The Trial of 1922

Justice Broomfield knew that the law under which the man on the dock was being tried was cruel and favored the masters over slaves. He also knew that as a judge it was his duty to uphold the law for it was enacted by a competent Crown. The only thing that he could do was to make the proceedings absolutely impersonal and let the laws prevail over personal feelings. All that he did to show his personal admiration for the accused was to bow to him, as judge, before taking his judicial seat.

And, the man on the dock bowed back, smiling as he ever was, that disarming smiles that had endeared him to millions. His name was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

Gandhi was accused of inciting the populace of India by his writings in Young India, a paper that he published from 1919 to 1931. He wrote from his heart and was never in doubt over what he asked the millions who read or heard his writings to demand. He asked them to demand what was their right, a right that Bal Gangadhar Tilak had so eloquently put as जन्म सिद्ध अधिकार (Right by birth), and the right to be masters of their own destinies. Freedom from colonial rule that he so out earnestly asked his countrymen to ask for through his writings was seen as sedition by the Colonial Masters who had levied the charge against him for “bringing or attempting to excite disaffection towards the British Government established by law in British India”.

The trial court was packed to the brim. Thousands of followers stood outside the court premises, silently but defiantly in the eyes of the amassed police forces. They did not sing or chant or indulge in activities that would belie the great faith that Gandhi had on them. Satya or truth, he had often said, will prevail. Violence, he believed with all his heart and soul, would beget nothing but more violence and in the melee truth will be lost. So the swollen crowds stood patiently without a murmur.

Inside the court room, on the 18^th March 1922, Justice Broomsfield proceeded to conduct the trial as per law. He was not surpriced when Gandhi eagerly pleaded guilty. However, the Advocate General (Sir JT Strangman along with Rao Bahadur Girdharlal Uttamram, Public Prosecutor of District Ahmedabad) representing the Crown insisted on reading out the full extent of incitements that Gandhi had caused in the eyes of the Crown, by his writings in Young India. Gandhi gave forth his bewitching smiles for each of the accusations and again in the end, pleaded guilty to all the charges. Justice Broomfield then proceeded to ask Gandhi whether hhe would like to say anything before the judgment was announced. Gandhi said yes. He had come prepared with a statement which, with the permission of the judge, he proceeded to read. As the courtroom in which Kasturba Gandhi, Sarojini Naidu, Pandit MM Malaviya, N C Kelkar, Smt JB Petit, and Smt Anasuyaben Sarabhai were also present among the public, he concluded his statement by saying:

“If one has no affection for a person or system, one should be free to give the fullest expression to his disaffection, so long as he does not contemplate, promote, or incite to violence…. I have no personal ill-will against any single administrator, much less can I have any disaffection towards the King’s person. But I hold it to be a virtue to be disaffected towards a Government which in its totality has done more harm to India than any previous system. India is less manly under the British rule than she ever was before. Holding such a belief, I consider it to be a sin to have affection for the system. And it has been a precious privilege for me to be able to write what I have in the various articles tendered in evidence against me.

In fact, I believe that I have rendered a service to India and England by showing in non-co-operation the way out of the unnatural state in which both are living. In my opinion, non-co-operation with evil is as much a duty as is co-operation with good. But in the past, non-co-operation has been deliberately expressed in violence to the evil-doer. I am endeavoring to show to my countrymen that violent non-co-operation only multiples evil, and that as evil can only be sustained by violence, withdrawal of support of evil requires complete abstention from violence. Non-violence implies voluntary submission to the penalty for non-co-operation with evil.

I am here, therefore, to invite and submit cheerfully to the highest penalty that can be inflicted upon me for what in law is deliberate crime, and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen. The only course open to you, the Judge and the assessors, is either to resign your posts and thus dissociate yourselves from evil, if you feel that the law you are called upon to administer is an evil, and that in reality I am innocent, or to inflict on me the severest penalty, if you believe that the system and the law you are assisting to administer are good for the people of this country, and that my activity is, therefore, injurious to the common weal”.

Pin drop silence prevailed in the court when Gandhi finished. He proceeded to fold the paper in which he had penned his statement, tuck it in his famous ‘loin cloth’, and turning to the judge, bowed. Justice Broomfield contemplated for some time and then proceeded to announce the gravest punishment that law could impose on a charge of sedition – six years of imprisonment. A smiling Gandhi cheerfully nodded when the judge completed his pronouncement. After having completed his judicial duty, Justice Broomfield added to the judicial verdict by saying:

   “I should like to say …. if the course of events in India should make it possible for the Government to reduce the period and release you, no one will be better pleased than I."

And then the honorable Mr Broomfield rose, and bowed to Gandhi. In Gandhi’s own words:

“So far as the sentence itself is concerned, I certainly consider it is as light as any judge would inflict on me, and so far as the whole proceedings are concerned, I must say that I could not have expected greater courtesy”.

Gandhi’s trial of 1922 bears eloquent testimony to a process of law and courage of conviction that are beyond physical description. There is a spiritual quality that can be felt both in the accused and judge that marked the world of those years in a different class.

Such is the story of courage and conviction.