Moving a vote of thanks to the Premier the Mahatma said that in all probability he had come to the parting of the ways but he hoped that if a fight was unavoidable, it would be conducted without malice on either side. Three days later the Mahatma said good-bye to the Premier and left London. Before leaving London in an interview to the Press he stated that an immediate nation-wide resumption of civil disobedience was out of the question — but he did foresee the possibility of local civil disobedience being launched as a protest against specific acts of injustice and tyranny, as for example the ordinances promulgated in Bengal, the United Provinces and the Frontier Province.

During his stay of nearly three months in England, the Mahatma had an exceedingly busy time. A glance at his daily routine would show that he was overstraining himself — sometimes not allowing himself to have more than two hours' sleep for days together. He met all sorts of people there — M.P.s, politicians, journalists, missionaries, society ladies, social workers, litterateurs, artists, students, and what not. During week-ends he would undertake tours to Cambridge or Oxford or Lancashire, in order to awaken interest in and sympathy for India. But it seems that there was lack of co-ordination and unity of purpose in all his activities. Indian members of the Round Table Conference complained that it was difficult to get at the Mahatma when they wanted him. Indian Liberal members of the Round Table Conference complained that instead of playing a lone hand, he could have rallied all the anti-communal forces and become the leader of a united Nationalist Party. (7) Whatever the truth of these criticisms may be, there is no doubt that the Mahatma's visit to England was badly planned — if there was any plan at all — and his personal entourage did not consist of any advisers worth the name. His indecision, till the eleventh hour, about attending the London Conference was largely responsible for his lack of plan and for his late arrival in London which considerably handicapped him. As contrasted with him, the Government had made elaborate arrangements and all their plans had been carefully worked out in advance. It was only in London that he realised what it meant to have a conference with members chosen by the Government, with the Congress as one of the several parties present there and with himself as the only representative of the Congress. The wonder of it is that such a shrewd politician as the Mahatma made such a belated discovery in spite of the warnings given by lesser folk in India.

But the causes of the Mahatma’s failure in London go much deeper. If the Mahatma meant to co-operate with the Round Table Conference, he should have gone there in 1930. The terms which he got in March 1931 — he could have easily got in August 1930. The assurance regarding Dominion Status which he had demanded in 1929 and 1930 — he could not get even in 1931 and as for the other concessions in the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, Lord Irwin would in all probability have agreed to them at any time. In 1930, the Congress could easily have got half the number of seats at the Conference. By going there in 1931, alone and unfriended, the Mahatma had the tactical disadvantage of having to meet a conference which had come into existence without the participation of the Congress and of having to build on sectarian foundations laid by communalist members. With the Labour Cabinet in power in England in 1930 and Lord Irwin in Delhi, the Congress could have given a different turn to the Conference. In 1931 the situation was altered completely. The Labour Cabinet was replaced by a virtually Conservative Cabinet; Lord Irwin made room for Lord Willingdon, while Sir Samuel Hoare succeeded Capt. Wedgwood-Benn at the India Office. The last flickering hope died out when the General Election in October brought the Conservatives into power (under the name of the National Government) with a thumping majority.

In spite of these unfavourable circumstances when the Mahatma did go to England, he should have concentrated entirely on the work of the Conference, with a view to counteracting all the mischievous moves of the Governemnt. Probably under the influence of pro-Indian Britishers like Mr. C. F. Andrews, he unfortunately took it into his head that he should go about rousing sympathy for India among Britishers. That was not the purpose for which he had come to England nor was it possible for him to do so within the short time and with the limited energy at his disposal. Going over the list of persons whom the Mahatma met, one cannot help feeling that for the purpose for which he had come to England, most of the engagements were unnecessary, if not useless. If he had come on an ordinary propaganda tour, a programme such as he had, would have been quite helpful and in order.

There was another deeper cause which accounted for the Mahatma’s failure. During his stay in England he had to play two roles in one person, the role of a political leader and that of a world-teacher. Sometimes he conducted himself not as a political leader who had come to negotiate with the enemy, but as a master who had come to preach a new faith — that of non-violence and world-peace. Because of his second role, he had to spend much of his time with people who were quite useless in promoting his political mission. In the absence of advisers from his own party, the place was filled by some of his British admirers. From the moment of his landing in Europe till the moment of his departure, he was surrounded by them. In order to demonstrate his fairness and universal love, he accepted as his hostess an English lady. As contrasted with the Mahatma, the Irish Sinn Fein delegation to London in 1921 had lived a different life. They used to live entirely among themselves and avoid all social engagements with Britishers, though attempts were made to drag the delegation into them. This aloofness and indifference had impressed British politicians much more than the Mahatma's friendliness did. But being a world-teacher, the Mahatma had his own code of ethics. There is no doubt that in 1930, when the Mahatma was in prison, he had exerted a much greater influence on the Round Table Conference. At the Conference, the Indian Liberal politicians had fully exploited his influence. But when he appeared in person and all alone, he lost much of the glamour and the halo that had attached to his name. He was at a physical disadvantage, being a single frail individual in a group of 107. If he had accepted the offer made by the Government, of fifteen or sixteen seats for the Congress Delegation, his position would have been stronger. His colleagues would have been of great help to him in meeting, and crossing swords with, a solid phalanx of reactionaries. Moreover, the Mahatma did not seem to be cut out for the role of a bargainer. He therefore met the fate which overtook President Wilson at the time of the Versailles Treaty. The Professor-President of America was no match for the Welsh wizard, Mr. Lloyd George — nor was the saint-politician from India any match for the wily Mr. Ramsay Macdonald. On the British side, the Mahatma was handled very tactfully. He had on the whole a very friendly welcome in England which he recognised publicly before he left the country. Special facilities were afforded him while moving about in London. On the plea of guarding his person, two stalwarts from Scotland Yard were detailed to be near him — so that the authorities had not the slightest difficulty in knowing everything about his daily routine and engagements. I have not been able to understand why the Mahatma accepted this escort from Scotland Yard. If an escort was really necessary, his numerous admirers and followers in London could have easily served the purpose.

