the debate on Bill No. 2, said, " they could only hope that (the Satyagraha) would not materialise. Mr. Gandhi might exercise great self-restraint in action, but there would be other young hot-headed men who might be led into violence which could not but end in disaster. Yielding to this threat, how- ever, would be tantamount to complete abolition of the authority of the Governor-General-in-Council." If Sir William's fear as to violence is realised, it would undoubtedly be a disaster. It is for every Satyagrahi to guard against that danger. I entertain no such fear because our creed requires us to eschew all violence and to resort to truth and self-suffering, as the only weapons in our armoury- Indeed the Satyagraha movement is, among other things, an invitation to those who belive in the efficiency of violence for redress of grievances to join our ranks and honestly to follow our methods. I have suggested elsewhere that what the Rowlatt Bills are intended to do and what I verily believe they are bound to fail in achieving is exactly what the Satyagraha movement is pre-eminently capable of achieving. By demonstrating to the party of violence the infallible power of Satyagraha and by giving them ample scope for their inexhaustible energy, we hope to wean that party from the suicidal method of violence. What can be more potent than an absolute statement, accompanied by corresponding action, presented in the clearest terms possible that violence is never necessary for the purpose of securing reforms ? Sir William says that the movement has great potentialities of evil. The Hon. Pandit Madan Moban Malaviya is said to have retorted, "and also of good." I would venture to improve upon
