Gandhian Nationalism After 1919 Ideas and Movements

Gandhian nationalism after 1919: ideas and movements

1

Institute of lifelong learning, University of Delhi

Subject :History

Lesson: Gandhian nationalism after 1919: ideas and movements

Course Developers

The legacy of Mahatma Gandhi Dr. Dilip Simeon

Independent researcher and writer

and

Leaders and followers: Gandhi and the making of Indian

nationalism Prof. Sumit Sarkar

Professor (retired), Department of History, University of Delhi

and

Nationalism and culture

Dr. Vasudha Pande Associate Professor, Lady Sri Ram College,

University of Delhi

Language Editor: Swapna Liddle

Formating Editor: Ashutosh Kumar


2


Table of contents

Chapter 9: Gandhian nationalism after 1919: ideas and movements

9.1: The legacy of Mahatma Gandhi

9.2: Leaders and followers: Gandhi and the making of Indian

nationalism

9.3: Nationalism and culture

Summary

Exercises

Glossary

Further readings


3


9.1: The legacy of Mahatma Gandhi

Introduction

On January 13, 1948, Mahatma Gandhi went on a fast. It was to be his thirty-first fast in

public life, and as it so happened, his last. (Desai 2009, 472). He called it his yagna, and

his greatest fast. Throughout the fast, he spoke (although with diminishing energy) to

the crowds at his daily prayer meetings, dictated letters and talked to political

colleagues, friends and community leaders who came to see him. Seventeen days later

he was dead, gunned down by an assassin at a prayer meeting. Gandhis utterances and

deeds in the last weeks of his life, especially during this fast are of great significance.

They are a message about the tragic events surrounding the partition of India, mixed

with foresight and advice about their consequences and how to cope with them. He

sensed that his life was about to come to a close, so this was also his farewell. Reading

these utterances today, we get the feeling that he was speaking across the boundaries of

time and space, and not only to Indians. He refused to consider Pakistanis as aliens and

enemies. Both India and Pakistan are my country, he said in June 1947, I am not

going to take out a passport for going to Pakistan.

Gandhi was also speaking to people the world over affected by war, displacement and

massacres. In the years immediately following the second world war, there were millions

of such people. In addition to the issues raised by Gandhi in his last fast, his views on

two major events in the global arena deserve more attention than they have received.

These are the atomic bombardment of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by

the USA in August 1945; and the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine in 1948.

(The second issue is covered in the lesson on Communalism).

War and nuclear weapons

Gandhi first spoke about the atom bomb in February 1946. One historian has suggested

that he delayed speaking out because he was concerned that Indias independence might

be affected by an atomic threat from the USA (Rothermund 1991, 112). It should be

remembered that Britains wartime leader was the staunch colonialist Winston Churchill.

Even after Gandhis fear of an atomic threat to Indias freedom receded, he warned of

the dangers of colonialism. Britain was one of the Big Three powers of which one was

armed with atomic weapons; and the atom bomb was the last word in violence today

(CWMG 89:402). Thus, commenting on the communal killings in Bihar in November

1946, Gandhi said that they had set back the clock of independence. Before long India

will pass under the yoke of the Big Three with one of them probably as the mandatory

power (CWMG 93:4). These statements remind us that Gandhi remained a steadfast

opponent of imperialism till the end of his life. He reminded all oppressed races of the

earth that unless we can have a new way of fighting imperialism of all brands in the

place of the outworn one of a violent uprising, there would be no hope left for them

(CWMG 89:103). In May, responding to people who believed that the bomb would put an

end to war, he said, The atom bomb has not stopped violence. Peoples hearts are full

of it and preparations for a third world war may even be said to be going on (CWMG

90:374).


4


In July 1946, Gandhi answered some American friends who were arguing along similar

lines. He insisted that the bomb had deadened the finest feelings of humanity. There

used to be so-called laws of war which made it tolerable. Now we know the naked truth.

War knows no law except that of might. The atom bomb brought an empty victory to

Allied arms but it resulted for the time being in destroying the soul of Japan. What has

happened to the soul of the destroying nation is yet too early to see (CWMG 91:221).

In September, he said, I regard the employment of the atom bomb for the wholesale

destruction of men, women and children as the most diabolical use of science. When

asked whether the bomb had made non-violence useless, he said, No. It is the only

thing the atom bomb cannot destroy. I did not move a muscle when I first heard that the

atom bomb had wiped out Hiroshima. On the contrary, I said to myself, unless now the

world adopts non-violence it will spell certain suicide for mankind (CWMG 92:234). In

June 1947, he commented on science, There are two kinds of shastras in the world, one

satvik and the other rajasik, one conforming to dharma and the other not conforming to

dharma. The shastra of the atom bomb does not conform to dharma. It does not show

faith in God. It usurps the place of God (CWMG 95:221).

Gandhi during partition

In early September 1947, just after Independence, Gandhi had fasted in Calcutta to

change the hearts of the people and politicians of Bengal. The background to this was as

follows. 1946 had seen the worst communal massacre in the decade before partition. It

took place in Calcutta as a result of Jinnahs call for Direct Action on August 16. (The

Muslim League controlled the provincial government under Chief Minister Husain

Suhrawardy). There were reports of five to ten thousand people being killed and fifteen

thousand injured between August 16 and 19. Suhrawardys extremist speeches in the

run-up to August 16 led many to suspect deliberate political instigation of the massacre.

This event came to be known as the great Calcutta killing (Markovits 2007). It severely

embittered communal relations and the political atmosphere. The months that followed

were extremely tense. The province was engulfed in fear. In October there was violence

in Noakhali, north Bengal, a Muslim majority area soon to become part of East Pakistan.

Here Hindu villagers were the main victims. Soon afterwards, riots erupted in Bihar that

resulted in over 7000 Muslims being killed. Gandhi severely criticised Bihars Congress

government and demanded that senior Congressmen do their utmost to stop the

violence. From November 1946 till February 1947, he walked through the villages of

Noakhali. This pilgrimage for harmony became legendary, as his prayer meetings healed

the public psyche, encouraged Hindus to return to their villages and Muslims to discard

their animus. The area has a GandhiMuseum, and legends of his visit are still repeated

among the elderly. (Gandhi 2006, 591-593)

Five months later, when India and Pakistan emerged as newly independent nations,

Gandhi was back in Bengal. Contemporary observers thought it a miracle that thousands

of Hindus and Muslims celebrated Eid together on August 18, 1947. For once, British

officialdom was happy with Gandhis presence. On August 26, Viceroy Mountbatten sent

him a telegram stating: My dear Gandhiji, in the Punjab we have 55 thousand soldiers

and large-scale rioting on our hands. In Bengal our forces consist of one man, and there

is no rioting As a serving officer may I be allowed to pay my tribute to the One Man

Boundary Force. And the Muslim League fraction in the Constituent Assembly in Delhi

passed a resolution expressing its "deep sense of appreciation of the services rendered


5


by Mr Gandhi to the cause of restoration of peace and goodwill between the communities

in Calcutta. (Dalton1970, 234). Gandhi now decided to visit the Punjab.

But the peace did not last. On August 31, renewed violence in Calcutta prompted Gandhi

to change his travel plans. On September 1, he announced his decision to fast against

violence. He stayed in the abandoned HydariMansion in a Muslim part of the city. Within

a day, students began to take out peace processions, and even the European and Anglo-

Indian officers of the north Calcutta police force wore arm-bands and fasted on duty in

sympathy with Gandhi. The following day bands of hooligans came to him to surrender

their weapons and pleaded with him to end his fast. Gandhi said it was the first time he

had seen a sten gun. (Gandhi 2006, 636-637; and Dalton 1970, 235-238). On

September 4, 1947, he received a delegation including businessmen, the Muslim

League-led Seamans Union, the Hindu Mahasabha, and Chief Minister Suhrawardy. He

made them swear they would risk their own lives before allowing another outbreak of

communal violence. This unprecedented oath was then written and signed by the entire

delegation. Chakravarthi Rajagopalachari, independent Indias second Governor General,

remarked that not even the struggle for Independence was as truly wonderful as his

victory over evil in Calcutta. (The Statesman, 06/09/1947). In his editorial of

September 1, the English editor of The Statesman announced that henceforth Mr

Gandhi would be referred to in his columns as the Mahatma.

