{"id":1102,"date":"2013-07-13T01:32:33","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:32:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=1102"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:32:33","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:32:33","slug":"30-facts-and-comments-4-9-1909-vol-02-karmayogin-volume-02","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/01-works-of-sri-aurobindo\/01-sabcl\/02-karmayogin-volume-02\/30-facts-and-comments-4-9-1909-vol-02-karmayogin-volume-02","title":{"rendered":"-30_Facts and Comments 4-9-1909.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
\n
\n

\nFacts and Comments <\/font><\/b> <\/p>\n

\nVolume I – Sept. 4, 1909 – Number 11<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\tThe
\n Kaul Judgment<\/b> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

                                     
\nT<\/font>he Kau<\/b>l Boycott case which has attracted some comment
\nin the Press is one which ought to be drawn more prominently
\ninto public notice. The Settlement Patwary of Kaul together
\nwith four leading Banias, two Zamindars and a Brahmin of
\nthe place were charged by the police with having held a
\nBoycott meeting which endangered the peace of the town. It
\nis alleged that they agreed to impose a penalty upon all persons
\nusing foreign sugar after a certain date and a heavier fine on any
\none importing the commodity. It does not appear that there was
\nany complaint from a single person in the neighbourhood as to
\nany such meeting being held, still less to their being inconvenienced or stopped in their avocations by any action or
\nthreatened action on the part of the defendants. But on the ipse digit
\n<\/i>of the complaining constable the defendants were found guilty
\nand bound over to keep the peace. The defendants themselves
\ndenied the meeting and alleged that they took no part in politics
\nand were guiltless of any religious objection to foreign sugar. In
\nitself the case appears to be a judicial vagary of the worst kind.
\nBut the remarkable pronouncements of the Sub-divisional Officer
\nof Kaithal on the juristic aspects of the case make it of more than
\nlocal importance. Mr. Garett in his judgment starts a very surprising metaphysical argument by drawing a nice distinction
\nbetween illegal, non-legal and wrongful acts. Illegal acts are
\nthose against which the law provides a penalty either by criminal
\nor civil action. Non-legal acts are those which are contrary to public policy
\nbut are left to social opinion to discourage. Wrongful acts, according to Mr. Garett, are those which being neither
\nillegal nor non-legal are yet abhorrent ‘to the moral sense of
\nmen of reason. We do not know if this remarkable definition of
\nwrongful acts will be supported by lawyers. But Mr. Garett farther improves on these distinctions by assevering on the strength  <\/p>\n

\n

\nPage \u2013 180<\/font><\/p>\n

\n<\/div>\n

of an Irish judgment that a perfectly legal action becomes illegal
\nwhen it is done by many persons in combination, provided any
\none can show that his interests as an individual or as one of a
\nclass are aimed at or necessarily injured. In order that we may
\nnot be accused of misrepresenting the learned Sub-divisional
\nOfficer we quote the words of the judgment. "Without quoting
\nchapter, verse and date I call to mind the judgment of the late
\nLord Chief Justice of Ireland, I believe Baron Rolleston, in what
\nis known as the Baker’s Case. In that case it was held that the
\nbaker had a cause of action against the farmers of the village in
\nwhich he established a bakery because they combined to boycott
\nhis bakery by each establishing a kitchen for the preparation of
\nthe bread for themselves and their servants, their motive being
\nsimply a difference on political grounds. The Irish farmers did
\nnot go so far as the defendants are said to have gone in this case,
\nand they in nowise interfered with the baker personally. The
\nillegality of their action consisted in their combining to do an
\nact which if done separately would have been legal. The learned
\nJudge observed to the effect that whereas a single man may be
\nleft to work out his own salvation when opposed by an individual
\nhe could claim protection from a combination. In that case there
\nwere no proposals to inflict fines or outcaste, yet the act was held
\nillegal. It is very certain therefore that an act which in violence
\nfar outstrips that, is, if not illegal, at least wrongful." <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n The
\n Implications in the Judgment<\/b> <\/a> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

