Sri Aurobindo
Karmayogin
Political Writings and Speeches — 1909-1910
Karmayogin: A Weekly Review
Saturday 2nd October 1909 — No.15
An Extraordinary Prohibition
Pandit Bhoje Dutt of Agra has been in our midst for some time, and none had hitherto imagined that he was a political agitator or his teachings1 dangerous to the public peace.
We all knew him as secretary of the Suddhi Samaj, a religious body having for its object the readmission of converts from Hinduism into the fold of the religion and also, we believe, the admission of converts to Hinduism from other religions into Hindu society with the full status of Hindus.
The society has been working for some time with signal success and no breach of the law or the peace.
Yet the other day Mr. Swinhoe thought fit to prohibit the Pandit from lecturing in Calcutta and the public from attending his lectures for the space of two months.
We reproduce the order as it affords singularly clear proof of the contention, always advanced by Nationalists, that under the present system such public liberty as we enjoy, is not an ensured right but an insecure concession, based not on status but on permission, and therefore not, properly speaking, a liberty at all.
It runs: —
“Whereas it has been made to appear to me by evidence adduced before me that Pandit Bhoje Dutt, political agitator and Editor of the vernacular paper Musafir Arya, Agra, has arrived in Calcutta and intends to lecture in the Albert Hall in Calcutta this evening at 8 p.m. on the subject of ‘Musulman logonke barkhilaf’ i.e. against the interests of Mohamedans2: —
And whereas I am satisfied that such lecturing or preaching by the said Pandit Bhoje Dutt at any place or in any building in Calcutta may lead to a serious disturbance of the public tranquillity and rioting which will be a source of danger to human life and public safety: —
And whereas I am satisfied that the immediate prevention of such lecturing and preaching by the said Pandit Bhoje Dutt within the town of Calcutta is necessary in the interests of 
human life and safety and in order to prevent any riot or affray, I do hereby under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code order and direct the said Pandit Bhoje Dutt to refrain from delivering any lecture or preaching or holding or taking part in any meeting within the town of Calcutta, and I hereby direct the public generally to refrain from attending or taking part in any lecture or preaching by the said Pandit Bhoje Dutt and to refrain from attending or taking any part in any meeting or meetings held by or on behalf of the said Pandit Bhoje Dutt in the town of Calcutta and I farther direct that this order shall remain in force for a period of two months from the date thereof.
Given under my hand and seal of this court dated the 25th September 1909.”
The value of the evidence which so easily satisfied Mr. Swinhoe may be judged from its inaccuracy and triviality.
Pandit Bhoje Dutt is not a political agitator, but a religious preacher and social reformer; the proposed lecture had nothing to do with the Mahomedans and was upon the Hindu Puranas, and there was no breach of peace or any approach to a breach of the peace at Monghyr.
So much for the accuracy.
Secondly, Mr. Swinhoe ought to have known that, although a lecture may be against the interests of the Mahomedans, “Against the interests of the Mahomedans” cannot be the title or subject of a lecture, and we can only suppose that this satisfactory witness was a badly-educated detective or informer who either did not know his own meaning or could not make it clear to Mr. Swinhoe.
Nor is it alleged that the preaching in Monghyr resulted in a breach of the peace, only that it nearly so resulted.
On such incorrect and flimsy evidence, given ex parte and without any opportunity to the lecturer to expose its falsity, a magistrate is able and willing to deprive a citizen of his civic rights for two months and hamper a legitimate movement.
If, after proper enquiry, the Magistrate had found that there was likely to be anything inflammatory in the lecture, he could have stopped the speaker from giving that or any similar lecture, but, even so, there would be no ground for a prolonged denial of civic rights.
Farther, it is not enough that a lecture should be against the interests of any community, for 
there may be such a thing as legitimate opposition of interests; the conversion of Hindus to Mahomedanism is against the interests3 of Hindus and the conversion of Mahomedans to Hinduism is against the interest of Mahomedans, but neither religion can, on that ground, be denied the right of proselytisation.
If it be argued that wherever the exercise of legitimate rights may lead to a breach of the peace, that exercise may be stopped, we say that this is a most dangerous principle, since it would be enough for any section of the community to break or threaten to break the peace to stop others from the exercise of their legitimate rights.
On such grounds Mr. Asquith should be debarred from holding any meeting because the suffragettes climb walls and throw stones wherever he goes!
Such a principle simply means putting a premium upon lawlessness.
In other countries the indiscreet use of powers by Magistrates is restrained by public opinion but in India there is no such safeguard.
Since the above was in type, the Police have undertaken to prove their statements, and the facts stated above must be taken as Pandit Bhoje Dutt's side of the case. Our general criticisms of the policy of the order remain unaffected. The chance now given to the Police to substantiate their case ought to have been given to the Pandit before the order was passed. — EDITOR