood. The loyalty of a slave is no loyalty. He only serves. If a slave can be loyal, that must be due to coercion. The loyalty of a free man is willed. It may be argued against this reasoning that it would justify submission even to a wicked King or a vicious constitution; the argument then is not quite proper...If the British constitution were to change and lay down that there would be no equality, not even in theory, as between whites and Coloureds, we could no longer owe allegiance to such a constitution, and would have to oppose it. Even in such a contingency, however, we could remain loyal to the King within limits; such is the virtue of the British system ...The British Constitution permits one to seek this freedom. The British Emperor must wish that all his subjects get such freedom; such is the British way. And there are Englishmen who sincerely strive to act on these principles according to their own lights. We can, therefore, and ought to, remain loyal to the British Emperor, our grievances notwithstanding. 44 In hindsight, it is not surprising that Gandhi was swept away by the argument of theory over practice. For Gandhi displayed a remarkable tendency in his life to become strongly attached to mental ideas without considering the product of the ideas acted upon. Similarly with ahimsa, he perhaps remained so attached to such ideas because they provided an alternate to a path that called for a real inner strength or will in fighting his adversaries. By exaggerating the virtues of constitutional theory above that of actual practice, he was relinquishing to the opponent the decision as to whether or not constitutional theory should be practiced. Gandhi, in essence, was voiding his own choice in the matter, taking refuge in the belief that political theory was more important than political reality. If his belief in the remarkable flexibility of the British constitution can be seen as something that came natural to him (i.e. becoming attached to certain mental ideas), it can also be seen as a natural development of his loyalty. He had for a long time been emotionally attached to the Empire, but now the attachment was to the theory with

figures like the King being extensions of those ideals - behind the Empire. Glimpses of this are present in his earlier writings, especially his calls for the British to follow the teachings of Christ and their traditions, but never with the solitary exception of his writing on the Proclamation of 1858 - is it as well developed as in his later writings on the Constitution. While the evolution of his loyalty presents with the smoothness of a natural development, it does not negate his having had help in arriving at this new position or with the expression of his views. In one of his writings, Gandhi all but admits a primary source for his newfound love of the Constitution to be none other than Lord Ampthill: And in pleading for the general terms in an Immigration Bill, we do not countenance a subterfuge, as it has been called, but we ask for a continuance of the excellent part of the British Constitution which requires that, however persistent a bad practice may be, it shall not be incorporated into law. In Lord Ampthill's words, theory should be sound, though one may fail to carry it out in practice. In theory, there is no such thing as a straight line that can be drawn, but because we draw a line that is only fairly but not quite straight, we are not supposed to have resorted to subterfuge by having still the true, though theoretical, definition in view. To keep our theory right is to obey the law of our higher nature; to depart from it in practice is to concede the weakness of human nature. If, therefore, the Government wish to depart from the theory of the British Constitution to which they owe their very existence, they are welcome to do so; only, then, they will not have used "plain terms" but they will have avowed their enmity to the origin of their existence. And passive resisters who still cling to the beautiful vision of that Constitution are prepared to fight for making it a reality or die in the attempt. 45 So strong was his attachment to the idea, that not only was he willing to die for the principles within the Constitution, he as mentioned in a 1914 farewell banquet was a slave to it: But, proceeded Mr. Gandhi, he concurred with Mr. Duncan in an article he wrote some years ago, when he truly analyzed the struggle, and said that behind the struggle for concrete rights lay the great spirit which asked for an abstract principle, and the fight which was undertaken in 1906, although it was a fight against a particular law, was a fight undertaken in order to combat the spirit that was seen about to overshadow the whole of South Africa, and to undermine the British constitution, of which the Chairman had spoken so loftily that evening, and about which he (the speaker) shared his views. It was his knowledge, right or wrong, of the British Constitution which bound him to the Empire. Tear that constitution to shreds and his loyalty also would be torn to shreds. Keep that constitution intact, and they held him slave to that Constitution. He had felt that the choice lay for himself and his fellow countrymen between two courses, when the spirit was brooding over South Africa, either to surrender themselves from the British Constitution, or to fight in order that the ideals of that Constitution may be preserved-but only the ideals. Lord Ampthill had said, in a preface to Mr. Doke's

