Refers to previous communications [wanting]. There is no advantage in cancelling the re-striction orders as they are not being treated as a grievance by Gandhi or the Press, but he proposes to withdraw them when the announcement about the inquiry and the Indemnity Bill is made. Responds to Montagu’s comments on their basis and justification as follows: (1) the orders are not based on an avowed breaking of the law, but on a reasonable belief that a person is likely to act in a manner prejudical to the safety of the country; (2) civil disobedience is not a thing of the past, for the Bombay Government advises that Gandhi’s suspension of the campaign is both reluctant and qualified, and his own statements corroborate this; (3) he does not accept Montagu’s view of the tranquillising effect of Gandhi’s intervention when conditions are disturbed, though his influence has sometimes been good. Points out that (a) when Gandhi arrived in Champaran about 12 April 1917 his presence so excited raiyats that incendiarism began on 1 May; (b) his presence in Haira initiated a no-revenue-payment cam-paign in March 1918; (c) he advised adherents in Udaipur that it was against his principles to give evidence against rioters; (d) his mere name was used as a battle-cry by the recent Punjab mobs; and (e) the question is less one of intentions than results, for he is unable to allay the passions which his name is used to excite, as events in Johannesburg in 1907 showed.
(Cuttings from a larger document.)