(5) A large modification of the ban against lawyers, so as to admit of several grades of sacrifice from complete abstention from practice to a giving up of the entirety or a part of the earnings. A way should be found for getting as many lawyers as possible to work in this movement provided they are prepared to give the cause at least a part of their time or money. The Congress ought to modify its call, so as to make it possible for all honest-minded lawyers to bear the burden of the country's cause, commensurate with their capacity to sacrifice. Similarly, in the matter of conducting defences in British courts, some curious departure have come to be made from the strict Congress rule. These departures only indicate that, in its operation, the rule has been found unpractical and irksome. Congressmen are not to engage pleaders nor offer a defence with legal aid. They are simply to make a "statement." A statement is as much an aid to the administration of justice as a lawyer-made defence, and in so far, it equally supports the prestige of British courts. Only, it has the disadvantage of being prolix and unconvincing. It, therefore, fails of its mark more often than a lawyer's defence. Who can urge that the long and interesting statements made by the Ali Brothers and their co-accused, in the trial at Karachi were out of place? Yet they had all the features of a lawyer-made defence, as an aid to the court. The evidence was discussed, legal objections raised, relevancy commented on and the prosecution evidence answered. All this assistance was given to the court, helping it to arrive at truth and justice, precisely in the same way as a practising lawyer aids judicial administration. If a statement is permitted, why cannot a lawyer be employed in Court to make it more convincing and exculpatory? A statement must be based on facts, and these facts become material only when proved. On what rational grounds can, therefore, a statement permitted and yet the material evidence supporting it disallowed? It is no answer to say that the statement is meant for the guidance of the _Swaraj_ Courts when the same are established, for when that eventuality happens, a statement supported by evidence will be any a better help to these Swaraj Courts than a mere statement? It is obvious that no Swaraj Court will liberate a man merely on his own statement, without further inquiry. Civil Disobedience