Earlier, at a prayer meeting in Bombay in March 1946, Gandhi had said, It has become

the fashion these days to ascribe all such ugly manifestations to the activities of

hooligans. It hardly becomes us to take refuge in that moral alibi. Who are the hooligans

after all? They are our own countrymen, and so long as any countryman of ours indulges

in such acts, we cannot disown responsibility for them consistently with our claim that

we are one people. Mankind is at the crossroads. It has to make its choice between the

law of the jungle and the law of humanity. (CWMG 90: 64). And at the height of the

violence of 1947 he said, it is time for peace-loving citizens to assert themselves and

isolate goondaism. Non-violent non-cooperation is the universal remedy. Good is self-

existent, evil is not. It is like a parasite living in and around good. It will die of itself

when the support that good gives it is withdrawn. (CWMG 96: 335). In Gandhi's way of

thinking, the struggle between good and evil took place in every soul, and was not

merely demarcated by the social distance between goondas and polite society.

Politics and ethics

Gandhi's ideas are sometimes misunderstood because of his refusal to separate religion

from politics. One reason for the confusion is the fact that religion nowadays is treated

more as a flag to identify ourselves as members of a community, rather than as a source

of philosophical and moral standards, which is what it was for Gandhi. It is easier to

understand this matter if we substitute ethics for religion, and power for politics.

Does anyone believe that power should be free of moral guidance? Gandhi saw himself

as a karmayogi. He regarded selfless action towards self-knowledge and human

salvation as his spiritual duty. He saw political activity as the highest sphere of social

action, and insisted on informing this action with moral guidelines such as ahimsa and

the abolition of untouchability. Since he was searching not for personal power but swaraj

for Indians, he exercised tremendous moral influence arising out of his avoidance of


6


selfish goals. Truth for him included spiritual goals such as moksha and self-knowledge;

and earthly ideals such as justice and social integrity. His motives were at once spiritual

and political because he saw political activity as a form of spiritually inspired social

service. Very often even the high-priests of religion could use the separation of religion

and politics as a convenient excuse to overlook crimes committed by their co-religionists.

Gandhi challenged them to translate their fine-sounding doctrines into reality. This is

why he refused to separate means and ends evil means, he said, would end up

corrupting even the best of ends. Religion and spirituality were not instruments for the

pursuit of political power, rather, political activity had to be informed by the best

spiritual ideals.

Gandhi was not a hopeless idealist. He recognised that complete non-violence would lead

to the total cessation of all human activity. Violence in his definition, meant causing

suffering to others out of, or just for the sake of doing so (Parekh 1989, 117). He

distinguished between self-interest and selfishness. Self-interest meant securing the

conditions necessary for leading a dignified life; selfishness meant putting oneself above

others and pursuing one's interests at their expense. Violent ideas were dangerous, since

they created conditions for real violence. Humiliating others was also a form of violence.

Gandhi recognised that the machinery of the state was a concentrated form of violence,

an instrument for the maintenance of an unjust social system. He also made a distinction

between the violence of the oppressors and that of the oppressed - defensive violence,

in his view, was morally superior to the offensive variety (Parekh 1989, 133-35). In

extreme situations, he argued, violence was preferable to cowardice. He was against

using ahimsa as an excuse for passive acceptance of injustice. He favoured physical

resistance by victims of rape if there was no possibility of resisting non-violently.

Gandhi was convinced that the reign of violence could not be overthrown by adding to

it (Parekh 1989, 134). Great danger lay in using common-place justifications for

violence, such as the violation of nature for human self-interest; the need to maintain

the coercive apparatus of the state; and revolutionary violence in the name of resistance

to oppression. He was deeply worried about the way in which the limited legitimacy of

violence in human life was so easily turned into its general justification, making it the

rule rather than the exception. Once this happened, men kept taking advantage of the

exceptions and made no effort to find alternatives (Parekh 1989, 128). This was why

activists needed to train themselves as non-violent warriors for justice. Ahimsa in his

definition was not merely the absence of violence but included the positive value of

karuna or compassion. By elevating ahimsa to the level of a moral ideal, he hoped to

minimise the violence which was inevitable in the process of social and political

transformation. Even if it could never be fully realised, ahimsa functioned as an ideal,

without which human society would have no standards of perfection with which to judge

our actions. A critical discussion of Gandhis views on violence and ahimsa may be read

in Parekh, 1989, chapters 4 & 5.

Unexpected converts to ahimsa

Among those powerfully influenced by Gandhi's message were two communities

traditionally considered the most militant in India, the Sikhs and the Pathans. Today, few

remember that the Akali party originated in a satyagraha to liberate gurudwaras from

pro-British mahants. The Guru-ka-Bagh agitation in 1922 involved the peaceful violation


7


of a ban on woodcutting for religious purposes by Akali jathas, whose members

(including ex-soldiers who had fought for the British Empire in the First World War) were

beaten with metal-capped lathis by English police officers and Indian policemen. About

1500 Sikhs were injured and 5000 imprisoned in a campaign which shook the country.

Gandhi's associate Reverend C. F. Andrews witnessed this "ultimate moral contest". The

sight of the brutalities, he reported, was incredible to an Englishmaneach blow (was)

turned into a triumph by the spirit with which it was endured.

Value addition: from the sources

Eye-witness account of the Guru ka Bagh satyagrahaby the Christian

missionary, Gandhis confidante Reverend C. F. Andrews dated

September 12, 1922

When I ... stood face to face with the ultimate moral contest I could understand

the strained look and the lips which silently prayed. It was a sight I never wish to

see again, a sight incredible to an Englishman. There were four Akali Sikhs with

their black turbans facing a band of about a dozen police, including two English

officers. They had walked slowly up to the line of the Police.. and were standing

silently in front of them.. Their hands were placed together in prayer. Then

without the slightest provocation on their part, an Englishman lunged forward the

head of his lathi which was bound with brass.. The blow which I saw was

sufficient to fell the Akali Sikh and send him to the ground. He rolled over, and

slowly got up once more and faced the same punishment over again. Time after

time one of the four..was laid prostrate by repeated blows, now from the English

officer and now from the police... the police committed certain acts which were

brutal in the extreme - I saw with my own eyes one of these police kick in the

stomach a Sikh who stood helplessly before him... when one of the Sikhs..was

lying prostrate, a police sepoy stamped with his foot upon him, using his full

weight.. The brutality and inhumanity of the whole scene was indescribably

increased by the fact that the men who were hit were praying to God and had

already taken a vow that they would remain silent and peaceful in word and

deed. The Akali Sikhs who had taken this vow, both at the Golden Temple and

also at the shrine of Guru Ka Bagh, were...largely from the Army. They had

served in many campaigns in Flanders, in France, in Mesopotamia and in East

Africa... Now they were felled to the ground at the hands of English officials

serving in the same government which they themselves had served... But each

blow was turned into a triumph by the spirit with which it was endured... The vow

they had made to God was kept to the letter. The onlookers too..were praying

with them...and for them.. It was very rarely that I witnessed any Akali Sikh who

went forward to suffer, flinch from a blow when it was struck. The blows were

received one by one without resistance and without a sign of fear..

There has been something far greater in this event than a mere dispute about

land and property. It has gone far beyond the technical questions of legal

possession or distraint. A new heroism, learnt through suffering, has arisen in the

land. A new lesson in moral warfare has been taught to the world..

Source: Ralhan, O. P. and Suresh K. Sharma. 1994. Documents on

Punjab, vol 7, Sikh Politics (Guru-ka-Bagh Morcha). New Delhi: Anmol

Publications.


8


The Khudai Khidmatgar, or Servants of God movement in the North

WestFrontierProvince (also known as Pakhtunistan) is another example of a Gandhian

campaign for independence and social uplift in colonial India. Their leader Abdul Ghaffar

(Badshah) Khan came to be known as the Frontier Gandhi. He preached a version of

Islam that emphasised forgiveness and self-restraint. (For a short biography see Gandhi

2004). The red-shirted Khidmatgars led the civil disobedience campaign in 1931. They

seized control of Peshawar and ran a parallel administration for a few days. This

happened after a regiment of the Garhwal Rifles (all Hindus) refused to open fire on

Pathan satyagrahis. The slogans heard in Peshawars Kissa Khani Bazaar included Allah

ho Akbar and Mahatma Gandhi ki jai. The platoon commander, Chander Singh

Garhwali, reportedly told his English officer that a soldier of the Indian Army could not

ask his men to shoot unarmed civilians. Chander Singh was sent to jail and became a

hero of the national movement. A Turkish scholar who visited the Frontier in the 1930's

suggested that the Pathans had developed a new interpretation of force. In her words,

non-violence is the only form of force which can have a lasting effect on the life of

society... And this, coming from strong and fearless men, is worthy of study (Bondurant

1965, 138).

