For example I have heard it suggested that the Government have goaded the Non-co-operators into Civil Disobedience by the measures which they have recently taken. Nothing could be further from the truth. The policy of civil disobedience was accepted by the All-India Congress Committee at the beginning of November and it was not until towards the end of that month that action against the volunteers was taken. Mr. Gandhi himself, in moving the civil disobedience resolution on November 4th defined civil disobedience as a civil revolution, which, wherever practised would mean the end of the Government's authority and open defiance of the Government and its laws. Well, that seems to be explicit enough and it seems a little unreasonable, surely, that those who profess to be opposed to such a revolution, should seriously urge the Government to lay aside the weapons, which it has only taken up to protect itself against, to use Mr. Gandhi's words once more "the destruction of its authority and the open defiance of its laws". Do those who object to these volunteer-corps being declared to be unlawful associations realise what these corps have been brought into existence for? They have no excuse for not knowing, because Mr. Gandhi has himself explained quite frankly the object, for which they are being recruited. He declared at the conference held in Bombay on January 14th that, even if a round table conference was to be held he would not stop the enlistment of volunteers for a single moment. Why, because the enlistment was a preparation for civil disobedience. The Critics Answered There can be no doubt on that point at all, for we have also the letter written by Pandit Kunzru to Mr. Jinnah, in which he states that Mr. Gandhi declared explicitly at the conference that the enrolment and training of volunteers for starting civil disobedience must be continued. Very well then, what we are asked to do is this: To declare that the volunteer corps enrolled and trained for civil disobedience are lawful associations. Do those who urge us to take this step regard civil disobedience as a lawful form of political activity? If they do not, by what process of reasoning, do they argue that the agency by which civil disobedience is to be carried out should be declared by Government to be a lawful agency?