book, that the theory of the British constitution must be preserved at any cost if the British Empire was to be saved from the mistakes that all the previous Empires had made. Practice might bend to the temporary aberration through which local circumstances might compel them to pass, it might bend before unreasoning or unreasonable prejudice, but theory once recognized could never be departed from, and this principle must be maintained at any cost. ...it was a perfectly dignified thing for any gathering to congratulate itself upon such a vindication of the principles of the British Constitution. 46 In viewing their correspondence, one can truly believe that the advice and support that Ampthill offered Gandhi was genuine and done without any ulterior motive. It is not simply that Ampthill argued Gandhis case in Parliament on numerous occasions, it is that one can easily see how Ampthill could have agreed on an ideological level with Gandhi that the actions of the British in South Africa were unbecoming the spirit of the Empire. Believing that the Empire should treat its subjects equally would lead him to advise Gandhi that while the practice was crooked, the theory behind was still sound and that work should be done to get theory extended into daily human life. Gandhi, who had had similar notions, naturally picked up on this line of thinking, with the stress that his satyagraha movement would fight to get this theory actually practiced. While the motives of Ampthill appear altruistic, the motive of senior ranking British officials in helping Gandhis cause gives the appearance of cold and calculating politics. After all, for what reason other than political interest would the Viceroy of India at the time, Lord Hardinge who had narrowly escaped assassination at the hands of revolutionaries - and others in the Imperial Government, have for urging Gandhis South African opponent General Botha to consider Gandhis stance? According to a summary of the aforementioned 1914 farewell banquet for Gandhi, he himself admits that help from Hardinge and the Imperial Government was instrumental in getting the Indians the settlement they desired: He had said that, if the Indian community had gained anything through this settlement, it was certainly due to Passive Resistance; but it was certainly not due to Passive Resistance alone. He thought that the cablegram that had been read that evening showed that they had to thank the noble Viceroy, Lord Hardinge, for his great effort. He thought, too, that they had to thank the Imperial Government, who, during the past few years, in season and out of season, had been sending dispatches after dispatches to General Botha, and asking him to consider their standpoint-the Imperial standpoint. 47 The aftermath of this farewell banquet provides the evidence for the British decision to support Gandhis cause in South Africa. The first item of interest comes from his autobiography, where Gandhi gives the reason for his decision to sail to India via England, when everyone knew war was imminent (World War I would break out on August 4th during Gandhis stay):

At the conclusion of the satyagraha struggle in 1914, I received Gokhale"s instructions to return home via London. So in July Kasturbai, Kallenbach and I sailed for England. 48 Gokhale was not in the best of health, and was in Paris for treatment; thus he would have been keen to impart as much as he could to someone who could be considered as close as possible to an ideological heir. For this is exactly what was happening: the torch was being passed on. While Gandhi had had frustrating times dealing with the Empire, he was still loyal to it, and had been mentored by Loyalists such as Gokhale and Ampthill. The British had surely studied his speeches and writings from South Africa, and with the likes of Ampthill and Viceroy Hardinge backing him, they would have no doubt that he would be a good, if not great, fit for the leadership of the Congress Party. It was paramount that such a man be leader of the Congress when we consider that in the ten years prior to his arrival, the Congress had housed many who supported revolt against the British, men who formed the so-called Extremist faction of the party. By the time of the war, the British had finally gotten rid of the revolutionary elements and were looking to restore the Congress to its initial status, a Party that would attempt to serve the needs of the Indian people within the confines of the British Empire. To make sure the Congress party remained limited to its original purpose, the British would require a leadership not prone to rebellious stances, a leadership willing to be instructed by the British whenever it suited its purposes, a leadership that was not hiding anything from the British. Judging by the following passage from his autobiography, Gandhi was perfect for such a position; his recollection exposes the hidden reason for the British Governments pressure on General Botha to accept the Imperial Standpoint so that Gandhi could be promoted from the leadership of the Natal Congress to the ruler of the Indian Congress: The moment I reached Bombay Gokhale sent me word that the Governor was desirous of seeing me, and that it might be proper for me to respond before I left for Poona. Accordingly I called on His Excellency. After the usual inquiries, he said : "I ask one thing of you. I would like you to come and see me whenever you propose to take any steps concerning Government." I replied: "I can very easily give the promise, inasmuch as it is my rule, as a satyagrahi, to understand the viewpoint of the party I propose to deal with, and to try to agree with him as far as may be possible. I strictly observed the rule in South Africa and I mean to do the same here." Lord Willingdon thanked me and said: "You may come to me whenever you like, and you will see that my Government do not wilfully do anything wrong." To which I replied. "It is that faith which sustains me." 49 Thus, the British had a man in charge of the Indian government who was both loyal to them and also willing to advise them of any steps he was taking (thus eliminating the element of surprise). This was a man with a history of following orders of men superior to him, someone who surely struck the British as being honest. Honesty, in of all fields politics, was to be Gandhis principle trait. He wanted to maintain honesty even in politics where lying or at least withholding the truth from certain people, such as your