Value addition: did you know?

Gandhi, Badshah Khan and the Pathans

The Turkish scholar Halide Edib, who visited the Frontier in the 1930's wrote of

Badshah Khans achievements: Although he based his simple ideology on

religion, his interpretation of it was so universal, that instead of separating the

Muslims from the rest of the world, he tried to make them so that they could co-

operate with their fellow-men for the good of all...his supreme importance lies in

his having brought the simplest and truest conception of Islam into the lives of a

most elemental people.. (Bondurant 1965, 143)

Gandhis exhortations to the Pathans spoke the language of courage, but in a

strange new way: At every meeting I repeated the warning that unless they felt

that in non-violence they had come into possession of a force infinitely superior to

the one they had and in the use of which they were adept, they should have

nothing to do with non-violence and resume the arms they possessed before. It

must never be said of the Khudai Khidmatgars that once so brave, they have

become or been made cowards under Badshah Khans influence. Their bravery

consisted not in being good marksmen but in defying death and being ever ready

to bare their chests to the bullet. (Tendulkar 1961, 303-304).

The commitment of the Khudai Khidmatgars to non-violence was based on the

culture of Pukhtunwali and Islam. The Congress leadership believed the

stereotypes about Pathan ferocity and were anxious about the Red Shirts

commitment to ahimsa. Yet in 1942 the Khidmatgars non-violent struggle forced

the government to station 30,000 troops in NWFP (a three-fold increase over

1941) - this served to lessen the burden upon the rest of India. When it came to

the Pathans, the British excelled themselves in cruelty and psychologically

designed torture including forcing activists to make counter-oaths upon the

Koran, violating the sanctity of the womens quarter in Pathan homes; public


9


exposures of private parts and even sexual mutilation. The Peshawar massacre in

April 1930 (over 200 killed) and the Bannu shooting in August (70 dead) shocked

the country, whilst arousing admiration for the Pathans patriotism and non-

violent spirit. After touring the Frontier, British journalist Robert Bernays wrote

that some of the stories of the wholesale shootings and hangings made me hang

my head in shame (Bondurant 1965, 138). All the while Badshah Khan insisted

on restraint as the greatest Koranic virtue, asking the Pathans to abstain from

violence, not to defame their nation, because the world would marvel to see

such a barbarous nation observing patience (Bannerjee 2001, 156). The

Khidmatgar movement grew from a thousand members in 1930 to 25,000 in

1931, with women entering public life for the first time. It was not lost on the

nationalist public that the Englishmen on a civilising mission were behaving like

mad dogs, and the volatile Pathans were teaching their rulers a lesson in civility. Sources: Banerjee, Mukulika. 2001. The Pathan Unarmed: Opposition and

Memory in the North West Frontier. New Delhi: Oxford University Press;

Bondurant, Joan. 1958, 1965. Conquest of Violence: the Gandhian

Philosophy of Conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press;

Tendulkar, D. G. 1961. Mahatma: Life of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi;

v. 4. New Delhi: Government of India, Ministry of Information and

Broadcasting, Publications Division.

The question of truth

Gandhi called himself a sanatani Hindu. However, it is clear that he placed both tradition

and the opinions of spiritual authorities to the test of his own conscience. He believed

that the individual had to apply his or her reason and intuition to religious tradition. He

was not a slave of religious doctrines. Rather, he used his knowledge of them to

strengthen his convictions. When reading the shastras, he said, one should not stick to

its letter, but try to understand its spirit, its meaning in the total context. Tulsidass

Ramayana is one of the greatest works because its spirit is that of purity, compassion

and devotion to God. An evil fate awaits one who beats his wife because Tulsidas has

said in his work that a Sudra, a dull-witted person, a beast and a woman merit

chastisement. Rama not only never raised his hand against Sita, he did not even

displease her at any time. Tulsidas merely stated a common belief in any case, his

Ramayana was not composed in order to justify men beating their wives. (Gandhi 1993,

11-12). And despite the scenes of carnage described in the Mahabharata, Gandhi insists

that Vyasa wrote his epic "to depict the futility of war", and that it symbolised the inner

struggle between good and evil encountered by all human beings. If the purest form of

action was devoid of desire for reward, then violence and untruthfulness were taboo, for

selfishness was implied in them. Language and meaning changed and expanded over the

centuries, and it is the very beauty of a good poem that it is greater than its author.

Despite the warlike metaphors of the Gita, he insisted that after forty years unremitting

endeavour to enforce the teaching of the Gita in my own life, I have in all humility felt

that perfect renunciation is impossible without perfect observance of ahimsa in every

shape and form.

Gandhi's conscience impelled him towards human equality and the resolution of political

and social conflict. He rejected the violence of caste-oppression and the justifications for


10


violence contained in religious traditions. He managed to speak in a conservative voice

while advocating a break from traditional practices. In that sense he was a law-giver, not

a mere follower of religious commandments. He used tradition to make people think

about their situation in an idiom they were familiar with. And he did this without deceit.

He acknowledged the ambivalent character of these traditions while respectfully

challenging them from within. Instead of using religious identity to demarcate himself

from others, he used it to build bridges with them, by studying their traditions and

drawing out a common message of truth, love and non-violence. His method was to

treat myths and legends symbolically rather than literally. As he once said, The

immortal but unknown author of the Mahabharata weaves into his story sufficient of the

supernatural to warn you against taking him literally. Again, I do not believe that the

Gita advocates violence for self-defence. I understand the Gita differently. If the Gita or

some other Sanskrit work advocates this I am not prepared to accept it as Shastra. An

utterance does not become scriptural merely because it is couched in Sanskrit. These

remarks show that that he used religion as a moral guide, and did not surrender his own

powers of individual judgement. His approach indicates that he was both a deeply

religious person and one who was prepared to challenge religious scriptures when he

thought they went against his conscience. He believed all human beings possessed such

an inner voice and appealed to them to consult it. Different religious traditions were but

differently evolved paths to the same goal.

It is useful to contrast Gandhis approach to this issue with that of his assassin Nathuram

Godse, a self-proclaimed Hindu nationalist, for whom sin or moral correctness had to be

sought not in a mans act but in his motives. Godses statement at his trial made it clear

that for him, right intention coupled with infallible knowledge were sufficient grounds for

him to murder Gandhi (Payne 2003, 637-41). To this day, a similar line of reasoning is

adopted by political groups who adopt murder as a means to achieve their ends. Their

politics may be different from Godses but their moral reasoning is the same: they are

sure that their view of things is absolutely correct, and that their intentions are pure. In

their view, these two grounds give them a right to kill. We are speaking here not of

random acts of violence or crimes of passion, but of political assassination, whether of

single persons or entire groups. Extremist political programmes have the colour of

unquestioned faith that gives their followers the strength to perform violent unilateral

actions in the name of the people. Gandhis position is radically different, and modest.

He argued that we do not have irrefutable knowledge, and hence we cannot assume the

right to commit irrevocable acts such as killing other human beings.

Gandhis last fast

From September 1947, the communal situation in north India became grievous.

