can carry on an effective struggle on behalf of the honour of Islam is to take up non-co-operation in real earnest.  It will not only be completely effective if it is adopted by the people on an extensive scale, but it will also provide full scope for individual conscience.  If I cannot bear an injustice done by an individual or a corporation, and if I am directly or indirectly instrumental in upholding that individual or corporation, I must answer for it before my Maker, but I have done all it is humanly possible for me to do consistently with the moral code that refuses to injure even the wrong-doer, if I cease to support the injustice in the manner described above.  In applying therefore such a great force there should be no haste, there should be no temper shown.  Non-co-operation must be and remain absolutely a voluntary effort.  The whole thing then depends upon Mahomedans themselves.  If they will but help themselves Hindu help will come and the Government, great and mighty though it is, will have to bend before this irresistible force.  No Government can possibly withstand the bloodless opposition of a whole nation.

MR. ANDREWS’ DIFFICULTY

Mr. Andrews whose love for India is equalled only by his love for England and whose mission in life is to serve God, i.e., humanity through India, has contributed remarkable articles to the ’Bombay Chronicle’ on the Khilafat movement.  He has not spared England, France or Italy.  He has shown how Turkey has been most unjustly dealt with and how the Prime Minister’s pledge has been broken.  He has devoted the last article to an examination of Mr. Mahomed Ali’s letter to the Sultan and has come to the conclusion that Mr. Mahomed Ali’s statement of claim is at variance with the claim set forth in the latest Khilafat representation to the Viceroy which he wholly approves.

Mr. Andrews and I have discussed the question as fully as it was possible.  He asked me publicly to define my own position more fully than I have done.  His sole object in inviting discussion is to give strength to a cause which he holds as intrinsically just, and to gather round it the best opinion of Europe so that the allied powers and especially England may for very shame be obliged to revise the terms.

I gladly respond to Mr. Andrew’s invitation.  I should clear the ground by stating that I reject any religious doctrine that does not appeal to reason and is in conflict with morality.  I tolerate unreasonable religious sentiment when it is not immoral.  I hold the Khilafat claim to be both just and reasonable and therefore it derives greater force because it has behind it the religious sentiment of the Mussalman world.

In my opinion Mr. Mahomed Ali’s statement is unexceptionable.  It is no doubt clothed in diplomatic language.  But I am not prepared to quarrel with the language so long as it is sound in substance.