It has been already remarked that the last hope of a settlement faded away when the Conservatives were returned to power. Their estimate of the Indian situation as also of the India leader, was quite different from that of the Labourites. His goodness, his frankness, his humble ways, his profound consideration for his opponents — not only did not impress John Bull, but was construed as weakness. His habit of putting all his cards on the table was all right for India and the Indians, but damaged his prestige among British politicians. His proneness to confess his ignorance on intricate questions of finance or law would have been all right in the company of truth-seeking philosophers, but lowered him in the estimation of the British public who were accustomed to see their leaders looking more wise than they really were. His repeated offer of wholehearted co-operation at the Round Table Conference had a most tragic effect and made them think 'Gandhi is on his last legs'. What impression could such a statement make on a veteran politician in England? 'I shall be here as long as I am required, because I do not want to revive civil disobedience. I want to turn the truce that was arrived at at Delhi into a permanent settlement. But for heaven's sake give me, a frail man sixty-two years gone, a little bit of chance. Find a little corner (8) for him and the organisation that he represents.' (9) If, on the contrary, the Mahatma had spoken in the language of Dictator Stalin, or Il Duce Mussolini or Fuehrer Hitler — John Bull would have understood and would have bowed his head in respect. As it was, the Conservative politicians began to think: 'Is this frail man in loin-cloth so formidable that the powerful British Government should yield to him? India was being ruled by a man who was fit to be a bishop and so we had so much trouble. If only we had a strong man at Delhi and at the India Office — everything would be all right.' This is how the Indian situation was summed up after the General Election of October 1931. And all his propaganda among Church dignitaries, professors and cranks was of no use to India. The secret of political bargaining is to look more strong than you really are. Indian politicians, if they want to match themselves successfully against their British opponents, will have to learn many things which they do not know and unlearn many things which they have learnt.

The Mahatma after leaving England spent a few-days in Paris. There he had a group of friends and admirers, who were however more interested in his nonviolence as a message to the world, than in his struggle for India's freedom. His brief stay in Paris was well utilised, but unfortunately no attempt was made to get into touch with politicians — or with the people who really count in the modern political world. Nor was any attempt made by him to raise the Indian issue as an international political issue. From Paris he went to Geneva. There also he had a group of friends many of whom were interested more in his philosophy than in his politics. Though he visited Geneva, no serious attempt was made to bring him into touch with the people who count in the organisation of the League of Nations. He paid a visit to the International Labour Office and that was about all. However, the most useful part of his time in Switzerland was spent in the company of that great man and thinker — that great friend of India and India's culture, M. Romain Rolland. India today has not a warmer friend outside her shores than this great soul, and therefore the Mahatma rendered a great public service to India by spending some of his time in the company of the French savant. From Switzerland the Mahatma travelled to Italy. He was given a warm reception by the Government and the people of Italy, and was received in audience by the head of the Government, Signor Mussolini. That meeting was certainly an historic one. The Dictator of Italy conveyed his best wishes for the success of the Mahatma's efforts. It was the only occasion on the Continent that the Mahatma came into contact with a man who really counts in the politics of modern Europe. The Mahatma's attitude towards the Fascist authorities, including his attendance at a demonstration of the Fascist boys (the Balilla) was severely criticised in anti-Fascist circles. But there is no doubt that from the point of view of India, the Mahatma rendered great public service by his visit to Italy. The only regret is that he did not stay there longer and did not cultivate more personal contacts.

Reviewing the Mahatma's visit to Europe as a whole, one must say that it is to be regretted that he spent so much of his time in England and so little on the Continent. Even on the Continent he did not devote sufficient time or attention to politicians, industrial magnates and other people who really count in present-day politics. There were many countries on the Continent eagerly expecting a visit from him and where he would have received a most cordial reception. If he had desired, he could without difficulty, have come in touch with the most important individuals and organisations in Europe — to the great benefit of India. But may be that did not interest him so much. Outside India he had another role to play besides that of a politician and it is not always easy to play two roles in one person.