Massacres were taking place in Punjab, Sindh and what is now Haryana, sparking off the

migration of over ten million Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims moving in opposite directions. In

September, hundreds of Muslims of Delhi had been killed in localities such as Karol Bagh,

Subzi Mandi and Paharganj. Tens of thousands of Hindu and Sikh refugees from Punjab

were crammed into Diwan Hall, Chandni Chowk and Kingsway Camp; while thousands of

Muslims, including Meos from Alwar and Bharatpur, were living in fear in Jamia Millia,

Purana Qila and Humayuns Tomb. The Vice Chancellor of Jamia Millia and president of

the Hindustani Talimi Sangh, Dr Zakir Husain, who later became President of India,


11


barely escaped with his life. He had been saved by a Sikh army captain and a Hindu

railway official. The senior Congressman Saifuddin Kitchlew was obliged to flee to

Kashmir. Upon arrival in Delhi on September 9, Gandhi was asked to detrain in Shahdara

for reasons of safety. The same reasons motivated Sardar Patel to arrange for his stay

not in the sweepers colony which was his preferred residence in the city, but in Birla

House. Once in Delhi, Gandhi plunged into the ongoing turmoil around him, travelling to

nearby places such as Gurgaon and Panipat, talking to refugees, community leaders and

cadres of social organisations. On December 22, he made this announcement at his

prayer meeting:

Some eight or ten miles from here, at Mehrauli, there is a shrine of Qutubuddin

Bakhtiyar Chisti. Esteemed as second only to the shrine at Ajmer, it is visited every year

not only by Muslims but by thousands of non-Muslims too. Last September this shrine

was subjected to the wrath of Hindu mobs. The Muslims living in the vicinity of the

shrine for the last 800 years had to leave their homes. I mention this sad episode to tell

you that, though Muslims love the shrine, today no Muslim can be found anywhere near

it. It is the duty of the Hindus, Sikhs, the officials and the Government to open the

shrine again and wash off this stain on us. The same applies to other shrines and

religious places of Muslims in and around Delhi. The time has come when both India and

Pakistan must unequivocally declare to the majorities in each country that they will not

tolerate desecration of religious places, be they small or big. They should also undertake

to repair the places damaged during riots. (CWMG, vol 98, p 98-99).

This was the background to his last protest. There was also the matter of the

Governments decision to withhold payment of Pakistans share of undivided Indias

sterling balance, which amounted to Rs 55 crores. We may take it that the fast was

undertaken both to restore the shrine and to convey to the public his feelings about

ongoing events. It began on January 13, 1948 and was announced by Gandhi at his

prayer meeting that evening. He said: Now that I have started my fast many people

cannot understand what I am doing, who are the offenders Hindus or Sikhs or

Muslims. How long will the fast last? I say I do not blame anyone. Who am I to accuse

others? I have said that we have all sinned.

He continued: I shall terminate the fast only when peace has returned to Delhi. If peace

is restored to Delhi it will have effect not only on the whole of India but also on Pakistan

and when that happens, a Muslim can walk around in the city all by himself. I shall then

terminate the fast. Delhi is the capital of India. It has always been the capital of India.

So long as things do not return to normal in Delhi, they will not be normal either in India

or in Pakistan. Today I cannot bring Suhrawardy here because I fear someone may insult

him. Today he cannot walk about in the streets of Delhi. If he did he would be assaulted.

What I want is that he should be able to move about here even in the dark. It is true

that he made efforts in Calcutta only when Muslims became involved. Still, he could have

made the situation worse, if he had wanted, but he did not want to make things worse.

He made the Muslims evacuate the places they had forcibly occupied and said that he

being the Premier could do so. Although the places occupied by the Muslims belonged to

Hindus and Sikhs he did his duty. Even if it takes a whole month to have real peace

established in Delhi it does not matter. People should not do anything merely to have me

terminate the fast. So my wish is that Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis, Christians and Muslims who


12


are in India should continue to live in India and India should become a country where

everyones life and property are safe. Only then will India progress.

The peoples reaction

On the second day of Gandhis fast the government took the formal decision to release

the money due to Pakistan. Meanwhile Delhi was visibly affected. Addressing a gathering

of three hundred thousand people on January 17, Maulana Azad announced seven tests

given him by Gandhi to be fulfilled and guaranteed by responsible people. They included

freedom of worship to Muslims at the tomb of Khwaja Bakhtiar Chishti, non-interference

with the Urs festival due to be held there within a week; the voluntary evacuation by

non-Muslims of all mosques in Delhi that were being used for residential purposes or

which had been converted into temples; free movement of Muslims in areas where they

used to stay; complete safety to Muslims while travelling by train; no economic boycott

of Muslims; and freedom to Muslim evacuees to return to Delhi. That evening a

procession of citizens shouting peace slogans walked to Birla House where Jawaharlal

Nehru addressed them. Gandhis speech was read out at the prayer meeting, attended

by some four thousand people. He said:

The number of telegrams coming from Rajas, Maharajas and common people continues

to increase. There are telegrams from Pakistan too. They are good as far as they go. But

as a friend and well-wisher I must say to all those who reside in Pakistan and mould its

fortunes that they will fail to make Pakistan permanent if their conscience is not

quickened and if they do not admit the wrongs for which Pakistan is responsible. This

does not mean that I do not wish a voluntary reunion, but I wish to remove and resist

the idea that Pakistan should be reunited by force of arms. I hope that this will not be

misunderstood as a note of discord, whilst I am lying on what is truly a death-bed. I

hope all Pakistanis will realize that I would be untrue to them and to myself if out of

weakness and for fear of hurting their feelings, I failed to convey to them what I

truthfully feel. If I am wrong in my estimate, I should be so told and if I am convinced, I

promise that I shall retract what I have said here. So far as I know, the point is not open

to question. My fast should not be considered a political move in any sense of the term.

It is in obedience to the peremptory call of conscience and duty. It comes out of felt

agony. I call to witness all my numerous Muslim friends in Delhi. Their representatives

meet me almost every day to report the days events. Neither Rajas and Maharajas nor

Hindus and Sikhs or any others would serve themselves or India as a whole, if at this,

what is to me a sacred juncture, they mislead me with a view to terminating my fast

(CWMG 98:248).

On January 18, Gandhi ended his fast. Over a hundred representatives of various groups

and organizations including the Hindu Mahasabha, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and

Jamiat-ul-Ulema who had assembled at Rajendra Prasads residence, called on Gandhiji

at 11.30 a.m. Those present included Jawaharlal Nehru, Abul Kalam Azad, Rajendra

Prasad, INA General Shah Nawaz Khan, Hifzur Rahman and Zaheed Hussain, Pakistans

High Commissioner. Dr. Rajendra Prasad reported that even those who had some doubts

on the previous night were confident that they could ask Gandhiji with a full sense of

responsibility to break the fast. As the President of the Congress, Rajendra Prasad said

that he had signed the document in view of the guarantee which they had all jointly and

severally given. Khurshid, the Chief Commissioner and Randhawa, Deputy Commissioner


13


of Delhi, had signed the document on behalf of the administration. It had been decided

to set up a number of committees to implement the pledge. Rajendra Prasad hoped that

Gandhiji would now terminate his fast. Deshbandhu Gupta described scenes of

fraternization between Hindus and Muslims which he had witnessed when a procession of

Muslims was taken out that morning in Subzi mandi and was received with ovation and

offered fruit and refreshments by the Hindu inhabitants. A seven-point declaration in

Hindi was read out solemnly affirming the peoples desire for communal harmony and

civic peace. This read as follows:

SEVEN-POINT DECLARATION OF JANUARY 18, 1948

We wish to announce that it is our heart-felt desire that the Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs

and members of the other communities should once again live in Delhi like brothers and

in perfect amity and we take the pledge that we shall protect the life, property and faith

of Muslims and that the incidents which have taken place in Delhi will not happen again.

We want to assure Gandhiji that the annual fair at Khwaja Qutub-ud-Din Mazar will be

held this year as in the previous years.

Muslims will be able to move about in Subzimandi, Karol Bagh, Paharganj and other

localities just as they could in the past.

The mosques which have been left by Muslims and which now are in the possession of

Hindus and Sikhs will be returned. The areas which have been set apart for Muslims will

not be forcibly occupied.

We shall not object to the return to Delhi of the Muslims who have migrated from here

if they choose to come back and Muslims shall be able to carry on their business as

before.

We assure that all these things will be done by our personal effort and not with the help

of the police or military.

We request Mahatmaji to believe us and to give up his fast and continue to lead us as

he has done hitherto. . (CWMG, vol 98, p 249, 253).


