She love to write and believes that a job should be like a hobby. Her basic instinct, is to keep learning and exploring, all the times. Stay updated with all the insights. Navigate news, 1 email day. Subscribe to Qrius. Broaden your horizons as unpack fresh trends shaping our lives.
Qrius delivers fresh, immersive writing that answers the question 'Why should I care? Start your mornings with the acclaimed 'Qrius Mornings' newsletter that gives you our best article of the day right in your inbox.
By Rehna Iftikhar Edited by Madhavi Roy The theme of my article is the story of an emancipator, who forms resistance against the state.
Featured articles 1. Bullying When banter can become bullying, these are the signs. Culture Tipu Sultan: Vision and mission. What led to the biggest Facebook outage ever? This might be the reason…. The earliest article that was put in from Young India was dated 25th May , which said that it was the duty of a non-co-operator to create disaffection towards the Government. The counsel then read out portions of articles written by Mr. Gandhi in the Young India.
Court said nevertheless it seemed to it that the Court could accept plea on the materials of which the sentence had to be based. Strangman said the question of sentence was entirely for the Court to decide. The Court was always entitled to deal in a more general manner in regard to the question of the sentence than the particular matter resulting in the conviction. He asked leave to refer to articles before the Court and what result might have been produced if the trial had proceeded in order to ascertain what the facts were.
He was not going into any matter which involved dispute. The Judge said there was not the least objection. Strangman said he wanted to show that these articles were not isolated.
They formed part of an organized campaign, but so far as Young India was concerned, they would show that from the year The Counsel then read out extracts from the paper, dated June 8, on the duty of a non-co-operator, which was to preach disaffection towards the existing government and preparing the country for civil disobedience. Then in the same number there was an article on disobedience. Then in the same number there was an article on Disaffection—a virtue or something to that effect.
Then there was an article on the 28th of July , in which it was stated that "we have to destroy the system". Again, on September 30, , there was an article headed, "Punjab Prosecutions" where it was stated that a non-co-operator worth his name should preach disaffection.
That was all so far as Young India was concerned. They were earlier in date than the article, "Tampering with Loyalty" and it was referred to the Governor of Bombay. Continuing, he said, the accused was a man of high educational qualifications and evidently, from his writings, a recognized leader. The harm that was likely to be caused was considerable. They were the writings of an educated man, and not the writings of an obscure man and the Court must consider to what the results of a campaign of the nature disclosed in the writings must inevitably lead.
They had examples before them in the last few months. He referred to the occurrences in Bombay last November and Chauri Chaura, leading to murder and destruction of property, involving many people in misery and misfortune. It was true that, in the course of those articles, they would find non-violence was insisted upon as an item of the campaign and as an item of the creed. But what was the use of preaching non- violence when he preached disaffection towards Government or openly instigated others to overthrow it?
The answer to that question appeared to him to come from Chauri Chaura, Madras and Bombay. These were circumstances which he asked the Court to take into account in sentencing the accused and it would be for the Court to consider those circumstances which involve sentences of severity.
As regards the second accused, his offence was lesser. He did the publication and he did not write. His offence nevertheless was a serious one. His instructions were that he was a man of means and he asked the Court to impose a substantial fine in addition to such term of imprisonment as might be inflicted upon. He quoted Section 10 of the Press Act as bearing on the question of fine.
When making a fresh declaration, he said a deposit of Rs. Gandhi, do you wish to make a statement to the Court on question of sentence? Before reading his written statement, Mr. Gandhi spoke a few words as introductory remarks to the whole statement. He said: Before I read this statement I would like to state that I entirely endorse the learned Advocate-General's remarks in connection with my humble self.
I think that he was entirely fair to me in all the statements that he has made, because it is very true and I have no desire whatsoever to conceal from this Court the fact that to preach disaffection towards the existing system of Government has become almost a passion with me, and the learned Advocate- General is also entirely in the right when he says that my preaching of disaffection did not commence with my connection with Young India, but that it commenced much earlier and in the statement that I am about to read, it will be my painful duty to admit before this Court that it commenced much earlier than the period stated by the Advocate-General.
It is the most painful duty with me, but I have to discharge that duty knowing the responsibility that rests upon me, and I wish to endorse all the blame that the learned Advocate-General has thrown on my shoulders in connection with the Bombay, the Madras and the Chauri Chaura occurrences. Thinking over these deeply and sleeping over them night after night, it is impossible to dissociate myself from the diabolical crimes of Chauri Chaura or the mad outrages in Bombay and Madras.
He is quite right when he says that, as a man of responsibility, a man having received a fair share of education, having had a fair share of experience of this world, I should know the consequences of every one of my acts. I knew that I was playing with fire. I ran the risk and, if I was set free, I would still do the same.
I know that I was feeling it so every day and I have felt it also this morning that I would have failed in my duty if I did not say what I said here just now. I wanted to avoid violence. I want to avoid violence. Non- violence is the first article of my faith. It is also the last article of my creed. But I had to make my choice. I had either to submit to a system which I considered had done an irreparable harm to my country, or incur the risk of the mad fury of my people bursting forth when they understood the truth from my lips.
I know that my people have sometimes gone mad; I am deeply sorry for it. I am, therefore, here to submit not to a light penalty but to the highest penalty. I do not ask for mercy. I do not ask for any extenuating act of clemency.
I am here to invite and cheerfully submit to the highest penalty that can be inflicted upon me for what in law is a deliberate crime and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen.
The only course open to you, the Judge, is as I am just going to say in my statement, either to resign your post, or inflict on me the severest penalty, if you believe that the system and the law you are assisting to administer are good for the people of this country and that my activity is there- fore injurious to the public weal. I do not expect that kind of conversion, but by the time I have finished with my statement, you will, perhaps, have a glimpse of what is raging within my breast to run this maddest risk that a sane man can run.
I owe it perhaps to the Indian public and to the public in England, to placate which this prosecution is mainly taken up, that I should explain why, from a staunch loyalist and co-operator, I have become an uncompromising disaffectionist and non-co-operator.
To the Court, too, I should say why I plead guilty to the charge of promoting disaffection towards the Government established by law in India. My public life began in in South Africa in troubled weather. My first contact with British authority in that country was not of a happy character. I discovered that as a man and an Indian I had no rights. More correctly, I discovered that I had no rights as a man because I was an Indian.
But I was not baffled. I thought that this treatment of Indians was an excrescence upon a system that was intrinsically and mainly good. I gave the Government my voluntary and hearty co-operation, criticizing it freely where I felt it was faulty, but never wishing its destruction.
Share this: Twitter Facebook. Like this: Like Loading Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:. Email required Address never made public. Name required. Follow Following. Law and Politics in the Ancient World. Sign me up. Already have a WordPress. Log in now.
0コメント