yet I found no flaw in them. The question was how far I should yield to Gokhale’s loving pressure, and how far I might modify my experiment in the so-called interests of health. I finally decided to adhere to the experiment in so far as the motive behind it was chiefly religious, and to yield to the doctor’s advice where the motive was mixed. Religious considerations had been predominant in the giving up of milk. I had before me a picture of the wicked processes the govals in Calcutta adopted to extract the last drop of milk from their cows and buffaloes. I also had the feeling that, just as meat was not man’s food, even so animals’ milk could not be man’s food. So I got up in the morning with the determination to adhere to my resolve to abstain from milk. This greatly relieved me. I dreaded to approach Gokhale, but I trusted him to respect my decision.
In the evening Kallenbach and I called on Gokhale at the National Liberal Club. The first question he asked me was: “Well, have you decided to accept the doctor’s advice?”
I gently but firmly replied: “I am willing to yield on all points except one about which I beg you not to press me. I will not take milk, milk-products or meat. If not to take these things should mean my death, I feel I had better face it.”
“Is this your final decision?” asked Gokhale.
“I am afraid I cannot decide otherwise,” said I. “I know that my decision will pain you; but I beg your forgiveness.”
With a certain amount of pain but with deep affection, Gokhale said: “I do not approve of your decision. I do not see any religion in it. But I won’t press you any more.” With these words he turned to Dr. Jivraj Mehta and said: “Please don’t worry him any more. Prescribe anything you like within the limit he has set for himself.”