Gandhis speech on the Delhi Declaration; January 18, 1948

In his reply, Gandhi said: I am happy to hear what you have told me, but if you

have overlooked one point all this will be worth nothing. If this declaration means

that you will safeguard Delhi and whatever happens outside Delhi will be no

concern of yours, you will be committing a grave error and it will be sheer

foolishness on my part to break my fast. You must have seen the Press reports of

the happenings in Allahabad, if not, look them up. I understand that the

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Hindu Mahasabha are among the

signatories to this declaration. It will amount to breach of faith on their part if

they hold themselves responsible for peace in Delhi, but not in other places. I

have been observing that this sort of deception is being practiced in the country

these days on a large scale. Delhi is the heart - the capital of India. The leaders


14


from the whole of India have assembled here. Men had become beasts. But if

those who have assembled here, who constitute the cream among men cannot

make the whole of India understand that Hindus, Muslims and followers of other

religions are like brothers, it bodes ill for both the Dominions. What will be the

fate of India if we continue to quarrel with one another?... Let us take no step

that may become a cause for repentance later on. The situation demands courage

of the highest order from us. We have to consider whether or not we can

accomplish what we are going to promise. If you are not confident of fulfilling

your pledge, do not ask me to give up my fast. It is for you and the whole of

India to translate it into reality. It may not be possible to realize it in a day. I do

not possess the requisite strength for it. But I can assure you that till today our

face was turned towards Satan, we have now resolved to turn towards God. If

what I have told you fails to find an echo in your hearts or if you are convinced

that it is beyond you, tell me so frankly.

What greater folly can there be than to claim that Hindustan is only for Hindus

and Pakistan is for Muslims alone? The refugees here should realize that things in

Pakistan will be set right by the example set in Delhi. I am not one to be afraid of

fasting. Time and again I have gone on fasts and if occasion arises I may again

do so. Whatever therefore you do, do after careful thought and consideration. The

Muslim friends frequently meet me and assure me that peaceful atmosphere has

been restored in Delhi and Hindus and Muslims can live in amity here. If these

friends have any misgivings in their hearts and feel that today they have perforce

to stay here - as they have nowhere else to go to - but ultimately they will have

to part company, let them admit it to me frankly. To set things right in the whole

of India and Pakistan is no doubt a Herculean task. But I am an optimist. Once I

resolve to do something I refuse to accept defeat. Today you assure me that

Hindus and Muslims have become one but if Hindus continue to regard Muslims

as Yavans and asuras, incapable of realizing God, and Muslims regard Hindus

likewise, it will be the worst kind of blasphemy. A Muslim friend presented me

with a book in Patna. Its author is an eminent Muslim. The book says: God

ordains that a kafir - and a Hindu is a kafir - is worse than a poisonous creature.

He should be exterminated. It is ones duty to be treacherous to him. Why should

one treat him with any courtesy? If Muslims still harbouring such thoughts

assure Hindus about their good behaviour, they will only be deceiving Hindus. If

you betray one you betray all. If I truly worship a stone image I deceive no one.

For me God resides in that stone image. I feel that if the hearts of both Hindus

and Muslims are full of deceipt and treachery, why need I continue to live?

The telegrams I have received today include some from prominent Muslims. They

have made me happy. It seems they have realized that the method adopted by

them so far was not proper to run a government. After listening to all that I have

said, if you still ask me to end my fast I shall end it. Afterwards you have to

release me. I had taken the vow to do or die in Delhi and now if I am able to

achieve success here I shall go to Pakistan and try to make Muslims understand

their folly. Whatever happens in other places, people in Delhi should maintain

peace. The refugees here should realize that they have to welcome as brothers

the Muslims returning from Pakistan to Delhi. The Muslim refugees in Pakistan are

suffering acute hardships and so are the Hindu refugees here. Hindus have not


15


learnt all the crafts of Muslim craftsmen. Therefore they had better return to

India. There are good men as well as bad men in all the communities. Taking into

consideration all these implications, if you ask me to break my fast I shall abide

by your wish. India will virtually become a prison if the present conditions

continue. It may be better that you allow me to continue my fast and if God wills

it He will call me. (CWMG Vol 98, p 254-257)

Maulana Azad said that the remarks about non-Muslims to which Gandhiji had

referred were abhorrent to Islam. They were symptoms of the insanity that had

seized some sections of the people. Maulana Hifzur Rahman insisted that Muslims

wanted to remain in India as citizens with self-respect and honour. He welcomed

the changed atmosphere in the city as a result of Gandhis fast and appealed to

Gandhi to break the fast. On behalf of the R.S.S. and Hindu Mahasabha, Ganesh

Datt reiterated the appeal. Pakistans High Commisioner Zaheed Hussain

addressed a few words to Gandhiji. He said he was there to convey the deep

concern of the Pakistani people about him and the anxious inquiries they made

every day about his health. It was their hearts desire that circumstances might

soon enable him to break the fast. If there was anything that he could do towards

that end he was ready and so were the people of Pakistan. Zaheed Hussain was

followed by Khurshid and Randhawa who on behalf of the administration

reiterated the assurance that all the conditions mentioned in the citizens pledge

would be implemented, and no effort would be spared to restore the Indian

capital to its traditional harmony and peace. Sardar Harbans Singh endorsed the

appeal on behalf of the Sikhs. When Rajendra Prasad said: I have signed on

behalf of the people, please break your fast, Gandhi replied: I shall break my

fast. Let Gods will prevail. You all be witness today. Source: Gandhi, M. K. Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi Online.

(CWMG) http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/cwmg.html.

His last testament?

In the last weeks of his life Gandhi spoke his mind to Indians and Pakistanis. As was his

habit, he spoke freely, not sparing anyone, but always with respect and an appeal to

their better side. He asked Pakistans rulers to ensure the safety of minorities and

predicted that Pakistan would be an impermanent entity unless it evolved a secular

polity. He warned those who were pained by partition that Akhand Bharat, or a united

India could only be established by love and mutual respect, never by force. He spoke to

community leaders whose utterances pained him, including Muslim leaders who had

called him a kafir; and the RSS and Hindu Mahasabha who hated him for the respect he

showed towards Islam and Muslims. He discussed the matter of the SomnathTemple in

Kathiawad, insisting that its restoration could not be paid for by the Union of India,

which was a secular state, but only by private donations from devout Hindus. After all,

we have formed the Government for all. It is a secular government, that is it does not

belong to any particular religion. Hence it cannot spend money on the basis of

communities (CWMG 97: 413-14). He addressed Sikh refugees in the company of

Sheikh Abdullah, and hailed the example of Kashmiri Muslims in maintaining communal

harmony. He spoke to Sikhs, warning them never to misuse the kirpan. The day he

ended his fast was Guru Gobind Singhs birthday. Gandhi sent Sikhs a message

congratulating them for their victory over anger, and ending with the slogan Wahe Guruji


16


ki Fateh. He sent a special message to fellow Gujaratis. He discussed the issue of a

national language and his preference for Hindustani. He spoke to caste Hindus about the

evil of untouchability. After recounting the painful experiences of the oppressed castes of

Rohtak, he admonished Jats and Ahirs for tormenting them and treating them as slaves.

He talked about the Meos, named criminal tribes by the colonial administration, who

had been forcibly evicted from vast areas in Delhis hinterland, and called for their

rehabilitation. He severely criticised those Congressmen who had begun using power for

personal benefit. He spoke to social organisations such as the Hindustani Talimi Sangh,

the Kasturba Gandhi National Memorial Trust and the Harijan Sevak Sangh about their

role in building independent India. He raised philosophical issues about the crucial role of

individual conscience and about ahimsa.

Most of all, he spoke words of comfort to refugees crazed by grief, calmly listening to

their abuses, even hatred. Let Gandhi die were the slogans raised by some people

during his fast. After the fast, he continued with his daily prayer meetings and his

custom of reading from all religious texts. The significance of this custom was brought

out in April 1947, when, during his stay at the sweepers colony in Delhi, he was

prevented from reading the Koran by a small group of protestors. Gandhi had refrained

from praying, asking the objectors to either withdraw their objection or leave the

meeting. On the fourth attempt, he succeeded in reading the Sura al-Fatheha without

protest. This was his way of showing Indians that all religions contained something of

universal value, recognisable by every decent person, and that Islam was no different.

At these meetings he asked everyone to see reason, to give up the ways of Satan, to

remember the best part of their traditions, to be brave in the face of tragedy and

adversity, not to seek revenge but to forgive. There was not a single issue of social,

political and moral concern to which he did not refer. His utterances were scattered over

some weeks, but they were undoubtedly his last will and testament. The assurance given

to Gandhi on January 18 by various individuals and organisations was a solemn

(although not legal) commitment to maintain communal harmony in independent India.

