Number of words 278

Lajpat Rai totally disapproves of Gandhi’s programme since his liberation, and says that if he does not change it he will have to break away from him, which will be a serious blow to the prestige of the Indian cause —but there is no other way. His argument is that Gandhi can choose between only two courses: either he can withdraw from politics, retaining only the moral or religious direction of India, and the training of great disciples who will bear his thought; or else he can totally abandon his political tactics and rally to that of the Swarajists. His stubbornness in imposing the charkha (the spinning wheel) on all party members is absurd and doomed to defeat; worse still, it will split the party. Similarly, the boycott of the tribunals, schools, etc., which in itself is good and just, is in practice impossible to maintain. The party agreed to accept it only as a short-term experiment, and at the end of the set term, the results, which were inadequate or frankly bad, proved that it had to be given up.

Of all his politico-religious doctrine, Gandhi should retain only nonviolence, which is its heart, and not hang on to the rest, in which factual experimentation should keep him his freedom of movement. In any case, Lajpat Rai himself believes that non-violence, though politically true as a tactical means of combat for India (because of her enormous numerical force and vitality), cannot be an absolute and universal principle; for a small nation threatened by a large one, the political duty is to have recourse to arms.

Excerpted from”page number 34 – 35, of Romain Rolland and Gandhi Correspondence.”