That is the judgment. It’ is obvious that these remarkable dicta
\nhave very wide implications and, if upheld, make every combination harmful to personal or class interests impossible under the
\nlaw. That has been for some time the tendency of magisterial decisions in India.
\nEvery action for instance which may be objectionable to a number of Mahomedans is now liable to be forbidden because it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace, and
\none is dimly beginning to wonder whether the day may not come
\nwhen worship in Hindu temples may be forbidden on that valid
\nground. Under Mr. Garett’s dictum it seems to depend purely <\/p>\n

\n
\n

\nPage \u2013 181<\/font><\/p>\n

\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

on the bias of the judge what action will or will not be allowed
\nby the law. A teetotal judge may easily penalise a party of men
\ngoing into a public house to drink, because it is an action abhorrent to his moral sense as a man of reason. And certainly it
\nwould not be unarguable that such a combined action might very
\neasily lead to a breach of the peace, much more easily than the
\nmeeting of a few hundred or thousand men on the Boycott day.
\nBy his other dictum every caste decision forbidding a breach of
\ncaste rules is a punishable act, every trade strike is a punishable
\nact, every National School Committee is liable to an action under
\nthe law for injuring the interests of the local Government school,
\nevery big concern aiming at the extinction in a locality of the
\nretail shopkeeper and the capture of his business commits a
\nwrongful act, or an illegal act \u2014 it is not clear which; all
\nSwadeshi, Boycott, National Education movements are objectionable. The Tariff Reform movement itself is only saved by
\nbeing directed against men outside the country, even if it is so
\nsaved, for after all it affects adversely the middlemen who bring
\nin foreign manufactures. Even if, driven beyond endurance by
\nmy dhobi’s delays, I combine with some friends to open and
\npatronise a laundry, I can be stopped by a magisterial sympathiser with the rights of the individual. If this is Irish law, all we
\ncan say is that it is very Irish indeed and we do not yearn to have
\nit imported into India. The object of the learned Magistrate was
\nno doubt to aim a blow at the Swadeshi movement which is probably abhorrent to his moral sense as a man of reason. The Sessions
\nJudge has refused to interfere with the discretion of the executive, but there is more here concerned than the discretion of
\nthe executive. There is a very original and far-reaching elucidation of the law behind the executive discretion. We hope that the
\nvictimised citizens of Kaul will carry their appeal higher and get
\na more authoritative pronouncement on the juristic philosophy
\nof the learned Mr. Garett.  <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n The
\n Social Boycott<\/a><\/b> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The reason why we have drawn so much attention to this case
\nis its intimate connection with the question of social boycott.  <\/p>\n

\n
\n

\nPage \u2013 182<\/font><\/p>\n

\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

We are advocates of this weapon not in all cases, but in circumstances where milder expedients are impotent to prevent a wound
\nto the body social or body politic by refractory or conscienceless
\nindividuals who wish to enjoy all the benefits of social existence
\nwhile disregarding the vital necessities of the society. <\/b> We are aware of
\nthe grave consequence of the misuse of the social boycott to prevent the legitimate exercise by the individual of his
\nfree reason and honest conviction. We therefore advocate it
\nonly in very serious instances where the whole community is
\nattacked in a vital point and is practically at one in resenting the
\nact as fatally injurious to it. For instance when the turbulent
\nMahomedans of Eastern Bengal made an organised attack on the
\nproperty of Hindus and on the honour of Hindu women, the
\nHindu community of East Bengal would have been perfectly
\njustified in boycotting Mahomedans as servants. Similarly, now
\nthat the educated classes of the Hindu community are at one in
\nthe belief that the Swadeshi movement supported by Boycott is
\nnecessary to the economical existence of their community, to say
\nnothing of the whole nation, they are justified in refusing to have
\nany dealings with those who out of personal and selfish motives
\ndeal a blow at that movement by persisting in the purchase of
\nforeign articles. The use of this weapon of self-defence by Hindu
\ncastes became hurtful because it was applied without discrimination and not always with honesty. Had it been confined to cases
\nof gross moral depravity destructive of social order, there would
\nhave been no revolt against it. The penalising of the pursuit of
\neducation in foreign countries and similar blunders recoiled on
\nthe caste system and it is notable that communities with a strong
\ndemocratic common-sense like the Mahrattas have even while
\nadhering to orthodox religion avoided the worst of these errors.
\nBut the misuse of a necessary instrument is no argument against
\nits necessary and discriminating use. We hold the use of this
\ninstrument, not in all cases but in the most heinous, to be legitimate in protecting the life of the nation.  <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n The
\n Law and the Nationalist<\/b> <\/a> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