It was also a re-iteration of the AICC resolution on Minority Rights in independent India,

adopted in November 1947 at Gandhis insistence. (CWMG 97: 476)

The end

But Gandhi was also a man in pain. In his prayer meeting of November 25, 1947, he had

spoken about those who had been deprived of their homes: If we come to our senses

here today, everything will be well tomorrow; I too will be free. Today I am very much

disturbed. My life has become a burden to me. I wonder why I am still here. I could

become strong if Delhi were restored to sanity, and then I would rush to West Punjab

and tell the Muslims who have gone away from here that I have prepared the ground for

them and they could come back any time they wanted and live wherever they chose

Today I have become a sort of burden. There was a time when my word was law. But it

is no longer so (CWMG 97: 393). One scholar has written about the climate of hatred in

those days, a climate in which many people wished for Gandhi to die (Nandy 1993).

Perhaps he sensed this wish.

On January 20, a bomb exploded 75 feet away from the dais at Gandhis prayer meeting.

One Madanlal Pahwa was arrested. Six other men escaped in a taxi. This was the fifth

attempt on his life since 1934, and all of them were made by extreme Hindu nationalists.


17


Gandhi was unruffled. Upon being asked by the DIG to agree to additional policemen for

his prayer meetings, he refused, saying that his life was in the hands of God, that if he

had to die, no precautions could save him. He would not agree to restricted entry to his

prayer meetings or to anybody coming between his audience and himself. At the next

days meeting he said that the man who exploded the bomb obviously thinks that he

has been sent by God to destroy me He had taken it for granted that I am an enemy of

Hinduism. When he says he was doing the bidding of God he is only making God an

accomplice in a wicked deed. But it cannot be so those who are behind him or whose

tool he is, should know that this sort of thing will not save Hinduism. If Hinduism has to

be saved it will be saved through such work as I am doing. I have been imbibing Hindu

dharma right from my childhood (CWMG 98: 279-81). On January 30, soon after he

arrived at his prayer meeting, Nathuram Godse, editor of a Poona-based Marathi journal

called Hindu Rashtra, fired three bullets at him at point-blank range and killed him.

The story of this crime is complex (Payne 2003, 609-35). On February 4, the

Government of India declared the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh to be unlawful, noting

that its members had indulged in acts of violence involving arson, robbery, dacoity and

murder.. carried on under a cloak of secrecy. It accused the Sangh of exhorting people

to resort to terrorist methods. The communique went on to state that the cult of

violence sponsored and inspired by the activities of the Sangh has claimed many victims.

The latest and the most precious to fall was Gandhiji himself (Goyal 1979, 202). The

trial of eight conspirators including V. D. Savarkar took place through 1948. Godse made

a speech stating his belief in in Savarkars ideal of Hindu nationalism, and his conviction

that Gandhi was a political and ethical imposter a traitor to his faith and his country, a

curse to India, a force for evil.., and the greatest enemy not only of Hindus, but of the

whole nation (Payne 2003, 637-41). Parts of the speech suggest that Godse saw

himself as an agency of Lord Krishna. The speech remains popular with a certain section

of political opinion. Godse and Narayan Apte were sentenced to death in February 1949

and hanged in November. They went to the gallows shouting akhand bharat amar rahe,

not realising that a united India was also Gandhis dearest ideal. Unlike them, however,

he did not believe that united India could be a Hindu Rashtra. Five conspirators were

sentenced to life imprisonment, which in India those days meant fourteen years.

Savarkars links with the murderers was clear, but he was acquitted for lack of

corroborative evidence.

However, doubts remained about the extent of the conspiracy; the behaviour of the

Bombay and Delhi police between January 20 and 30; and the evidence of V. D.

Savarkars involvement. In 1965, the Government of India set up a commission of

inquiry into the conspiracy to murder Mahatma Gandhi, headed by Justice Jivanlal Kapur

of the Supreme Court. It examined evidence not produced during the trial, including the

testimony of Savarkar's bodyguard Appa Ramachandra Kasar, and his secretary Gajanan

Vishnu Damle. Had they testified in 1948, Savarkar might have been convicted. The

evidence confirmed Godse and Apte's visits to Savarkar on January 14 and 17, 1948.

Kasar told the Commission that they visited Savarkar again on or about January 23,

upon their return from Delhi after the bomb incident. Damle stated that Godse and Apte

saw Savarkar in the middle of January and sat with him in his garden. Justice Kapur's

findings were clear. He noted the deadly negligence of the police. And he concluded that

the facts taken together undermined any theory other than the conspiracy to murder by

Savarkar and his group. (Noorani, March 2003).


18


Gandhi died standing up, with Gods name on his lips, just as he had wanted to. He had

always said that he was prepared to die for his beliefs. His death could have been

prevented. Who can say what would have happened if he had been allowed to perform

his padyatra to Pakistan? But it was not to be. In the eyes of too many officials, he was

an old man who had outlived his usefulness: he had become expendable. By negligence,

by indifference, by deliberate desire on the part of many faceless people, the

assassination had been accomplished. It was a new kind of murder the permissive

assassination, and there may be many more in the future (Payne 2003, 647).

Gandhis charisma

Gandhi appears far removed from us. He seems to be from another era, someone who

dislikes modern science and technology, who upholds sanatan dharma and the caste

system, who insists that religion cannot be separated from politics. It is better to avoid

placing Gandhi within political camps or to see him as a Rightist or Leftist. Gandhi

encourages us to question these concepts, to overcome the confusion into which they

often throw us. Nowadays he is portrayed as a man of peace. Actually he was a fighter.

He democratised the national movement and infused it with popular energy. His

message to Indian peasants was that they were part of the nation and that it could not

be built to their exclusion. He gave them a dignity which no other politician had done.

This recognition of their humanity and their citizenship earned him their immense

gratitude. (Markovits 2003, 141).

That is why the British rulers considered him a dangerous anarchist and repeatedly put

him in jail. Despite this he always proclaimed his friendship for the British people. When

he was in London for the Round Table Conference in 1931, he decided to visit the mill

areas of Lancashire. He was warned by the police not to go there, for he would be

mobbed by thousands of angry workers who had lost jobs due to the swadeshi boycott of

English cloth. But he insisted on going because he wanted to explain Indias case to

them. The American journalist William Shirer reported the workers reactions to Gandhis

arrival in the mill town of Darwen. They instinctively recognised in him a man who had

devoted his life to helping the poor. They gave him a tumultuous welcome. Gandhi was

mobbed, but by people filled with admiration, not anger (Shirer 1979, 180). An unknown

person took a photograph showing a smiling Gandhi in his dhoti surrounded by joyous

women workers whose faces shine with love. Other photographs from this trip show

similar images of the common peoples love for the man whom their government

portrayed as the Empires chief trouble-maker. There are few, if any examples of the

leader of an anti-colonial struggle whom the citizens of the colonial power held in such

affection.


19


Figure 9.1.1.1: Gandhi in Darwen, Lancashire, 1931

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gandhi_at_Darwen.jpg

Gandhi did not build a systematic political ideology or ism. Isms deserve to be

destroyed, he said, they were useless things. He often made pragmatic adjustments to

his political strategies and ideas, some of them in response to public criticism. It could

be said that he was in a continuous debate, not only with his compatriots, but with

friends and critics all over the world his writings were not shastras, but a prolonged

conversation. He declared that he since he was always growing intellectually, he was not

concerned with consistency. At most, we could say that his attitude and approach were

consistent. If his actions and ideas carry different meanings for people across space and

time, this is not surprising. It explains the immense range and magnetism of his appeal.

As the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess reminds us: There can be no rule-books of

Gandhian policy. There are no easy Gandhian formulae. This, however, does not

necessarily reduce the value of Gandhis teaching in the contemporary political situation.

After all, the indication of direction that a compass-needle gives is of some value in

itself, even if it takes no consideration of the terrain through which we must pass.

(Naess, 130.)

