But some people say that it is immoral from the point of view of non-co-operation, because it involves an idea of destruction. The work of non-co-operation according to these,--I have the highest reverence for them,--is only to build our national life ignoring altogether the existence of the Bureaucracy. It may be an honest ideal, and, logically speaking, it may be the inner meaning of non-co-operation. But the non-co-operation which the Congress has followed is not so logical and I claim that if the principle of non-co-operation is to be advanced as a test of my programme, let it be the same principle which the Congress has accepted, adopted and applied. As I have already said, that principle countenance destruction as well as creation. As a matter of fact circumstanced as we are with Bureaucracy to the right and the Bureaucracy to the left Bureaucracy all around us, it is impossible to create without destroying: nor must it be forgotten that if we break, it is only that we may build. It has also been suggested that the very entry into the Council is inconsistent with the ideal of non-co-operation. I confess I do not understand the argument. Supposing the Congress had sanctioned an armed insurrection could it be argued that entry into the fort of the Bureaucracy is inconsistent with the principle of non-co-operation? Surely the charge of inconsistency must depend on the object of the entry. An advancing army does not co-operate with the enemy when it marches into the enemy's territory. Co-operation must therefore depend on the object with which such entry is made. The argument if analysed comes to this, that whenever the phrase entry into Councils is used it calls up the association of co-operation, and then the mere idea of this entry is proclaimed to be inconsistent with non-co-operation. But this is the familiar logical fallacy of our terms. Entry into the Councils to co-operate with the Government and entry into the Councils to non-co-operate with the Government are two terms and two different propositions. The former is inconsistent with the idea of non-co-operation, the latter is absolutely consistent with that very idea.