enemies has for long been considered normal and usually of necessity. To Gandhi, being an honest person and practicing ahimsa was equivalent to the Truth, and here we speak of the supreme Truth to existence. Gandhi had the audacity to claim these two traits to be practiced in all situations as required for Truth (which he admitted to have never realized). There has never been any rigid rule in Hinduism that honesty (while preferable the majority of the time) was required in every single situation in order to experience the highest Truth, for honesty in certain situations (like in politics) is a moral decision, not necessarily - and occasionally in opposition to - a spiritual position. It was not that lying was deemed appropriate: rather holding ones tongue was considered a suitable course of action. His belief otherwise helps explain the propensity of stories within his autobiography on his experiments with Truth that dealt with his honesty, such as the following which took place after he enlisted in the war effort, showing just how far he would take this principle: Though I thus took part in the War as a matter of duty, it chanced that I was not only unable directly to participate in it, but actually compelled to offer what may be called miniature satyagraha even at that critical juncture. I have already said that an officer was appointed in charge of our training, as soon as our names were approved and enlisted. We 1 Col. R. J. Baker were all under the impression that this Commanding Officer was to be our chief only so far as technical matters were concerned, and that in all other matters I was the head of our Corps, which was directly responsible to me in matters of internal discipline; that is to say, the Commanding Officer had to deal with the Corps through me. But from the first the Officer left us under no such delusion. Mr. Sorabji Adajania was a shrewd man. He warned me. "Beware of this man," he said, "He seems inclined to lord it over us. We will have one of his orders. We are prepared to look upon him as our instructor. But the youngsters he has appointed to instruct us also feel as though they had come as our masters." These youngsters were Oxford students who had come to instruct us and whom the Commanding Officer had appointed to be our section leaders. I also had not failed to notice the high-handedness of the Commanding Officer, but I asked Sorabji not to be anxious and tried to pacify him. But he was not the man to be easily convinced. "You are too trusting. These people will deceive you with wretched words, and when at last you see through them, you will ask us to resort to satyagraha, and so come to grief, and bring us all to grief along with you," said he with a smile. "What else but grief can you hope to come to after having cast in your lot with me?" said I. "A satyagrahi is born to be deceived. Let the Commanding Officer deceive us. Have I not told you times without number that ultimately a deceiver only deceives himself ?" Sorabji gave a loud laugh. "Well, then," said he,

"continue to be deceived. You will some day meet your death in satyagraha and drag poor mortals like me behind you." 50 What a pliable servant the British had found for themselves, only willing to be deceived, without the courage to look them in the eye and call out their dishonesty. Such a man could be easily manipulated to suit the purposes of the British, primarily the perpetuation of British rule. And if he decided that he could no longer support the Empire, if he were too, as Sorabji said, "see through them, he would hardly have posed much more of a threat. Because as the British had seen before with Hind Swaraj, and as Sorabji knew too well, Gandhi would only resort to nonviolence tactics (which is why their only course of action for Hind Swaraj was to ban it in India after its 1917 re-release, without punishing Gandhi like they did other revolutionaries). Unlike the original Swadesh movement, which attacked the British from multiple angles and was not averse to violence, Gandhis Swadesh would prove static and easily manageable, only a minor irritant for the British. For Gandhis movement was predictable not solely because it was nonviolent, but because Gandhi, forever willing to be deceived by his opponents, held the view that it was wrong for him and other Indians to hold secrets, to be the deceiver of their opponents. In 1920 Gandhi would describe this withholding of information as the sin of secrecy: One of the curses of India is often the sin of secrecy. For fear of unknown consequences we talk in whispers. Nowhere has this secrecy oppressed me more than in Bengal. Everybody wishes to speak to you 'in private.' The spectacle of innocent young men looking around before opening their lips to see that no third party overhears their conversation has given me the greatest grief. Every stranger is suspected of belonging to the Secret Service. I have been warned to beware of strangers. The cup of my misery was filled when I was told that the unknown student who presided at the students meeting belonged to the Secret Service department. I could recall the names of at least two prominent leaders who are suspected in high Indian circles of being spies of the Government. I feel thankful to God that for past years I have come to regard secrecy as a sin more especially in politics. If we realized the presence of God as witness to all we say and do, we would not have anything to conceal from anybody on earth. This desire for secrecy has bred cowardice amongst us and has made us dissemble our speech. The best and quickest way of getting rid of this corroding and degrading secret service is for us to make a final effort to think everything aloud, have no privileged conversation with any soul on earth and to cease to fear the spy. We must ignore his presence and treat everyone as a friend entitled to know all our thoughts and plans. I know that I have achieved most satisfactory results from evolving the boldest of my plans in broad daylight. I have never lost a minute's peace for having detectives by my side. The public may not know that I have been shadowed throughout my stay in India. That has not only not worried me but I have even taken friendly services from these gentlemen: many have apologized for having to shadow me. As a rule, what I have spoken in their