Once, in the face of hostile sloganeering in Bengal in 1940, Gandhi remarked, I love to

hear the words Down with Gandhism. An ism deserves to be destroyed. It is a useless

thing. The real thing is non-violence. It is immortal. It is enough for me if it remains

alive. I am eager to see Gandhism wiped out at an earlier date. You should not give

yourselves over to sectarianism. I do not belong to any sect. I have never dreamt of

establishing any sect. If any sect is established in my name after my death my soul


20


would cry out in anguish (Hardiman 2003, 8). Gandhis reference to immortality makes

us think about our experience of time. Time is another name for life. All of us live within

a certain time-frame. This does not make us prisoners of time. We are free to go beyond

our immediate circumstances to greater or lesser extent - the most deprived persons

may be seen exercising this freedom. Chander Singh Garhwali was a humble soldier. But

he left a positive mark upon history. The mark of greatness is the extent to which our

actions express truths recognisable after our time; truths that in Gandhis words, are

immortal.

Figure 9.1.1.2: Gandhi with the Khan brothers at Utmanzai, 1938

Source: http://www.nuvs.com/ashram/gallery/large/06.1.jpg

Epilogue

Until the mid 1940s, the cycle of partition-related communal massacres had not begun.

Yet in the twilight of British power in India, certain political groups and leaders threw

away the chance of mutual accomodation despite the opportunities available. But Gandhi

spoke of love and mutual respect in the midst of hatred and carnage. Some were

pessimists even when there was hope. Gandhi gave people hope in the midst of despair;

he appealed to their better instincts at the worst of times. This is the message of his fast

in January 1948. It is a message from a man of extraordinary strength and courage.

After he died, politicians argued about whether he was the father or the son of the

nation. It would be more accurate to say that the Mahatmas last sacrifice became the

foundation of Indias secular constitution.

The history of the sub-continent since the death of Gandhi is beyond the scope of this

lesson. It is enough to recall that Jinnahs Pakistan lasted for twenty-four years after

partition, at which point (1971) it disintegrated. India played a role in this, but it is


21


noteworthy that the bulk of the people of Pakistan (East Pakistanis were 55% of

Pakistans population) preferred to lead a separate existence. The logic of partition did

not end in 1947, nor did the logic of communal strife. As for Gandhis prediction that

without communal harmony India and Pakistan would once again become slaves of

foreign powers, only time will tell.

Two symbolic events tell us something about how India has treated the legacy of the

Mahatma. In 1998, nuclear devices were exploded in the Rajasthan desert at a place

called Pokharan. With this, India announced its wish to emerge as a nuclear weapons

state. And in February 2003, the Indian Unions highest officials unveiled a portrait of V.

D. Savarkar in the Central Hall of Parliament.

For a link to the debate regarding the NDA governments attempt to alter the contents of

Mahatma Gandhis Collected works, visit the link

http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/cwmg_controversy.html. For more photos of

Mahatma Gandhi visit the link http://www.nuvs.com/ashram/gallery/index.html.

Albert Einstein had famously said of Gandhi, that generations to come would scarce

believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth. Perhaps

less well-known is the fact that a millennium poll conducted in 2000 by global readers of

the BBC News website voted Mahatma Gandhi the greatest man of the past thousand

years (BBC, 2005).

9.2: Leaders and followers: Gandhi and the making of

Indian nationalism

Shifting approaches

Historiographical approaches to Indian nationalism in the Gandhian era have inevitably

varied and shifted across time. Initially, there were contrasting pro-colonial and Indian

nationalist readings of colonial and Gandhian nationalist politics: the first trying to justify

what was sometimes declared to be Englands work in India, the second tending to

glorify anti-colonial nationalism, and particularly Gandhi. This earlier work took the form

of general surveys based on published material: biographies, autobiographies,

collections of letters.

A major historiographical breakthrough came about from the 1960s with the opening up

of unpublished official reports and correspondence (archival material) and letters and

diaries of Indian activists as well as of British official and non official persons (private

papers). Such research was pioneered in Cambridge (hence known as the

CambridgeSchool of history) by scholars like Anil Seal and C. A. Bayly. They tended to

highlight internal factional disputes among nationalists and, so presented a less starry-

eyed view of nationalists as well as of British officials. Historians with nationalist leanings

often criticized such work for its neglect or down-playing of patriotic aspirations as well

as of moments of mass agitations.

In the 1970s- 80s there occurred a second major transformation, with the emergence of

what came to be called the Subaltern School, pioneered by Ranajit Guha and his

colleagues. This school emphasized the importance of histories from below: struggles of


22


ordinary peasants and tribal people, and not just the leading role of great nationalists.

The Congress leadership was, in fact, criticized for trying to make popular movements

very tame and moderate. These historians pointed out Gandhis betrayals or sudden

retreats from popular upsurges, as for instance, after an occasion of spectacular violence

at Chauri-Chaura, during the Non-cooperation movement.

Subalternist historians introduced an interesting emphasis on popular constructions of

images of Gandhi, through the spread of rumours. Such rumours tended to create

autonomous images of leaders or politicians, making them out to be often more radical

than they actually were. Peasants and tribals would imagine Gandhi in ways that were

very different from what he actually was. They would then draw inspiration from this

imagined Gandhi and his commands in order to start struggles that were important to

them but were not really a part of the Gandhian or Congress strategies. Such rumours

sometimes declared that he would end landlord oppression and give lands to peasants.

Or that he had asked Indians to prepare liquor at home, in order to avoid imported

drinks.

More recently, the emphasis of some of these scholars has shifted from studies of

popular initiatives to critiques of Western cultural domination and efforts to overcome it

through indigenous cultural alternatives. Such scholars valorize Gandhi as a leader who

broke free of all western influences and who lived and thought like an Indian peasant.

The change, in other words, has been to some extent from political histories to cultural

studies.

Rowlatt satyagraha, Khilafat, non-cooperation

In the 1920s and 30s, Indian political and social life was radically transformed by the

Non-cooperation and Civil Disobedience movements, inspired and led by Mohandas

Karamchand Gandhi. After the bloody suppression of the military and popular rebellions

of 1857, Indian political life had become confined to small groups of educated middle

class men petitioning and pleading for administrative and constitutional reforms. These

Moderate politicians had developed critiques of what they called drain of wealth,

excessive revenue burdens, and decline of traditional handicrafts enforced by

competition from cheap machine-made Lancashire goods. They pointed out that the

British refused to give any tariff protection to Indian commodities, and hindered efforts

to develop indigenous industries. These criticisms remained standard throughout the

nationalist era, but not much was done about their demands before the rise of mass

nationalism.

What the Gandhian era achieved was a major breakthrough to other social groups

beyond the educated middle classes, particularly peasants and business groups. Some

methods that had been pioneered during the struggle against the partition of Bengal in

1903-1908 - boycott of foreign cloth, national education, and peaceful passive

resistance, the success of which required active participation by vast numbers of people

- now became effective for the first time in the Gandhian era. The breakthrough was

related to the impact of the First World War on India. Thousands of Indian soldiers were

killed in a war in which they had no interest, and discontent was enhanced by the sharp

rise in prices and wartime shortages. War and immediate post war years were marked

by an accumulation of grievances, but also by moods of growing strength and

confidence. Business groups had profited as Lancashire imports declined due to lack of


23


shipping space. The working class grew in size. Hit by high prices and shortages, factory

workers participated in a massive strike wave in the immediate post war years.

But what explains the sudden rise of Gandhi, a newcomer to Indian politics up until

1915, to a position of supreme leadership in the Indian National Congress by 1919?

Gandhi returned to India fresh from a partial victory in a struggle against white racism in

South Africa. This had brought him into contact with settlers from many regions,

communities and religions of India, giving him a potential reach much beyond that of

other political leaders in India. Balgangadhar Tilak or Bipin Chandra Pal had mainly

provincial bases. (Maharashtra in the case of Tilak, Bengal with regard to Pal). Unlike

early Congress leaders, Gandhi had also worked with social groups not confined to the

middle classes: coolies, traders, soldiers. He returned to India with a mastery over

techniques of mass mobilization and political organization that had already been tried

and tested in South Africa. These included careful training of disciplined volunteers,

peaceful violation of specific laws, mass courting of arrest, occasional hartals and huge

demonstrations. Gandhis insistence on peaceful methods and total non violence even

when faced with repression sometimes led him to abruptly call off movements. Clearly,

non violence was a profoundly important moral compulsion for Gandhi, far more

meaningful than political success. Moreover, unrestrained mass movements would not

have been in the interest of business groups and the propertied sections of the

peasantry, as both were afraid that classes subordinate to them would become too

confident and aggressive once they became a part of political struggles. Gandhi had to

tread a delicate line between huge and intense mass movements, and the maintenance

of certain restraint. Non violence helped to combine popular upsurge with maintenance

of controls.

