I could not hit upon a suitable Hindi or Urdu word for the new idea, and that put me out somewhat. At last I described it by the word “noncooperation,” an expression that I used for the first time at this meeting. As the Maulana was delivering his speech, it seemed to me that it was vain for him to talk about effective resistance to a Government with which he was cooperating in more than one thing. If resort to arms was impossible or undesirable, the only true resistance to the Government, it therefore seemed to me, was to cease to cooperate with it. Thus I arrived at the word noncooperation. I had not then a clear idea of all its manifold implications. I therefore did not enter into details. I simply said:
“The Mussalmans have adopted a very important resolution. If the peace terms are unfavourable to them—which may God forbid—they will stop all cooperation with Government. It is an inalienable right of the people thus to withhold cooperation. We are not bound to retain Government titles and honours, or to continue in Government service. If Government should betray us in a great cause like the Khilafat, we could not do otherwise than noncooperate. We are therefore entitled to noncooperate with Government in case of a betrayal.”
But months elapsed before the word noncooperation became current coin. For the time being it was lost in the proceedings of the conference. Indeed when I supported the cooperation resolution at the Congress which met at Amritsar a month later, I did so in the hope that the betrayal would never come.