presence has already been published to the world. The result is that now I do not even notice the presence of these men and I do not know that the Government is much the wiser for having watched my movements through its secret agency. My opinion is that these agents accompany me as a matter of form or routine. They certainly never bother me. I venture to make a present of my experience to every young man in Bengal and for that matter in India. No one need think that my public position, and not my openness, saves me from offensive attention. It is the simplest thing to see that the moment you cease to dread the presence of the spy and therefore refuse to treat him as such, that moment his presence ceases to offend you. Soon the Government will feel ashamed to have its Secret Service department or, if it does not, the secret police will be sick of an occupation which serves no use. 51 The very reason for this proliferation in British intelligence operations had to do with the revolutionaries whose influence Gandhi was being brought in to counter. The situation he arrived in during the war a peculiar one; on the one hand British expulsions and arrests along with retirement from the scene of many leaders had led to a vacuum in the Congress, whether moderate or extremist; on the other hand, the violence that at one point was being openly declared had now gone underground, devoid of the political influence it initially held. While the underground movements did not have the intellectual mouthpieces or widespread fervor that it did before, it remained just as, if not more, dangerous to British rule. This became evident during the wartime period when the revolutionaries took part in a series of plans with the intent to destroy the British Empire. These plots would later be known as the Hindu-German Conspiracy. The German element was pivotal in the most dangerous of the plots, the Ghadar conspiracy, which was an attempt by revolutionary networks, especially those in Punjab and Bengal, to instigate a mutiny amongst British Indian Army Sepoys. They were to secure the safe transit of arms from America into India; February of 1915 was the time when these arms were supposed to be used. Unfortunately, an Indian agent working for the Raj alerted authorities to the details of the plot, who were then able to either thwart or suppress simultaneously planned mutinous outbreaks in India, Burma, and Singapore. Though the Ghadar conspiracy failed, the British took the threat of a reoccurrence seriously, enacting the Defence of India Act of 1915, whose laws would later be extended by the Rowlatt Act of 1919 - legislation with the intent to root out all conspiracies against the crown through severe punishment. During the same period, there was a marked increase in British intelligence efforts; the combination of these changes made it increasingly necessary for any revolutionary activity to be done with secrecy. It was Gandhis complete aversion to that along with his forthright openness in his political tactics, this willingness to not keep any secret from the detectives following him, that made Gandhi perhaps the ideal man for the British to give power too. Because if Gandhi was not like Gokhale, whose loyalty was assured, Gandhi had given the British a precedent for what his strategy would be in opposition to British rule. Hind Swaraj was proof that Gandhi would not reverse his method from South Africa, and would demand

complete nonviolence from the entire country, sure to eschew the drop of any British blood. Thus Gandhi was a mere pawn for the Empire, most likely to be a willing servant for their interests, at worst a minor nuisance who along with not using violent force, was a guarantee never to spring a surprise upon his former masters! Indeed one could argue that the Gandhi opposed to Britain was more valuable than the loyalist, since he would channel the nations rage and urge for action into a strictly nonviolent movement which Britain - unlike a widespread mutiny in the army - could easily contr