42 M. K. eaxnm that the Government of India could possibly have no voice in the determination of an international negotiation. He knew that the Government of India had represented the Indian feeling with some warmth and that Mr. Montegu and Lord Sinha had done their best to voice the claims of India at the Peace Table. But he held that the Government of lndia had not done all in their powrr and wl en the terms of Treaty with Turkey were published with a lengthy note from the Government of India to soothe the injured sentiment of the Muslim peoplr , Mr Gandhi wrote a re- markably frank letter to H. E Lor·d Chelmsford, the Viceroy, on June 14, 1920, in which he pointed out:-- The Peace terms and Your Excellenoy’s defence of them have given the Mussulmans of India a shock from which it will be diflicult for them to recover. The terms violate Ministerial pledges and utterly disregard the Mussulman sentiment. I consider that as a staunch Hindu, wishing to live on terms of the closest friendship with my Mussulman countrymen I should be an unworthy son of India if I did not st and by them in their hour of trial. In my humble opinion their cause is just. They claim that Turkey must not be punished if their sentiment is to be respected. Muslim soldiers did not iight to inflict punish- ment on their own Khalifa or to deprive him of his territories. The Mussulman attitude has been consistent throughout these five years. My duty to the Empire to which I owe my loyalty, requires me to resist the cruel violence that had been done to Mussulman sentiment. So far as I am aware the Mussulmans and Hindus have as a whole lost faith in British justice and honour. The report of the majority of the Hunter Committee, Your Excellency’s despatch thereon, and Mr. Montagu’s reply have only aggravated the distrust. In these circumstances the only course open to one like me is either in despair to sever all con- nection with British Ru e or if I still retained the faith in the inherent superiority of the British Constitution to all others at present in vogue, to adopt such means as will rectify the wrong done and thus restore that confidence. Non-Co-operation was the only dignified and constitutional form of such direct action. For it is a right `recognised from times immemorial of the subjects to refuse to assist the ruler who misrules. At the same time I admit Non—Co·operation practised by_ the mass ot people is attended with grave risks. But in a crisis such as has overtaken the Mussulmans of India, no step that is unattended with large risks can possibly bring about the desired change. Not to run some risks will be to count much greater risks if not the virtual destruction_of law