During his stay in South Africa, Gandhi also developed a specific philosophy which was

embodied in Hind Swaraj (1909). Here he argued that the real evil was not British

political rule but the domination of industrial civilization. He attacked railways which

pumped out resources from the country through exports, lawyers whose fees burdened

the poor, and even hospitals which were very costly and whose western medicines were

often harmful. Much of this seems unrealistic and obscurantist. One has to realize,

however, that the anti-modern message did have an appeal for many peasants, artisans

and poor people in general who had not really benefited from the spread of colonial

modernity.


Gandhi on western modernity

It would be folly to assume that an Indian Rockefeller would be better than the

American RockefellerIndias salvation consists in unlearning what she has learnt

during the past 50 years or so. The railways, telegraphs, hospitals, lawyers, doctors,

and all such like have to go, and the so called upper classes have to learn to live

consciously and religiously and deliberately the simple life of the peasant.

A very extreme statement, but an interesting and important one. We have to

understand that such an apparently obscurantist statement did have an appeal to

many peasants, artisans and lower middle classes who had benefited little from such

manifestations of colonial modernity. The rejection of modernity has remained


24


influential in some quarters, to a greater or lesser extent, both in India and else

where.

Source: Hind Swaraj, 1909, with authors comment

The specific style of presentation in Hind Swaraj, the central text of Gandhian thinking

needs to be kept in mind. It is written in the form of a dialogue between the Editor

(Gandhi himself) and the Reader (Gandhis prospective audience). Such a form of

presentation for a key political and philosophical text is unusual, but not unique. One

may cite, as texts which must have been familiar to Gandhi, Platos Republic or, to cite

an Indian precedent, the dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna in the Gita in

Mahabharata. It still remains a very interesting format; particularly since Gandhis

political thinking does have a dialogic character in general. This is a point that has been

interestingly developed in David Hardimans recent work Gandhi in His time and Ours.

Other aspects of the Gandhian appeal included his cult of peasant simplicity- wearing the

loin-cloth, traveling third class on trains, speaking simple Hindustani and not

Sanskritized Hindi. Gandhis appeal was enhanced by his use of Hindu religious language

and imagery. However, there were evident problems with this kind of language so far as

Muslims were concerned. At the same time, Hindu-Muslim unity was and remained a life-

long passionate belief and aspiration for Gandhi, a cause for which he eventually had to

die.

Gandhi returned from South Africa in 1915 having won a partial victory there. Smuts

Indian Relief Act of June 1914 abolished the 3 tax and recognized Indian marriages,

though discrimination certainly did not end and the broader question of white racist

exploitation of Africans and Indian alike had hardly been touched upon as yet. After his

return to India he travelled through large parts of the country by train. Between 1917

and early 1918 Gandhi acquired the reputation of a man who would take up specific local

grievances and usually manage to redress them to some extent. Thus, he took up the

grievances of oppressed Champaran indigo cultivators in Bihar, Kheda peasants in

Gujarat burdened by excessive revenue demands, and Ahmedabad textile workers who

were facing a wage-cut. His excellent relations with fellow-Gujarati mill owners helped

him to settle this last dispute. Though these were only specific local matters, rumours

had already started spreading about Gandhi which made him into a much more radical

and transformative figure. He would end zamindari oppression, it came to be believed by

the poor, give peasants and landless labourers land: a hope which made many grossly

exploited tea-garden labourers in Assam start flocking back to their homes in Bihar and

other parts of Northern and Central India during Non-cooperation. Gandhis promise of a

vaguely-defined Swaraj within a year also stimulated wild hopes of a sudden total

change.


25



Official assessments of Gandhi

Gandhi is daily transfiguring the imagination of masses of ignorant men with visions

of an early millennium.

The currency which Mr. Gandhis name has acquired even in the remotes villages is

astonishing no one seems to know quite who he isbut it is an accepted fact that what

he says is so, and what he orders must be donethe real power of his name is

perhaps to be traced back to the idea that it was he who got be-dakhli (illegal

eviction) stopped in Pratapgarh.

These extracts from contemporary official sources illustrate the kind of rumours that

circulated in the early days of the Gandhian movement, and the ways in which

rumours helped to create, from below as it were, a more radical image of Gandhi.

Source: A sub-divisional officer from Champaran 29 April 1917; A C.I.D

report, Government of India Home Political Deposit 19th February 1921, No

13. With authors comments.

In 1919, Gandhi launched his first all-India movement directed against the Rowlatt Act

which had sought to extend time restrictions on civil liberties even after the war was

over. This included provisions for special courts and detention without trial for a year.

The other major grievance, which directly concerned Muslims, was the imposition of very

harsh peace terms on Ottoman Turkey which had been on the losing side in the War.

This became the basis of the Khilafat movement in defense of the Ottoman sultan (who

had the prestigious title of Khalifa, the head of the global Muslim world). Muslims of

course also shared the other grievances of Indians and the result was an unprecedented

degree of Hindu-Muslim unity during the Khilafat-Non-cooperation movement of 1919-

1922.

The arbitrary extension of wartime restrictions on civil rights by the official committee

headed by Rowlatt was bitterly opposed by all sections of Indian political opinion. It was

Gandhi, however, who suggested the methods for an effective and peaceful form of

protest that would draw in all categories of Indians. The initial suggestion was a fairly

mild one, of volunteers courting arrest by publicly selling pamphlets declared to be illegal

by the British - hence the term commonly used for the movement, Rowlatt

Satyagraha. Gandhi soon added a suggestion of an all India hartal which implied

closing of shops and other business establishments. It was fixed for a Sunday and

Gandhi was careful to stipulate that workers who might have jobs to do on that day

should ask the permission of their employers before they stopped work. As always he

was very careful about keeping controls on workers.


26


What happened afterwards, however, was an unprecedented popular upsurge,

particularly in cities and towns, especially in Delhi, Punjab and some other areas.

Nothing like this had been seen after 1857. The British were particularly frightened by

the many instances of Hindu-Muslim-Sikh unity. They reacted with vicious repression

and brutality.

On 13 April 1919, large crowds had come to attend a fair in an enclosed park called

Jallianwalla bagh at Amritsar. There was nothing political or violent about this crowd, but

the British had been made nervous by the unusual degree of Hindu- Muslim unity in the

previous movement: members of the two communities even drank from the same cups

demonstratively to signify the end of the purity-pollution taboos that had separated

them. Suddenly and without warning, General Dyer, the British commander, opened fire

on the crowds who had gathered peacefully in Jallianwalla bagh. Official figures reported

that 379 were killed. Unofficial estimates were much higher. It was followed by weeks of

brutal repression. Indians were made to crawl down a lane in Amritsar where an English

woman had been insulted.


27


Figure 9.2.1: Title page of Rashtriya Sangit Julmi Daayar Jallianwalla Bagh, in Hindi, by

Manohar Lal Shukla, Kanpur, 1922

Source: Reprinted in Metcalf, Barbara D. and Thomas R. Metcalf. 2008. A Concise History

of Modern India. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press, 170.


28


Figure 9.2.2: An artists impression of the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh on April 13.

1919

Source: Nehru Museum Library, Photo Archives, New Delhi

The Indian response was the Non-cooperation- Khilafat movement of 1919-1922. Gandhi

called for this all India protest against what he branded as the Punjab wrong and the

Khilafat wrong. This involved boycott of British imports, titles, schools and colleges, law

courts and elections. The response was patchy. Not many lawyers, for instance, gave up

their professions, and many of the students who had initially gone out of government

schools and colleges went back after a time. The educational boycott was associated with

the organization of alternative national schools and colleges. Thus emerged, for instance,

the Jamia Milia Islamia in Delhi as a nationalist alternative to the pro-British Anglo-

Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College at Aligarh.


29


Figure 9.2.3: Gandhi with Ali brothers

Source: Nehru Memorial Museum Library, Photo Archives, New Delhi

But once again the radical hopes which had been aroused by Non-cooperation Khilafat

found their most militant expression in the numerous movements with which Gandhi and

the Congress had little to do: working class strikes, peasants