Let us however examine the adjectives used by His Excellency to kill the movement by laughing at it.  It is ‘futile,’ ‘ill-advised,’ ‘intrinsically insane,’ ‘unpractical,’ ‘visionary.’  He has rounded off the adjectives by describing the movement as ’most foolish of all foolish schemes.’  His Excellency has become so impatient of it that he has used all his vocabulary for showing the magnitude of the ridiculous nature of non-co-operation.

Unfortunately for His Excellency the movement is likely to grow with ridicule as it is certain to flourish on repression.  No vital movement can be killed except by the impatience, ignorance or laziness of its authors.  A movement cannot be ‘insane’ that is conducted by men of action as I claim the members of the Non-co-operation Committee are.  It is hardly ‘unpractical,’ seeing that if the people respond, every one admits that it will achieve the end.  At the same time it is perfectly true that if there is no response from the people, the movement will be popularly described as ‘visionary.’  It is for the nation to return an effective answer by organised non-co-operation and change ridicule into respect.  Ridicule is like repression.  Both give place to respect when they fail to produce the intended effect.

THE VICEREGAL PRONOUNCEMENT

It may be that having lost faith in His Excellency’s probity and capacity to hold the high office of Viceroy of India, I now read his speeches with a biased mind, but the speech His Excellency delivered at the time of opening of the council shows to me a mental attitude which makes association with him or his Government impossible for self-respecting men.

The remarks on the Punjab mean a flat refusal to grant redress.  He would have us to ‘concentrate on the problems of the immediate future!’ The immediate future is to compel repentance on the part of the Government on the Punjab matter.  Of this there is no sign.  On the contrary, His Excellency resists the temptation to reply to his critics, meaning thereby that he has not changed his opinion on the many vital matters affecting the honour of India.  He is ’content to leave the issues to the verdict of history.’  Now this kind of language, in my opinion, is calculated further to inflame the Indian mind.  Of what use can a favourable verdict of history be to men who have been wronged and who are still under the heels of officers who have shown themselves utterly unfit to hold offices of trust and responsibility?  The plea for co-operation is, to say the least, hypocritical in the face of the determination to refuse justice to the Punjab.  Can a patient who is suffering from an intolerable ache be soothed by the most tempting dishes placed before him?  Will he not consider it mockery on the part of the physician who so tempted him without curing him of his pain?