There are several points connected with the national movement  <\/p>\n

\n

\nPage \u2013 183<\/font><\/p>\n

\n<\/div>\n

in which the law is in a state of dangerous uncertainty. The
\nexact limit of sedition is one of them, the matter of social boycott is
\nanother. We believe that social boycott involving no violence or
\ndirect coercion is perfectly legal but it is certain that not only
\nthe Anglo-Indian community at large but a portion of the
\njudiciary would be glad to find it illegal. Any doubt on such
\nsubjects ought to be removed, for although ignorance is in itself
\nno excuse in law, it ought to be a defence when it is created by
\nthe uncertainties of the law itself. We think the Nationalists
\nought to take every opportunity of testing the extent of the
\nliberties still allowed to us in the ordinary course of the law. We
\nare aware that a section of Nationalist opinion has held that our
\nprinciple of Swadeshi Boycott ought to debar us from taking
\nany part in any legal proceedings whatever. While many of us
\nhad openly expressed our admiration for the heroic stoicism with
\nwhich this principle has been adhered to in many cases, we have
\nnot held it binding on any except those fine consciences to whom
\nit appealed nor would we allow it to guide our own action. We
\nhold that no^Nationalist should resort to the British Courts under
\nthe present political conditions as against a brother Nationalist
\nor in any circumstances which give him a real choice. If he is
\ndragged to the criminal or civil courts by others he is entitled to
\ndefend himself to the end by all means that the law provides. If
\narbitration is refused in a case where his interests are attacked,
\nhe is absolved from the self-denying obligation, or if the law of
\nthe land compels him as a landholder or propertied or business
\nman to protect himself by certain legal forms, it is obvious that
\nhe cannot deny himself that protection without imperilling work
\nor wealth necessary to the nation. The same overriding rule of necessity which
\ncompels us to exclude machinery and other instruments of education, work and production from the Boycott,
\nlimits the application of the arbitration principle and the abstention from British Courts. Formerly we were content to go our
\nway in doubtful cases, such as the limits of the law of sedition,
\nputting our own interpretation and taking the consequences of
\na too elastic reading of the law. We even held ourselves justified
\nin the case of unjust and arbitrary laws in breaking them not by
\nviolence but peacefully and passively, as the Dissenters did in <\/p>\n

\n
\n

\nPage \u2013 184<\/font><\/p>\n

\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

England, so as to get them either tested or altered. This we still
\nhold to be morally and politically justifiable. But the outbreak
\nof Terrorism compels us to restrict our circle of passive resistance
\nlest even by the most peaceful rejection of unjust laws we should
\nseem to be encouraging lawlessness and disorder. Still, if we are
\nto observe the law scrupulously, just or unjust, we must know
\nwhat the law is, and now that there is a man at the head of judicial administration who knows the law and tries to keep to it,
\nwe ought to take advantage of this now unusual circumstance and use every
\nopportunity to fix the legal position of our movement and its methods. <\/p>\n

\n
\n

\nPage \u2013 185<\/font><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Facts and Comments Volume I – Sept. 4, 1909 – Number 11 The Kaul Judgment                                         The Kaul Boycott case which has attracted some…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1102","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-02-karmayogin-volume-02","wpcat-23-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1102","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1102"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1102\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1102"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1102"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1102"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}