words, it will be generally agreed that there must be an essential preliminary to any possible conference. If responsible leaders of non-co-operation now come forward with definite assurance that this is the correct interpretation I should then say we were in sight of such a change of circumstances as would justify Government in reconsidering the position. But words must be backed by deeds. If I were satisfied only that there was general desire for the conference and that responsible non-co-operation leaders were prepared to take action, then I should be prepared to recommend my Government to take steps in consonance with the altered situation." This is highly misleading. If wherever words "non-co-operation leaders" occur, the word "Government" were put in and if the whole of the statement came from a non-co-operator it would represent the correct situation. Non co-operators have really to do nothing, for they have precipitated nothing. They are over-cautious. The disturbance in Bombay was allowed to override their keen desire to take up aggressive Civil Disobedience but in the present circumstances the phrase "Civil Disobedience" is really a misnomer. What non-co-operators are doing to-day, I claim, every co-operator would do to-morrow under similar circumstances. When the Government of India or the Local Governments attempt to make our political existence or agitation, no matter how peaceful, an utter impossibility, may we not resist such attempt by every lawful means at our disposal? I cannot imagine anything more lawful or more natural than that we should continue our volunteer organisations purging them of every tendency to become violent and continue also to hold public meetings taking the consequences of such.
