tior. It is political violence which must stop civil disobedience. Chauri Chaura was an instance of political violence. It arose from a political demonstration which we should have avoided if we were not capable of -conducting it absolutely peacefully. I d.d not allow Malabar and Malegaon to interrupt our course, because the Moplahs were a special people and they had not come under the influence of non-violence to any appreci- able extent. Malegaon is more difficult, but there is clear evidence that the chief non-co-operators had tried their best to prevent the murders. Nor was mass civil disobedience imminent at the time. It could not interrupt individual civil disobedience elsewhere.
The non-co-operator's pledge does not exclude the right of private self-defence. Non-co-operators are under prohibition as to political violence. Those, therefore, with whom non-co-operation is not their final creed, are certainly free to defend themselves or their dependents and wards against their assailants. But they may not defend themselves against the police acting in discharge of their duties whether assumed or authorised. Thus there was no right of self-defence under the pledge against Collectors who have, I hold, illegally belaboured volunteers.
If one of 1 he Ivg communities secede from the compact of non-violence, I admit that it is most difficult, though certainly not impossible, for one party only to carry on the struggle. That party will need to have an invulnerable faith in the policy of non-violence. But if one community does realise that India cannot gain Swaraj for generations through violent means, it can, by its consistently non-violent te., loving conduct, bring round all the opposing parties to its side.
�� �
