01 Gandh The Man and His Times @nadal

UNIT 1 INTRODUCING GANDHI
Structure
1.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
1.2 Gandhis Methodology
1.3 Synthesis of the Material and the Spiritual
1.4 Nationalismand Internationalism
1.5 Summary
1.6 Terminal Questions
Suggested Readings
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The greatest fact in the story of man on earth is not his material achievement, the
empires he has built and broken but the growth of his soul from age to age in its
search for truth and goodness. Those who take part in this adventure of the soul
secure an enduring place in the history of human culture. Time has discredited
heroes as easily as it has forgotten everyone else, but the saints remain. The
greatness of Gandhi is more in his holy living than in his heroic struggles, in his
insistence on the creative power of the soul and its life-giving quality at a time
when the destructive forces seem to be in the ascendant.
- Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan
How does one introduce Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi? As a frail man, striding across
the globe like a colossus? As the indomitable champion of social justice and human
rights? As a half-naked saint seeking complete identification with the poor and the
deprived, silently meditating at the spinning wheel, striving to find the path of salvation for
the suffering humanity?
It was Winston Churchill who contemptuously described Gandhi as a half-naked fakir
and an old humbug, adding that it was alarming and nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a
seditious Middle Temple lawyer, striding half-naked up the steps to the Vice-Regal Palace,
to parley on equal terms with the representative of the King Emperor. However, the
eminent historian, Will Durant, in his Story of Civilization, commenting on historic
developments in China and India in the first half of the 20
th
century, wrote:
China followed Sun Yat Sen, took up the sword and fell into the arms of Japan.
India, weaponless, accepted as her leader, one of the strangest figures in history and
gave to the world the unprecedented phenomenon of a revolution led by a saint,
and waged without a gun He did not mouth the name of Christ, but acted as
if he accepted every word of the Sermon on the Mount. Not since St. Francis of
Assisi has any life known to history been so marked by gentleness, disinterestedness,
simplicity and forgiveness of enemies.
12 Gandhi: The Man and His Times
Of all the great figures of the 20
th
century, Gandhi has perhaps best stood the test of
time. In the aftermath of a century of unprecedented mass violence, many see in him the
prophet of the only possible future for mankind, a future without hatred, greed and lust
for power. Interest in Gandhis thought and actions, far from diminishing, are on the
increase, and his message to the world appears uniquely relevant. He remains however,
in many ways, an enigma.
One of the greatest paradoxes in relation to Gandhi is the contrast between the diversity
of perceptions of him in his lifetime, and the very limited range of iconic representations
retained of him by posterity.
In his lifetime, Gandhi had been perceived successively and simultaneously as a Bolshevik,
a fanatic, a trouble-maker, a hypocrite, an eccentric, a reactionary, a revolutionary, a saint,
a renouncer, a messiah, and an avatar. He was likened both to Lenin and to J esus
Christ, indicating the wide scope of representations. After his death, two views of him
have become dominant. In India, he is celebrated as the Father of the Nation; outside
India, he is remembered as an apostle of non-violence. Such impoverishment in the range
of representations is partly due to the selective way in which collective memory works,
but it also owes a lot to deliberate attempts at appropriating him.
Aims and Objectives
After studying this Unit, you will be able to understand:
The basic unity of purpose and aim in Gandhian thought.
How Gandhi discussed social, economic and political problems from a higher moral
and humanistic vantage point.
The necessity to study Gandhian thought both in its entirety and in its setting and
context.
How Gandhi straddles the two worlds of nationalismand internationalismeffortlessly.
1.2 GANDHIS METHODOLOGY
Looking back from the vantage point of the first decade of the 21
st
century, it seems
nothing short of a miracle as to how, in the first decade of the 20
th
century, Gandhi
launched his crusades against racialism, colonialism, runaway industrialism, religious
fundamentalism and violence. He heroically opposed the treatment of his fellow-
countrymen in South Africa by courting for himself the humiliation of the humblest Indian
so that he might, in his own person, face the punishment meted out for disobedience.
When he called for non-cooperation with the British in India, he himself disobeyed the
law and insisted that he must be among the first to go to prison. When he denounced
the adoption by India of Western industrialism, he installed a spinning wheel in his own
house and laboured at it daily with his own hands. When he set out to combat inter-
communal violence, he faced death by starvation, in an act of penance, for the errors and
sins of others.
Gandhi taught us the doctrine of Satyagraha, not as a passive submission to evil but as
an active and positive instrument for the peaceful solution of all kinds of differences
personal, national or international. He showed us that the human spirit is more powerful
than the mightiest of weapons. He applied moral values to political action and pointed
out that ends and means can never be separated, for the means ultimately govern the end.
If the means are evil, then the end itself becomes distorted and at least partly evil. Any
society based on injustice must necessarily harbour the seeds of conflict and decay within
it, so long as it does not get rid of that evil.
In Gandhi, there was a confluence of different influences which guided him to mould a
mighty instrument of Satyagraha and gave direction to his mission: A Gujarati hymn from
India, a New Testament from Palestine, a book from Russia, a pamphlet from America,
a book and the Suffragette influence from Britain, and many more. All these influences
came together to lead Gandhi, as if by a hand of destiny, into the battlefield of the 20
th
century to wage one of the noblest battles that have been fought by a single human being
for the liberation of an entire nation. They combined to make Gandhi the greatest non-
violent revolutionary of the age.
Gandhi was not an intellectual in the academic sense of the term. He was not a scholar
or a philosopher. He was not a theoretician. His thinking had the quality of a creative
genius. He was pre-eminently a man of action. He has written agreat deal but his writings
are designed as a guide to action and not for the acquisition of knowledge. They are generally
concerned with the solution of his actual problems, arising out of the many-sided and
complex situations of his time. The discussion of theory is always brief and sketchy. As
soon as Gandhi had an idea or a plan, he tried to put it into practice and induced others
to do likewise. In the latter case, he had naturally to explain his ideas and plans. But
the explanations were brief and suited to the person, place and occasion. The guidance
given was practical. Generally the instructions and the explanations were conveyed through
correspondence, newspaper articles or brought out in committee discussions and speeches.
Gandhi has written a few books. But even these are concerned with particular problems.
They are not written with the object of explaining his systemof thought rationally and logically
argued in all its implications. The writings are generally free fromreferences to other thinkers
and authors. For popularising his ideas and converting the people to his way of thinking
and action, Gandhi, as a practical reformer, relied more on example than on precept or
preaching.
Whatever their external form of presentation and expression, Gandhis ideas are new and
revolutionary. They arise out of the creative mind of an individual to whose reforming zeal
the social situation and the difficulties of those times are a challenge. For him historical
precedents and examples are no barrier to fresh thinking and discovery.
Gandhi did not acquire his ideas and knowledge merely frombooks. He did not pass his time
in libraries and museums poring over musty volumes. Much of his knowledge was the result
of direct contact with life and the practical experience it offered. He, therefore, placed his
ideas before the public not in the language of the learned but in that of the average intelligent
man and woman. He was a man of the masses and spoke to them in their own simple
language, which they understood. He addressed them not about what he had read and
studied in books but what he had seen, sensed, experienced and thought about. He
described his own observations and his reactions to them. This is the method that has
characterised great religious reformers and prophets.
Gandhi offers no such convenient theories, logically and mathematically worked out. There are,
as we have said, many gaps in reasoning, and apparent contradictions. Gandhi thought so
rapidly that he jumped over many connecting links in the chain of reasoning. These links the
practical worker or the theoretical student has to provide from his own intelligence,
observation and experience.
Introducing Gandhi 13
Gandhi discussed economic and political problems froma higher moral and humanistic point
of view. If, therefore, a young man wants to study Gandhis economics and politics, he will
have to content himself with very meagre systematic literature on these subjects. He will have
to wade through a mass of material which he must arrange and systematise for himself.
It is the first major difficulty in understanding Gandhis thought and schemes of reform. His
ideas need to be systematised, co-ordinated and correlated. The trends in his thinking on the
many subjects he discussed are scattered throughout his writings. They have to be arranged.
Gandhi views life as an organic whole. His concrete schemes are, therefore, intimately and
organically connected with one another. Unity is achieved through some definite guiding and
regulating ideas, values and principles.
1.3 SYNTHESIS OF THE MATERIAL AND THE
SPIRITUAL
Gandhi seeks to synthesise the material and the spiritual, the individual and the collective
life. He has, therefore, to deal with both the sets. As occasion demands, he emphasises
the one or the other. For instance, he often said that he could carry God to the poor
in a bowl of rice. This being so, it is easy to misunderstand and misinterpret him by
focussing attention and emphasis on one side and ignoring the rest of his thought and thus
distorting and perverting his meaning and intention. Often he has been attacked
both by the spiritualists and the materialists. The former have accused himof lowering the
purity of spiritual life by mixing it with economics and politics. The socialists and the
communists have often charged Gandhi with confusing economic and political issues with his
ideas of truth and non-violence and his philosophy of means and ends. They asserted that
they were out to achieve the political and economic emancipation of the people and
should have nothing to do with moral and spiritual issues. People could not and, do not
therefore, understand Gandhis insistence on spiritual values. They think that the questions
of political freedom and economic equality are the supreme issues and public attention must
not be diverted fromthese to moral problems which are irrelevant. They argue that nobody
has the right to sacrifice the economic and political interests of the masses to
considerations of morality; the destiny of a nation or of the masses cannot be played with like
that. Individuals may have the right, and under certain circumstances even the duty, to sacrifice
their personal interests to achieve moral ends, but a nation has no right to sacrifice its material
interests for moral ends. Such critics fail to see that Gandhi never sacrificed what he
considered the true interests of the country or of the masses; only he did not view those
interests narrowly. He saw no inherent conflict between acountrys real political and material
interests and the fundamentals of morality. He thought that neither individuals nor groups can
dispense with moral considerations.
Gandhi was often accused of having accentuated the communal problem by his effort at
spiritualising politics. Religion, the critics said, must be kept apart frompolitics. Gandhis effort
to make politics conformto the fundamentals of morality is confused by critics with a desire
to establish a theocracy in India.
It is also complained that he is against all scientific knowledge and discovery because he
advocates the pre-eminence of human values over mere physical conquest of nature and the
multiplication of material wants and goods. Since he advocates education through purposeful
activity, he is supposed to be against all intellectual knowledge. His critics fail to understand
that what he aims at is deeper and fuller intellectual knowledge, which can be acquired best
through co-operative work and experience.
Gandhi sees no conflict between the national good and the international good. The narrow
nationalists, however, have not hesitated to denounce his humanismas surrender of national
interests. The intellectual internationalists, on the contrary, accused Gandhi of narrow and
aggressive nationalism. Both sides support their respective arguments with what they consider
appropriate quotations cut off from their context.
Gandhis thought must be considered in its entirety and in its proper setting in Indian
conditions of the time and the problems he had to solve. The local and temporal over-
emphasis, wherever it exists, must be toned down to bring out the proper relation of the parts
to the whole scheme of his thought and philosophy. Any point or points under-emphasised
must be clearly brought out. Sometimes gaps must be filled to make the thought and the
expression consistent with the whole scheme. Often, the local colour has to be toned down
to bring out a universal principle. Above all, the whole thought has to be correlated to
Gandhis own conduct and life.
Gandhis thoughts and ideas are new and revolutionary and yet he claims no originality for
them. He often asserts that in his ideas he merely follows in the footsteps of the old prophets
and reformers and tries to fulfil the law and the commandments and is offering nothing new
to the world. This was not said merely out of modesty. Gandhi, in disclaiming originality, is
only working in consonance with the genius of his people.
Truth and nonviolence, to Gandhi, were as old as the hills. His application of these
principles to politics and to collective life generally, he would have us believe, is also old.
He only claims to use these on an extended canvas to enable himto offer a solution to the
new problem, created by ever-increasing and more destructive weapons of violence invented
by modern science and technology. The cottage and village industry programme is, of
course, old, in spite of its new application and implications in an age of centralised and
mechanised big industry. Basic education is at the root of all education. All knowledge,
to begin with, was acquired by humanity through observation, activity and experiment.
Gandhis reputation for originality is accepted by the learned at its face value. They think that
he tries to foist on the people some outworn and discarded thought or institution. In the
words of the so-called radicals, he tries to put back the hands of the clock of progress. The
contention is that what he advocates has been tried in the past often enough and found
wanting. The criticismmisses the revolutionary aimand spirit underlying Gandhis thought. The
form is old but the spirit, the intention and the application are, new. It is not so much the
particular activity undertaken that is revolutionary, as the urge behind it, the spirit that inspires
it and the purpose in pursuance of which it is undertaken. Removal of untouchability,
advocacy of cottage industry, prohibition and even non-cooperation were advocated by
previous reformers in India. Gandhi has, however, made themdynamic and fit theminto a vast
revolutionary movement, for creating a more just and equitable social order. They do not
merely reproduce the old urges or the old mentality.
For instance, his advocacy of cottage and village industries did not mean that people should
forever remain content with their present oppressive poverty. His advocacy of decentralised
industry in preference to centralised, mechanical big industry had a special purpose under the
circumstances prevailing in India. It was to provide work for the unemployed and
underemployed starving masses. As in former days, people were not compelled to take to
it for want of scientific and technical knowledge. Now it served a new national purpose, that
of providing the unemployed a better substitute than the unemployment dole in the West. It
cannot, therefore, be considered as a backward or revivalist movement.
Closely connected with this tendency of Gandhi to repudiate all claimto originality is his habit
of fusing old terms and phrases for his revolutionary ideas and activities. He avoids the use
of foreign and technical terms. It is quite possible that if the charkha have been as
fashionable in the modern times as knitting is, however superfluous it sometimes may be,
it would have stood a better chance with the upper classes than it does today. After all,
considering our tropical climate and the extent of unemployment and underemployment,
the charkhais both more useful to the individual and the nation than knitting. If in his
political writing Gandhi, instead of using the terms Non-Violence and Truth that have
moral and spiritual associations and are readily understood by the mass mind, had used
the words Disarmament and Open Diplomacy, there was every chance of his being
better understood and appreciated by the modern mind. He would, in that case, have
been regarded as a practical politician. He would have given proof of working for
international peace. He might have even won the Nobel Peace Prize.
If again, Gandhi, instead of using the terms village and cottage industries which the masses
understand, had used the termdecentralisation of industry, he would have been perhaps better
understood by the educated. If his new scheme of education had been called poly-
technicalisation of education as it is styled in Russia, it would have been perhaps better
received by the educated. If instead of using the termRamaraj he had talked of democracy
he would have been better appreciated by the educated in India. The modern mind has to
free itself from this tyranny of words before it can understand and appreciate Gandhis
thought.
Gandhi does not belong to the company of natures great ones. He belongs rather to the
ordinary run of humanity, fromwhose ranks exceptional individuals have sometimes arisen,
through sheer force of their character and will power, by the painful process of growth and
evolution. In his early life, Gandhi gave little promise of his future work and mission. His
career as a student was not marked by any particular outstanding ability. He says he was
good. He went to England to qualify for the bar, as any ambitious young man belonging
to a middle-class family in those days might have done. His going to South Africa was a
professional accident, which might have happened to any young Gujarati barrister of those
days. His prolonged stay there had no political urge behind it. It came about almost
through a fortuitous circumstance in which design and choice played no part. All that
distinguished himin his early age was his truthful nature, his utter sincerity and honesty.
The continuous growth and evolution of Gandhis personality and his ideas through the
years present another difficulty in systematising his thought. Often it is not easy to discover
the guiding lines in their purity or to reconcile varying statements made at different times
and under different circumstances. There are apparent inconsistencies. Answering the
charge of inconsistency, he says: At the time of writing I never think of what I have said
before. My aimis not to be consistent with my previous statements of a given question, but
to be consistent with truth as it may present itself to meet the given moment. The result
has been that I have grown from truth to truth; I have saved my memory an undue strain
and, what is more, whenever I have been obliged to refer to my writings even of fifty years
ago with the latest, I have discovered no inconsistency between the two.
Yet another great difficulty in systematising Gandhis thought arises from his making no
distinction between the theoretically possible and what was practically so. In 1920, he talked
of winning swaraj in one year, provided the nation carried out the programmes he had placed
before it. That a nation, with centuries of slavery behind it, would be able to fulfil the
programmes was only a theoretical possibility. Practically it was not only not possible but
also not even probable.
In his book Hind Swaraj, he has talked of machinery and the factories as if these could
be altogether eliminated fromthe life of a nation. He also talks of doctors and drugs as if
they could be entirely dispensed with. There are many institutions whose functioning can and
should be modified for social health; but Gandhi would talk as if he wanted their entire
elimination and held that this was possible.
Gandhis habit of stating his propositions and plans as if they were practical, presents one
more difficulty in interpreting his thought. He always said that the theoretically possible was
also the practical. The difference between the possible and the ideal must be clearly brought
out to understand Gandhis thought. Gandhis thought then must be judged and evaluated
on its own merits and not always on Gandhis arguments. The student must not content
himself with Gandhis reasoning and his style or the words and the expressions he used.
Like every great reformer his thought is greater than his words and arguments. Often his
conduct is more revealing and eloquent than the arguments he advances for a particular
course of action. In studying him, therefore, note must be taken not only of the spoken or
written word but also of his life, the way he faced and met critical situations, organised
institutions and behaved towards friends and opponents. His public and private life was an
open book. Therefore, his writings must be studied along with it. The writings alone may not
bring out the full implications of his philosophy of life-individual and social. Further, the
student must rely on his own intelligence, knowledge and experience for a proper
understanding of Gandhis ideas, policies and programmes.
1.4 NATIONALISM AND INTERNATIONALISM
The popular image of Gandhi depicts him as an ardent nationalist who was engaged in
selfless and dedicated service for the liberation of India from British colonial domination,
through non-violent techniques of political action. This, indeed, is true. Gandhi was deeply
involved in the struggle for political emancipation and social and economic reconstruction
of India, to which he devoted his whole attention. However, what is often not understood
is that Gandhi did so in a world context. His contributions to Indian political independence
should not be viewed as concerning only one or two nations in an isolated manner.
Gandhi himself had said: My mission is not merely the freedom of India, though
today it undoubtedly engrosses practically the whole of my life and the whole of my
time. But through the realisation of the freedom of India, I hope to realise and carry
on the mission of brotherhood of man. My patriotism is not an exclusive thing. It
is all-embracing and I should reject that patriotism which sought to mount upon the
distress or exploitation of other nationalities.
Gandhis movement for national independence was, in a way, aimed at the reordering of
the world power structure, which was based on the imperial-colonial pattern of international
relations. He wanted freedom for India, not to isolate her from the rest of the world, but
to promote international cooperation. True international cooperation was possible only
when the interacting nations were sovereign and equal before international law. In Gandhis
own words, My notion of Purna Swaraj is not isolated independence but healthy
and dignified interdependence. My nationalism, fierce though it is, is not exclusive,
not designed to harm any nation or individual. Legal maxims are not so legal as
they are moral. I believe in the eternal truth of sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas
- use thy own property so as not to injure thy neighbours. By ending colonialism,
he hoped to remove one of the root causes of exploitation and domination of weaker
countries by stronger ones.
As Erik Erikson in his book, Gandhis Truth points out, Gandhi and the Indian
nationalists maintained that British colonialismhad resulted in the exploitation and draining
of the Indian sub-continent in four areas of national life, the economic and political,
cultural and spiritual. Therefore, Gandhi had declared, We hold it to be a sin before man
and God to submit any longer to a rule that has caused this four-fold disaster to our
country.
Gandhi attacked the evil at its very root; he wanted to destroy the institution of colonialism,
to begin with in India, and thereby put a stop to the four-fold exploitation with a view to
restore Indias identity. Gandhi wanted to achieve this in a novel way through a non-violent
revolution, through the Satyagraha movement. Unlike the Marxist-Leninist line which
undermines the individual role in history and maintains that an unjust social and economic
systemcan be attacked by bringing the state under the dictatorship of the proletariat through
a revolution, Gandhi held that the root of the problem does not lie in the authority of the
state, but in the character of the individual which has made the existence of that state
possible.

Therefore, Gandhi set to bring about a radical transformation of the unjust social
system not through coercion or through transference of power to a centralised state, but
through individual reformation and non-violent social and political action. This he called the
Satyagraha movement, a movement led by a moral force which is generated by a sincere
desire to follow the path of Truth in individual behaviour and social action.
Satyagraha was not merely an instrument for realisation of political, economic and other
material ends but also a state of spiritual and moral self-transformation in man. Through such
a movement he strived to secure an India of his dreams, an independent India free from
colonial domination, and where the individual would have the integrity to contribute to a high
moral order which would create and maintain social justice and harmony.
After obtaining political independence, Gandhi wanted India to become an ideal democracy.
A democracy established on the principle of non-violence was to be of a unique kind.
Gandhis ideal non-violent democracy was a federation of decentralised, self-sufficient, self-
administered, interdependent and cooperative village republics. In such a democracy power
was decentralised. In an ideal non-violent democracy of Gandhis conception there was no
need of a state. Gandhi had said, Political power means capacity to regulate national life
through representations. If national life becomes so perfect as to become self-regulated no
representation becomes necessary. There is then a state of enlightened anarchy. In such a state
everyone is his own ruler. He rules himself in such a manner that he is never a hindrance to
his neighbour. In the ideal state, therefore, there is no political power, because there is no
state. But Gandhi knew the limitations in realising such an ideal. So he added, But the ideal
is never fully realised in life.
Here Gandhis anarchy is not the one that leads to disorder but that which relates to a
condition of statelessness as a result of the existence of an enlightened harmony that dispenses
with the necessity of a state to enforce behaviour patterns. The power structure of a non-
violent society would be distributed in such a way that each individual or each cooperative unit
of individuals would constitute a power unit, and society would equilibrate itself on the basis
of the existence of this power structure. In his ideal stateless democracy or enlightened
anarchy, there was no use of force in any form, whereas society acquired equilibrium by
individual perfection. Such a non-violent society would consist of groups of settled villages and
life would be regulated through cooperation, bread-labour and mutual love. Individuals in a
non-violent society were to work for the establishment of a social order which ensured the
greatest good of all.
A non-violent India was expected to strive for removal of injustice anywhere and crusade
for the cause of suffering humanity in any part of the world. Gandhis patriotismwas not
exclusive; it was calculated not only not to hurt another nation but to benefit all in the true
sense of the word. Gandhi had said that we want freedom for our country, but not at
the expense or exploitation of others, not so as to degrade other countries. I do not want
the freedom of India if it means the extinction of England or the disappearance of
Englishmen. I want freedom of my country, so that other countries may learn something
frommy free country, so that the resources of my country might be utilised for the benefit of
mankind. My idea of nationalism is that my country may become free, that if need be, the
whole country may die so that the human race may live. There is no room for race hatred
there. Let that be our nationalism. His movements for self-government (swaraj) and for the
use of home-made goods (Swadeshi) might have come into conflict with the interests of other
countries, especially those of England. But then Gandhis movements were directed
primarily against the injustices done by England in keeping another nation in subjugation by
force, thereby denying it opportunities for free development. He believed that by enabling
India to be free he was not only helping India but also Britain in an indirect way, i.e. by
removing the possibility for England to be unjust to another nation. Besides, the moral strength,
which an independent India could give to other subject nations, was another factor which
convinced Gandhi that true nationalismwas a contribution to internationalism. Thus, Gandhi
wanted national independence before international cooperation: You want cooperation
between nations for the salvation of civilization, I want it too, but cooperation presupposes
free nations worthy of cooperation. If I am to help in creating or restoring peace and
goodwill and resist disturbances thereof, I must have the ability to do so and I cannot do
so unless my country has come to its own. At the present moment, the very movement for
freedomin India is Indias contribution to peace. For so long as India is a subject nation, not
only is she a danger to peace, but also to England which exploits India. Other nations may
tolerate today Englands imperialist policy and her exploitation of other nations, but they
certainly do not appreciate it; and they would gladly help in the prevention of England
becoming a greater and greater menace every day. Of course, you will say that free India can
become a menace herself. But let us assume that she will behave herself with her doctrine of
nonviolence, if she achieves her freedom through it and for all her bitter experiences of being
a victim of exploitation. Gandhis prediction, indeed, came true. Indias achievement of
freedomgenerated a wave of nationalistic movements in many subjected nations. The Afro-
Asian resurgence and realisation by colonial powers of the necessity to end colonial rule and
the subsequent gaining of freedomby several countries could be linked with Gandhis freedom
movement.
Thus a colonially oriented world social structure has given way to a more democratically
oriented one. The world power structure underwent a transformation in a non-exploitative
direction. Yet the world is not devoid of exploitation, the old imperial-colonial pattern of power
structure has been replaced by new types of alignments and power blocs. The world society
of today retains its feudal characteristics in spite of the fact that colonies have received their
freedom. The economic domination of afew countries still indirectly influences the less affluent
developing countries. The time lag in economic development and technical progress is fully
utilised to compensate for the loss of colonial power or realise neo-imperialistic ambitions.
Though every national independent state is sovereign and such sovereignty is respected and all
states are treated as equals before international law, in actuality the world scene today is a
big power gamble in spite of the existence of the United Nations. It (the United Nations) has
already revealed its impotence to settle any serious conflict among the great powers. The great
and small powers ignore it in connection with most important problems - the United Nations
has degenerated into a mere screen for the power politics of the artificial and incidental
majority of world state. Having neither the moral authority nor adequate physical power, it
cannot performthe miracle of eliminating war and erecting a temple of eternal peace. (Pitirim
Sorokin).
It is in this connection that the Gandhian view of a world social order merits consideration.
Gandhi did not believe in the efficacy of a United Nations, because the United Nations,
for all its virtues, is no help to creating, maintaining or enlarging the number of states. A
modern state, with its military strength, always possesses potentialities for suppression of
freedominternally and creation of wars or international conflicts externally. The establishment
of a world state by merely extending the characteristics of a modern state, with or without
surrendering national sovereignties, would suffer from the deficiencies of the latter, when
viewed from a Gandhian angle. A world sovereign state above all national states may,
after all, not be able to establish or maintain a peaceful world society, in spite of the
military strength or power it may possess. Gandhis opposition to the U.N. is to be
understood in this perspective. He was opposed to the U.N. in so far as it possessed
the attributes of a nation-state in regard to military potential and in regard to its opposition
to decentralisation of power and freedom of human development. However, it may not be
construed from this that Gandhi was totally opposed to any type of international
organisation. If the U.N. functioned on the basis of the moral principles, Gandhi would
not have difficulty in accepting the same.
The following quotations of Gandhi are of significance in the context of his understanding
of Nationalism and Internationalism:
I would like to see India free and strong so that she may offer herself as a willing
and pure sacrifice for the betterment of the world. The individual being pure
sacrifices himself for the family, the latter for the village, the village for the district,
the district for the province, the province for the nation, the nation for all.
My religion has no geographical limits. There is no limit to extending our services
to our neighbours across state-made frontiers.
I believe that true democracy can only be an outcome of non-violence. The
structure of a world federation can be raised only on a foundation of non-violence
and violence will have to be totally given up in world affairs.
I do want to think in terms of the whole world. My patriotism includes the good
of mankind in general. Therefore, my service to India includes the service of
humanity. Isolated independence is not the goal of the world state. It is voluntary
independence. I want to make no grand claim for our country. But I see nothing
grand or impossible about our expressing our readiness for universal interdependence
rather than independence. I desire the ability to be totally independent without
asserting the independence.

Such a federation of independent sovereign states will
not circumscribe the national state but would permit it full freedom, will remove the
causes of friction and conflict that may arise fromtime to time and promote harmony
and social justice.
In the words of Jawaharlal Nehru, Gandhi was an intense nationalist; he was also at the
same time a man who felt he had a message not only for India but for the world, and he
ardently desired world peace. His nationalism, therefore, had a certain world outlook and
was entirely free from any aggressive intent. Desiring the independence of India he had
come to believe that a world federation of interdependent states was the only right goal,
however distant that might be.
The Gandhian model of power distribution in a national or world context is enunciated in
the following statement which Gandhi made in elucidating his concept of decentralised
state power: There will be ever-widening, never-ascending circles - at last the whole
becomes one life composed of individuals, never aggressive in their arrogance but ever
humble, sharing the majesty of the oceanic circle of which they are integral units.
Therefore, the outermost circumference will not wield power to crush the inner circle, but
will give strength to all within and derive its own strength from the centre.
The Gandhian view of a world social order is essentially one of a moral order.
Satyagraha (soul force) symbolised for Gandhi the attainment of moral ends through
moral means. Satyagraha as a philosophy of social action was not merely an instrument
to attain political, economic and other material ends, but for the spiritual and moral
transformation of man. It was a soul-force generated out of a motivation to follow the
path of truth and non-violence and was based on self-help, self-sacrifice and faith in God.
Gandhis theory of non-violence is a positive philosophy and not a passive ethics. It is based
on the assumption that men who wish to practise it must have certain moral and spiritual
pre-requisites, a positive love for all beings and the pursuit of truth. The tradition of non-
violence perhaps existed in all cultures but Gandhi converted it into a practical ethics
which could be applied in day to day life. This offered tremendous possibilities for
contemporary India as well as the whole world. Here was an alternative to physical force
which had so far been acknowledged as the sine qua non of the social order in the soul
force (Satyagraha) or the spiritual and moral power.
Acharya Kripalani supplements this point in the following passage: The moral principles
which guide the conduct of individuals in the social field must also guide their conduct in
the political and the international fields. If we are to be saved from the cruel contradictions
of a moral man living in an immoral (or at best amoral) political and international world
order, we must find a unifying principle in life which will save us fromthis moral dichotomy.
This unifying principle, Gandhi holds, is supplied as in social life so in political and
international life and conduct by morality.
Assessing the contributions of Gandhi, Albert Schweitzer wrote, Gandhi continues what
Buddhabegan. In the Buddha, the spirit of love set itself the task of creating different spiritual
conditions in the world; in Gandhi, it undertakes to transform all worldly conditions. Would
the world tend to order itself in the directions indicated by Buddha and Gandhi or dismiss
them as other worldly, Utopian, and set to destroy itself by the creation of artificial power
blocs, perpetuation of exploitation and promotion of international conflicts? Sanity would
undoubtedly advocate for choosing the twin path of spirituality and morality in international
relations and establishment of a self-sustaining harmonious world social order. But are we
sane?
1.5 SUMMARY
Gandhis life, lived in conformity with certain basic principles was, integrated and
coordinated. It made a harmonious whole. His teachings and schemes of reform also
reflect the same integration and co-ordination, with a basic unity of purpose and aim. This
unity is not always apparent to a superficial student of his life and his speeches and
writings. The elements of the unity are there, but they have not been reduced to a system.
Gandhi himself never attempted a systematisation of his thought. Like many of the old
reformers and prophets, he was content to act in a given situation and solve lifes
problems, as they arose or presented themselves to him, in the light of his basic moral
principles. Like them, he left the task of logical ordering and systematisation to others. The
solutions he offered to the problems that confronted him, the country and even the world,
were practical and often coloured by the times and circumstances in which they arose.
It is no wonder that Gandhi created no new systemof philosophy, creed or religion.
Gandhis non-violence or Satyagraha was intended not only to solve national problems of
injustice but also international conflicts and wars. He considered war as a morally
degrading and brutalising phenomenon and hence, emphasised disarmament and creation
of a non-violent civilisation. Pacifism, according to him, must be total and not partial, and
must find its expression in a broad movement that seeks not merely abolition of war but
of the entire non-pacifist civilisation. Gandhi maintained that the dread of atom bomb or
nuclear weapons would not abolish wars or usher in a peaceful social order. A peaceful
world social order was possible only through the positive philosophy of non-violence.
Gandhian principles of the moral order are not based on self-interest or individual
enjoyment, but on the social objective of sarvodaya, or happiness for all. The logic of
altruism cannot be deduced from egotism, the love of society from the love of oneself,
the whole from the part.

Gandhis altruism was derived from the concept of mankind,
even all creation. Gandhis was a creative altruism, which was characterised by pure,
continuous and unbounded love for all.
1.6 TERMINAL QUESTIONS
1. Although Gandhi was not an intellectual or a scholar in the academic sense, his
thinking had the quality of a creative genius. Substantiate.
2. Explain, with examples, how Gandhi synthesised the material and the spiritual.
3. What are the difficulties encountered by the student in systematising Gandhian
thought?
4. What are Gandhis views on nationalism and internationalism? How does he
reconcile the two?
SUGGESTED READINGS
1. J.B. Kripalani., Gandhi His Life and Thought, Publications Division, Government of
India, New Delhi, 1971.
2. M.P. Mathai, M.S. J ohn and Siby J oseph, ed., Meditations on Gandhi, Concept
Publishing House, New Delhi, 2002.
3. Louis Fischer., The Life of Mahatma Gandhi, Harper Collins, London, 1982.
4. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan., Mahatma Gandhi Essays and Reflections, Jaico Publishing
House, Mumbai, 2005.
5. M.K. Gandhi., The Story of My Experiments with Truth, Navajivan Publishing
House, Ahmedabad, 2007.
UNIT 2 FORMATIVE YEARS
Structure
2.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
2.2 Community, Family and Neighbourhood
2.3 Early Education
2.3.1 Tasting the forbidden fruit
2.4 Study in England
2.5 Summary
Suggested Readings
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This Unit will trace the beginnings of an extra-ordinary man. What role did Gandhis
community play in moulding his character? Similarly, what were his family and
neighbourhood like, and what role did they play in instilling those sterling qualities and
values that set him apart from other people? What were the experiences of his early
education? After completing his matriculation, Gandhi chose to study law in England, and
spent close to three years there. What experiences did he undergo there and how did
they shape his character?
Aims and Objectives
The defining moments and incidents in Gandhis early life.
The role played by his parents, his immediate family, and his neighbourhood
The role played by his school(s), his teachers and his friends in very impressionable
periods of his life.
The varied experiences he underwent as a law student in England.
2.2 COMMUNITY, FAMILY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born at Porbandar in Gujarat on 2
nd
October 1869.
He belonged to a respectable middle-class modh Bania family (businessmen), whose
members had long ago abandoned their traditional caste occupation of trade, and taken
to administrative service. His grandfather, father and uncle were Prime Ministers in some
of the Indian Princely States in the peninsula of Kathiawar before Independence. About
this, in his Autobiography, Gandhi says: For three generations, frommy grandfather, they
have been Prime Ministers in several Kathiawar States.
Gandhis grandfather, Uttamchand, served as Prime Minister to the princeling of Porbandar.
Uttamchand handed the office down to his son Karamchand who passed it to his brother
Tulsidas. Karamchand was the father of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.
Political intrigues forced grandfather Uttamchand out of the Prime Ministership of Porbandar
and into exile in the nearby little state of J unagadh. There he once saluted the ruling
Nawab with his left hand. Asked for an explanation, he said: The right hand is already
pledged to Porbandar! Mohandas was proud of such loyalty: My grandfather, he
wrote, must have been a man of principle.
Gandhis father likewise left his position as Prime Minister to Rana Saheb Vikmatji, the
ruler of Porbandar, and took the same office in Rajkot, another miniature Kathiawar
principality, 120 miles to the north-west. Once, the British Political Agent spoke disparagingly
of Thakor Saheb Bawajiraj, Rajkots native ruler. Karamchand sprang to the defence of
the ruler. The Agent ordered Karamchand to apologise. Karamchand refused and was
forthwith arrested. But Gandhis father stood his ground and was released after several
hours. Subsequently he became Prime Minister of Wankaner.
Karamchand Gandhi, his son Mohandas wrote, had no education save that of
experience; he was likewise innocent of history and geography, but he was incorruptible
and had earned a reputation for strict impartiality in his family as well as outside. He was
a lover of his clan, truthful, brave and generous, but short-tempered. Mohandas Karamchand
Gandhi was the fourth and last child of his fathers fourth and last marriage.
Gandhis home life was cultured and the family, by Indian standards, was well-to-do.
There were books in the house; they dealt chiefly with religion and mythology. Karamchand
once owned a house in Porbandar, a second in Rajkot and a third in Kutiana, but in his
last three years of illness, he lived modestly on a pension from the Rajkot prince. He
left little property.
Gandhis elder brother Laxmidas practised law in Rajkot and later became a treasury
official in the Porbandar government. Karsandas, the other brother, served as Sub-
Inspector of Police in Porbandar. Both brothers died while Mohandas K. Gandhi was still
alive. A sister, Raliatben, four years his senior, survived him.
Monia, as the family affectionately called Mohandas, received the special treatment often
accorded to a youngest child, and a nurse named Rambha was engaged to look after
him. His warmest affection, however, went to his mother Putlibai. He sometimes feared
his father, but he loved his mother and always remembered her saintliness and her
deeply religious nature. Writing about her in his Autobiography, Mohandas states:
The outstanding impression my mother has left on my memory is that of saintliness.
She was deeply religious. She would not think of taking her meals without her daily
prayers. Going to Haveli the Vaishnava temple was one of her daily duties.
As far as my memory can go back, I do not remember her ever having missed the
Chaturmas. (Literally, a period of four months. A vow of fasting and semi-fasting is
taken by the devout during the four months of the rains.) She would take the hardest
vows and keep them without flinching. Illness was no excuse for relaxing them. I
can recall her once falling ill, when she was observing the Chandrayana vow, but
the illness was not allowed to interrupt the observance. To keep two or three
consecutive fasts was nothing to her. Living on one meal a day during Chaturmas
was a habit with her. Not content with that, she fasted every alternate day during
one Chaturmas. During another Chaturmas she vowed not to have food without
seeing the sun. We children on those days would stand, staring at the sky, waiting
to announce the appearance of the sun to our mother. Everyone knows that at the
height of the rainy season, the sun often does not condescend to show his face.
And I remember days when, at his sudden appearance, we would rush and announce
it to her. She would run out to see with her own eyes, but by that time, the
fugitive sun would be gone, thus depriving her of her meal. That does not
matter, she would say cheerfully, God did not want me to eat today. And then
she would return to her round of duties.
Gandhi records that his mother was also well informed about all matters of State, and
was well respected for her intelligence. Gandhi would often accompany her to the court,
and he remembers the many lively discussions she had with the widowed mother of the
ruler, Thakore Saheb.
As was the custom in those days, Mohandas was married at the early age of thirteen.
His bride was Kasturbai, the daughter of a Porbandar merchant named Gokuldas
Makanji. About his early marriage, Gandhi writes in his Autobiography:
It is my painful duty to have to record here my marriage at the age of thirteen. As
I see the youngsters of the same age about me who are under my care, and think
of my own marriage, I am inclined to pity myself and to congratulate them on
having escaped my lot. I can see no moral argument in support of such a
preposterously early marriage.
It would be useful, and interesting to narrate one or two incidents involving the young
couple. Gandhi had come across little pamphlets in which matters like child marriage and
conjugal love had been discussed. Lifelong faithfulness to the wife, inculcated in these
booklets as the duty of the husband, remained permanently imprinted in his heart.
Furthermore, the passion for Truth was innate in him, and to be false to his wife, was
therefore, out of question. But the lesson of faithfulness had also an untoward effect. To
quote Gandhi:
If I should be pledged to be faithful to my wife, she also should be pledged to be
faithful to me. The thought made me a jealous husband. Her duty was easily
converted into my right to exact faithfulness from her. I had absolutely no reason
to suspect my wifes fidelity, but jealousy does not wait for reasons. I must needs
be forever on the lookout regarding her movements, and therefore she could not go
anywhere without my permission. This sowed the seeds of a bitter quarrel between
us. The restraint was virtually a sort of imprisonment. And Kasturbai was not the
girl to brook any such thing. She made it a point to go out whenever and wherever
she liked. More restraint on my part resulted in more liberty being taken by her
and in my getting more and more cross. Refusal to speak to one another thus
became the order of the day with us, married children. I think it was quite innocent
of Kasturbai to have taken those liberties with my restrictions. How could a
guileless girl brook any restraint on going to the temple or on going on visits to
friends? If I had the right to impose restrictions on her, had she not also a similar
right? All this is clear to me today. But at that time, I had to make good my
authority as a husband!
In his Autobiography, Gandhi clearly acknowledged his love and passion for his wife and
demanded it to be reciprocated. A bold admission by Gandhi regarding his passion even
as his father was on deathbed, speaks volumes of his firm adherence to truthful speaking.
Formative Years 25
If passion had not blinded me, Gandhi ruminated forty years later, I should have been
spared the torture of separation from my father during his last moments. I should have
been massaging himand he would have died in my armsThe shame of my carnal desire
at the critical moment of my fathers death is a blot I have never been able to efface
or forget, writes Gandhi remorsefully, when he was nearly sixty.
2.3 EARLY EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS AND OUTSIDE
Gandhis initiated education was at a school in Porbandar, where he encountered more
difficulty in mastering the multiplication table than in learning naughty names for the
teacher.
Gandhi was about seven when his father left Porbandar for Rajkot to become a member
of the Rajasthanik Court. At Rajkot, he was put into a primary school. From this school,
he went to a suburban school and then to High School. During this period, Gandhi does
not remember ever having told a lie, either to his teachers or to his school-mates. Being
a shy child, he took as his books and his lessons as his sole companions. He inculcated
the habit of being at school at the stroke of the hour, and to run back home as soon
as school closed.
In his first year at the Alfred High School in Rajkot, when Mohandas was twelve, a
British educational inspector named Mr. Giles came to examine the pupils. They were
asked to spell five English words. Gandhi mis-spelt kettle. The regular teacher saw the
mistake and motioned Mohandas to copy from his neighbours slate. Mohandas refused.
Recounting this incident in his Autobiography, Gandhi states:
I would not be prompted. It was beyond me to see that he wanted me to copy the
spelling from my neighbours slate, for I had thought that the teacher was there to
supervise us against copying. The result was that all the boys, except myself, were
found to have spelt every word correctly. Only I had been stupid. The teacher
tried later to bring this stupidity home to me, but without effect. I could never
learn the art of copying.
Yet the incident did not in the least diminish my respect for my teacher. I was, by
nature, blind to the faults of elders. Later I came to know of many other failings
of this teacher, but my regard for him remained the same. For I had learnt to carry
out the orders of elders, not to scan their actions.
Two other incidents of the same period are worth remembering.
One day, he came across a book purchased by his father, Shravana Pitribhakti
Nataka, a play about Shravanas devotion to his parents., which Mohandas read with
intense interest. He also saw a picture of Shravana carrying, by means of slings fitted to
his shoulders, his blind parents on a pilgrimage. These left an indelible impression on his
mind. Here is an example for you to copy, Gandhi told himself.
Another play, Harishchandra, captured his heart. He was never tired of seeing it. Why
should all not be truthful like Harishchandra? was the question Mohandas asked himself
constantly. To follow Truth and to go through all the ordeals Harishchandra went
through was the one ideal it inspired in me! writes Gandhi in his Autobiography.
I was not regarded as a dunce at the High School! writes Gandhi. He always enjoyed
the affection of his teachers. Certificates of progress and character used to be sent to
his parents every year, and he does not recollect ever getting a bad certificate. In fact,
in the fifth and sixth standard, he even obtained scholarships of Rs. Four and Ten
respectively, although he chooses to thank Good Luck more than his merit for the
achievement. In his words, I used to be astonished whenever I won prizes and
scholarships. But I very jealously guarded my character. The least blemish drew tears
to my eyes
Gandhi recollects once receiving corporal punishment. He did not mind the punishment so
much as the fact that he was accused of being untruthful. The incident is worthy of being
recounted in Gandhis own words:
When I was in the seventh standard, Dorabji Edulji Gimi was the headmaster. He
was popular among boys as he was a disciplinarian, a man of method and a good
teacher. He had made gymnastics and cricket compulsory for boys of the upper
standards. I disliked both. I never took part in any exercise, cricket or football,
before they were made compulsory. My shyness was one of the reasons for this
aloofness, which I now see was wrong. I then had the false notion that gymnastics
had nothing to do with education. Today I know that physical training should have
as much place in the curriculum as mental training.
I may mention, however, that I was none the worse for abstaining from exercise.
That was because I had read in books about the benefits of long walks, which has
still remained with me. These walks gave me a fairly hardy constitution.
The reason of my dislike for gymnastics was my keen desire to serve as nurse to
my father. As soon as the school closed, I would hurry home and begin serving him.
Compulsory exercise came directly in the way of this service. I requested Mr. Gimi
to exempt me from gymnastics so that I might be free to serve my father. But he
would not listen to me. Now it so happened that one Saturday, when we had
school in the morning, I had to go from home to the school for gymnastics at 4
oclock in the afternoon. I had no watch, and the clouds deceived me. Before I
reached the school, the boys had all left. The next day, Mr. Gimi, examining the
roll, found me marked absent. Being asked the reason for absence, I told him what
had happened. He refused to believe me and ordered me to pay a fine of one or
two annas.
I was convicted of lying! That deeply pained me. How was I to prove my
innocence? There was no way. I cried in deep anguish. I saw that a man of truth
must also be a man of care. This was the first and last instance of my carelessness
in school. I have a faint recollection that I finally succeeded in getting the fine
remitted. The exemption from exercise was of course obtained, as my father wrote
himself to the headmaster saying that he wanted me at home after school.
But though I was none the worse for having neglected exercise, I am still paying
the penalty of neglect. I do not know whence I got the notion that good
handwriting was not a necessary part of education, but I retained it until I went to
England. When later, especially in South Africa, I saw the beautiful handwriting of
lawyers and young men born and educated in South Africa, I was ashamed of
myself and repented of my neglect. I saw that bad handwriting should be regarded
as a sign of an imperfect education. I tried later to improve mine, but it was too
late. I could never repair the neglect of my youth. Let every young man and
Formative Years 27
woman be warned by my example, and understand that good handwriting is a
necessary part of education. I am now of the opinion that children should first be
taught the art of drawing before learning how to write. Let the child learn his
letters by observation as he does different objects, such as flowers, birds, etc., and
let him learn handwriting only after he has learnt to draw objects. He will then
write a beautifully formed hand.
Two more reminiscences of my school days are worth recording. I had lost one year
because of my marriage, and the teacher wanted me to make good the loss by
skipping a class a privilege usually allowed to industrious boys. I therefore had
only six months in the third standard and was promoted to the fourth after the
examinations which are followed by the summer vacation. English became the
medium of instruction in most subjects from the fourth standard. I found myself
completely at sea. Geometry was a new subject in which I was not particularly
strong, and the English medium made it still more difficult for me. The teacher
taught the subject very well, but I could not follow him. Often I would lose heart
and think of going back to the third standard, feeling that the packing of two years
studies into a single year was too ambitious. But this would discredit not only me,
but also the teacher; because counting on my industry, he had recommended my
promotion. So the fear of the double discredit kept me at my post. When, however,
with much effort, I reached the thirteenth proposition of Euclid, the utter simplicity
of the subject was suddenly revealed to me. A subject which only required a pure
and simple use of ones reasoning powers could not be difficult. Ever since that
time, geometry has been both easy and interesting for me.
Sanskrit, however, proved a harder task. In geometry, there was nothing to memorize
whereas in Sanskrit, I thought everything had to be learnt by heart. This subject
also was commenced from the fourth standard. As soon as I entered the sixth, I
became disheartened. The teacher was a hard taskmaster, anxious, as I thought, to
force the boys. There was a sort of rivalry going on between the Sanskrit and the
Persian teachers. The Persian teacher was lenient. The boys used to talk among
themselves that Persian was very easy and the Persian teacher very good and
considerate to the students. The easiness tempted me and one day I sat in the
Persian class. The Sanskrit teacher was grieved. He called me to his side and
said: How can you forget that you are the son of a Vaishnava father? Wont you
learn the language of your own religion? If you have any difficulty, why not come
to me? I want to teach you students Sanskrit to the best of my ability. As you
proceed further, you will find in it things of absorbing interest. You should not lose
heart. Come and sit again in the Sanskrit class.
This kindness put me to shame. I could not disregard my teachers affection. Today
I cannot but think with gratitude of Krishnashankar Pandya. For if I had not
acquired the little Sanskrit that I learnt then, I should have found it difficult to take
any interest in our sacred books. In fact, I deeply regret that I was not able to
acquire a more thorough knowledge of the language, because I have since realized
that every Hindu boy and girl should possess sound Sanskrit learning.
It is now my opinion that in all Indian curricula of higher education, there should
be a place for Hindi, Sanskrit, Persian, Arabic and English, besides of course, the
vernacular. This big list need not frighten anyone. If our education were more
systematic, and the boys free from the burden of having to learn their subjects
through a foreign medium, I am sure learning all these languages would not be an
irksome task but a perfect pleasure. A scientific knowledge of one language makes
a knowledge of other languages comparatively easy.
The above mentioned incidents greatly depict the gradual but a firm evolution of Gandhis
thoughts and ideas.
2.3.1 Tasting Forbidden Fruit/My Experiments with Meat
Gandhis physique was frail compared with his older brothers, and especially compared
with a Moslem friend named Sheik Mehtab, who could run great distances with
remarkable speed and spectacular in the long and high jump. These exploits dazzled
Gandhi.
Gandhi regarded himself as a coward. I used to be haunted, he asserts, by the fear
of thieves, ghosts and serpents. I did not dare to stir out of doors at night. He could
not sleep without a light in his room; his wife had more courage than he and did not fear
serpents or ghosts or darkness. I felt ashamed of myself.
Sheik Mehtab played on this sentiment. He boasted that he could hold live snakes in his
hand, feared no burglars and did not believe in ghosts. Whence all this prowess and
bravery? He ate meat. Gandhi ate no meat; it was forbidden by his religion. The boys
at school used to recite a poem which went:
Behold the mighty Englishman,
He rules the Indian small,
Because being a meat-eater
He is five cubits tall.
If all Indians ate meat, they could expel the British and make India free. Besides, argued
Sheik Mehtab, boys who ate meat did not get boils; many of their teachers and some
of the most prominent citizens of Rajkot ate meat secretly, and drank wine, too. Sheik
Mehtab propagandised Mohandas and finally the latter yielded. Sheik Mehtab brought
cooked goats meat and bread. Gandhi rarely touched bakers bread, and he had never
even seen meat. The family was strictly vegetarian and so, in fact, were almost all the
inhabitants of the Gujarat district in Kathiawar. In the resolve to make himself an effective
liberator of his country, Gandhi bit into the meat but became sick immediately.
Inspite of a nightmare, he decided to continue the experiment. It continued for a whole
year.
The sin of consuming and liking meat was made greater by the sin of lying. In the end
he could not stand the dishonesty and, though still convinced that meat-eating was
essential for patriotic reasons, he vowed to abjure it until his parents death enabled him
to be a carnivore openly.
By now Gandhi developed an urge to reform Sheik Mehtab but the nave and younger
Gandhi was no match for his shrewd friend who offered revolt and adventure. Sheik even
once led Gandhi to the entrance of a brothel. The institution had been told and paid in
advance. Gandhi went in. I was almost struck blind and dumb in this den of vice. I sat
near the woman on her bed, but I was tongue-tied. She naturally lost patience with me
and showed me the door, with abuses and insults. Providence, he explains, interceded
and saved him despite himself.
Formative Years 29
Mohandas also pilfered a bit of gold fromhis older brother. This produced a moral crisis.
He had gnawing pangs of conscience and resolved never to steal again. Confessing his
mistake to his father, he made a full, written statement of the crime, asked for due
penalty, promised never to steal again and, with emphasis, begged his father not to punish
himself for his sons dereliction.
Karamchand was moved to tears after his sons confession but tore up the paper and lay
down in silence. A remorseful Mohandas sat near him and wept, never forgot that silent
scene. Sincere repentance and confession induced by love, rather than fear, won him his
fathers sublime forgiveness and affection.
Lest he give pain to his father, and especially his mother, Mohandas did not tell them that
he absented himself from temples. He did not like the glitter and pomp of the temples.
Religion to him meant irksome restrictions like vegetarianismwhich intensified his youthful
protest against society and authority. And he had no living faith in God. Who made the
world; who directed it, he asked? Elders could not answer, and the sacred books were
so unsatisfactory on such matters that he inclined somewhat towards atheism. He even
began to believe that it was quite moral, indeed a duty, to kill serpents and bugs.
When Karamchand died in 1885, Putlibai took advice on family matters from a J ain
monk named Becharji Swami, who helped Gandhi to go to England.
After graduating from high school, Gandhi enrolled in Samaldas College, in Bhavnagar,
and found the studies difficult and the atmosphere distasteful. As a friend of the family
suggested, if Mohandas was to succeed his father as Prime Minister, he had better
become a lawyer and the quickest way was to take a three-year course in England.
Gandhi was most eager to go. But he was afraid of law; could he pass the examinations?
Gandhi was interested in medicine but was objected to it by his brothers.
Mother Putlibai disliked parting with her last-born and was worried about the finances
apart from relatives reproach. Having set his heart on England, Mohandas sought
permission from his uncle. The latter discouraged him because European-trained lawyers
forsook Indian traditions, took to cigars, ate everything and dressed as shamelessly as
Englishmen. But he would not object if Putlibai agreed.
Gandhi tried to get a scholarship from the Porbandar government but the British
administrator of the state rebuffed him curtly without even letting him present his case.
Mohandas even wanted to pawn his wifes jewels as they were valued at high cost.
Finally, his brother promised to supply the funds, but his mother was apprehensive about
the young mens morals in England. Here, Becharji Swami, the J ain monk, came to his
rescue and administered an oath to Mohandas who then solemnly took three vows: not
to touch wine, women and meat. This earned his mothers consent.
In J une 1888, Gandhi left for Bombay with his brother but that did not end his
tribulations. He was discouraged on the grounds of hostile weather. Meanwhile, the Modh
Banias of Bombay heard about the projected trip, and summoned Mohandas to explain
as their religion forbade overseas voyages because Hinduismcould not be practised there.
The resolve to go ahead resulted in Mohandas getting ostracised. Undaunted, he set sail
to Southampton on 4 September 1988. The voyage to England gave Gandhi a long and
healthy separation from his wife and his new born child, Harilal.
2.4 STUDY IN ENGLAND
Gandhi had himself photographed shortly after he arrived in London in 1888. Despite the
impressive features, the eyes seem to mirror puzzlement, fright, yearning; they seemto be
moving and looking for something. The face is that of a person who fears coming
struggles with himself and the world. Will he conquer his passions, he wonders; can he
make good?
In England, this shy young man found himself at sea. He often yearned for home and
the tender affection of his mother. The vow never to touch meat left him half-starved and
caused his friends much embarrassment, owing to a false sense of social decorum, born
of inferiority complex fromwhich most of the Indians suffered in those days. But Gandhi
would not yield to the pressure of his well-meaning friends. For hima vow was a vow
and could not be broken. He found a vegetarian eating house in Farringdon Street, near
Fleet Street, not far from the Inner Temple where he studied law. He invested a shilling
in Henry Salts A Plea for Vegetarianism which was being sold at the entrance. Inside,
he ate his first hearty meal in England. This further strengthened his resolve. He was no
more a vegetarian because of the vow but because of free choice. About this, he says:
I had all along abstained from meat in the interest of truth and of the vow I had
taken, but had wished at the same time, that every Indian should be a meat-eater
and had looked forward to being one myself freely and openly some day, and to
enlisting others in the cause. The choice was now made in favour of vegetarianism,
the spread of which henceforward became my mission.
The literature on vegetarianismthat he made it a point to read initiated himin the science
of dietetics, and experiments therein occupied an important place in his life. Also, it
brought him in contact with some notable persons of the time. With a youthful zeal, he
became the Secretary of a Vegetarian Club. Though eager to speak, he always felt
tongue-tied, and was at a loss to know how to express himself. His incapacity to
express himself freely lasted throughout his stay in England. He says: My constitutional
shyness has been no disadvantage whatever. In fact I can see that, on the contrary,
it has been all to my advantage. My hesitancy in speech, which was once an
annoyance, is now a pleasure. Its greatest benefit has been that it has taught me
the economy of words.
Having disappointed his friends in the matter of food, he tried to satisfy them by making
of himself an English gentleman. He took lessons in dancing and playing on the violin.
He succeeded better with his dress. But he continued to live a simple life. He had
limited funds and these he used with the utmost economy, keeping account of every penny
he spent. He writes: This habit of economy and strict accounting has stayed with
me ever since, and I know that as a result, though I have had to handle public
funds amounting to lakhs, I have succeeded in exercising strict economy in their
disbursement, and instead of outstanding debts have had invariably a balance in
respect of all movements I have led.
This plain and simple living did not make his life dreary. On the contrary, his simple
living, he says, harmonized my inward and outward life; my life was certainly more
truthful and my soul knew no bounds of joy.
Gandhi had, during his stay in London, moved chiefly among vegetarians, reformers and
Formative Years 31
clergymen. The last-mentioned were anxious to mould and save his soul in their particular
way, which, however, made no impression on him. But his contact with clergymen made
him think deeply about religion and introduced him to his own. He studied the Gita in
Arnolds translation and greatly liked it. He also read Arnolds The Light of Asia. He
read the Bible. The Old Testament did not impress him. But the New Testament,
especially the Sermon on the Mount, with its absolute and unconditional Non-Violence
appealed to him, as its teachings conformed with the Vaishnavite ideas and practices in
which he had been brought up at home. He thought that in spite of the war setting of
the Gita, its fundamental morality was not different from that of the New Testament.
Inspite of his three years stay in England, Gandhi remained as diffident and shy as ever,
sitting tongue-tied, and never speaking, except when spoken to. His efforts at public
speaking were a dismal failure. At a farewell party given to friends, all that he could say
with difficulty was, Thank you, gentlemen, for having kindly responded to my Invitation.
He knew no law that would be useful to him in his practice in the Indian courts. But
he had remained true to the three vows he had taken at the instance of his mother before
leaving for England.
The purpose for which Gandhi came to England receives only a few lines in his
reminiscences, far fewer than his dietetic adventures. He was admitted as a student at the
Inner Temple on 6 November, 1888, and matriculated at London University, in J une
1890. He learned French and Latin, Physics, and Common and Roman Law. He read
Roman Law in Latin. He improved his English and had no difficulty in passing the final
examinations. Called to the Bar on 10 June, 1891, he enrolled in the High Court on 11
J une, and sailed for India on 12 J une, 1891. He had no wish to spend a single extra
day in England, after spending two years and eight months there.
2.5 SUMMARY
Gandhi gave absolutely no indication, during his formative years, of the greatness that
would be thrust on him. He considered himself as one who could not put his heart and
soul into academics. With a habit of deprecating his good qualities, which was usual with
him throughout his life, he writes that he had no high regard for his abilities and was
surprised when he was awarded prizes and scholarships. He was hard-working and
conscientious in his studies. He carefully guarded his character and was very sensitive to
rebuke or punishment.
There was nothing that specifically marked him out as the future great man in the making
except his conscientiousness born of a shy and sensitive nature, and his scrupulous regard
for truth. He states: One thing took deep root in me the conviction that morality is
the basis of things, and that truth is the substance of all morality. Truth became my sole
objective.
Gandhis years in England at a formative phase must have shaped his personality. Gandhi
did not learn essential things by studying; he was the doer, and he grew and gained
knowledge through action. Books, people and conditions affected him. But the real
Gandhi, the Gandhi of history, did not emerge, did not even hint of his existence in the
years of schooling and study. Perhaps it is unfair to expect too much of the frail provincial
Indian transplanted to metropolitan London at the green age of eighteen. Yet the contrast
between the mediocre, unimpressive, handicapped, floundering M. K. Gandhi, barrister-at-
law, who left England in 1891, and the Mahatma, the leader of millions is so great as
to suggest that until public service tapped his enormous reserves of institution, will-power,
energy and self-confidence, his true personality lay dormant. To be sure, he fed it
unconsciously; his loyalty to the vow of no meat, no wine, no women, was a youthful
exercise in will and devotion which later flowered into a way of life. But only when it
was touched by the magic wand of action in South Africa did the personality of Gandhi
burgeon. In Young India of 4 September, 1924, he said his college days were before
the time when I began life.
1. Describe the defining moments and incidents in Gandhis early life that played an
important role in shaping his character.
2. Outline the role played by Gandhis parents, his family and his neighbourhood in
instilling noble qualities in him.
3. Describe the varied experiences of Gandhi as a law student in London.
SUGGESTED READINGS
House, ahmedabad, 2007. (recent edition)
2. J .B. Kripalani., Gandhi His Life and Thought, Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting, Government of India, New Delhi, 1971.
3. Louis Fischer., The Life of Mahatma Gandhi, Harper Collins, London, 1997.
4. N.P. Shukla., Mahatma Gandhi, Manglam Publishers, Delhi, 2007.
5. Ramachandra Guha., The Last Liberal and Other Essays, Permanent Black, Ranikhet,
2003.
Formative Years 33
UNIT 3 INDIAN INFLUENCES: EPICS,
NARRATIVES, GITA, RAICHANDBHAI,
FOLKLORE
Structure
3.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
3.2 Influence of the Ramayana
3.3 Influence of the Bhagvad Gita
3.4 Influence of other Scriptures and Folklore
3.5 Influence of Raychand Bhai
3.6 Summary
Suggested Readings
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Gandhis very struggle for freedom was the result of the deep impact of Indian
philosophy. He was better known as the Mahatma, as he represented a complete accord
between his thought, word and deed, and moral and spiritual values against the forces of
barbarism. One finds in him a harmonious blend of saintliness and statesmanship in his
long career as a social reformer, a political leader, a saint, a true lover of humanity, and
an apostle of peace and non-violence. Gandhi was a fine product of Indian culture. He
was nurtured and sustained by the perennial inspiration of Indian philosophy, said to
represent the confluence of all that is best in the Indian thought from the early Vedic age
to the age of the modern Indian renaissance. It has been rightly observed that Gandhi
embodied in himself the highest ideals of ancient Indian civilisation.
Aims and Objectives
The various Indian influences on Gandhi, in general
The influence of the Ramayan and the Bhagvad Gita
The influence of other scriptures and folklore; and
The influence of Raychand Bhai.
3.2 INFLUENCE OF THE RAMAYANA
Though born into a staunch Vaishnava house, and deeply aware of his mothers religious
inclination and practices, Gandhi initially showed no inclination for any kind of religious
belief. He had not even let himself be tied down to his familys strict vegetarian fare.
Influenced by a Muslim friend, he had readily succumbed to meat-eating. Then, all at
once, he was drawn into the reading of the ancient epic, the Ramayana. It happened
under curious circumstances.
While his father was recovering from an illness in Porbandar, every evening he used to
listen to a reading of the Ramayana by a great devotee of Rama, one Ladha Maharaj
of Bileshvar. It was said of Ladha Maharaj that he cured himself of his leprosy, not by
any medicine, but by applying to the affected parts bilva leaves which had been cast
away after being offered to the image of Mahadeva in Bileshvar temple, and by the
regular repetition of the Ramayana. His faith, it was said, had cured him of his affliction.
Gandhi writes in his Autobiography that listening to Ladha Maharajs reading of the
Ramayana was a delightful and fascinating experience. To quote Gandhi:
Ladha Maharaj had a melodious voice. He would sing the Dohas (couplets) and
Chopais (quatrains), and explain them, losing himself in the discourse and carrying
his listeners along with him. I must have been thirteen at that time, but I quite
remember being enraptured by his reading. That laid the foundation of my deep
devotion to the Ramayana. Today, I regard the Ramayana of Tulsidas as the greatest
book in all devotional literature.
Yet another experience deserves mention. As a young schoolboy, Gandhi was in
perpetual dread of ghosts, thieves and serpents. He could not sleep at night without a
light in the room. An old maid in the family, Rambha, offered the suggestion that by
frequent recitation of religious verses fromthe Ramayana, he could be rid of those absurd
fears. Gandhi relates this experience in his Autobiography:
I had more faith in Rambha than in her remedy, and so at a tender age, I began
repeating Ramanama to cure my fear of ghosts and spirits. This was, of course,
short-lived, but the good seed sown in childhood was not sown in vain. I think it
is due to the seed sown by that good woman Rambha that today Ramanama is an
infallible remedy for me.
Close to his sixtieth year, casting his eyes back to his boyhood days, Gandhi acknowledged
his debt to that good woman Rambha. In his words:
When a child, my nurse taught me to repeat Ramanama whenever I felt afraid or
miserable, and it has been second nature with me with growing knowledge and
advancing years. I may even say that the word is in my heart, if not actually on
my lips all the twenty-four hours. It has been my saviour. In the spiritual literature
of the world, the Ramayana of Tulsidas takes a foremost place. It has charms that
I miss in the Mahabharata and even in Valmikis Ramayana.
At this juncture, it must be clarified that Gandhis Rama, the Rama of his prayers, was
not the historical Rama, the son of Dasharatha, the King of Ayodhya. According to
Gandhi, Rama is the eternal, the unborn, the one without a second. Him, alone,
I worship. His aid, alone, I seek.
Yet another clarification may be in order here, relating to Gandhis views on God, Truth
and Rama. In his words: Though my reason and heart long ago realized the highest
attribute and name of God as Truth, I recognize Truth by the name of Rama.
God, Rama and Truth became, in Gandhis mind, synonymous, interchangeable terms. It
is worth recalling that twice, when confronted with death, he uttered the words, He
Rama! On the first occasion, when he was beaten brutally on a South African street;
Indian Influences: Epics, Narratives, Gita, Raichand Bhai, Folklore 35
he is stated to have fallen down unconscious with the name of Rama on his lips! It
happened again at the prayer ground in New Delhi on 30
th
J anuary 1948. Struck by
an assassins bullets, He Ram! were the last words he is stated to have uttered, with
one trembling hand raised in forgiveness and blessing, before falling to the ground.
3.3 INFLUENCE OF THE BHAGVAD GITA
A few words about the contents of the Bhagvad Gita may be useful here. It is a poem
of 700 stanzas of two to eight lines each, and divided into 18 discourses. The verses
vividly narrate the historic warfare between two royal houses, tied by kinship. The Gita
is a small part of the epic, the Mahabharata. The date of its composition is ascribed to
the period between the fifth and second centuries B.C.
Gandhi read the Bhagvad Gita in his early youth in an English version, in 1889. As a
student in London, he was barely 20 years old. Up to that time, the concept of Ahimsa
had hardly entered his awareness. He had been strongly moved in his boyhood by a
Gujarati poem, the essence of which was that even ones enemy could be won over with
love. In London, when some English friends made him read The Song Celestial, his
reaction was unexpected and quick. He has recorded that he read the entire contents
of the book with fascination, and that he was particularly impressed by the last nineteen
verses of the second chapter.
It was long after his student days in London that Gandhi, having improved his Sanskrit,
read the Gita in the original, and even translated it into Gujarati, with his comments and
notes. This volume was released on 12
th
March 1930. This version was re-translated
into English by Mahadev Desai.
A word, first, about the impact of the Gita on Gandhi deserves mention. He is on
record as having stated that this work, along with the Upanishads filled his whole being,
and that he found in it a solace that he missed even in the deeply stirring Sermon on
the Mount. The Gita was, for him, the key to the worlds scriptures. In 1925, he
wrote in Young India:
When doubts haunt me, when disappointments stare me in the face, and when I see
not one ray of light on the horizon, I turn to the Bhagvad Gita, and find a verse
to comfort me; and I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming
sorrow. My life has been full of external tragedies, and if they have not left any
visible and indelible effect on me, I owe it to the teachings of the Bhagvad Gita.
Again, in 1936, Gandhi wrote in Harijan:
The Gita has become for me the key to the scriptures of the world. It unravels for
me the deepest mysteries to be found in them. I regard them with the same
reverence that I pay to the Hindu scriptures. Hindus, Mussalmans, Christians,
Parsis, Jews are convenient labels. But when I tear them down, I do not know
which is which. We are all children of the same God.
Mahadev Desai stresses this point thus: Every moment of Gandhijis life is a
conscious effort to live the message of the Gita.
Orthodox Hindu pundits, however, looked upon Gandhi as a renegade, and they drew
fromhimthe following comment:
For me, Sanatana Dharma (orthodox Hinduism) is the vital faith handed down from
generations and based upon the Vedas and the writings that followed them. For
me, the Vedas are as indefinable as God and Hinduism The Vedas are remnants
of the discourses left by unknown seers Then arose a great and lofty-minded
man, the composer of the Gita. He gave to the Hindu world a synthesis of Hindu
religion, at once deeply philosophical and yet easily to be understood by any
unsophisticated seeker. It is the one open book to every Hindu who will care to
study it. Even if all other scriptures were reduced to ashes, the seven hundred
verses of this imperishable book are quite enough to tell one what Hinduism is and
how one can live up to it.
The impact, however, is an intrinsic part of the interpretation. In Gandhis view, the
canon of interpretation is to scan not the letter but to examine the spirit. He believes
that the Gita is an allegory describing the inward conflict in which mankind is perpetually
involved. The literal interpretation of the texts is, of course, far simpler. The verses vividly
narrate the historic warfare between two royal houses tied by kinship. When Arjuna, the
great Pandava warrior, shrinks fromthe obligation to destroy his own people in battle, he
is reminded by Krishna, his divine charioteer and friend that the warriors duty takes
precedence over all else.
On the other hand, treated as an allegory, the fight is between the baser impulses in us
(as represented in Duryodhana) and the higher impulses (as in Arjuna) our own body
being the field of battle. Here is a never-ending struggle between the forces of darkness
and of light, not the picture of what happened thousands of years ago, but that of what
is going on today in every human heart. In Gandhis words, It is the description, not
of a war between cousins, but between the two natures in us the good and the
evil. It is the description of the eternal duel going on within ourselves given so
vividly as to make us think, for the time being, that the deeds described therein
were actually done by human beings.
The Gita, says Gandhi, presents some basic problems which are hard to solve, but it is
free from any kind of dogma and it gives us in a short compass a complete reasoned
moral code, which satisfies the intellect as well as the heart. Its appeal is universal.
In any case, the author of the Gita proves the futility of war. The victories amid the
debris of destruction have produced nothing but misery. What difference would it have
made, if the vanquished had won? Gandhi stresses that it is wrong to be obsessed with
the battles and their result. While some of the verses in the Gita cannot be easily
reconciled with the teaching of non-violence, it is far more difficult to set the whole of
the Gita in the framework of violence.
Nevertheless, the central teaching of the Gita, according to Gandhis interpretation, is not
himsa but ahimsa; this is proved mainly in the second and eighteenth chapters. The logic
he uses is that while himsa is impossible without anger, attachment and hatred, the Gita
takes us to a state that excludes all petty nuances of violence.
What, then, is the object, the means and the message of the Gita as understood by
Gandhi? Its object is to show the best way of attaining self-realisation. But what is the
means to that end, which is indeed the essence of all religious endeavours? Desirelessness
renunciation of the fruits of action this is the centre around which the Gita is woven.
And how is this renunciation to be achieved? In the words of the Gita, as quoted by
Gandhi in his article, The Message of the Gita: By desireless action; by renouncing
the fruits of action; by dedicating all activities to God, that is, by surrendering
oneself to Him, body and soul.
And for this purpose, right knowledge is imperative, the knowledge based on true
devotion. This devotion is no blind faith and does not involve rosaries, offerings and the
like. It is no intellectual feat but a constant heart-churn. The true devotee is selfless,
ever-forgiving, unaffected by happiness and misery, sorrow and fear and exultation; he
treats friend and foe alike; he is untouched by respect or disrespect, praise or blame; he
has a disciplined reason and loves silence and solitude. And finally, devotion of such
calibre is inconsistent with strong attachments.
Gandhi quotes the Gitas words: Do your allotted work, but renounce its fruit; be
detached and work; have no desire for reward. This, he believes, is the Gitas
unmistakable teaching. Mahadev Desai has discussed this interpretation ably in his book,
the Gospel of Selfless Action.
It is from this premise that Gandhi moves forward to ahimsa. If there is no desire for
fruit, there can be no ground for himsa. At the back of violence, there is the desire to
attain the desired end. Gandhi, however, is not dogmatic on this point. The Gita was
not written, he admits, to establish ahimsa. In those ancient times, the contradiction
between ahimsa and warfare was barely visible. Even so, Gandhi had complete faith in
the wisdom of the sage who composed the Gita.
The Gandhian interpretation of the Gita has not been accepted without challenge; in fact,
it has been rejected by scholars who take the traditional view. Gandhi, they say, has
distorted the meaning of the Gita, superimposing on it his own concept of non-violence.
Killing under certain circumstances was a duty that the Gita affirmed. There was no
plausible ground to say that the Gita represented the eternal conflict between the forces
of good and those of evil.
Besides, Gandhi was reading the Gita in the light of the Sermon on the Mount.
Commenting on this, Vincent Sheean writes: An assumption that this was a Christian
interpretation of the Gita is, it seems to me, an unjustifiable step. If you grant him the
initial bold leap, in which Kurukshetra becomes the heart of man, all the rest of his
interpretation is well within the framework of the Upanishads and the text of the Gita.
His reasons for making that bold leap were all based upon his perception of self-evident
truth (i.e. self-evident to him) as shown by the long study of the Gita itself.
Answering adverse comments, Gandhi confirmed in the strongest terms that non-violence
was a tenet common to all religions, and that, in India, its practice was reduced to a
science. Even if that practice was now nearly dead, the eternal law of answering anger
by love and of violence by non-violence could well have a revival.
Apart from ahimsa, the second great principle that Gandhi derived from the Gita was
that of Karma Yoga, the path of action.
After the publication of his Gujarati translation of the Gita in 1930, Gandhi in Yervada
J ail, received a complaint from an Ashram member that the book was difficult to
understand. In reply, Gandhi wrote a series of letters to the Ashram, each of which dealt
with a particular chapter of the Gita. The first letter was written on 4
th
November, 1930.
These letters were translated into English by V.G. Desai and released in book form in
1960 under the title Discourses on the Gita.
The essence of Karma Yoga was expounded in Gandhis Discourses. Krishna explains
to grief-stricken Arjuna, who views with horror the vast carnage at Kurukshetra, that his
sorrow was baseless, arising from a delusion. Besides, only their bodies would perish, as
they must, but not the souls inhabiting them. The soul cannot be wounded by weapons,
burned by fire, dried by wind or drowned in water. Then Krishna proceeds to Karma
Yoga, the way of action. It is up to us to do our duty without wasting a single thought
on the fruits of our action Unworried about the fruits of action, a man must devote
himself to the performance of his duty with an evenness of temper. This is Yoga, or skill
in action. The success of an act lies in performing it, and not in its result, whatever it is.
Therefore be calm and do your duty without fear of consequences.
This Discourse ends thus: The river continuously flow into the sea, but the sea
remains unmoved; in the same way, all sense-objects come to the Yogi, but he
always remains calm like the sea. One who abandons all desires is free from pride
and selfishness and behaves as one apart, finds peace.
In the next discourse, Krishna again urges Arjuna to do the terrible deed: Freedom
from action cannot be attained without action; wisdom never comes to a man
simply on account of his having ceased to act. Man does not become perfect merely
by renouncing everything. One who sits with folded hands is a fool.
Gandhis comment on this chapter is that life is meant for service alone, and must have
a sacrificial character. And real service, he defines, is the one rendered with the spirits
detachment.
In the next three chapters of the book, Gandhi expounds the Gitas message of anasakti,
selfless action, and the means of practising it. One must be unaffected by pleasure or
pain, success or failure, and have no hankering for the fruits of action. The remaining
chapters dwell on the ways by which anasakti is to be achieved.
What did Gandhi mean by anasakti? To quote his very utterances:
1. Anasakti means the renunciation, to move towards the planets of devotion, knowledge
and work that individual good merges in the common good.
2. Anasakti is Ahimsa. He remarks: After forty years of unremitting endeavour, I
feel perfect renunciation is impossible without perfect observation of Ahimsa in
every shape and form. Anasakti is the coin of which Ahimsa and Satya are the
obverse and reverse sides.
3. Anasakti consists of these points:
(a) Desireless action;
(b) Dedication of all actions to God; and
(c) Surrendering oneself to God, that is, by surrendering oneself to His body and
soul.
Significantly, Gandhi held the unorthodox view that any book, however sacred, could not
be interpreted in one way alone. The meanings of great works were subject to a process
of evolution. In the words of Gandhi: The Gita is not an aphoristic work; it is a
great religious poem. The deeper you dive into it, the richer the meanings you get.
With every age, the important words will carry new and expanding meanings. But
its central teaching will never vary. The seeker is at liberty to extract from this
treasure any meaning he likes, so as to enable him to enforce in his life the central
teaching.
Gandhi adds that the Gita is not a collection of dos and donts. What is lawful for
one may be unlawful for another. What is permissible at one time or in one place
may not be so at another time and in another place. Desire for fruit is the only
universal prohibition.
A final word about the Gitas doctrine of Karma Yoga, which Gandhi made the keynote
of his life. Writing in the Harijan under the caption, The Gospel of Bread Labour, he
said: If I had the good fortune to be face to face with one like him (the Buddha),
I should not hesitate to ask him why he did not teach the gospel of work, in
preference to one of contemplation. I should do the same, if I were to meet these
saints (Tukaram, Gyaneshwar and others).
3.4 INFLUENCE OF OTHER SCRIPTURES AND
FOLKLORE
Gandhi was also influenced by Manusmriti. He learnt from it that truth underlies morality,
and that leading a moral life was absolutely essential. In Gandhis own words:
But the fact that I had learnt to be tolerant to other religions did not mean that
I had any living faith in God. I happened about this time to come across
Manusmriti, which was amongst my fathers collection. The story about creation
and similar things did not impress me very much, but, on the contrary, made me
incline somewhat towards atheism. But one thing took deep root in me the
conviction that morality is the basis of things, and that truth is the substance of all
morality. Truth became my sole objective. It began to grow in magnitude every day;
my definition of it also has been ever-widening.
Gandhi was also influenced by the Upanishads, the scripture said to be the first to give
the message of non-violence. The Chhandogya declared that non-violence was an ethical
quality of man. Patanjali held out non-violence as one of the five cardinal disciplines of
mans life; he did not believe that it was merely a negative doctrine of avoidance of
violence, but stressed that it manifested goodwill towards all.
Hindu ethics, since the time of the Upanishads, had always laid stress on the virtue of
ahimsa towards all living beings, human and non-human. According to some, ahimsa is
expressly mentioned for the first time in the Chhandogya Upanishad, where five ethical
qualities, one of them being ahimsa are said to be equivalent to a part of sacrifice of
which the whole life of man is made an epitome.
Gandhi was influenced by the story of Harishchandra. As a boy, after getting permission
from his father, he once witnessed a play on Satyavadi (the ever-truthful) Harishchandra.
He remarked that Harishchandra captured his heart. He said, Why should not all be
truthful like Harishchandra, was the question I asked myself day and night. To follow truth
and to go through all the ordeals Harishchandra went through, was the one ideal it
inspired in me.
Gandhi was also deeply influenced by the story of Shravanas devotion to his parents. He
read the play Shravana Pitribhakti with intense interest which left an indelible
impression on his mind. He learnt the lesson of selfless service and devotion from the
pictures depicting Shravana carrying, by means of slings fitted to his shoulders, his blind
parents on pilgrimage. Shravana became his model.
3.5 INFLUENCE OF RAYCHANDBHAI
Gandhi writes in his autobiography: Three moderns have left a deep impress on my
life and captivated me: Raychandbhai by his living contact; Tolstoy by his book,
The Kingdom of God is Within You; and Ruskin by his Unto This Last. I have
said elsewhere that in moulding my inner life, Tolstoy and Ruskin vied with Kavi
(Raychand Bhai). But Kavis influence was undoubtedly deeper if only because I had
come into closest personal touch with him.
Rajchandra Ravjibhai Mehta alias Raychand (Raichand) Bhai was a jeweller and a poet.
He was spotless in character; had a vast knowledge of the scriptures and a burning
passion for self-realisation. He was also known as Shatavadhani, that is, one who can
remember or attend to a hundred things simultaneously. Born of a Vaishnava father and
Jain mother, Raychand dedicated himself towards Jainism and showed a deep leaning to
Vaishnavism towards the end of his life. To him, God is self and self is God. God has
no abode outside the self which is a conscious substance. It is permanent and eternal. In
its contact with the earthly things, it gets polluted in Karmic veils. But a sound knowledge
of its true nature leads to Nirvana. Perfection, non-attachment, truth, non-violence,
universal benevolence and the like are cardinal virtues which deemed universal observance.
A closer analysis would reveal that the living contact between Gandhi and Raychand
Bhai was very short, since they first met in 1891 and Kavi died in 1900. During this
short period, they had scanty correspondence and very few meetings. Gandhi described
his relationship with Raychand in Gujarati as gaadha parichay (deep acquaintance), and
not angata mitrata (intimate friendship).
The influence of Raychand Bhai on Gandhi was not so deep as he claimed. Both of them
understood it clearly that their paths were different. D.K. Bedekar observes: Raichand
came to have a tremendous influence on Gandhi, though the two youths were so
dissimilar in their lifestyles and urges.
Here, the mental disposition of Gandhi when he first met Raychand is noteworthy. On that
very day, his elder brother disclosed the news of his mothers death, which caused him
a severe shock and shattered his cherished hopes. He was also then physically
exhausted due to seasickness. So Raychand Bhai cast a mystical spell over Gandhi at a
time when he was exhausted, both mentally and physically. The later correspondence
between the two was when Gandhi was in South Africa, undergoing some sort of a
spiritual crisis owing to the scant knowledge of Hinduismamongst people of other faiths.
After that correspondence, Gandhi came to India in1896. So far as it is recorded in
Raychands biography, the two friends did not meet again. Hence the living contact
between the two was a dim and bloodless one.
The influence of Raychand Bhai on Gandhi is perhaps best summarised by Jalandhar Pal:
The fact is that the Mahatma was then just sprouting in the Gandhi of flesh and
blood, who fervently looked for a guideline and found it in Raychand for the
moment. Raychand Bhai initiated Gandhi in a zealous quest to know the inherent
potentiality of human beings. He acted as a midwife of Gandhi to deliver his own
being. In this sense, Kavis influence on Gandhi is remarkable. It should not,
however, be stretched too far.
3.6 SUMMARY
No individual, however great he may be, can ever transcend his surroundings. It is
through participation in his surroundings that he realises his true self. Gandhi is a living
incarnation of this. He did not attain his extraordinary power from any extra-terrestrial
source. He derived his mental and physical nourishment from the spatio-temporal relations,
from the traditions of human civilisation, both Oriental and Occidental, and above all, from
his ceaseless and varied experiments with Truth in the course of his life. He acknowledges
his debt to the forerunners without hesitation. His writings, especially his Autobiography,
brilliantly bring out the roots and the influences which gave shape to his thought.
With Tennysons Ulysses, Gandhi could boldly declare: I am a part of all that I have
met! Of the thousand roots and influences, we have taken into account only a few, the
salient ones. As he was an ardent and ceaseless experimenter with truth, his eclectic yet
sceptic mind tested all ideas which he came across, in the hard grindstone of his own
experience, and modified, changed, enriched, and sometimes abandoned them. What we
have tried to do in this Unit, is to study the effect of these ideas in the form of influences.
1. God, Rama and Truth became, in Gandhis mind, synonymous, interchangeable
terms. Explain.
2. What is the object, the means and the message of the Bhagvad Gita, as understood
by Gandhi?
3. What were the other scriptures and folklore that influenced Gandhi?
4. Examine the view that although Raychand Bhais influence on Gandhi is remarkable,
it should not be stretched too far.
SUGGESTED READINGS
House, Ahmedabad, 2007-recent edition).
2. Bhabani Bhattacharya., Gandhi, The Writer, National Book Trust, New Delhi, 2002.
3. Ramesh Betai., Gita and Gandhiji, Gyan Publishing House, New Delhi, 2002.
4. Jalandhar Pal., The Moral Philosophy of Gandhi, Gyan Publishing House, New Delhi,
1998.
5. K.S. Bharathi., The Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi, Concept Publishing
Company, New Delhi, 1998.
UNIT 4 WESTERN INFLUENCES: RUSKIN,
THOREAU, TOLSTOY AND QUAKERS
Structure
4.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
4.2 Influence of John Ruskin
4.3 Influence of Henry David Thoreau
4.4 Influence of Leo Tolstoy
4.5 Influence of the Quakers
4.6 Summary
Suggested Readings
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Although Gandhi was an Indian and a staunch nationalist, there was a profound influence
of the West on him. He was very largely influenced by Western thinkers and writers. He
himself acknowledged his indebtedness to the West in the following words: I have
nothing to be ashamed of if my views on Ahimsa are the result of my Western
education. I have never tabooed all Western ideas, nor am I prepared to anathematize
everything that comes from the West as inherently evil. I have learnt much from the
West, and I should not be surprised to find that I had learnt something about
Ahimsa too from the West.
Elsewhere he states: I do not think that everything Western is to be rejected. I have
condemned Western civilization in no measured terms. I still do so, but it does not
mean that everything Western should be rejected. I have learnt a great deal from
the West and I am grateful to it. I should consider myself unfortunate if contact
with, and the literature of the West had no influence on me.
Mahatma Gandhi is rightly described as the heir of the immortal heritage of humanity,
which knows no age or weariness or defeat. As Dr. S. Radhakrishnan pointed out, It
is a foolish pride that impels some of us to combat all external influences. Every
spiritual or scientific advance which any branch of the human family achieves, is
achieved not for itself alone but for all mankind.
Aims and Objectives
How John Ruskins book, Unto This Last wielded a profound influence on Gandhi;
The influence of Henry David Thoreaus ideas on Freedom, the Right to Resist and
Civil Disobedience.
Leo Tolstoys magnificent works and their deep impact on Gandhi.
4.2 INFLUENCE OF JOHN RUSKIN
In the year 1903, Gandhi, who was a practicing lawyer in South Africa, had an occasion
to travel from Johannesburg to Durban in the course of his professional and voluntary
work. At the Johannesburg Railway Station, one of his friends, Henry Polak gave him a
copy of John Ruskins Unto This Last to read during the twenty-four hour journey, with
the remark that he would surely like it. In Gandhis own words, The book was
impossible to lay aside, once I had begun it. It gripped meI could not get any
sleep that night. He was simply entranced by it. It actually provided the stimulus for
an extra-ordinary transformation in his way of life. Gandhi tells of the experience in his
own words:
I believe that I discovered some of my deepest convictions reflected in this great
book of Ruskin, and that is why it so captured me, and made me transform my life.
A poet is one who can call forth the good latent in the human breast. Poets do not
influence all alike, for everyone is not evolved in an equal measure. The teachings
of Unto This Last I understand to be:
1. That the good of the individual is contained in the good of all;
2. That a lawyers work has the same value as the barbers, inasmuch as all have
the same right of earning livelihood from their work;
3. That the life of labour, that is, the life of the tiller of the soil and the
handicraftsman, is the life worth living.
The first of these I knew. The second I had dimly realized. The third had never
occurred to me. Unto This Last made it as clear as daylight for me that the
second and the third were contained in the first. I arose with the dawn, ready to
reduce these principles to practice.
An immediate consequence was the establishment of the Phoenix Settlement near Durban
in1904, which proved so important to the Satyagrahis in South Africa. Gandhi also
translated the book into Gujarati and gave it the title of Sarvodaya, meaning welfare
of all.
How does one capture the essence of Ruskins arguments in Unto This Last? There
is a bitter denunciation of the accepted views on political economy, after John Stuart Mill
and other orthodox economists of that time. He pleads for a human view of economics.
Men are not mechanical, and the way to induce the best from men is to treat them with
affection. Every vocation is to service and every servant should rather die than see the
end of his service corrupted. For truly, the man who does not know when to die
does not know how to live! He urges that the real aim of economics is not to
accumulate material wealth or power over men, but the promotion of the welfare of
people at large the manufacture of souls of good quality. For, to accumulate much
for ones self is to deny our neighbour his rightful share. He asks the wealthy to curtail
luxury now so that all can have it in the future.
Ruskin, upholding the dignity of man, stressed that whatever hurts must be relentlessly
rejected. He thought that political economy took no account of the spirit of man and it
concentrated on the material aspect of human welfare. He, therefore, attacked the
mammon worship in society. He thought that riches were a power like that of electricity,
acting through inequalities or negations of itself. That country, he emphasised, was the
richest which nourished the greatest number of noble and happy human beings; that man
was the richest, who, having perfected the functions of his own life to the utmost, had
also the widest helpful influence, both personal and by means of his possessions, over the
lives of the others. There was no wealth but life. His irrefutable conclusion was that true
economics was the economics of justice. He believed in the eternal superiority of some
men to others, sometimes even of one man to all others and approved the advisability of
appointing such person or persons to guide, to lead, or on occasions even to compel and
subdue their inferiors according to their own letter, knowledge and wiser will.
Gandhi resembles Ruskin in several respects. Both preach the supremacy of the spirit and
trust in the nobleness of human nature; to both character is more important than
intelligence; both seek to moralise politics and economics; both emphasise the priority of
social regeneration to mere political freedom; both greatly distrust machinery and plead
that if employed at all, it should be so used as to free and not enslave men; both insist
that the capitalist should adopt a wise paternal attitude in relation to his employees.
However, there are significant points of differences too. Unlike Gandhi, Ruskin did not
believe in non-violence, democracy and equality. Gandhi differed from Ruskin in his
distrust of the people and in his belief in the rule of the wisest. Both disagreed in their
views regarding the nature and functions of the State.
Gandhi has drawn inspiration on education from Ruskin. Both of them attach primary
importance to education in their constructive programmes. According to them, education
is the discipline of the inherent instinct of man. Both took into consideration the childs
essential nature and emphasised that education must begin with the child. Ruskin regarded
individual taste, national character and all those things which arose fromnational character
as reflections of home life. Gandhi also stressed the home education. Both attached equal
importance to the education of boys as well as of girls. Both were of the opinion that
spirit was higher than matter, both of them tried to spiritualise the political, economic and
social spheres of human life.
The writings of Ruskin made Gandhi to realise the dignity of labour and the ideal that
action for the good of all is the most virtuous principle. Ruskins Unto This Last left such
an abiding impact on Gandhis life and thought that he started experimenting the
philosophy contained therein, in his own life, renounced property and privileges, established
socialist colonies thereafter, thought in terms of Sarvodaya and gave to the translation of
the book, the title of Sarvodaya, under the impact of Ruskins book. Gandhi equally
believed that differential wage should not be paid for intellectual work in preference to
manual work since intellectual labour should not be treated as superior to manual labour.
4.3 INFLUENCE OF HENRY DAVID THOREAU
Gandhi was influenced by the ideas and activities of Henry David Thoreau, the well
known American Anarchist who refused to pay taxes as a protest against slavery in
America. Thoreaus plea for the supremacy of conscience under all circumstances
appealed to Gandhi so much that he admitted that his technique of passive resistance
found scientific confirmation in the formers essay on Civil Disobedience. The core of
Thoreaus politics was his belief in a natural or higher law. He rejected the idea that the
highest responsibility of the individual must be to the State. He refused to recognise a
government, which failed to establish justice in the land.
Western Influences: Ruskin, Thoreau, Tolstoy, Quakers 45
The anarchist view of Gandhi was fully supported by Thoreaus declaration that that
government is best which governs the least. Gandhi believed that a free and enlightened
State could be established on this planet if its inhabitants could be truthful and non-violent
in thought, word and deed.
Thoreau was the first to use the term, Civil Disobedience in one of his speeches in
1849. Gandhi, however, did not derive his idea from the writings of Thoreau. He wrote,
The statement that I had derived my idea of Civil Disobedience from the writings of
Thoreau is wrong. The resistance to authority in South Africa was well advanced before
I got the essay of Thoreau on Civil Disobedience. I began the use of his phrase to
explain our struggle to the English readers. But I found that even Civil Disobedience failed
to convey the full meaning of the struggle. I, therefore, adopted the phrase of Civil
Resistance and finally modified even this to Non-Violent Resistance. Thoreau believed
in mans natural impulses to goodness, argued for the supremacy under all conditions of
conscience and held up the ideal of a future society without any government.
Thoreaus primary contribution to the realm of thought is his plea for defiance of a state
based on injustice. A champion of the dignity of man and liberty of the individual, he
would sweep aside the obstacles preventing fulfillment of their personality. He advocated
a just social and political order devoid of exploitation in the form of slavery. He viewed
that the poverty of the poor was the direct consequence of the luxury of the rich. He
said:
Perhaps it will be found that just in proportion as some have been placed in
outward circumstances above the savage, others have been degraded below him.
The luxury of one class is counter-balanced by the indigence of another. On the one
side is the palace on the other are the alms house and Silent Poor. The myriads
who built the pyramids to be the tombs of the Pharaohs were fed on garlic, and
it may be were not decently buried. The mason who finishes the cornice of the
palace returns at night perchance to a hut not so good as a wingman. It is a
mistake to suppose that in a country where the usual evidence of civilization exists,
the condition of the very large body of the inhabitants may not be as degraded as
that of savages.
Thoreaus message is contained in his saying if thy hand has plenty, be liberal as the
date-tree; but if it affords nothing to give away, be an azad or freeman like the cyprus.
He advocated service to fellow beings which may lead to renunciation. He was convinced
that every one should earn his bread by his own labour. His very thesis that one can
produce his own food for the year only by working for six weeks is a hint that earning
ones bread by physical labour is a philosophy that covers even the intellectual.
Freedom
Thoreau and Gandhi conceive of Freedom as obedience to law, not so much to law in
the narrow legal sense of the term as to the moral law which is a categorical imperative.
It impels men to seek good and to attain it. A man is free to speak the truth, not free
toil, free to serve, not to exploit, free to sacrifice himself but not free to kill or injure,
says Gandhi. Similarly, Thoreau attaches no value to freedom from a King George, if it
is not accompanied by freedom from King Prejudice! Thus, freedom, far frombeing mere
absence of restraint is construed as willing acceptance of restraint and control of self-
imposed bonds and obligations It is submission to the law of ones being and the
conquest of the self, an attempt to correct the false values ascribed to things material, to
subdue them and sublimate them. It is a rational synthesis of desires and passions in an
integrated life.
Right to Resist
Both Thoreau and Gandhi had to face tyrannical governments. Their problem was the
age-old problemwhich still remains in institutional terms the problemof a proper choice
between conflicting loyalties. It is the problem of the conscientious objector forced to
choose between obedience to the laws of the State and the moral law as revealed to him
by his conscience. Both believe that the laws of the State should be obeyed so long as
they are just.
However, submission to an unjust law, far from being a duty is an immoral barter for
liberty. Thoreau is of the opinion that if the injustice arises as a result of the necessary
friction of the machinery of the government, it may be overlooked, but if it is such that
it requires one to be the agent of injustice, then break the law and let your life be a
counter-friction to stop the machine. According to him, no law should be enforced simply
because it is declared to be good by the legislators if it is not really good. He exhorts
all the citizens to cultivate enough boldness to rise in revolt against immoral laws and be
prepared to lose their lives, if need be, in obedience to eternal laws. Hence his well-
known statement: Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for
a just man is in prison.
Exhorting the people to cultivate moral courage to resist unjust laws, Gandhi observed:
Swaraj will come, not by the acquisition of authority by a few but by the acquisition by
all of the capacity to resist authority when it is abused. Both Thoreau and Gandhi
believed that citizens are men first and subjects afterwards. Gandhi thought that it is the
height of good fortune to be in jail in the interest and good name of ones country.
Civil Disobedience
The method used for protest by Thoreau and Gandhi was Civil Disobedience. Thoreau
was the first to use this word in one of his speeches in 1849. For him, it stood for
maximum cooperation with all people and institutions when they lead to good, and non-
cooperation with them when they promote evil. It included defiance on the part of the
people and resignations from their offices on the part of the officers. According to him,
a real revolution is accomplished when this happens. Thoreaus essay on Civil Disobedience
became a Bible for the Satyagrahis in South Africa, and the teachings of Thoreau were
applied by Gandhi for the uplift of downtrodden millions of Indian workers.
Thoreau and Gandhi are two irrepressible optimists and conscientious objectors who
courageously fought for right; moral rebels who believed in practising what they preached.
Thoreau was certainly not the only influence on Gandhi but he influenced him as many
others did and helped him to work out a synthesis of the wisdom of the East and the
West in theory and to work as a chosen instrument through whom was presented an
attitude and a method which proved to be a panacea for the troubled world.
4.4 INFLUENCE OF LEO TOLSTOY
There is no parallel in modern Indian intellectual history to what Gandhi says he owed
to Leo Tolstoy.
Tolstoy exercised a greater influence on him. As we look at Appendix 1 of Hind Swaraj,
we notice that of the twenty books listed there as many as six were by Tolstoy. Gandhi
considered three of these Letter to a Hindoo, The Kingdom of God is Within You,
and What is Art so important that either he himself translated them or he had others
translate them into Gujarati. His adaptation into Gujarati of Ivan the Fool, gives us an
idea of the high esteem in which he held Tolstoy.
A study of the Gandhi-Tolstoy relationship has a great lesson for us even today. It is that
where universal ideas are concerned, cultural origins do not matter: they transcend all
cultural barriers. The Gandhi-Tolstoy relationship is valuable for yet another reason. It is
a model of how one should go about assimilating ideas taken fromother cultures. Gandhi
read Tolstoy carefully but critically, and he assimilated only those elements in his works
which he thought were necessary for the development of his own original philosophy.
By the time Gandhi came to know Tolstoy, which was in 1894, he was just an unknown
Indian lawyer finding his way in South Africa, while Tolstoy - forty one years senior to
Gandhi in age- had already reached the zenith of his fame. Their correspondence started
only in1909, a year before Tolstoys death. They exchanged seven letters in all, four from
Gandhi and three fromTolstoy. Tolstoy came to know Gandhi only through Hind Swaraj
(1909), and Dokes biography, M.K. Gandhi: An Indian Patriot in South Africa
(1909). Though the duration of their contact was very short, it nevertheless proved to be
very significant. Tolstoy had enough time to recognise the historic importance of Hind
Swaraj, and of what Gandhi was doing in South Africa. Thanks to that contact, Gandhi
came to be seen as an inheritor of Tolstoys moral legacy into the twentieth century.
Looking back on this historic relationship, we see three works of Tolstoy as being
especially significant. They are:
(1) The Kingdom of God is Within You;
(2) Letter to a Hindoo; and
(3) What is Art?
They deal with three enduring themes in Gandhian philosophy, namely, the need for
spirituality based on a practical love of God and fellow human beings; the problem of
violence and its resolution; and the place and function of art in life.
(1) The Kingdom of God is Within You
Gandhi read this book in 1894, the year of the first English translated version. As he
states in his Autobiography, the book overwhelmed him. It was a required reading for
members of the Phoenix Settlement and Tolstoy Farm. It was his constant companion
during his South African days and all three of his prison stays in South Africa.
The underlying theme of the book is the question of violence and its peaceful resolution.
Its basic insight, which remains valid even today, is that peace is a social good, and that
there can be no peace on earth, unless there is a genuine spiritual self-renewal among
individuals, supported by a strong public opinion favouring peace. By spiritual self-
renewal, Tolstoy meant a new understanding of the meaning of pure religion. The essence
of pure religion, in his view, lay in mans faculty of foreseeing prophetically the true
meaning of life. As far as the resolution of violence was concerned, he felt that a new
appreciation of the relevance of the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount was needed.
Tolstoy next turned to a discussion of what pure religion was and how it alone could lead
to true inner progress. Pure religion had its source in the unconditional love of God, from
which flowed the true love of fellow human-beings. And human life, taken at the individual
level, was a process of striving to achieve the fullness of this love. The love of God
guides human beings not by external rules but by an inward consciousness of the
possibility of reaching divine perfection. This growth in inner perfection is the necessary
spiritual condition that would make life at the social and political level less violent. He
called the reality of this development as the kingdom of God. It is a metaphor signifying
a new systemof life, free from violence. This kingdom is found within each individual
human being. It can flourish only if we live according to the light in us. The development
of such an inner kingdom was the end of all true religions. And its attainment depends
on human effort. The Kingdom of God can only be reached by effort, and only those
who make such effort reach it. And effort here meant the effort to rise above external
conditions and to follow the truth that is revealing itself within. The ability to cultivate the
kingdom within was an ability which all human beings possessed. The kingdom within,
then, provides the most effective solution to the problemof violence: it provides a solution
superior to that provided by the State and by scientific humanism. This is, more or less,
the basic contention of Tolstoy in the book.
Gandhi said, It was forty years back when I was passing through a severe crisis of
skepticism and doubt that I came across The Kingdom of God is Within You, and
was deeply impressed by it. I was at that time a believer in non-violence. Its reading
cured me of my skepticism and made me a first believer in Ahimsa. What has
appealed to me in Tolstoys life is that he practiced what he preached and reckoned
no cost too great in his pursuit of truth.
Again, He was the greatest apostle of non-violence that the present age has
written and spoken on non-violence so fully or so insistently and with such
penetrations and insight as he. I would even go further and say that his remarkable
development of this doctrine puts to shame the present day narrow and lop-sided
interpretation put upon it by the votaries of Ahimsa in this land of ours.
While the book The Kingdom of God is Within You captivated Gandhi, Tolstoy
appreciated the non-violent struggle led by Gandhi. Gandhi said, I made too an intensive
study of Tolstoys books. The Gospel In Brief, What To Do? And such other books
made a deep impression on me. I began to realise more and more the infinite possibilities
of universal love. He not only concurred with the belief of Tolstoy that The Kingdom
of God is Within You, but realised it in his life by strenuous endeavour. His successful
striving after truth was an eloquent demonstration of the Tolstoyan declaration that The
Kingdom of God can only be reached by effort and only those who make such effort
reach it.
(2) Letter to a Hindoo
The background to the Letter is as interesting as its contents. It was written in response
to two letters from Taraknath Das (1884-1958). The first was written on 24th May 1908
from University Station, Seattle, Washington State, and the second on 15
th
J uly 1908
from Norwich University, Northfield, Vermont. A former member of Bengal terrorist
organisation, Das had emigrated to the United States in1906. His two letters to Tolstoy
gave a brief description of the terrible plight of India under colonial rule. Their purpose
was to seek Tolstoys support for Indias cause.
Tolstoy took Dass letters very seriously. It took him seven months, 29drafts and 413
manuscript pages to prepare the Letter, which is only about 6,000 words long. That a
writer of Tolstoys stature would devote so much time and effort to compose this
document is in itself a sign of its historical importance.
Even though the Letter originated as a result of Dass initiative, it probably would never
have become famous, had it not been for Gandhi. For, a copy of a typescript of the
Letter fell into his hands in 1909 while he was in London. To verify its authenticity, he
wrote directly to Tolstoy. He had also asked permission, if the document proved to be
authentic, to have it published in both English and Gujarati. The permission was readily
granted, and Gandhi edited and translated it.
The Letter makes two basic points. The first is that the chief, if not the sole cause of
the enslavement of India is the absence of a pure religious consciousness in all nations,
including India. Nations no longer believe in a spiritual element in their lives, an element
which manifests itself in the love of God and fellow human beings.
Secondly, Indians are implicated in their own enslavement. Tolstoy pointed to them that
they were repeating the amazing stupidity indoctrinated in them by their European
teachers such as Herbert Spencer that force could be resisted only with force. The
conclusion is clear: If the people of India are enslaved by violence, it is only because
they themselves live and have lived by violence, and do not recognize the eternal law of
love inherent in humanity.
Tolstoys conclusion was that Indias liberation lay with Indians liberating themselves from
the belief that violence could liberate them. They should begin to believe in the power of
the soul and in that of a public opinion favourable to non-violence.
(3) What is Art?
The first question that will cross the mind of anyone who looks into Appendix I of Hind
Swaraj is this: Why would Gandhi include in it two works on art by two of Europes
greatest art critics, Ruskin and Tolstoy? The reference is to Ruskins The Political
Economy of Art or, in its revised title, A Joy For Ever, and to Tolstoys What is Art?
What have Western art and art criticism to do with India and its swaraj? What made
Gandhi think that all serious students of his philosophy should read these works as well?
Living in a pluralistic society, Gandhi saw how art could bring different people together.
He was able to invent and popularise universal symbols such as the charkha and khadi.
His loincloth itself expressed the agony of his soul for the poverty of the masses and
his solidarity with them. A bare body and bare head, he said, were signs of mourning for
Indias plight. It was painful for him to eat or dress as rich people do, so long as the
poor did not have enough to eat and enough to cover their bodies with.
Whatever critics and art historians might say, those who knew Gandhi personally well, or
those who were artists themselves, saw the artist in him. Here, perhaps, E.M. Forster
expresses the idea better than most. Speaking of Gandhi, he said that he was with the
great artists, though art was not his medium. And Tagore, in the end, came to understand
him as an artist. Nehru called him the perfect artist.
Of the three works of Tolstoy, some consider What is Art? to be the most significant,
for it gives us a unique entry into Gandhis mind and feelings. We see him inventing new
symbols, using them to shape public opinion, and to move people to action.
Gandhi agreed with Tolstoys reminder to the mass of humanity, the language of Christ,
that We are all sons of one father, no matter where we live or what language we speak;
we are all brothers and are subject only to the law of love, which the common father
has implanted in our hearts. Tolstoy pointed to the division of men into castes: one
labouring, oppressed, needy and suffering; the other idle, oppressing and living in luxury
and pleasure. Gandhi upheld the Tolstoyan dictumthat an ideal state would be an ordered
anarchy, in which everyone would rule himself in such a manner that he would never be
a hindrance to his neighbours.
Love is the basis of Tolstoys principles of non-resistance and non-cooperation. He
asserts, in his Three Parables that Evil must not be driven out with evil, that all
resistance by violence merely increases the evil. Tolstoys philosophy of Christian
anarchism repudiates the authority of the state and private property, for they are based
on physical balance. His philosophy is the application of the teaching of the Sermon on
the Mount, which contains the essence of Christianity, teaches us to live in peace with
all men, to harbour anger towards none, and to love all men alike without distinction of
nationality.
Tolstoy was the great apostle of ahimsa. His penetration into the efficacy of this weapon
was deep. None in the West had so fully read and understood ahimsa as Tolstoy. J.J .
Doke is of the opinion that the miscellaneous writings of Tolstoy, especially on ethical,
religious and allied problems were traced out, read and digested by Gandhi; He calls him
a disciple of Tolstoy. Gandhi wrote his first letter to Tolstoy in October, 1909, in which
he described the passive resistance which was going on in Transvaal for three years.
Tolstoy replied to this letter, addressing Transvaal Satyagrahis as dear brothers and co-
workers. In 1910, Gandhi laid the foundation of Tolstoy Farm which was to become a
laboratory for experiments on the philosophy and teachings of passive resistance.
Tolstoy condemns the State and its machinery, law courts, police and military, private
property and capitalism, even the schools, as all these offend against the law of love. He
is opposed to the use of force, payment of taxes, and compulsory military service. He
lays great stress on the moral regeneration of the individual.
There are some facts which differentiate Gandhi from Tolstoy. Gandhi is more practical
than Tolstoy. Gandhis idea of non-violence is also slightly different as he defined Ahimsa
in the sense of avoidance of injury to any creature out of anger; Tolstoy took Ahimsa
in the sense of avoidance of force in all forms. As life involves violence, Tolstoy turns
away from it; Gandhi, on the other hand, followed the Gita ideal of action which
preaches action without attachment. In certain circumstances, even killing may be called
ahimsa, as life involves some amount of violence. Therefore, Gandhi follows the Gitas
ideal of action and resists evils with the detachment of spirit. Gandhi did not accept
Tolstoy so far as the question of reincarnation is concerned. Gandhi wrote to Tolstoy,
Reincarnation or transmigration is a cherished belief with millions in India, indeed, in
China also. With many, one might almost say, it is a matter of experience, no longer a
matter of academic acceptance. It explains reasonably the many mysteries of life. Gandhi
did not find anything new in Tolstoy. Therefore, he said. There is no doubt that there
is nothing new in what Tolstoy preaches. But his presentation of the old truth is
refreshingly forceful. His logic is unassailable. And, above all, he endeavours to practice
what he preaches. He preaches to convince. He is sincere and earnest. He commands
attention.
Tolstoy had renounced the happy-go-lucky life and lived the life of a poor peasant, swept
and cleaned his own room, his clothes and shoes, worked with peasants in his own estate
Yasnaya Polyanna, ploughed and furrowed the land, worked for peasant families who
were running short of labour, and sometimes performed all the farm operations for a poor
widow, who could hardly afford to engage hired labourers. This life of renunciation and
dedication to the service of the poor and the oppressed had such a great appeal for
Gandhi that he refashioned his life accordingly. He renounced his property and embraced
voluntary poverty, clothed himself like a poor peasant, made ample use of his limbs to
earn his bread and travelled in third class railway compartments after he opted for a life
of renunciation. To quote Pyarelal, It was not Tolstoys writings alone, but the example
of his life, his passion for truth and ceaseless striving after perfection that enthroned him
in Gandhis heart . . . . In him he found kindred spirit, a single-minded seeker after truth,
an aristocrat turned peasant and shoe maker in pursuit of the meaning of life who
dedicated his wealth and talent and genius to the service of humanity, while he himself
strove to live by his body labour.
Tolstoy believed in the efficacy of manual labour for earning ones bread. He made a plea
for manual labour in the interest of the poor and also in the interest of the rich. His life
was dedicated to the purpose of promoting the objective of an egalitarian society. His
philosophy breathed in a large measure the message of extinguishment of socio-economic
disparities, privileges, exploitation and creation of a society, whose cornerstones are
equality, fraternity, fellowship, renunciation, non-exploitation and bread labour.
4.5 THE INFLUENCE OF THE QUAKERS
The most notable exponents of Christian non-resistance and pacifism are the Quakers. It
was George Fox who founded the Quaker Society of Friends in 1652. Fox, William
Penn, Isaac Pennington and Robert Barclay were the leading Quakers of the seventeenth
century. Penn established in Pennsylvania the first Quaker Settlement, otherwise known as
the Holy Experiment. In the beginning, the Quakers had to suffer persecution and
martyrdom. But the Toleration Act of 1689 put an end to this.
The Quakers are noted for their firm opposition to war and violence, and for their
advocacy of peace. According to Beales, the entire Christian Peace Movement was
largely Quaker in origin. Thus, they may as well be called the fathers of Christian
pacifism. As early as 1660, George Fox described the Quaker attitude to war in a
statement to Charles II as follows:
We utterly deny all outward wars and strife and fighting with outward weapons, for
any end or pretence whatever; this is our testimony to the whole world.
The Quakers believe that the attempt to secure the triumph of right through the application
of physical force is based on a false philosophy. The Quakers do not merely stand
passively and protest against war. Since 1917, they have added a constructive programme
to their movement. After World War I, the Quakers carried on agricultural and social
reconstruction work as well as typhus prevention, famine relief and child feeding in Serbia,
Poland, Austria, Russia and Germany.
Gandhi must have been influenced by the Quakers in his opposition to war and violence
and his strong advocacy of peace, pacifism and Non-Violence.
4.6 SUMMARY
The depth of Gandhis wisdom and the rich variety of his thought do tell us that he was
a man of varied influences and experiences. While he was not a great reader, whatever
he read he read carefully and assimilated its contents and central message, to be put into
practice in his personal and public life.
He himself acknowledged that the three moderns have left a deep impression on my life,
and captivated me: Raychandbhai by his living contact; Tolstoy by his book, The
Kingdom of God is Within You, and Ruskin by his book, Unto This Last. He made
his first contact with Tolstoys writings in 1893-94 and with those of Ruskin in1904.
While Tolstoys Kingdom of God made him realise the infinite possibilities of universal
love, cured him of his skepticism and sowed the seed of an invincible belief in non-
violence, Ruskins Unto This Last brought about an instantaneous and practical
transformation in his life.
Neither Thoreau nor Gandhi equated civilisation with mere technological advancement or
sheer conquest of the physical environment. Man has traversed a long and tortuous
distance from savagery to civilisation. Though mans achievements have been titanic,
civilisation has become sick, neurotic and satanic. Condemning some of the achievements
of man, Gandhi believed that the railways and the machines represent the true badge of
slavery of the Indian people, as they do of the Europeans. In one of his works, Thoreau
asks: Have we no culture, no refinement but skill only to live coarsely and serve the
devil; to acquire a little worldly wealth or fame or liberty, and make a false show
with it, as if we were all hulk and shell, with no tender and living kernel to us?
That the parallelism of views between Gandhi and Thoreau is not accidental is evident
from the fact that ten years after writing his Hind Swaraj, Gandhi observed that though
the views expressed therein were his, he had made an attempt to follow Eastern and
Western writers including Thoreau and Emerson.
1. Describe the essence of J ohn Ruskins Unto This Last and the nature of its
influence on Gandhi.
2. What are the major ideas of Henry David Thoreau and how did they influence
Gandhi?
3. What are the major arguments of Leo Tolstoy in The Kingdom of God is Within
You? Are they similar to Gandhis views on the subject?
4. Attempt an overview of the Western influences on Gandhi.
SUGGESTED READINGS
House, Ahmedabad, 2007. (recent edition)
2. M.P. Mathai., M.S. J ohn and Siby J oseph., ed., Meditations on Gandhi, Concept
Publishers, New Delhi, 2002.
3. Usha Mehta., Mahatma Gandhi and Humanism, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai,
2000.
4. D.K. Dutta., Social, Moral and Religious Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi, Intellectual
Publishing House, New Delhi, 1980.
5. J ames Mathews., The Matchless Weapon Satyagraha, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan,
Bombay, 1989.
6. Bhabani Bhattacharya, Gandhi, the Writer, National Book Trust, New Delhi, 1969.
UNIT 5 GANDHI IN SOUTH AFRICA
Structure
5.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
5.2 Gandhi in South Africa
5.3 Indians in South Africa
5.4 Struggles against Racial Discrimination
5.5 Birth of Satyagraha
5.6 Lessons Learned
5.7 Summary
Suggested Readings
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, one of the greatest personalities in the history of man
kind, and revered by millions all over the world, left an undying legacy of rare ethical
insight through the experiences of his eventful life. The saga of his travails in South Africa
began a career but ended up in giving India and the world one of the greatest leaders
who practised nothing but truth and non-violence to achieve a formidable task of
protecting the rights of Indian labour in the Dark Continent. In the eventful life of the
Mahatma, the years ranging from 1893 to 1914 were very significant because they
contributed immensely to his mental and spiritual growth, and his transformation into a
leader of the masses. The South Africa phase in Gandhis life is a crucial and fascinating
one in that it helped him carve his own philosophy and techniques of a non-violent
struggle that helped India achieve its goal of independence many a year later.
Aims and Objectives
After reading this Unit, you would be able to understand
the background of the prevailing conditions of Indians in South Africa
the significance of a non-violent struggle and Satyagraha
Gandhis evolution as a leader of the masses
5.2 GANDHI IN SOUTH AFRICA
Gandhi had come to South Africa in 1893 as a diffident youth of 24, who had attained
his degree of Barrister of Law from the Inner Temple, England in 1891. On his return
to India, he started his practice in his home state. By his own admission, he was painfully
shy and could not utter a word in the court. He returned to Rajkot where he took to
drafting applications for his brothers partner who had a settled practice. An offer from
Meman Firm (A MuslimMercantile community mostly based in Bombay and Kathiawar),
who were in search of a barrister to help their Firm resolve a lawsuit, made him set sail
for South Africa in April 1893 and reached Durban, where he was received by his
employer Abdullah Sheth, one of the most prosperous Indian businessmen in Natal. Thus,
providence took the inexperienced youth to a land which was to be the testing ground
for his moral resources, spiritual experiences and physical grit and determination in the
face of various forms of racial discrimination and humiliations heaped upon him and his
compatriots. The extraordinary series of events leading to the evolution and implementation
of Satyagraha in South Africa may appear startling at present, but were a natural
progression of circumstances leading to epic proportions of a nonviolent struggle, spread
over two continents. The mass-movement led by Gandhi, generated on the basis of the
power of truth and conviction, are unsurpassed in history till date.
Experiences of Racial Discrimination
When Gandhi arrived in South Africa on a one year contract to help a Firm involved in
a law suit, he could not foresee that this land was to be his home for the next two
decades and that his years of struggle in South Africa for the rights of Indians settled and
working there, would give to the world the unfailing weapon of Satyagraha. The dreadful
racist regime of South Africa was revealed to himthrough various humiliating incidents and
made him resolute to stay back and fight for the restoration of human dignity of the
Indians in South Africa. Besides attending to his legal work, he expanded his contacts and
studied the problems which the Indian community was facing, even as his personal trials
and tribulations continued in the forms of racial abuse, which he faced stoically and
emerged victorious.
It is to be noted at the background that the Indians were brought to South Africa to
further the economic interests of the British rulers, because without indentured labour they
could not exploit the immense natural resources of the Natal Coast belt. The Indians
arrived in hordes, worked in various capacities and brought prosperity to Natal, be it as
indentured labourers or free businessmen. In due course of time, the Europeans began to
feel threatened by the increasing number of Indians who were in many ways taking over
some of their monopolised occupations. This resentment gave rise to colour prejudice and
the Indians were considered (to quote Lord Milners words) as strangers forcing
themselves upon a community reluctant to receive them.
This hatred was manifested though racial abuses, unjust laws and heaps of humiliations.
This was brought home to the youthful Gandhi for the first time at the Petermaritzburg
Railway Station, where he was unceremoniously thrown out of the railway coach, inspite
of holding a valid first class ticket. Left alone to shiver in the cold weather, this
experience completely changed Gandhis life, thoughts and deeds. Swinging between the
dilemma whether to return to India or fight the discrimination, he eventually decided on
the latter course of action. The racial abuse was also evident in the refusal of his entry
to the hotels and lodges where Indians, called coolies, were prohibited from entering.
Another unfortunate incident occurred when he had to travel from Charlestown to
J ohannesburg by stage coach. Gandhi was made to sit with the coachman on the box
outside by the conductor, who later ordered him to sit on the floor on a dirty sack cloth.
On his refusal to do so, he was subjected to a violent physical assault by the conductor.
A timely intervention from some of the white passengers, who protested at this brutality,
saved Gandhi fromfurther humiliation.
Similar other experiences helped Gandhi to strengthen his resolve to fight for justice, in
a way unprecedented in the annals of history and marked the beginning of the civil
disobedience. This method of non-violent but firm struggle against apartheid in South
Africa saw him emerge as a Skilled Lawyer, a Political leader of great maturity,
flexibility and imagination, and the Mahatma, the great soul. Gandhi gave the world the
mighty unique weapon of Satyagraha, with the conviction of truth and power of non-
violence. The veteran Gandhian, Dr. R. R. Diwakar, aptly defines Satyagraha as a new
way of life. Moral strength was the major resource of the non-violent mode of action.
Moral purpose gave it an element of invincibility. Further, Gandhis inherent humanity and
sense of social justice had been aroused by the numerous personal experiences of
indignities to which he and his countrymen were being subjected to.
5.3 INDIANS IN SOUTH AFRICA
Gandhi studied the situation thoroughly and discovered that there were three categories of
Indians in South Africa:
I. The indentured labourers had been brought to South Africa under a contract
prepared in 1860 and comprised the largest sector of Indians in that country. Under
the contract, the Indians were to be sent to Natal as workers, recruited by Indians
under the supervision of emigrant agents appointed by the British Colonial Government.
The five year contract agreement was conducted in the presence of the protector of
emigrants appointed for the protection of the rights and interests of the recruited
labourers. The indentured labourers were promised the provisions of free food,
housing facility, clothes, and medical benefits besides their monthly wages. On
completion of three years, they were allowed to be freed from the agreement for
which they had to pay 5 Pounds for the remaining two years under a rule made in
1859. After Five years of indenture, they could work at other places on better
wages. Upon completing 10 years, they were either given free passage to India or
could get land equal to the value of the passage fare for their homeland. A majority
of these labourers opted for settling down in South Africa, even after their agreements
were over. The agreements promised better deals but the actual implementation of
the same was far from satisfactory. The labourers were forced victims of ill-treatment
resulting in severe hardships and suffering, even leading to deaths and suicides and
often cheated by their so called protectors or agents. This system of indentured
labour was almost akin to slavery for the poor labourers.
II. The second group of Indians was that of the children born to the indentured Indian
labourers who had settled down in South Africa after the completion of their
indentured labourers agreement period.
III. The third category of Indians settlers was the smallest but was in many ways more
affluent than their fellow compatriots. They were called Passengers because they
had come to South Africa at their own expense, looking for business opportunities;
many among them went on to become successful businessmen due to their hard
work and thrifty habits. The economic success of this group of Indians gave rise to
jealousies among the Whites and they resorted to racial abuses and discriminations
against the Indians to express their resentment.
Gandhi in South Africa 57
5.4 STRUGGLES AGAINST RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Having suffered painful experiences of arrogant racism himself, Gandhi could understand
why his fellow Indians were neither shocked nor surprised at his having been thrown out
of the first class train compartment or various similar insults meted out to him. He was
informed as to how almost every Indian was subjected to a series of such indignities and
insults but suffered silently because of livelihood compulsions.
The condition of Indians living in Transvaal was worse than those in Natal, where they
were forced to pay a poll tax of 3 Pounds, live in ghetto like conditions, no right to vote,
not allowed to walk on the roads or pavements and was not allowed to stay outdoors
after 9 P.M. unless they had a special permit. Even Gandhi was no exemption and was
once beaten up by a policeman on duty for walking out at night; he was saved in time
by Mr. Coates, an English Quaker friend.
All this while, Gandhi worked on the lawsuit, studied the case thoroughly and arrived at
the conclusion that his client had the stronger case, but litigation would cause nothing but
ruin for both claimant and defendant. He requested for the appointment of an arbitrator
and finally his client won the case. Gandhi also urged his client to reclaim the payment
from the loser party in installments and achieved success through mediation.
Meanwhile, Gandhi felt that his compatriots in South Africa needed to be brought together
to fight the injustice heaped upon them. After the preliminary survey, he called a meeting
of the Indian community settled in Pretoria, and asked them to be truthful and honest in
their business dealings and personal lives.
Having completed his work in Pretoria, Gandhi was to return to India; but, during the
farewell dinner that was organised in his honour, Gandhi came across a news item in
Natal Mercury about the Natal Governments plan to introduce a bill to disfranchise
Indians. Gandhi immediately realised the implications of this bill which, he said, would
strike at the root of our self-respect. Having realised the importance of his services, the
Indian community requested him to stay on and guide them. As Gandhi tells us in his
autobiography The farewell party was thus turned into a working committee.
Gandhi enrolled as an advocate of the Natal Supreme Court and drafted a petition to the
Natal Legislative assembly, which received good publicity in the local press. Though the
bill was passed, Gandhi did not give up his efforts and started working on another
petition to Lord Ripon, the secretary of state for Colonies. Within a month the petition
had ten thousand signatures and was sent to Lord Ripon and a thousand copies were
also printed for distribution. The justice for the Indian claim for franchise was also
admitted in a large section of British Press.
Gandhi chose Durban to set up his law practice and was helped by Indian businessmen
who gave him retainers. He acquired a high level of reputation among the Indians,
Europeans and the judiciary as well for his truthful honesty, which was the basic
foundation of his social and political work, all his life.
Within the first five years of his stay in South Africa, Gandhi had studied the prevailing
condition thoroughly and felt that the Indian community needed to be awakened from the
white regimes new and atrocious rules on the Indians through various Acts. A tax of 3
Pounds was imposed on the Indians for their stay in South Africa and was justified by
the Attorney General of Natal who stated that the Indians are not to form a part and
parcel of the South African NationThe Indians are to come here, appreciated as
labourers but not welcomed as settlers and competitors. The tax was grossly unfair to
the Indians and was initially not enforced strictly, but later when it was done so, it was
great hardship on the basis of the very meagre wages of the indentured labourers (about
ten Shillings per month).
The next step taken by the racist regime was the legal disenfranchisement of the Indians
in 1894, which incidentally was the main reason for Gandhis extended stay in South
Africa. The European community was afraid of possible Indian domination if they had the
right to vote and therefore decided to deprive them of it. Further, the license authority
was given absolute authority in 1897 to issue trading license at its own discretion and it
was almost always the Indian trader whose request for a trading license was turned
down.
In the same year, the entry of Indians, who were freed, was restricted into Natal and
under the Immigration Restriction Act 1897, an education test in any European language
was imposed upon the Indians. This caused serious problems for Indian immigration as
it blocked the entry of those helping hands the Indian traders wanted for their business.
Most Indians in South Africa were poor and illiterate and therefore could never pass any
education test to enter Natal. Gandhi decided to counter these unfair practices and
hardships in a legal and peaceful manner.
Gandhi faced this challenge bravely, although he was only an inexperienced young man
leading the Indian settlers who were just beginning to be politically aware of their rights.
Gandhi enabled them to bring into action all the possible and available forces to protest,
awaken and strengthen them for a righteous conflict, which went on to become the great
Satyagraha movement for the rights of all Indians in South Africa. Gandhi thus brought to
the fore a peaceful and non-violent resistance to tyranny and oppression.
It was in South Africa that Gandhi discovered his own self. Froma shy and timid young
man, he matured into a successful practising lawyer, an able organiser of men, a great
leader knitting together the Indians of South Africa, who came from diverse backgrounds
and different parts of India, spoke different languages and practised different faiths. He
organised the Natal Indian Congress as the forum to express the Indian point of view in
an alien land.
In 1896, Gandhi visited India and in an attempt to arouse interest in the grievances of
Indians in South Africa, he wrote a popular brochure called The Green Pamphlet citing
the poor conditions of the Indian settlers in South Africa. It was a very dignified account
of the Indian case, but was distorted by Reuters and sent through cable to South Africa.
It created unnecessary misunderstanding in the white community resulting in unpleasant
consequences later for Gandhi and other Indians. He also travelled extensively to various
cities of the country, met various important people and editors of newspapers acquainting
them with the unfortunate conditions of Indians in South Africa.
He met veteran Indian leaders like Badruddin Tyabji, Sir Pherozeshah Mehta, Surendranath
Banerjee, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Gopal Krishna Gokhale. He addressed a large public
meeting in Bombay and was also scheduled to speak in Calcutta, but before that, he
received an urgent telegram from the Indian community in Natal, asking him to return
immediately. He sailed for Durban with his wife and children in November 1896.
On arrival in Durban, he was put into five days quarantine as the European community
was angry due to the false versions and interpretations of Gandhis Green pamphlet.
They threatened the Indians, including Gandhi, with dire consequences if they landed in
South Africa; however, while disembarking, Gandhi was brutally attacked by an angry
mob. Following the news of this vehement and cowardly attack, Joseph Chamberlain, the
British Secretary of State for the Colonies in England sent an order to Natal to prosecute
the wild attackers of Gandhi. But Gandhi himself refused to take an action against them
as he felt they were misled into attacking him. This gained him a lot of respect even
among his opponents.
It was in the second phase of his life in South Africa that Gandhis lifestyle underwent
gradual changes. Though initially he preferred maintaining a lifestyle of an English barrister,
he gradually realised the futility of affluence and veered towards a life of austere simplicity.
He reduced his wants and expenses, studied the art of laundering (washing and ironing
of clothes), and cleaned his own chamber pot and of his guests as well, volunteered his
free service for two hours daily as a compounder in a charitable hospital, read books on
nursing and midwifery and actually served as midwife during the birth of his fourth and
last son.
Boer War
In 1899 the Boer War broke out and Gandhi advised the Indian Community to support
the British cause as they claimed their rights as British subjects. He organised and trained,
with the help of Dr. Booth, an Indian Ambulance Corps of 1,100 volunteers and offered
its services to the Government. The Corps rendered valuable service in the Boer war and
Gandhi as its leader felt immensely happy when he saw Indians of various castes and
creeds coming together to work like brothers.
In 1901 Gandhi returned to India, promising the Indian community in South Africa to
return if the Indian community needed him within a year. He attended the Indian National
Congress Session at Calcutta where his resolution on South Africa was passed with
acclaim. He was advised by Gokhale to tour India and chose to travel by the third class
in order to know the people.
J ust as he had set up his legal practice in Bombay, Gandhi received a cable from the
Indian community in Natal, recalling him. As per his promise, he sailed for South Africa
again and represented the Indian case to J oseph Chamberlain who was visiting South
Africa. Gandhi discovered that the condition of Indians in Transvaal was going from bad
to worse and therefore enrolled as an advocate of the Supreme Court and set up practice
in Johannesburg. He revived the British Indian Association to act as the mouth-piece of
the Indians settled in Transvaal. His stay in South Africa was specifically to challenge the
European arrogance and fight injustice but it was a struggle where there was no hatred
in his heart for his opponents. His respect for all religions and his willingness to learn and
absorb all the good points fromtheir teachings, made him realise the importance of basic
principles of all religions that were commonly connected through truth, non-violence,
compassion and love for all humanity. True to his principles, when the Zulu rebellion
broke, he formed the Indian Ambulance Corps to help the government in nursing the
dying Zulus unattended by the Europeans.
Service for Humanity
Gandhi was moved by the misery and the sorrow of people around him; he decided to
offer his selfless services, aroused his ingrained compassion and strengthened his resolve
to work for the oppressed humanity all his life. The influence of religious scriptures like
the Bhagavad Gita was profound; he adopted the karmayoga into his daily life in every
possible way. The ekadashavrata of later years, propounded by him had its roots in the
basic teachings of the sacred Gita.
John Ruskins Unto this last deeply influenced Gandhi and the concept of Sarvodaya
upliftment of all arose out of this. This led to the beginning of another spiritual journey
of self-sacrifice and devotion to the service of mankind and brought to him the essential
beauty of community living on the basis of equality and the inherent dignity of manual
labour. Gandhi was inspired to set up an Ashram where he could practice this Philosophy
and marked the beginning of the Phoenix Settlement, fourteen miles distance fromDurban.
The writings of Thoreau and Tolstoy also affected himgreatly and his entire way of living
underwent a spiritual transformation. In 1904 he had started a weekly journal Indian
Opinion as a communication medium with the Indians as well as Europeans, in which
week after week, he poured out his soul in its columns. This also marked the beginning
of Gandhis future lifelong friendship with Mr. Henry S. L. Polak, with whom he shared
similar views on the essential things of life. In 1904 the Indian Opinion and his family
shifted to Phoenix Ashram. In 1906 he took the vows of celibacy and voluntary poverty.
He founded the Tolstoy Farmnear Johannesburg. Gandhi inculcated spartan simplicity and
strict discipline and laid great emphasis on moral and physical hygiene as the basic rules
of these settlements. In the process of continuous evolution of his life and philosophy, the
Sarvodaya experiments were conducted through his constructive programme factors like
community living, communal harmony, basic education, emancipation of women, removal
of untouchability, cottage industries, trusteeship etc. The Phoenix Settlement and Tolstoy
Farm were living examples of his spiritual search for human growth and development.
5.5 BIRTH OF SATYAGRAHA
In Gandhis great eventful life, the year 1906 was a significant landmark as it saw the first
practical application of Satyagraha on the soil of South Africa, giving an undying hope of
life to tortured humanity. Gandhi could sense the simmering discontent among the Indian
community as one oppressive Act followed another, and realised that this kind of brutal
tyranny could only be defeated by spiritual strength arising out of the twin principles of
truth and non-violence. He understood the necessity to expand individual resistance to an
organised mass movement and create a moral equivalent to war. The concept was clear
in his mind but needed a name and the great man tells us himself:
None of us knew what name to give to our movement, I then used the term passive
resistance in describing it. I did not quite understand the implications of passive
resistance as I called it. I only knew that some new principles had come into being. As
the struggle advanced, the phrase passive resistance gave rise to confusion and it
appeared shameful to permit this great struggle to be known only by an English name.
Again, that foreign phrase could hardly pass a current coin among the community. A small
prize was therefore announced in Indian Opinion to be awarded to the reader who
invented the best designation for our struggle. We thus received a number of suggestions.
The meaning of the struggle had been then fully discussed in Indian Opinion and the
competitors for the prize had fairly sufficient material to serve as a basis for their
exploration. Shri Maganlal Gandhi was one of the competitors and he suggested the word
Sadagraha, meaning firmness in a good cause. I liked the word, but it did not fully
represent the whole idea I wished it to connote. I therefore corrected it to Satyagraha.
Truth (satya) implies love, and firmness (agraha) engenders and therefore serves as a
synonym for force. I thus began to call the Indian movement Satyagraha, that is to say,
the force which is born of Truth, Love and Non-violence, and gave up the use of the
phrase passive resistance in connection with it, so much so that even in English writing
we often avoided it and used instead the word Satyagraha itself or some other
equivalent English phrase. This then was the genesis of the movement which came to be
known as Satyagraha, and of the word used as a designation for it.
The racist regime of South Africa had issued an ordinance to be imposed upon the Indian
immigrants requiring all Indians over the age of eight, to register with the Authorities,
submit to finger printing and accept a certificate which they had to carry with them
always. Any Indian who failed to do so could be imprisoned, fined, lose the right of
residence and even be deported, even if he owned valuable property or engaged in
important commercial transactions. The Indians, under Gandhis leadership, decided to
resist it.
Gandhi was certain that if this ordinance was adopted it would mean absolute ruin for
the Indians of South Africa. Gandhi appraised and explained the Indians the complications
of the Black Act and held a public meeting to refuse to submit to this indignity and to
court imprisonment by defying the obnoxious law. The meeting held on September 11,
1906 was a historic moment in the struggle of South Africa and gave to the world the
unique tool of civil defiance of Satyagraha. In Gandhis own words, The old Empire
Theatre in Johannesburg was packed from floor to ceiling. I could read in every face the
expectations of something to be done or to happen.. The most important among the
resolutions passed by the meeting was the famous Fourth Resolution, by which the Indians
solemnly determined not to submit to the Ordinance in the event of its becoming a law
and to suffer all the penalties attaching to such non-submission. Gandhi explained in the
meeting that it is a very grave resolution we are making, as our existence in South Africa
depends upon our fully observing it. A few words now as to the consequences. Hoping
for the best, we may say that if a majority of the Indians pledge themselves to resistance
and if all who take the pledge prove true to themselves, the Ordinance may not even be
passed and, if passed, may soon be repealed.
Satyagraha, according to Gandhi, is the vindication of truth not by infliction of suffering
on the opponent but on oneself. Gandhi applied the principle of self-restraint and self-
sacrifice and had the courage and conviction to inspire the Indian community to rise as
one against injustice. In J anuary 1908, he was arrested for protesting against the Black
Act and had the singular privilege of being the first Satyagrahi in the world to court
imprisonment for upholding human rights. He proved by example that a Satyagrahi works
not with the strength of the brute but with the strength of the spark of God.
The agitation against the injustice continued unabated under his leadership and before
Gandhis first prison term of two months was over, General Smuts sent him an emissary
proposing to repeal the Act if the Indians voluntarily registered themselves. Gandhi agreed
to it but drew the wrath of many Indians. He was even attacked by some of the pathans
while going for his registration but he forgave them; eventually they apologised publicly for
attacking him, and became his staunch followers.
As General Smuts went back on his promise, the Indians burnt their registration
certificates in protest and even defied the ban on immigration to Transvaal. This was the
final and the most organised phase of the great Satyagraha movement in South Africa led
by Gandhi. The years 1906 to 1914 were the years of the ultimate evolution and success
of non-violence resistance to tyranny, a struggle which through self-suffering purified the
participants, won over the opponents and naturally drew worldwide attention.
As the struggle by Indians continued, Gandhi was arrested in September 1908 and again
in February 1909 and was sentenced to two months rigorous imprisonment and 3 months
hard labour respectively. He is quoted as saying that the real road to ultimate happiness
lies in going to jail and undergoing suffering and privations there in the interest of ones
own country and religion.
In the year 1911 Gandhi suspended the struggle as a provisional settlement of the Asiatic
issues in the Transvaal was proposed by the Colonial Government that assured to repeal
the Black Act, to remove the racial bar from the unfair immigration law and to abolish
the 3 Pounds tax on Indians, but Gandhi was wary of these promises as there had been
precedents of their being broken. This time again it was no different and the Union
Government did back out on its promises. Further, the Supreme Court gave a judgment
declaring that only Christian marriages were valid in South Africa, thus making all the
Indian marriages illegal and the children born out of these marriages illegitimate. This
provoked the Indian community so much that even the shy Indian housewives came out
in the streets protesting against this humiliating law. Kasturba Gandhi was in the forefront
leading the Indian women.
Gandhi re-started Satyagraha campaign in 1913 in his usual non-violent manner. He gave
the South African regime plenty of time to deal with the strikes and law and order
situation in Johannesburg and was very tolerant about pursuing the issues related to the
Indian community. But the colonial government failed to understand the concerns and
continued to neglect the Indian question. This naturally led to resumption of Satyagraha
in October 1913. The government came down with a heavy hand to crush it but could
not break its spirit.
The Indian women, led by Kasturba, fearlessly crossed the border between Transvaal and
Natal without permits, headed to Newcastle and persuaded the indentured Indian miners
there to strike. They succeeded and were arrested, and as a result the strike of the
miners spread like wildfire. Thousands of indentured miners and other Indians prepared
under Gandhis leadership, marched to the Transvaal border as a symbol of non-violent
defiance. Gandhi made strict rules to be followed by the Satyagrahis asking them to
submit patiently and unhesitatingly to insult, floggings and arrest. Before beginning the
march, Gandhi made one last attempt to persuade General Smuts to accommodate the
Indian demands but was refused curtly. Gandhis indomitable spirit becomes evident even
as he writes, I did not weaken in the face of his incivility. The straight and narrow path
I had to tread was before me. The next day (6thNovember 1913) at the appointed
stroke of the hour (6:30) we offered prayers and commenced the march in the name of
God. The Pilgrim band was composed of 2037 men, 127 women and 57 children. The
great march was unique in its strength and though Gandhi was arrested and sentenced,
the Satyagraha spread rapidly. There were almost fifty thousand indentured labourers on
strike and several thousand Indians arrested and put in jails. The government tried to
crush the movement with brute force, mistreating the Satyagrahis in prison, trying to force
the labourers to go back to work but to no avail. The more there was repression, the
more determined were the Satyagrahis, whose spirits remained unbroken even in the face
of bullets.
Gandhis associates continued to lead the Satyagrahis and some of them deliberately
avoided arrest so that they could communicate with India and England. The brutalities
unleashed by the South African government on peaceful marchers and protestors had
horrified both the countries. The Viceroy Lord Hardinge openly supported the Indian
movement and the Imperial Government of Britain was admonished by public leaders in
London, to stop the atrocities in South Africa. The increasing pressure on the government
of South Africa led to approving to Indian demands. Gandhi was released from prison on
December 18, 1913, and General Smuts appointed the Solomon Commission to redress
the grievances of the Indian community. General Smuts and Gandhi reached an agreement
on June 30, 1914. An American biographer of Gandhi has very aptly summed up the
situation thus, In the end, General Smuts did what every Government that ever opposed
Gandhi had to do-he yielded. This agreement/ Act that came into effect from July 1914
made all non-Christian marriages legal, abolished the three-pound tax on Indian indentured
labourers, banned the importation of indentured labourers from India after 1920, and also
allowed Indians born in South Africa to enter the Cape Colony.
In his humble and modest way Gandhi did not claim any credit for himself but attributed
it to the visionary statesmanship of General Botha and General Smuts. As the agreement
was finalised, Gandhi announced his decision to sail back home to India, as his work in
South Africa had practically come to a logical conclusion. Gandhi was given a series of
emotionally charged farewell receptions, and in the mass meetings and rallies, people from
all walks of life applauded his saintly life, non-violent struggle, dedication to the
cause, his experiments with truth and his abiding sense of public duty with total
disregard for personal safety, comfort and self-interest. Rev. John Howard described his
life as a living commentary on the principles of the New Testament. Gandhi advised his
countrymen in South Africa to nurse the settlement and with the cooperation of their
European friends ensure that what was promised was fulfilled. A meeting of the Transvaal
Indian Womens Association was organised on 15
th
July 1914 in the Ebenzer Church Hall
to bid Gandhi farewell. Thanking his compatriots and the people of South Africa regarding
the Indian Relief Bill, Gandhi termed it as a morale boosting victory; disclaiming any
credit, he acknowledged the women children and young people, who have died for the
cause and to those who quickened the conscience of South Africa. His message to the
Indians was that Satyagraha was pure and simple, an infinitely finer and more effective
weapon than all the guns put together. To the European friends in South Africa, he
appealed to consider the indentured and ex-indentured labourers as sensitive human
beings, not as mere cattle.
The most important achievement of Gandhi in South Africa was the fact that during the
Satyagraha struggle, when he defied the law, crossed provincial boundaries without
registering fingerprints, going to prison and out of it, he was actually perfecting the creed
of self-sacrifice and learning its immense power and effectiveness as a weapon. Even his
staunch adversary in South Africa, General Smuts wrote years later, It was my fate to
be the antagonist of a man for whom even then I had the highest respect. Thus we
discover the truth in Gandhis own words that it was in South Africa, that God forsaken
dark continent, where I found my God.. It was only when I had learnt to reduce myself
to zero that I was able to evolve the power of Satyagraha in South Africa.
5.6 Lessons Learned
The successful end of Satyagraha and the amicable settlement of the Indian question
placed Gandhi on the pedestal of national and international glory. Satyagraha, under his
leadership, had given South Africa a great chapter in its history where the strength of the
spirit emerged victorious in the face of brutal tyranny.
Gandhis life in South Africa was an example in itself where all his unique revolutionary
ideas acquired shape and form. He came across various philosophical ideas which helped
mould his socio-economic ideas. John Ruskinss Unto this Last, Tolstoys The Kingdom
of God is within you, Thoreaus writings on civil disobedience and various other works
inspired him greatly and enlightened his thinking. The Phoenix and Tolstoy Settlements set
formidable examples of community living, peaceful co-existence, equality of all and the
dignity of labour.
It was South Africa which saw him present a clear perspective and strategy for his
homelands regeneration in the form of Hind Swaraj or the Indian Home Rule, a
seminal work. Gandhi felt that the ill-effects of the contemporary civilisation needed to be
purified with a spiritual perspective of development. The genesis and evolution of this
great work written in 1909 is explained by Gandhi thus: It was first published in the
columns of the Indian Opinion of South Africa. It was written in 1908 during my return
voyage from London to South Africa in answer to the Indian School of violence and its
prototype in South Africa. I came in contact with every known Indian anarchist in
London. Their bravery impressed me, but I felt that their zeal was misguided. I felt that
violence was no remedy for Indias ills, and that her civilization required the use of a
different and higher weapon for self-protection. The Satyagraha of South Africa was still
an infant hardly two years old. But it had developed sufficiently to permit me to write of
it with some degree of confidence. I thought that it was due to my English friends that
they should know its contents. It teaches the gospel of love in place of that of hate. It
replaces violence with self-sacrifice. It pits soul force against brute force. I commend it
to those who would care to read it. The booklet is a severe condemnation of modern
civilization. I feel that if India will discard modern civilization she can only gain by doing
so.
It was during the struggle in South Africa when he endured prison terms that he realised
the inner strength of women through Kasturba and used the potential of Stri-Shakti
(Women power) in the Satyagraha. Satyagraha and Sarvodaya, based on the twin pillars
of truth and non-violence, were given concrete shape and form in both theory and
practice by him.
5.7 SUMMARY
This unit comprehensively summarises Gandhis troubles and travails in South Africa and
how he adopted the crucial weapon of Satyagraha to achieve the goal of Indian
indentured labour rights. The South Africa episode is an eye-opener to those who
believed in the brute force and who failed to achieve their ends in a suppressive manner.
It is significant to note the spiritual and moral upliftment that Gandhi went through these
testing years and to which he remained committed all his life. South Africa proved to be
an effective laboratory where Gandhi successfully tried his experiments with truth and non-
violence.
1. Briefly examine the conditions of Indians living in South Africa at the time of Gandhis
arrival.
2. Discuss Gandhis fight against racial discrimination and procuring the rights for Indian
labour.
3. Examine at length the birth and significance of Satyagraha.
4. Write a short note on the Boer War.
SUGGESTED READINGS
1. Gandhi, M.K., Satyagraha in South Africa, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad,
1928.
2. Homer, A J ack., (ed), Gandhi Reader, Grove Press, New York, 1994.
3. Nayar, Sushila., Mahatma Gandhi: Satyagraha at Work, Vol.IV, Navajivan Publishing
4. Kripalani, Krishna., Gandhi A Life Revisited, Mehta Publication, New Delhi, 1983.
5. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan., (ed), Mahatma Gandhi: Essays and Reflections on His Life
and Work, J aico Book House, New Delhi, 2007 edition.
6. Singh, Savita., Satyagraha, Publications Division, Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting, Government of India, New Delhi, 2007.
UNIT 6 RETURN OF GANDHI
Structure
6.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
6.2 Beginning of Public Life
6.3 Champaran Satyagraha, 1917-1918
6.4 Ahmedabad Textile Mill Labour Satyagraha: February March 1918
6.5 Kheda Satyagraha
6.6 The Rowlatt Satyagraha
6.7 Summary
Suggested Readings
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi left the shores of South Africa at the age of forty-five,
a fully formed personality, with no personal property and with only one ambition, of
serving his country and people. Though the Indian political leaders were aware of his
work in South Africa, he was not much known to the Indians in general. To most Indians,
he was the great Gandhi who had guided the Indians in South Africa towards self-
respect and justice through Satyagraha. Gandhi was a full-fledged Satyagrahi by the time
he returned with a keen sense of self-discipline, which he ardently followed althrough his
life.
On his return, Gandhi found himself in a country he scarcely knew, for he was away from
his motherland for almost twenty eight years. He sought to understand the undercurrents
of those times and searching for his roots, he was tentative and cautious in those early
years in India. His political mentor, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, advised him to travel through
various part of India for a year so he could learn about his land and people, with his
ears open but his mouth shut. He was convinced that the British rule was harming India,
but India also needed to remove the evils prevalent in its society and system before she
was fit for self-governance.
Aims and Objectives
After reading this Unit, you would be able to understand:
The significance of Satyagraha as a potential tool of solving problems
Gandhis Satyagraha in Champaran, Kheda and Ahmedabad mill cases
The struggle against the Rowlatt Bill
The importance of non-violent struggle
6.2 BEGINNING OF PUBLIC LIFE
Sabarmati (Satyagraha) Ashram-1915
By May 1915, Gandhi established the first ashram in India at Kochrab, near Ahmedabad.
An Ashram is usually a community living retreat and in India there has been an ancient
tradition of many spiritual leaders establishing such ashrams to spread their spiritual and
philosophical ideas. As the Kochrab village was affected with plague and the obstinate
villagers refused to let himorganise the sanitation, Gandhi decided to move his ashram on
the banks of the river Sabarmati, popularly known as Sabarmati Ashram, founded on
May 25, 1915. Beginning with twenty-five inmates, who vowed to a life of chastity, truth,
non-violence, non-stealing, non-possession, control of palate, shramdan, swadeshi, religious
harmony, fearlessness and removal of untouchability, the Ashram was dedicated to the
service of humanity in every possible way. Mahatma Gandhi had laid down certain rules
and regulations, Maxims of life laid down by our scriptures, for spiritual
guidance.
The ashram was a living example of Gandhis ideology applied practically in day to day
life. Soon, an untouchable family of three sought permission to live there and Gandhi
willingly accepted the family, who consented to follow the ashram rules and regulations.
Their admission created a flutter and led to stoppage of all monetary help but later, with
help from an anonymous visitor, finances were stabilised. The admission of this family
proved avaluable lesson to the Ashraminmates, training themto countenance untouchability.
Subsequently, as the storm over their entry subsided, Gandhi received support from all
quarters in his ashram work. The Ashram functioned like an organised community, where
the Charkha became the focal point of Gram Swaraj and the sounds of the spinning
wheel became the anthem of the masses toiling for freedom. The Khadi movement had
begun in earnest. It remained the headquarters for the next fifteen years and it was here
that Gandhi met his devoted disciples and staunch followers like Mahadev Desai and
Sardar Patel. This ashram was Gandhis abode till 1933 and was later turned into a
centre for the removal of untouchability. The Ashram was a glorious symbol of Gandhis
dedication to the service of mankind that continues to play an inspiring role till date.
Speech at the Banaras Hindu University, February 1916
Gandhi delivered his first public speech in India on 4
th
February 1916, on the occasion
of the opening ceremony of the Banaras Hindu University, attended by many distinguished
visitors like the Viceroy, Lord Hardinge, Mrs. Annie Besant and many members from
Indias erstwhile royal families. Gandhi, speaking in English, expressed his deep humiliation
and shame at being compelled to address my own countrymen in a language that
is foreign to me. He emphasised upon the need to make Hindustan and the vernacular
languages as the basic medium of education in the country, so that precious years of
students lives are not wasted in trying to master a foreign language like English. Gandhis
hard hitting speech succeeded in turning the searchlight inwards. In all his public and
private speeches he made it clear I feel and I have felt during the whole of my
public life that we need, what any nation need now, is nothing else and nothing
less than Character building. In this hard hitting speech he, in his gentle, modest way,
offered a criticism of India. He referred to the splendour of the princely class, the over-
powering influence of English as the medium of communication instead of Hindustani and
vernaculars, the dirt, poverty, illiteracy as the degrading factors of Indian life. The Indian
masses were instantly taken by it, as it came from a man who lived like the millions of
them, speaking for the poor and the downtrodden. The echoes of his words reverberated
through out the country, even in those pre-radio days by a word of mouth.
6.3 CHAMPARAN SATYAGRAHA, 1917-18
The uncertainty over his actions in his homeland took a concrete shape in the Champaran
movement in Bihar. The indigo fields of Champaran in Bihar provided him the first
opportunity of using the powerful tool of Satyagraha in solving a long-standing dispute. It
was during the Indian National Congress Session at Lucknow in December 1916 that an
obscure peasant from Bihar, Rajkumar Shukla, decided to acquaint his fellow countrymen
with the plight of the indigo farmers.
In its early years the East India Company had discovered that the cultivation of the indigo
plant was immensely profitable. The plant, a delicate one, needed marshy land for growth
and armies of peasants were recruited forcibly to cultivate it. They were paid very low
wages and were forced by Law to plant three twentieths of their holdings with indigo, and
the harvest was handed over to the factory owners in part payment of rent. For long
oppressive years of tyranny the factory ruled, indigo was the king and the poor peasantry
was at the mercy of the landowners. Destiny chose upon an earnest peasant in the farm
of Rajkumar Shukla from Champaran who would simply not take no for an answer. He
wanted the Mahatma to visit his district and see for himself the condition of the indigo
cultivators.
Gandhi went to Champaran undertaking a term of action, distinctively his own. It was the
predecessor of the psychological pattern he applied to all his activities. He started with
Patna where he met many lawyers, Congress members and people from various sections
of society, and asked them to accompany him to Champaran and help the sharecroppers
in any possible way they could. He made it quite clear to those volunteers that they must
be prepared for all eventualities, even going to prison and they must pledge themselves
unconditionally to help the cause of the indigo farmers. The system was new to Indians
but gradually the nation learnt the way their leader wanted to get it organised into action.
It was during the Champaran movement that he befriended some great future national
leaders and lifelong associates like Dr. Rajendra Prasad and Acharya J . B. Kripalani
among others. Gandhis presence had electrified the people and it was felt that at long
last something would be done for the peasants not through court action, but in an entirely
new and unexpected way.
Gandhi explained his work plan to a convened committee of lawyers and teachers where
he said the time for legal action had passed and now the need of the hour was a careful
examination of the facts through interviews with the farmers and careful reports. The
lawyers and teachers, although very well educated, had to work like clerks in collecting
the reports and compiling them. There would be no agitation, just a quiet accumulation
of thousands of reports on the grievances of the indigo farmers. These activities were to
be undertaken in full view of the police and government officials. There was to be no
violence at all.
Gandhi was on a new testing ground where except for the farmer Rajkumar Shukla, he
knew nothing about the lives of the indigo sharecroppers, knew very little about the
existing complicated system of land-tenure and was unfamiliar with the local dialect as
well. He was convinced by the lawyers and teachers that the situation as explained by
Rajkumar Shukla indeed required urgent attention as well as action. In his methodical
Return of Gandhi 69
way, Gandhi warned the opponent- the head of the indigo planters association and
Government District Commissioner that he intended to investigate the grievances. Their
responses clearly indicated their non-cooperative attitude and he knew that in all
probability he would be imprisoned. But inspite of everything, he proceeded to collect
depositions from indigo sharecroppers of the region.
It was a new kind of defiance to the British Government, one to which it was yet to
grow accustomed. Gandhi attracted the downtrodden farmers so powerfully that they
flocked in thousands to be where he was, to see him, to hear him and to narrate their
woes to him. In order to save the situation the British authorities decided to order him
to leave the district stating that his object was likely to be agitation rather than a genuine
search for knowledge. He replied to the local commissioner that he desired only to
conduct a genuine search for knowledge and rejecting outrightly the order of expulsion he
made it quite clear to the authorities that Out of a sense of public responsibility, I feel
it to be my duty to say that I am unable to leave this district, but if it so pleases the
authorities, I shall submit to the order by suffering the penalty of disobedience. He sent
telegrams to the Indian leaders working with him and wrote a letter to the secretary of
the Viceroy that the peasants in the district were living under a reign of terror and their
property, their persons and their minds are all under the planters heels. He returned to
the Viceroy the Kaiser-I-Hind Gold Medal, awarded to him for humanitarian work since
it was clear that his humanitarian motives were being questioned. Gandhi was greatly
assisted by his friend, C. F. Andrews in his work. He also prepared a set of rules for
his co-workers to follow, in case of his arrest, that the inquiry into the peasants
grievances was to continue under the direction of Sh. Brijkishore Prasad, a man with a
sharp legal mind with immense talents.
Gandhi appeared for trial and pleaded guilty and declared his decision to pursue the
inquiry, and even if failed he would resume it the moment he was released. Sensing unrest
and tension, the local judge Mr. Heycock, in consultation with his superiors, dismissed the
case against Gandhi and the Lt. Governor ordered that the local officials should assist him
in the inquiry. After this unexpected victory in his first confrontation with the British rulers,
he proceeded with his depositions. Simultaneously, he was also organising his recruits, in
this case affluent professionals from the state, into men dedicated to the quest for truth.
By now Gandhi and his co-workers had collected thousands of depositions from the
farmers, much more than needed to prepare their report but Gandhi had another purpose
in his mind. It was evident to him that these poor farmers were accustomed to centuries
of oppression, exploitation, starvation and flogging. What they needed was to be free
from fear as he said.
Gandhi sent for volunteers to teach the ignorant, illiterate villagers the basic concepts of
hygiene and the value of education and himself took up the task of scavenging, washing,
sweeping, and started six schools to impart basic education. The reformer in him always
taught by his own example. He always felt that obligations need to be fulfilled if we are
striving to attain our rights. Though the government was growing wary of Gandhis
presence in Champaran, he made it quite clear that he would leave the region only when
the grievances of the exploited sharecroppers were recognised and redressal started. The
government instituted the Champaran Agrarian Committee with Gandhi as a member and
after a series of deliberations of the committee, the Champaran Agrarian Act was passed
on April 26, 1918. This ended the infamous Teen Kathia tradition. The government
was forced to return the revenue collected unlawfully.
The Champaran experience is the first triumph of Satyagraha in India. Gandhi had gained
a humanitarian objective by his own distinctive means of truth, self-control and non-
violence Champaran was, practically, the introduction of Satyagraha to India where
Gandhi told the British firmly and politely that they could not order him around in
his own country. A young British civil servant of that time was among the first few who
witnessed and recognised Gandhis transformation from a man to the Mahatma. He writes
on April 29, 1917, after his first meeting with Gandhi we may look Mr. Gandhi as an
idealist, a fanatic, or a revolutionary according to our particular potions. But to the raiyats
he is their liberator and they credit him with extraordinary powers. He moves about the
villages asking them to lay their grievances before him, and he is transfiguring the
imagination of the masses of ignorant men.
The Champaran movement was the countrys first direct object lesson in civil disobedience
and its introduction to the leader who was destined to lead the nation to freedom through
Satyagraha. In the Champaran movement, Gandhi combined the socio-political awakening
amongst the farmers along with intensive constructive programmes which included education,
health, sanitation etc.
6.4 AHMEDABAD TEXTILE MILL LABOUR
SATYAGRAHA: February March 1918
While Gandhi was about to conclude his work in Champaran he received an urgent
appeal from the textile mill workers of Ahmedabad. The dispute arose between the textile
labourers and the textile mill owners of Ahmedabad. It began basically over the dearness
allowance payment to be made to the workers by the owners. Earlier during a plague
epidemic, the workers had been granted a special bonus, so that they would continue
working during the epidemic period and the bonus had continued even after the danger
from the disease had subsided. But in January 1918, the mill owners decided to withdraw
the same and in reply the workers asked for a 50 percent raise in their wages. Gandhi,
upon being informed of the situation, was asked to intervene, first by one of the mill
owners. He went to Ahmedabad and started investigating the matter thoroughly. After
having studied the cost of living and workers conditions, he concluded that an increase
of 35 percent was appropriate. He felt that the mill workers grievances were genuine and
the mill owners were unrelenting to redress those grievances.
Both sides agreed to submit the dispute to arbitration on behalf of the workers. In a
surprising move the mill owners declared that they would not abide by the arbitration and
threatened to dismiss all those workers who were not ready to accept a 20 percent
increase in the living allowance.
Gandhi advised the workers to demand no more and no less than a 35 percent increase
as their living allowance. Conflict followed the rejection of this demand by the mill owners
and Gandhi found himself leading the struggle of the mill-hands and advised them to go
on strike but by taking recourse to non-violence and self-support through other work to
sustain themselves (many of them helped in setting up a weaving school in Gandhis
Ashram) and not surrender until the raise of 35 percent was secured, and not to indulge
in quarrels, theft and destruction of mill owners property. Gandhis organised non-violent
struggle paid off with the use of Satyagraha as the technique to achieve a constructive
solution to a problem.
Return of Gandhi 71
Ek Tek (United resolve) was the slogan of the workers and Gandhi continuously guided
them towards peaceful agitation. Upon witnessing signs of cracking under pressure within
the ranks of striker, he declared his intention to fast till the settlement is reached. Fasting
for a specific purpose was another characteristic of the Mahatmas genius, which India
had witnessed in its use and effect for the first time during the Ahmedabad Satyagraha.
The general nature of every fast of Gandhi was that of a prayer for peace and sanity.
For Gandhi it had become a permanent element of his existence and during the course
of the independence movement led by him, the terrifying power of his fasting was
unleashed on the unsuspecting in such a way that almost the entire nation came to a
standstill, in remorse for its failings. In the Ahmedabad Satyagraha his fast resulted in the
settlement in favour of the striking mill workers amicably.
The Ahmedabad Labour Satyagraha established the strength of dealing with any kind of
conflict, where fasting proved to be a greatly effective weapon of non-violence with its
coercive character. The next important factor here was the truth factor, the justification
behind the demand of the self-suffering was present in the workers attitude. The workers
also received training in various forms of labour during the strike period, which included
carrying heavy loads of brick for a building at the Ashram, as well as weaving and other
ashram activities. The Satyagraha was effectively publicised through peace marches,
slogans of Ek tek and distribution of leaflets by the Satyagrahis. Throughout the peaceful
struggle, the initiative was with the Satyagrahis. This movement also highlights the role of
arbitration in disputes as to how it can help conclude a Satyagraha by a peaceful solution
to the conflict. The most tangible evidence of the success of the Ahmedabad Labour
Satyagraha is the development of the Ahmedabad Textile Labour Association during this
struggle in 1946, it was said that it was the most powerful labour union in the country
with a membership of 55,000; and it was recognised as outstanding for its indigenous
character.. and its system of joint arbitration and conciliation fostered by the influence
of Gandhi. The union is remarkable for its adherence to Gandhian principles of non-
violence for self-sustenance in cases of lockout, strike, loss of employment etc. These
trainings are also in keeping with the basics of Satyagraha and proved to be a practical
lesson in Gandhian principle of employee employer relationship and constructive
programme-based approach for improving the conditions of workers.
6.5 KHEDA SATYAGRAHA, March 22
nd
to June 6
th
1918
In 1918, large parts of Gujarat were affected by a severe famine and Kheda was the
worst hit district. The agrarian economy was devastated but the British Government of the
Bombay Presidency was least concerned about the plight of the poor farmers. It insisted
that the farmers not only pay full taxes but also that 23 percent increase effective from
that year was to be paid.
The peasants of Kheda wanted the revenue assessment for the year to be suspended on
account of crop failure due to the famine, but the government turned a deaf ear to their
plea. The peasants turned to Gandhi for help since petitions to the government and press
statements failed to have any effect. Gandhi felt that civil disobedience on a massive scale
was required to force the government into reasonableness and reduce the taxes. Gandhi
travelled through the affected villages and found that the plights of the farmers were
genuine and he advised them to refuse to pay undue taxes and also advised them to
remain non-violent in their protest.
A Satyagraha sabha was formed under his guidance to set up at Nadiad orphanage and
marked the beginning of his association with stalwarts like Vallabhbhai Patel and Mahadev
Desai. Among other followers were Anusuyaben, Shankarlal Banker, and Indulal Yajnik
who took the Satyagraha pledge and actively participated in the movement. Vallabhbhai
Patel emerged as the chief organiser of the Satyagraha who, giving up on his western
lifestyles of a well established barrister, became one with the poor peasants, walking from
village to village giving strength to the farmers to remain firm on their demands.
The methods applied for Satyagraha were peaceful protest meetings, negotiations, assessment
of facts by public enquiry, formation of political associations, no-tax campaign, courting
arrest, printing and distribution of pamphlets, prayer for self-purification etc. The refusal
to revenue payment made the government resort to police action and intimidation squads
to seize property, cattle as well as whole farms. These officers even attached the standing
crops of the farmers. An official had attached a crop of onions and Gandhi felt it was
permissible for a good Satyagrahi to go out at night and remove the onions because the
attachment was unfairly made. The onion thief Mohanlal Pandya, a lawyer Satyagrahi
was arrested for this crime and given ten days simple imprisonment. Thousands of farmers
and Satyagraha activists were arrested but there was no violent incident on the part of
the protesters. The revolt evoked great sympathy all over the country, and finally the
Government relented and suspended the payment of revenue for the poor farmers.
This Satyagraha, though not as categorically clear cut as the other movements, taught the
peasants to fight for their rights by shedding their lethargy as well as the lesson of self-
reliance and self-confidence. The power of mass action was once again pitted against the
might and emerged victorious.
6.6 THE ROWLATT SATYAGRAHA (1
st
March to 18
th
April 1919)
The infamous Rowlatt Bill was the outcome of the recommendation made by the Sedition
Committee presided over by Sir Rowlatt in 1918, and was prepared to strengthen the
hand of the government in the control of crime and sedition. The Rowlatt Act (Govt. of
India Act No XI of 1919) was formed to enable an archical offences to be tried
expeditiously before a strong court, consisting of three High Court Judges, with no right
to appeal. It also provided powers of preventive detention - the arrest and confinement
of persons suspected of acts threatening public safety, and also the power to ask such
people to furnish security, reside in a particular place or to abstain from any specified act.
The Act also provided the authorities to detain dangerous persons.
The Rowlatt Bill totally denied civil liberties to Indians and was also responsible for
bringing Gandhi into active Indian politics. The report of the Rowlatt Committee
recommended an extension into peacetime of all the wartime rules in suppression of free
speech, freedom of the press and the right of assembly. Gandhi called the passing of the
Rowlatt Act as a farce of legal formality.
This was the turning point in Gandhis life as a strong political force in India as well as
the entire world and became instrumental in bringing himto the mainstreampolitics of the
country. Faced with a political situation of grave importance, he realised that the time
might have arrived for the application of the principles of Satyagraha on a national level.
He travelled through the country to prepare people for a mass movement against the
Return of Gandhi 73
Rowlatt Bill. Inspite of official and unofficial appeals, the Viceroy signed the bill on March
18, 1919 and the Rowlatt Act became law.
To Gandhi, the repressive Rowlatt Bills were a direct breach of faith and betrayal of trust.
Continued British audacities, the J allianwala Bagh massacre at Amritsar and the rousing
discontent simmering in the country were instrumental in bringing Gandhi into the forefront
of national leadership leading India to its logical historical destiny through a series of mass
movements. Gandhi drafted and circulated a pledge of resistance to the Rowlatt Bill: In
the event of these Bills becoming law and until they are withdrawn we shall refuse civilly
to obey these laws and such other laws as a committee to be hereafter appointed may
think fit, and further affirmthat in this struggle we shall faithfully follow truth and refrain
from violence to life, person and property (cit in BR Nanda, p.109).
The idea of Hartal to protest against the Rowlatt Act on 6
th
April 1919 was unique and
the response to this call was widespread. Gandhi writes in his Autobiography the
beginning of the Rowlatt Satyagraha in this context thus: The idea came to me last night
that we should call upon the country to observe a general hartal. Satyagraha is a
process of self-purification, and ours is a sacred fight, and it seems to me to be in the
fitness of things that it should be commenced with an act of self-purification. Let all the
people of India, therefore, suspend their business on that day and observe the day as one
of fasting and prayer. The Musalmans may not fast for more than one day; so the
duration of the fast should be 24 hours. It is very difficult to say whatever all the
provinces would respond to this appeal of ours or not, but I feel fairly sure of Bombay,
Madras, Bihar and Sindh. I think we should have every reason to feel satisfied even if
all these places observe the hartal fittingly. Accordingly, the entire country, barring a few
exceptions went on massive strike. In the big cities people did not go to work, banks
could not operate, ships were neither loaded or unloaded, public transportation stood still,
post offices were not working. That there was an astonishing non-activity in almost every
sphere of life proved beyond doubt that a new active force was in operation. The
bewildered British authorities tried to treat it as sedition but realised that it was
something much more powerful and effective than mere Sedition.
The immediate objective of this Satyagraha was the withdrawal of the enacted Bill which
was passed to cope with Anarchical and Revolutionary Crime and the prevention of the
passage of the second Bill; and the long-term objective of the entire movement was to
mobilise support and intensify political awareness. In a way, it heralded a new era in the
nationalist struggle for freedom. The movement saw the massive participation of millions
of Indians across the country led by Gandhi and the nationalist leaders. The official British
report of the movement makes mention of the unprecedented fraternization between
Hindus and Muslims, women and children also came out of homes to take part in the
Satyagraha. The Satyagraha pledge emphasising adherence to truth and non-violence was
taken by the protesters and the mass participation was initiated by a day of humiliation
and prayer with Satyagrahis taking up a 24 hour fast to strengthen themselves for
offering civil disobedience. Thousands of volunteers sold copies of the books Swaraj
and Sarvodaya on the streets. The government was jolted out of its complacency to see
the war time recruiting sergeant of the Empire turning into a rebel.
The enthusiasm generated by his appeal for hartal gradually escalated towards violence
when the news of Gandhis arrest spread like wildfire. Following a widespread violence
across India, Gandhi appealed to people to adhere to truth and non-violence, but soon
realised that people were too excited to listen to his voice of sanity. As a result he
suspended the Satyagraha movement and undertook a three-day fast as penance for the
violence committed by the people.
On 13
th
April 1919 when Gandhi had announced his three-day fast decision in Ahmedabad,
a horrifying massacre of innocent citizens took place in the city of Amritsar. A peaceful
gathering of people had assembled at the Jallianwala Bagh to celebrate Baisakhi and also
discuss the participation in anti-Rowlatt agitations. Brigadier General Reginald Dyer, who
had been given the task of maintaining peace and order in the area, learnt about the
meeting at Jallianwala Bagh and regarded it as a deliberate defiance of prohibitory orders
regarding public meetings. He sent troops and ordered indiscriminate firing upon the
crowd till all ammunition was expended, with no forewarning. In this gruesome display of
British atrocity, the official count registered 400 dead and one to two thousand injured
but the unofficial inquiry conducted by Gandhi himself estimated 1200 dead and 3600
wounded.
The atrocities continued which included public stripping and flogging of Indians and
General Dyers infamous Crawling orders on a particular street in Amritsar where a
mob had beaten up an English woman. Indians were made to crawl on all fours on this
street as punishment. The British Government appointed the Hunter Committee to look
into the Punjab atrocities but Gandhi and other national leaders boycotted it and
constituted a parallel enquiry committee on behalf of the congress to look into the matter.
It comprised of Sh. Motilal Nehru, Sh. C. R. Das, Abbas Tyabji, Mr. J ayakar and
Gandhi, and its findings were not disproved at all.
This tragic incident proved beyond doubt that there was no hope in the British
Government. The British officials, suffering pangs of guilt and with a desire to do better
for India in future, brought in the same year, 1919 the Montague Chelmsford Reforms
offering Indians a constitution and a share in the Government but it was more an eyewash
than a genuine offer. Gandhi advised the leaders of the Indian National Congress to
make a success of the new instalment of reforms granted by the British Government and
thus prepare for a fuller measure of responsibility (BR Nanda, p.112).
6.7 SUMMARY
Undoubtedly the non-cooperation movements as initiated by Gandhi helped the common
man gain strength, confidence and courage to raise his voice against injustice and violation
of his natural rights. The leaders of the Congress shed their elitist attitudes and became
one with the masses of the country, serving themand providing leadership to them, as the
movements were unprecedented revolts against the British rule in India. Prisons became
like a pilgrimage for the freedom fighters, Swadeshi feeling gripped the nation with great
fervour and the nation hummed to the lyrical chants of the Charkha. The educational
institutions of the country became the training grounds of the patriotic national movement
for freedom. From Champaran to Non-cooperation movement and to last, Gandhis
methods ensured non-violent struggles and an indomitable spirit.
1. Champaran was the beginning of Gandhis Satyagraha in India. Discuss it at length.
2. Examine the Satyagraha struggles in Ahmedabad textile mills and Kheda and their
relevance.
3. Discuss at length the Rowlatt Satyagraha.
Return of Gandhi 75
SUGGESTED READINGS
1. Homer, A J ack., (ed) Gandhi Reader I, Indiana University Press, USA, 1961
2. Gandhi, M.K., My Experiments with Truth, Navajivan Publishing House, 1961 edition
3. Anand,Y.P., Mahatma Gandhi and Satyagraha A Compendium, National Gandhi
Museum, New Delhi, 2006
4. Sheean, Vincent., Mahatma Gandhi- A Great Life in Brief, Publications Division,
2005
5. Bondurant, Joan V., Conquest of Violence The Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict,
Oxford University Press, 1959
6. Kripalani, Krishna., Gandhi- a Life Revisited, Mehta Publications, New Delhi, 1983
7. Payne, Robert., Life and Death of Mahatma Gandhi, Rupa & Co, New Delhi, 1969
(reprint, New Delhi, 2008)
8. Nanda, B.R., Mahatma Gandhi-A Biography, Oxford University Press, New Delhi,
2004 edition.
UNIT 7 KHILAFAT AND NON-COOPERATION
MOVEMENTS
Structure
7.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
7.2 Beginnings of the Khilafat Movement
7.3 Background to the Non-Cooperation Movement
7.4 Convergence of the Two Movements under Gandhis Leadership
7.5 Main Phases, 1920-22
7.6 Role of the Movements in the Anti-Imperialist Struggles
7.7 Summary
Suggested Readings
7.1 INTRODUCTION
Khilafat and Non-cooperation movements were important milestones in the history of
modern India. Both these movements ushered in a new era of mass mobilisation and
shaped the future of Indian polity in important ways. In a way, the non-cooperation
movement emerged out of the Khilafat and anti-Rowlatt movements. In fact, it was the
Khilafat Conference which earlier adopted the non-cooperation programme. However, it
could become a full-fledged movement only after the Congress decided to adopt it.
Moreover, when Mahatma Gandhi withdrew it and the Congress ratified the withdrawal,
the non-cooperation movement ended, whereas the Khilafat movement continued beyond
this. Thus, the Khilafat movement had originated earlier and lasted longer than the non-
cooperation movement. Although their trajectories were somewhat different, both were
anti-imperialist movements and were brought together during 1920-22, under the leadership
of Gandhi. In fact, in the absence of Gandhi, it might not be possible to imagine a
successful convergence of these two anti-imperialist streams.
Aims and Objectives
After reading this Unit, you would be able to:
Discuss the causes for the emergence of the Khilafat and non-cooperation movements.
Outline the course they adopted,
Point out the significance of Mahatma Gandhis leadership for both the movements,
and
Describe their impact on the Indian people and the colonial state.
7.2 BEGINNINGS OF THE KHILAFAT MOVEMENT
The Khilafat movement in India arose out of the sentiments of the Indian Muslims to
protect the institution of the Khalifa in Turkey. The Khalifa in Islamic tradition was
considered as the successor to the Prophet Muhammad, the commander of the believers
and the custodian and protector of the Muslim holy places. In the nineteenth century, the
Ottoman Empire was the only Islamic empire and, therefore, the Sultan of Turkey was
held in great esteem by the Muslims as the Khalifa. As Turkey was defeated in the First
World War and it was certain that the victorious Allies would impose strict terms on it,
the Muslims in India launched the Khilafat movement to pressurise the British government
to be lenient and preserve the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire and the institution
of Khalifa.
The ideological origins of the Khilafat movement have been explained in two ways. On
the one hand, scholars have located it in the pan-Islamic sentiments and movements
across the world and its outward nature. On the other hand, some historians have
emphasised its inward character and its efforts to use pan-Islamic symbols to build a pan-
Indian Muslimidentity and to bring it in sync with Indian nationalism. In fact, both these
trends were not contradictory. The Khilafat may be seen as the attempt on the part of
the Indian Muslim leadership to bring their pan-Islamic and Indian nationalist sentiments
together. It was this synthesis that brought about the major mass mobilisation in 1919 and
thereafter.
This quest for the unity of the Indian Muslims found a religious centre in the office of the
Khalifa and in the person of Turkeys Sultan. Since the late nineteenth century, there was
a widespread acknowledgement among the Indian Sunni Muslims of the Turkeys Sultan
as Khalifa who would protect the Muslim holy places. Thus, pan-Islamic sentiments
surged among the Indian Muslimleaders whenever Turkey was involved in hostilities, for
example, during the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78 and the Greco-Turkish war of 1897.
During 1911-13, a series of Balkan wars created fears in the minds of Muslim leaders
that the Christian powers were attempting to crush the Ottoman Empire and the Khalifa.
During and after the First World War, these sentiments again came to the fore. Turkey
was part of the Axis powers along with Germany and Austria which fought against Britain
and its allies. After its victory in the War, the British government removed the Khalifa
from power in Turkey. There were also talks about imposition of a harsh peace treaty
on Turkey which would deprive it of territories and influence. Under these circumstances,
a widespread movement among the Indian Muslims developed which demanded that the
Khalifa must retain control over the Muslimholy places and that sufficient territories must
be left with the Khalifa to enable him to defend such territories. This movement, known
as the Khilafat movement, quickly spread among the elite as well as among the urban
popular classes and the ulama (lit. Muslim religious scholars). The British government was
declared an enemy; Khilafat funds were flooded with money and ornaments; the Khilafat
meetings were attended by thousands of people, and thousands from the border areas
migrated from the land of enemy (Dar al-Harb) to the land of Islam (Dar al-Islam).
The movement derived its leadership from two streams, both involved in educational
reforms for the Muslims in the wake of the colonial rule. One was the Aligarh-based
Westernising intelligentsia which advocated English education and canvassed for employment
in government services. The other was ulama, or Muslim religious scholars, who attempted
to strengthen the traditional Islamic system of education, based on Madrasas and were
opposed to the English education and Western manners. The presence of these two types
of leadership created a variation in the movement. While the Western-educated leadership
generally sought moderation, the ulama provided a radical edge to the movement.
However, both these streams, at that moment of time, were united in their anti-British
stance and in their support for a pan-Islamic cause.
In order to properly organise the movement, the leadership established two all-India
bodies the All-India Khilafat Committee and the Jamiat al-Ulama-e-Hind. The earlier
Muslim political organisation Muslim League was completely overshadowed by these
two organisations until the mid-1920s. In 1919, the drive to mobilise the Muslim
community for Khilafat demands began successfully. However, it was quite clear that the
fight against the British could not succeed unless the non-Muslim Indians were also
mobilised in a broader anti-imperialist struggle. At that point of time, the Congress as a
nationalist organisation and Mahatma Gandhi as the most acceptable leader were highly
revered. Gandhi was willing to lead the Khilafat movement, but the Congress was not yet
prepared for an all-India movement. However, various other circumstances made it
possible for the many anti-imperialist organisations to come together on one platform.
7.3 BACKGROUND TO THE NON-COOPERATION
MOVEMENT
The Khilafat movement, besides its pan-Islamic character, was also deeply anti-imperialist
and nationalist in its impulse. Beside this, there were several other factors which gave rise
to intense anti-imperialist feelings among the Indian people in general. The economic and
political situation of the country during and after the First World War created dissatisfaction
against the British rule. The prices of commodities rose sharply during and after the War
creating much hardship for the people. Moreover, the peasantry in some areas was also
restive due to increasingly high demand of rents and taxes. This was reflected in the
agitations by peasants and workers in various parts of country like Champaran, Kheda,
Ahmedabad, Bombay, Madras, etc.
The political optimism of the War years also received severe setback when the British
government backtracked on its promises to consider nationalist demands in return for the
Indian support in the War. The Montague-Chelmsford Reforms, which resulted in the
Government of India Act 1919, disillusioned the nationalists who had expected much more
in the direction of self-government. The Indian National Congress, in a special session at
Bombay in August 1918, condemned these proposals as disappointing and unsatisfactory
and demanded effective self-government.
As if to add insult to injury the colonial government passed the Rowlatt Act in March
1919, which empowered the government to arrest and imprison any person without trial.
The Act was passed even when the Indian members in the Central Legislative Council
opposed it. This incensed the Indian people and a widespread unrest followed. Under the
leadership of Gandhi, a countrywide Satyagraha was held. There were huge meetings,
demonstrations and strikes which sometimes also resulted in violence.
The massacre by the colonial government of peaceful protestors at J allianwala Bagh in
Punjab proved to be the last straw. On 13 April 1919, a huge but peaceful crowd
gathered at Amritsar in the Jallianwala Bagh to protest against the arrest of their leaders
who were participating in the anti-Rowlatt agitations. General Dyer ordered his troops to
fire on the unarmed people. Hundreds were killed and thousands injured in the firing.
Khilafat and Non-Cooperation Movement of 1920 79
Such brutality shocked the entire nation and ripped open the mask of civilisation the
British government was wearing. The great poet, Rabindranath Tagore renounced his
knighthood in protest and declared thus: I, for my part, wish to stand, shorn of all
special distinctions, by the side of my countrymen. Similar sentiments were widespread
and it was time for an all-India nationalist movement to emerge.
7.4 CONVERGENCE OF THE TWO MOVEMENTS
UNDER GANDHIS LEADERSHIP
Gandhi emerged on the national political scene after his constructive intervention in the
peasants and workers struggles in Champaran, Kheda and Ahmedabad. After the War,
he was emerging as almost a consensus candidate for the leadership of the Congress,
particularly due to the ill-health of Bal Gangadhar Tilak. His belief in non-violence and his
method of struggle through Satyagraha had also become known to people. The anti-
Rowlatt agitation and the Khilafat movement were two widespread mobilisations after the
War which were directed against the colonial government, and Gandhi played a major
role in both of these. It may be said that it was his leadership that made the convergence
of the two anti-imperialist streams nationalist and the Khilafat possible during this
period.
The Khilafat leaders were very keen, right from the beginning, to get the support of the
Hindus for their cause. In this effort, they found Gandhi as their staunchest ally. He further
tried to join the nationalist demand for self-rule to the Muslim assertion over Khilafat
question. He declared that In the proper solution of the Mahomedan question lies the
realisation of Swarajya [in Minault, 68]. This endeavour brought about an unprecedented
Hindu-Muslimunity which was reflected in the subsequent mass mobilisations against the
colonial rule. During the anti-Rowlatt agitations, Hindus and Muslims demonstrated
together, and symbols of unity were made overtly public. The Khilafat leaders exhorted
the Muslims not to kill cows for the Bakr-Id festival; an Arya Samaj leader, Swami
Shraddhanand, was requested to give a speech from the pulpit of Jama Masjid in Delhi;
in Amritsar, Dr. Saifuddin Kitchlew was given the keys of the Golden Temple; in Calcutta,
Hindus were admitted for the first time to the Nakhuda Mosque; in Bombay, the leaders
of both communities actively tried to sell banned political literature. There were similar
shows of unity throughout the movement.
On 20 March 1919, a Khilafat Committee was formed in Bombay. Prominent local
Muslim merchants were on the Committee which initially took a moderate stand, and their
activities were restricted to meetings, petitions and deputations to secure a better
treatment for Turkey at the Peace Conference. It was, however, the ulama-driven militant
trend which pushed the movement beyond its narrow confines. The advocates of a militant
movement gave whole-hearted support to the anti-Rowlatt agitation and wanted to launch
a non-cooperation movement against the colonial government. An all-India Khilafat Day
was observed on 17 October 1919 which was a huge success. The markets were closed
and fasting, prayers, meetings and hartals were observed. In Delhi, Madras and Bombay,
there were huge audiences, who gathered to hear their leaders. It was clear that the new
Muslim leadership was reaching a much broader urban audience. In its wake, an all-India
Khilafat Conference was organised in Delhi on 23-24 November 1919 in which Gandhi
was also called. The Conference passed some important resolutions in case unjust
treatment was meted out to Turkey during the peace settlement: boycott of peace
celebrations by Muslims, non-cooperation with the government, and the boycott of British
goods. Gandhi was declared as the leader under whose guidance the movement would
be carried forward and who commanded the respect of both the Hindus and the Muslims.
Gandhi himself wanted all-round support for his nationalist cause and, therefore, he was
not averse to the idea of bringing the two movements together provided they conformed
to his method of politics. Thus, early in 1920, he declared that the Khilafat issue was
more important than constitutional reforms and even the Punjab atrocities, and he was
prepared to launch a movement of non-cooperation if the peace terms were antagonistic
to the interests of Turkey. Besides this, other issues necessitating a wider movement were
also present. The government had refused to rescind the Rowlatt Act, the Hunter
Committee appointed to enquire into the Punjab atrocities tried to shield the guilty, the
British House of Lords had voted in favour of General Dyers heinous crimes, and in
Britain, 30,000 pounds had been collected from the public as a gift to Dyer.
The terms of the Peace Treaty, which became public in May 1920, were a blow to the
wishes of the Khilafat leaders. The Ottoman Empire controlled by the Turks was
dismembered. The Arab countries were declared independent of the Ottoman Empire;
Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia were put under French and British mandates; Eastern
Trace and Smyrna were ceded to Greece; and although Constantinople remained with
Turkey, the Straits were internationalised. Such disregard of their sentiments hurt most of
the Indian Muslims very much. In a series of meetings held by the Khilafat Conference
and in a meeting held along with Congress members on 1-2 June 1920 in Allahabad, it
was decided to begin a programme of non-cooperation towards the government which
would include:
renunciation of titles conferred by the government,
resignation from all kinds of government jobs, including military and police, and
Non-payment of taxes to the government.
Both Gandhi and the Khilafat leaders were keen to start the non-cooperation movement
as soon as possible. However, for this, the support of the Congress was necessary.
Certain leaders of the Congress were opposed to this move as they felt that a movement
on a religious issue like the Khilafat would not be conducive for the growth of the Indian
polity. Their apprehensions were justified to some extent. The vocabulary of the Khilafat
movement was entirely Muslim-oriented and filled with Islamic ideology and rhetoric. The
arguments of even the best nationalists among them, such as Maulana Azad, were in
support of allying with one set of non-Muslims (i.e., the Hindus) against another set of
non-Muslims (i.e., the British). Through the entire course of the movement, the emphasis
was on the separate existence of two communities and the need to unite them against the
British who were considered as aggressors against both the Khalifa in Turkey and the
Muslims and Hindus in India. So, although the Khilafat movement was anti-imperialist in
orientation, the language of its articulation was basically Islamic.
However, at another level, strong nationalist sentiments were expressed during the course
of the movement and constant appeals for communal amity were made. Moreover, the
Khilafat leaders whole-heartedly supported the nationalist anti-imperialist movement like
Rowlatt Satyagraha launched by Gandhi and the Congress and exhorted the Muslims to
fully participate in this which resulted in the immense success of this agitation. Gandhi and
Shaukat Ali together toured throughout the country mobilising support for the cause of
non-cooperation. Other Khilafat leaders were also active in rallying support for the cause
under the leadership of Gandhi. Thus, it may be said that during the summer of the 1920,
there was a convergence of these two movements.
7.5 MAIN PHASES, 1920-22
The non-cooperation movement was formally launched on 1 August 1920. That day was
also marked by the death of Lokmanya Tilak, which witnessed strikes and processions
to mourn the passing way of this great national leader.
A special session of the Congress was held in Calcutta in September 1920 to finally
deliberate and decide the issue of non-cooperation. It gave its assent to non-cooperation,
despite some opposition by those interested in Council entry. By the time of the regular
Congress Session in December 1920 held at Nagpur, the programme of non-cooperation
was accepted without opposition. It involved the surrender of government titles and
honorary positions, boycott of government schools and colleges, law courts, and foreign
cloth. It could also be extended to include resignation fromgovernment service and non-
payment of government taxes. Moreover, it was decided to set up national schools and
colleges, establish and strengthen the panchayats for settlement of disputes, promotion of
hand spinning and weaving, condemnation and renunciation of untouchability, maintenance
of communal amity and strict observance of non-violence. Thus, for the first time, an open
extra-constitutional programme of mass mobilisation was started by the Congress.
From January to March 1921, the main emphasis of the movement was on the boycott
of government schools, colleges and law courts, and the use of charkha. Thousands of
students left schools and colleges and joined 800 national schools and colleges that had
come up throughout the country. There were massive student strikes in Calcutta and
Lahore, and the educational boycott was particularly successful in Bengal and Punjab.
Although the boycott of the law courts was not as successful, many leading lawyers of
the country like C.R. Das, Motilal Nehru, Saifuddin Kitchlew, C. Rajagopalachari, M.R.
Jayakar, Vallabhbhai Patel, Asaf Ali and T. Prakasham quit their practice. The boycott of
foreign cloth became a very successful programme. Thousands of volunteers moved from
house to house trying to convince people about the necessity to adopt Swadeshi. The
foreign-made clothes were collected and set on fire. There was also picketing of shops
selling foreign cloth. The impact of this was enormous. The value of import of such
merchandise fell from Rs. 102 crore in 1920-21 to Rs. 57 crore in 1921-22. Import of
British cotton piece goods declined from 1292 million yards in 1920-21 to 955 million
in 1921-22. Many merchants took vow not to deal in foreign cloth. Another type of
boycott movement was against liquor and toddy shops leading to a substantial fall in
government revenue. Excise revenue declined in Punjab by Rs. 33 lakhs and in Madras
by about Rs. 65 lakhs.
The next phase of the movement may be said to have started from the Vijayawada
session of the Congress held in March 1921. It was decided to concentrate in the next
three months on enrolling one crore members for the party, collecting one crore rupees
for the Tilak Swaraj Fund and distributing and installing 20 lakh charkhas. This phase
also achieved its objectives to a large extent. Tilak fund was oversubscribed, 50 lakh
members were enrolled and charkhas were widely popularised and khadi became the
dress of the movement.
The third phase of the movement witnessed its high points in a challenging speech by
Mohammed Ali in July 1921 declaring it religiously unlawful for the Muslims to continue
in the British Army and asking them to resign and to take part in the successful boycott
of the visit of the Prince of Wales in November 1921. The colonial government
immediately arrested Mohammed Ali along with some other leaders. Another important
nationalist campaign during this phase was against the visit by the Prince of Wales. As
soon as he landed in Bombay on 17 November, he was greeted with city-wide strikes
and demonstrations which sometimes culminated in riots. Wherever he went, there were
strikes and demonstrations.
In the fourth phase, both the non-cooperators and the government appeared in
confrontationist mood. Khilafat leaders like Hasrat Mohani were in favour of demanding
complete independence from the British rule. At the ground level the Congress was
influential among a very large number of people and its Volunteer Corps became almost
a parallel police force. The Congress had sanctioned its provincial committees to start civil
disobedience movement wherever it was felt necessary. The government, on the other
hand, had started using repression as its official policy. There were large-scale arrests, ban
on meetings and prohibition of the volunteer corps. The threat of violence on both sides
was increasing and it was extremely disturbing to Gandhi who not only abhorred violence
particularly among the non-cooperators but also feared that intensive state repression
would crush the movement. His apprehensions proved correct when on 5 February 1922,
in Chauri-Chaura in Gorakhpur district, the police provoked a crowd of demonstrators.
The people attacked the policemen who then fired on them. Angered by this, the people
set fire to the police station building in which many policemen died. When Gandhi heard
about this violent incident, he decided to withdraw the movement which was later ratified
by the Congress Working Committee.
Soon after Gandhi was arrested on 10 March 1922 and was sentenced to 6 years in jail.
The Khilafat movement also declined due to several national and international factors. The
withdrawal of non-cooperation was a severe blow and the Khilafat leaders reacted angrily
to the decision of the withdrawal. Even the international situation was not favourable. The
Turks themselves, under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal, first abolished the Ottoman
sultanate in 1922 and then did away with the office of the Khalifa itself in 1924. After
this, there was little justification for the movement to continue.
7.6 ROLE OF THE MOVEMENTS IN THE ANTI-
IMPERIALIST STRUGGLES
The Khilafat and non-cooperation movements played extremely important role in generating
and spreading anti-imperialist consciousness among the Indian people. To begin with, there
was a remarkable unity between various communities. The Hindus and Muslims together
participated in the movement throughout the country and often it was difficult to distinguish
between non-cooperation and Khilafat meetings. Despite the Malabar happenings, in
which the Muslim peasants revolted against their largely Hindu landlords and killed and
converted scores of them, the Hindu-Muslim unity remained intact throughout the period.
At some places, two-thirds of those arrested during the non-cooperation movement were
Muslims. Gandhi played the most important role in bringing about and sustaining this
relationship.
Another important issue which the non-cooperation movement brought to the fore was the
need to fight against caste discrimination and untouchability. Gandhi must be credited for
emphatically bringing this issue to the forefront of the national politics for the first time.
From then on this issue would remain quite important for the nationalist politics. The need
for social justice was clearly acknowledged, pushed forward and was later enshrined in
the Constitution of independent India.
Strong anti-colonial movements were afoot among various sections of population. Peasants
and workers were particularly active during this period, besides the middle classes in both
the urban and rural areas. Several peasant and worker movements occurred during this
period. In 1921 alone there were 396 strikes involving 600,351 workers and a loss of
6,994,426 workdays. Peasant movements were even more prominent. In the Awadh
region of the United Provinces, in Mewar in Rajasthan, and in many districts of north
Bihar, there were very strong peasant movements involving millions of people.
Even in the urban areas the participation by various middle class groups was unprecedented
throughout the country. Moreover, Gandhis insistence on non-violence brought a large
number of women into the movement. Such mobilisation of women was a very significant
phenomenon both for the nationalist movement as well as for the liberation of women
from the boundaries of their houses.
Thus, these movements under the leadership of Gandhi revolutionised the structure of
Indian politics in several ways. The most significant success of the movement should be
located in its mobilisation of various sections of people across the country and the
creation of political and social consciousness in them. The common people now became
integral to the project of nationalism.
7.7 SUMMARY
The Khilafat issue was of central concern to the Indian Muslims in the wake of the British
pressure on Turkey and the impending reduction in size of the Ottoman Empire after the
First World War. These religious sentiments became even more intensified due to Britains
presence as a colonial power in India. Thus, the religious and anti-imperialist feelings of
Indian Muslims produced a very strong reaction against the British colonial rule. On the
other hand, the failure of the colonial government to fulfill their promise of some measure
of self-government for the Indians after the War created resentment among politically
active groups. In addition to this, the Rowlatt Act further hurt the feelings of a large
number of Indians, and the Jallianwala Bagh massacre following the anti-Rowlatt agitation
was the last straw. At this moment, Gandhi provided an able leadership and united various
strands of these anti-imperialist movements which developed into the non-cooperation
movement involving millions of rural and urban people across the country. Although the
movement failed to attain its objectives of either saving the Khalifa or to secure self-
government for India, it mobilised a large number of people and imbued them with
consciousness about their political rights. The small, powerless people in the dusty corners
of the country stood against the mightiest of the empires in the world and raised their
voice for freedom. In itself, it was the most significant achievement any movement could
aspire to.
1) Discuss the nature of the Khilafat movement and its role in formation of the non-
cooperation movement.
2) What was the programme of the non-cooperation movement?
3) What were the major achievements of the non-cooperation movement?
SUGGESTED READINGS
1. Chandra, Bipan, et al., Indias Struggle for Independence 1857-1947, Penguin
Books, New Delhi, 1989.
2. Chandra, Bipan, Amles Tripathi, Barun De., Freedom Struggle, NBT, New Delhi,
1972, 1977.
3. Chandra, Bipan., Modern India, NCERT, New Delhi, 1971, 1976.
4. Minault, Gail., The Khilafat Movement: Religious Symbolism and Political
Mobilisation in India, OUP, Delhi, 1982.
5. Hasan, Mushirul., Pan-Islamism versus Indian Nationalism, Economic and Political
Weekly, J une 14, 1986.
6. Hasan, Mushirul., Religion and Politics: The Ulama and Khilafat Movement,
Economic and Political Weekly, May 16, 1981.
7. Sarkar, Sumit., Modern India, Macmillan, Madras, 1983, 1985.
UNIT 8 CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE MOVEMENT OF
1930
Structure
8.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
8.2 Resolution for Purna Swaraj
8.3 Beginning of the Civil Disobedience Movement
8.4 Varied Responses to the Movement
8.5 Gandhi-Irwin Pact
8.6 The Second Round Table Conference
8.7 Resuming the Civil Disobedience Movement
8.8 Summary
Suggested Readings
8.1 INTRODUCTION
The Civil Disobedience movement (1930-34) was the second mass movement, launched
by the Indian National Congress under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, after a gap
of about eight years, when the last mass movement known as the Non-cooperation-
Khilafat movement was withdrawn in the wake of the famous Chauri-Chaura incident,
which had taken place on 5
th
February 1922. After the withdrawal of this movement, the
Indian National Congress in general and Gandhi in particular, were engaged in stemming
the growing tide of communal problem in the country. During this period the Mahatma
was also engaged in certain social questions such as eradication of untouchability, which
he perceived as the scourge of the Indian society. However, there was not much of
political activity involving the masses on a large scale and this opportunity came with the
appointment of an all-white commission known as the Simon Commission, charged with
the task of making an evaluation of the functioning of the Government of India Act 1919
also known as Montague-Chelmsford reforms and thereupon making recommendations to
bring about possible amendments. However, the all-white composition of this Commission
provoked the Indian political opinion across the board barring some exception. The slogan
commonly heard in the streets was, Simon go back. In the face of total disregard for
Indian political opinion in constituting this Commission, it was resolved by the Congress
that Indians themselves would formulate a constitution for which collaboration with other
political parties was necessary and for this a mechanism was brought in place. Pandit
Motilal Nehru became the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, which was also known
as the Nehru Committee, with other members. This exercise of the constitution making
could not take off due to internal wrangling among various groups on the grounds of
better representation of communities and thus, a historic opportunity was lost. This loss
of legal-constitutional opportunity was because of involvement of other political formations
whereas launching a nation-wide political movement was well within the control of the
Congress and it resolved to do so in 1930.
Aims and Objectives
The background to and beginning of the civil disobedience movement
The varied responses to the movement and
The consequent events that followed the movement.
8.2 RESOLUTION FOR PURNA SWARAJ
The launching of the Civil Disobedience movement took place in 1930, as a consequence
of the resolution of the Indian National Congress passed at its session at Lahore that now
onwards its main objective would be to seek Purna Swaraj, complete independence. It
was for the first time the Congress had made this declaration in such an open manner.
At midnight of 31 December 1930, it adopted the tricolour as the national flag of India.
With the declaration of the Purna Swaraj, as its goal and adoption of a national flag,
it geared up to prepare for a long haul of another round of struggle to seek independence.
The Congress authorised the All-India Congress Committee to launch the Civil Disobedience
Movement, while it asked its members in the central and provincial legislatures to resign
their seats.
It was a landmark decision of the Congress to demand the complete independence.
However, this demand alone was not going to produce an immediate result without a
sustained campaign for it, which was to be launched under the leadership of Gandhi.
Given the mood in the party, it would have seemed ideal for him to launch a movement
straight away, which he did not do. Instead he retired to his Sabarmati Ashram to
contemplate over the possibility of launching an agitation for which creating a moral
climate of non-violence was a pre-condition. Another crucial step taken in this direction
was to observe 26
th
J anuary 1930 as Independence Day, for which series of meetings
were organised not only in the urban but also in rural areas. On all such occasions the
national flag was unfurled and proclamation for independence was made. Within a week
of observing the Independence Day, Gandhi served a memorandum on the Viceroy, Lord
Irwin on 31 J anuary 1930, which did not even remotely mention the resolve to attain
Purna Swaraj. This memorandum contained 11 points, which were as follows: 1. Total
prohibition. 2. Reduction of exchange ratio to 1s. 4d. 3. Reduction of land revenue by
50%. 4. Abolition of the salt tax. 5. Reduction of military expenditure by fifty percent to
begin with. 6. Reduction of salaries of the highest-grade services by half. 7. Protective
tariff on foreign cloth. 8. Passage of the Coastal Traffic Reservation Bill. 9. Discharge of
all political prisoners except those condemned for murder. 10. Abolition of the C.I.D. 11.
Issue of licenses to use firearms, for self-defence. The attainment of Purna Swaraj was
nowhere mentioned. Questions arose as to how Gandhi was going to get complete
independence, if he did not even address this question in the memorandum to the Viceroy.
Many took it as a kind of retreat from the stated position of the Indian National
Congress. Yet it is possible to argue that these eleven points as enunciated by Gandhi in
more ways than one concretised the national demand as they also pertained to specific
grievances of different sections of the society. For instance demands such as 50% cut in
army expenses and civil services salaries, total prohibition, release of political prisoners,
Civil Disobedience Movement of 1930 87
reforms or the abolition of the C.I.D., and the changes in the arms Act, allowing the
popular control of issues of firearms licenses pertained to general interest of the common
masses of Indians. There were three demands, which were quite specific to the interest
of the capitalists. For instance, lowering of the rupee-sterling exchanger ratio to 1s 4d,
textile protection and reservation of coastal shipping for Indians were such which would
have benefited this class only. However there were still some other demands, which
concerned the peasantry alone, such as 50% reduction in land revenue and the abolition
of the salt tax and the Government monopoly on salt.
Following the serving of this memorandum, Gandhi waited for a positive response from
the Viceroy to these demands; however the Government did not respond and Gandhi was
left with no option but to think of a strategy to launch a movement. Gandhi seriously
contemplated on the issue or symbol to mobilise the masses and zeroed on salt which
was taxed by the Government and reflected on this issue most imaginatively: There is no
article like salt outside water by taxing which the state can reach even the starving
millions, the sick, the maimed and utterly helpless. The tax constitutes therefore the most
inhuman poll tax ingenuity of man can devise. Apart from the reason of taxing an item
of common use such as salt, there were other reasons for the choice of salt as the
symbol of an unfolding movement. For instance, the salt was a non-divisive issue and no
community or social group could ever raise an objection to it being the rallying point.
Another reason for the choice of salt was that with the help of an item such as this, the
message of the freedomstruggle could be taken right into the homes of the people across
classes and the masses. The choice of the salt, therefore, was a cleverly crafted idea.
Thereafter Gandhi addressed a letter to the Viceroy, informing him of his intention to
launch an agitation on the question of salt, giving the justification for doing so; he regarded
the British rule as a curse because, It has impoverished the dumb millions by a system
of progressive exploitation.it has reduced us politically to serfdom. It has sapped the
foundations of our cultureit has degraded us spiritually. Though Gandhi explained the
historical consequences of the British rule, there were other reasons, the impact of certain
other developments on the ordinary mass of the people. The worldwide economic slump
since 1929 impacted India adversely. The prices of everything the peasant produced fell
catastrophically until they were halved. It has to be recognised that the prices of items
that peasant was to buy also came down, but it did not help him since his buying
capacity was considerably limited.
The demand of the Congress for complete independence coincided with the immediate
historical circumstances to produce a heady mixture for launching a movement, which
Gandhi was contemplating ever since the Congress adopted the resolution to the same
effect. Similar to earlier movements, this time too he proposed non-violence as a
precondition for the movement and those who wished to join it. True to his conviction
in Satyagraha, Gandhi did not wish to harm the enemy but to prove the point as
emphatically as possible and the same lesson he was imparting to those Satyagrahis, who
were to accompany Gandhi in his long march to Dandi. The Satyagrahis must not
harbour any ill will towards the adversary. While the preparations for launching the
movement were on, he addressed a letter to the Viceroy on the 2 March 1930 declaring
his intention of launching the movement, which he did on 12 March 1930.
8.3 BEGINNING OF THE CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
MOVEMENT
Dandi March
Gandhi set out on a march to cover the distance of 200 miles to reach Dandi, a coastal
town along with 78 of his chosen Satyagrahis, who came from all parts of the country
and represented all sections of the society. About seventy- five thousand people had
gathered at the Sabarmati Ashram to wish Gandhi and his disciples and all along the
route thousands gathered to greet them. Along the route, Gandhi kept on addressing the
people on issues of immediate and long-term concerns such as the importance of ahimsa,
Satyagraha and other such issues. Practically everyday at the sunrise and sunset he
conducted his daily prayer meetings under the open skies, addressed meetings in villages
through which he passed, did his daily quota of spinning on charkha, wrote article for
his journals and letters to his correspondents. The Dandi march took altogether twenty-
four days to complete and throughout, the press was full of the stories about the march.
The international press too keenly reporting the progress of the march and their stories
were filled with descriptions of this ceremony of rebellion. On 6 April 1930, after a night
of fasting and prayer, the leader and his followers bathed in the sea at Dandi. Thereafter
Gandhi bent down to pick up a handful of salt. With this act of defiance of the Salt Law
began the Civil Disobedience movement. It was a signal for which masses were anxiously
waiting for quite sometime. Wherever the sea was within reach, peasants and fishermen
broke the law by making natural salt. Many people were arrested and in several cases
the police resorted to lathi charge as freely as they could. Meetings were organised in
innumerable towns to inaugurate the Civil Disobedience movement. The Government
started using the coercive methods to suppress the Movement as many leaders were
being arrested, starting with Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the President of the Indian National
Congress.
In the course of the Civil Disobedience movement, while the question of breaking the salt
law was central, however there were other issues too, which engaged the minds of the
Congress leaders and accordingly strategies were planned. For instance village headmen
were exhorted to give up their job and they overwhelmingly responded to this call of the
Congress. In Gujarat, about 390 village headmen resigned their jobs. In many cases
members of the legislatures too resigned their seats. In 1930, at the start of the Civil
Disobedience movement, Vallabhbhai Patel wanted to launch a no-revenue campaign on
a large scale particularly in Gujarat, to which Gandhi did not agree since he feared that
such a step might result in confiscation of land, which he might not be able to regain.
Gandhis opposition to such a step was based on the logic that a campaign such as this
should be waged on specific grievances rather than less easily fulfilled demands for
Swaraj. However, despite Gandhis disinclination, the no-revenue campaign was launched
on a large scale after the arrest of Gandhi on 5

May 1930. With the launching of this
campaign, the Government was excessively concerned, if the base of this campaign was
to expand, if the people of Gujarat are successful in evading the payment of dues, we
may expect a widespread extension of the movement. This would probably cause more
embarrassment than any other single feature of the Civil Disobedience Movement. In view
of such a perception, the British decided to break the movement by coercion as in
several cases lathi-wielding policemen were sent to villages to break into the peasants
houses, confiscate their property and farm animals and in some cases beat them up. In
order to escape such repressive measures, many peasant families chose to migrate to the
neighbouring state of Baroda, while in other cases they suffered losses. The All-India
Congress Committee had extended the scope of the Civil Disobedience movement by
including the breach of forest laws, the non-payment of taxes in ryotwari areas and the
boycott of foreign clothes, banks, shipping and insurance companies.
Though the Government intended to react rather harshly, it was wary of the impression
of the Government using excessive measures. However, as the tempo of the movement
picked up so did the Governments resolve to suppress the movement with force.
Vallabhbhai Patel had already been arrested as early as 7
th
March 1930 under the orders
of the local officials who had acted without the consent of even the Provincial Government.
Early in April1930, Jawaharlal Nehru was arrested in Allahabad. Among those who were
convicted of the breach of the Salt Laws were C. Rajagopalachari, Madan Mohan
Malviya, J. M.Sengupta, B.G.Kher, K.M.Munshi, Devdas Gandhi, Mahadev Desai and
Vithalbhai Patel. And finally, after a lot of dithering, the Government decided to arrest
Gandhi on 5 May 1930 at Karadi, a village near Dandi, under the provision of Bombay
Regulation XXV of 1827, where trial could easily be dispensed with.
Gandhis arrest sparked a wave of protests. In Bombay cotton mills and railways
workshops stood still as thousands of workers came out in streets. Cloth-merchants went
on a six-day hartal. There were clashes and firing in Delhi and Calcutta. In the big textile
towns such as Sholapur, the textile workers went on strike from the 7
th
May and along
with others, burnt down liquor shops and attacked all symbols associated with the
Government such as railway station, law courts and police stations and municipal
buildings. They virtually established parallel government, which could only be dislodged
with the imposition of the martial law after 16 May.
Dharasana Episode
The most interesting aspect of the Civil Disobedience movement was the use of non-
violence as a method and the finest example of this was hugely manifested at Dharasana,
where a Government salt manufacturing unit was in operation. Gandhi, just before his
arrest, had stipulated some kind of raid, at this plant. However as a consequence of his
arrest this responsibility fell on Sarojini Naidu, who became the first woman president of
the Congress and others such as Imam Saheb, a close associate of Gandhi since the days
in South Africa, Manilal, Gandhis second son and others. It was planned that a band of
2000-2500 volunteers would raid Dharasana salt works. Before they advanced, Sarojini
Naidu led them in prayers and appealed to them to be true to Gandhis inspiration and
abstain from violence. She said, You will be beaten, but you must not resist; you must
not even raise a hand to ward off blows. Round the depot a barrier of barbed wire had
been erected and a ditch was dug. As the first picked column of the volunteers went
forward, police officers ordered them to disperse but they advanced in silence. Soon
scores of policemen swooped on them and started raining lathi blows on their heads.
However, none of them resisted these blows and shortly, the ground was filled with
injured bodies. After the first column of volunteers were beaten to pulp, came the turn
of another column of volunteers and they proceeded to the designated spot with immense
courage knowing fully well as to what awaited them. They too were struck with the same
ferocity. After having gone through this experience of the police brutality, there was some
change in the tactics as it was decided that a group of twenty-five men would advance
and sit down and wait for the police to come. The police inflicted massive injuries and
such brutality went on for hours.
NWFP
The experience of launching the Civil Disobedience and then suffering the police brutality
was by and large much the same in Peshawar as in Dharasana. In the North West
Frontier Province (NWFP) on 23
rd
April 1930, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and some
Congress leaders were arrested, which resulted in unprecedented mass upsurge in
Peshawar, with crowds confronting armoured cars and defying intensive firing, which killed
about thirty people. Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, popularly known as the Frontier Gandhi
had been politically quite active and raised a band of non-violent volunteers, known as
Khudai Khidmatgars, who wore Red-Shirts, played an active role in this Movement. In
the beginning some violent incidents occurred and the police abandoned the town to the
Red Shirts, which was re-occupied after a while and then brutalities were unleashed on
them, which was resisted by the Red Shirts with non-violence alone. In certain cases
machine-guns were used. Even in this atmosphere of violent repression, there were stark
examples of inter-community solidarity. One such example was the refusal of a platoon of
the Garhwal Regiment, consisting of the Hindus only, to fire on the Muslims of the
Frontier, while they were agitating. The British were able to restore order in Peshawar
only ten days later on 4
th
May 1930 and a reign of terror was unleashed and the martial
law was imposed. Ghaffar Khans movement was largely limited to areas such as Kohat,
Bannu, Dera Ismail Khan and Hazara; however, there were series of tribal incursions in
the later part of 1930, which could be controlled only with the help of aerial bombardment.
Chittagong emerged as another important centre of the Civil Disobedience, apart from
Sholapur, Dharasana and Peshawar. Here, a group of revolutionaries headed by Surjaya
Sen launched a spectacular campaign against the British. The local armoury was seized
and an Independence Proclamation was made in the name of the Independent Republican
Army and fought a pitched battle on the Jalalabad hill on 22 April 1930 in which twelve
revolutionaries lost their lives.
While the above discussed developments as regards the Civil Disobedience were mostly
taking place in the urban areas, the rural areas too witnessed plenty of such activities in
variety of ways. For instance those rural areas, which had already experienced some
amount Gandhian rural constructive work through local ashramsBardoli and Kheda in
Gujarat, Bankura and Arambagh in Bengal, Bihpur in Bhagalpur in Bihar emerged as
strong centres of political activities during the movement. It is true that salt was the initial
catalyst, but in due course of time it could be sustained in the coastal areas, but with the
onset of monsoon, even this became difficult. The other activities, which kept the
momentum of the movement, were picketing of the liquor shops and excise license
auctions in small towns as well as villages. The refusal to pay Chowkidari tax was another
form of protest during the movement, even at the cost of massive coercion and in some
cases sale of property. The Congress tried to channelise the peasants and tribal grievances
regarding forest laws in areas such as Central Province, Maharashtra and Karnataka.
Training camps for forest Satyagrahis were started in several areas, where Congressmen
trained them. The activities that were carried out were the boycott of Forest Department
auctions, peaceful mass violation of grazing and timber restrictions and public sale/auction
of illegally acquired forest produce.
8.4 VARIED RESPONSES TO THE MOVEMENT
The Civil Disobedience was an all-India movement and yet not all parts and social groups
responded to the call of the movement in the same manner. Bombay was the main citadel
of the movement throughout 1930. Two strands of leadership were in action, one, was
the Gandhian type leadership and the other, socialist oriented leadership of K.F. Narima
and Yusuf Meherally. The Congress volunteers made serious efforts to reach out for
working class support and received overwhelming responses in Gujarat areas such as
Anand, Borsad and Nadiad taluks, in Kheda, Jambusar in Broach and Bardoli in Surat.
The Civil Disobedience movement remained weak in Sindh, despite an initial mob-police
clash on 16 April in Karachi. In Maharashtra, the movement was considerably strong
because of the changed nature of leadership of the Congress, who had come close to
non-Brahaman Satya Shodhak Samaj radicals, for example, social groups such as
Mahars, who were not attracted to the Congress, as they were closer to Dr.
B.R.Ambedkar. The Central Provinces areas such as Chanda, Amraoti, Betul, Raipur,
Bhandara and Seoni emerged as strong centres of the movement due to the forest
Satyagraha as being a part of the Civil Disobedience movement. There were instances
of the local tribal leaders emerging on their own and taking part in the movement, which
on occasions involved violent methods as well. Violent attacks on forest guards and police
parties were common in these regions.
In Tamilnadu, C. Rajagopalachari played an important role in the Civil Disobedience
movement. He organised a march from Trichinopoly to Vedaranniyam on the Tanjore
coast to break the salt law in April 1930, followed by picketing of foreign cloth shops
and anti-liquor campaigns in towns such as Coimbatore, Madurai and Virudhanagar.
Similarly in Malabar, Kelappan, who was a Nair Congress leader, organised the salt
march. In Andhra, salt marches were organised in the East and West Godavari, Krishna,
Guntur districts, in which cultivators, merchants and others took an active part.
In Orissa too, the Civil Disobedience movement received tremendous response under the
leadership of Gopabandhu Chaudhary, particularly in the coastal districts such as Balasore,
Cuttack and Puri. In Assam, the Civil Disobedience movement was not strong in view of
the fact there were factional disputes among the leaders. For instance Tarunram Phookan
was hostile to the movement as N.C.Bardaloi was unenthusiastic about it. Other reasons
include social tensions, growing conflicts among the Bengalis and Assamese, Hindus and
Muslims, and the tension developing from the inflow of the Muslim peasant immigrants
from the densely-populated East Bengal. However there were students protest and some
activities in Sylhet and Kachar regions. In Bihar, the movement witnessed considerable
participation in the rural areas where small landlords, small tenants took an active part in
the movement. Salt satyagraha could not become that much popular due to physical
conditions of it being landlocked. However, in due course of time due to shift from salt
to no-chowkidari agitation, it was massively responded. There were instances when
people in several districts refused to pay chowkidari tax, while foreign clothes and liquor
sales also declined. Similarly, in Uttar Pradesh, the Civil Disobedience movement was
more a rural rather than an urban phenomenon. Urban sections of the society were getting
tired but the impetus for the movement came from the villagers since the Congress had
reached out to such areas.
Though the Civil Disobedience movement was an all-India movement launched under the
Gandhian leadership, there was no uniform pattern so far as responses of various social
groups are concerned. In some cases strictly non-violent methods of protests were
followed, while there were also instances of the participants resorting to violence. Unlike
the Non-cooperation-Khilafat movement, when the movement was withdrawn after the
violent Chauri-Chaura incident, this time Gandhi had clearly stated that even though the
Civil Disobedience movement would be launched on the basis of non-violence, he would
not withdraw it if some violence broke out in the course of the movement. Therefore it
is observed that the Civil Disobedience movement progressed essentially on the principles
of non-violence; inspite of occasional incidents of violence at different places, the
movement was not withdrawn. And yet towards the closing months, the movements
response was considerably weak. The Indian capitalist class had for the first time
participated in this movement as a class but with limited appetite to sustain this movement.
As businessmen, they could not afford to antagonise the Government on permanent basis;
hence attempts were made to bring about truce between Gandhi and the Government.
8.5 GANDHI-IRWIN PACT
The changing historical circumstances coincided with the efforts of men of liberal
disposition such as Tej Bahadur Sapru and M.R.Jayakar and a few others. Their efforts
were borne out of sympathetic readings of the Governments intentions. These people
approached Motilal Nehru as well as Jawaharlal Nehru but any peace negotiation was not
possible without Gandhis presence and consent. And for this purpose a special train was
arranged for Poona, where he was imprisoned at Yeravada jail in August. The discussions
were attended besides Gandhi and Nehrus, by Vallabhbhai Patel, Sarojini Naidu, Jairamdas
Daulatram and Syed Mahmood. It was revealed that there was little common ground
between the Congress and the Government. The Congress, in a letter dated 15 August
1930, made it abundantly clear that it was prepared to call off the Civil Disobedience
movement, provided its basic assumptions in constitution-making were accepted and
amends made for the policy of repression by releasing political prisoners, returning
confiscated property and reinstating officials dismissed for participation in the Civil
Disobedience movement.
Despite such opposition of the Congress, the Viceroy, Lord Irwin made conciliatory
gestures towards the Congress. In a public statement in the Central Legislature he made
kind reference to Gandhis, spiritual force, which impels Mr. Gandhi count no sacrifice
too great in the cause, as he believes, of the India he loves. As an accompaniment to
conciliatory statements, he released Gandhi and members of the Congress Working
Committee on 25
th
January 1931the eve of Independence Day on 26
th
January. Due
to efforts of the peacemakers and conciliatory approach of the Viceroy, the dialogue
between Gandhi and Lord Irwin started on 17 February 1931 and went on till 5
th
March
when the two agreed to sign a pact Known as Gandhi-Irwin Pact. It also came to known
as Delhi Pact. This Pact provided for the following conditions: 1. Discontinuation of the
Civil Disobedience movement. 2. Revocation of the Ordinances and the release of the
political prisoners except those who were convicted of open violence. 3. Making of salt
by those living in coastal areas not for commercial purposes but for personal consumption
4. Picketing of shops selling foreign clothes and other imported itemand the liquor shops.
5. Return of the confiscated land, not yet sold to third parties. 6. Remission of all fines
not yet collected. 7. Gandhis insistence for inquiry into police excesses was recorded
with the Government agreeing for it as such. 8. The Congress on its part agreed to
participate in the Round Table Conference. This political clause of the Congress attending
the Second Round Table Conference had an implied meaning that it would accept the
outcome of the Round Table Conference, which came nowhere closer to the Lahore
Resolution of the complete independence. Subsequently it was decided that Gandhi would
represent the Congress at the Second Round Table Conference. Sarojini Naidu and
Pandit Malaviya accompanied him. He was not too optimistic about the outcome of the
Conference, as he had stated, When I think of the prospects in London, there is nothing
wanting to fill me with utter despairThere is every chance of my returning empty
handed.
8.6 THE SECOND ROUND TABLE CONFERENCE
Gandhi sailed on board Rajputana, on 27

August 1931 for England. He travelled second
class and kept up during the voyage his routine of early rising, spinning and prayer
meetings. In London, on his arrival, he addressed a meeting at Friends House. In London
the venue of the Second Round Table Conference was St. James Palace, where delegates
gathered, who were chosen not by the ordinary Indians but by the Viceroy and his
officials. These delegates consisted of the Princes and Untouchables, Sikhs, Muslims,
Christians, Hindus, Parsees, spokesmen of landowners, Chambers of Commerce and
Trade Unions. It was ironical that in the multitude of representative, there were not many
willing to speak for India as whole and the peasantry, who consisted the vast majority
of Indians. From such a Conference, no idea and no majority that reflected the national
will could possibly emerge.
Gandhis apprehensions were proved right and when the Conference was underway, he
discovered that there was heavy concentration on resolving the minorities issues rather
than focusing on Indias independence and transfer of power to Indians. In the light of
his past experience as much as the contemporary one, he was convinced that it was the
British rule, which had driven a wedge between Indias creeds and classes. He was firm
in his conviction that once the foreign rule was thrown away, Indians would solve their
communal difficulties easily and amicably. But under the circumstances, Gandhis hopes
and conviction were quite unlikely to be translated into political reality due to hard-line
approaches taken by the community leaders and clever manipulation of these people by
the British Government in India as well as England. He returned to India on 28 December
1931 empty handed.
8.7 RESUMING THE CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE MOVEMENT
Within a week of Gandhis return, he, along with other members, was arrested on 4
J anuary 1932; a series of ordinances were promulgated. Not only the CWC but also
several Provincial Congress Committees and innumerable local committees were declared
illegal. Many organisations sympathetic to the Congress such as- Youth Leagues, National
Schools, Congress Libraries and Hospitals- were also outlawed. The Congress funds
were confiscated and buildings were occupied and every possible step was taken to
ensure that Congress did not function at all. The civil liberties seemed suspended. Under
these circumstances the Gandhi-Irwin Pact was shred to pieces and the Civil Disobedience
movement was resumed. Lord Wellington, the Viceroy, who had replaced Lord Irwin,
was a man of different disposition, who believed in a highhanded approach in dealing with
nationalists. The friction between the congress and the Government had begun soon after
the Pact was signed. The Congress received complaints that in Bardoli and Borsad, all
prisoners had not been released, forfeited land had not been restored nor village officials
reinstated. Tensions were mounting in Bengal, where the Pact did not, in any way, cover
thousands of young men who had been detained without trial. In North-West Frontier
Province, the repression against the Red Shirts was continuing with great zeal so much
so that Gandhi was denied permission to enter the Province. The agrarian unrest was
quite visible in the United Provinces.
The second Civil Disobedience during 1932-34 was launched in a political climate of total
distrust of the Government as even the Government was determined to suppress it by
using wanton coercion to the maximum, as the civil liberties were totally suppressed and
even ordinary political act had become illegal. The forms of defiance included picketing
of cloth and liquor shops, closing of markets and boycott of white or loyalist business
concerns, symbolic hoisting of Congress flags, holding of illegal congress sessions, salt
satyagraha, non-payment of Chowkidari tax, no-rent as well as no-revenue campaigns,
violation of forest laws. There were occasions when the Congress carried out illegal
activities such as secret radio transmitter and the use of bombs.
The Government severely repressed the movement. Towards the close of 1932, the
movement had started tapering off, however in one form or the other it continued on till
1934. In the face of heavy repression, ordinary people started succumbing to it without
losing faith either in Gandhi or in the congress. The leaders and the people who were
arrested during the movement and kept in jail earned much greater respectability in the
eyes of the society.
For a while it might appear that the Government of the day had an upper hand in dealing
with and containing the movement. But the long-termconsequence of the Civil Disobedience
would tell us a different story altogether. This movement was able to free the minds of
Indians even before the country earned its freedom on 15 August 1947. Gandhi had
awakened the nation from its slumber. In the words of H.S.L.Polak, a close associate of
Mahatma Gandhi in South Africa, a chronicler, It acquiesced no longer in conquest.
During the movement, the resolve of India to win freedom was further steeled, as they
no longer feared the lathis and other means of repression as they were prepared to suffer
for an altruistic cause to liberate India from subjugation. Again in the words of Polak,
They shed their servility and thought henceforward as free men. The lasting contribution
of Mahatma Gandhi in this movement as in earlier movements was to convey to the
British rulers, that their rule was no longer treated as legitimate and that Indians had come
of age to be the master of their own destiny.
8.8 SUMMARY
In view of the above discussion the following conclusions can be drawn. Firstly, Gandhi
once again proved that he enjoyed the confidence of the classes and masses while
carrying out such movements. Secondly, he thoroughly underlined the non-violent methods
because violence would give a handle to the British to suppress Indians, while raising the
most legitimate demands. However, this time Gandhis adherence to non-violence was less
dogmatic as compared to experience in 1922, when he had withdrawn the Non-
cooperation-Khilafat movement after the Chauri-Chaura violent incident.
This movement was significant because the social base of the nationalist movement had
really expanded as more people fromdiverse background joined it with active participation.
The participation of capitalists as a class was a noteworthy development, even though
some tensions persisted among them as regards the extent to which they were prepared
to go in the course of the movement. The geographical reach of the movement was
immense. Large parts of India were involved in the movement, though with some variation
of intensity. And finally, through this movement, the people of India were able to convey
to the British that they no longer looked forward to them as there were leaders such as
Gandhi and organisations such as Indian National Congress, which were closer to their
heart and were willing to suffer and sacrifice in the cause of liberating India from the
British rule.
1. Trace the beginnings of the Civil Disobedience Movement.
2. What was the response to Gandhis civil disobedience movement in different parts of
India?
3. Write short notes on:
(a) Gandhi-Irwin pact
(b) Second Round Table Conference
SUGGESTED READINGS
1. Brown, J udith., Gandhi and Civil Disobedience: The Mahatma in Indian
Politics, 1928-1934, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1977
2. Brown, J udith., Gandhi: Prisoner of Hope, OUP, Delhi, 1990
3. Chandra,Bipan, Mridula, Mukherjee, Aditya, Mukherjee, Sucheta, Mahajan and
K.N.Panikkar., Indias Struggle for Independence 1857-1947, Viking, Delhi,
1988
4. Sarkar, Sumit., Modern India, McMillan, Delhi, 1983
5. Hardiman, David., Peasant Nationalists of Gujarat: Kheda District, 1917-1934,
OUP, Delhi, 1981
6. Hardiman, David., Gandhi: In his Time and Ours, Permanent Black, Delhi, 2003
7. Henningam, Stephen., Peasant Movement in Colonial India, North Bihar, 1917-
1942, ANU, Canberra, 1982
8. Arnold, David., Congress in Tamilnad, Nationalist Politics in South Asia,
1919-1937, Manohar Book Services, Delhi, 1977
9. Arnold, David., Gandhi, Pearson Education, Harlow, 2001
10. Radhakrishnan, N., and N. Vasudevan, (Ed), Gandhi and the Global Village,
Gandhi Media Centre, Delhi, 1988
11. Ganguly, Debjani, and J ohn Docker., (Ed), Rethinking Gandhi and Non Violent
Relationality: Global Perspectives, Orient Blackswan, Hyderabad, 2009
UNIT 9 COMMUNAL AWARD AND POONA PACT
Structure
9.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
9.2 Representation of Depressed Classes
9.3 Communal Award
9.4 Poona Pact
9.5 Responses to Poona Pact
9.6 Summary
Suggested Readings
9.1 INTRODUCTION
Since late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries there was a growing awareness among
the Depressed Classes to raise their voices for legitimate rights and social equality, which
they have been denied of over the years. The British government, under the pressure of
the Indian national movement, initiated constitutional reforms to accommodate Indians in
various representative bodies. When for the first time the Morley - Minto Reforms Act
of 1909 made provision for a separate electorate for the Muslims, many leaders of the
Depressed Classes felt that they should also demand for reservation of seats for their
representatives in legislative bodies. They succeeded in forcing the British government to
get invitation for their representatives in the Round Table Conference at London to
deliberate on the prospective constitutional amendments. Gandhi and the Congress Party,
in spite of concern for the rights of the Depressed Classes, did not support the idea of
having separate electorate for the Depressed Classes. This Unit explains the context of the
Depressed Classes demands for reservation of seats and the issues involved in the
announcement of the Communal Award and the Poona Pact. It is important to understand
Gandhis ideas on these important political developments and how different sections of
Indians reacted to these developments.
Aims and Objectives
After reading this Unit, you will be able to:
Explain the reasons for demanding special provision for representation of the
Depressed Classes in legislative bodies,
Analyse the rationale behind the declaration of the Communal Award,
Understand the circumstances leading to the signing of the Poona Pact,
Assess the different responses towards the Poona Pact.
9.2 REPRESENTATION OF DEPRESSED CLASSES
In the 1920s, when the process was set in for electoral reforms aiming at making the
government more broad-based and representative, the issue of representation of the
Depressed Classes created divergent views within the local society. By the creation of
new job opportunities and opening up of new channels of mobility, the colonial rule
challenged the legitimacy of the existing Hindu caste system and made the Depressed
Classes conscious and emboldened to assert for equality and political rights. The
prevailing mood of resentment was well reflected in the presidential address of
Mr.B.C.Mandal of the All India Depressed Class conference in Madras, in February
1929. He said, The so-called patriots of India demand political rights, but they are not
ready to give social right to their own countrymen. (The Hindu, Madras, 25
th
February,
1929). Among the Depressed Classes at the national level two major identifiable groups
emerged in the late 1920s, one around M.C.Rajah and the other around
Dr. B.R.Ambedkar. M.C.Rajah and his associates who dominated the All India Depressed
Classes Association decided not to accept proposals of the Simon Commission in the
absence of separate electorates. They were of the opinion that joint electorates would
return only dummy representatives of the Depressed Classes backed by upper caste
Hindus. However, in the ensuing struggle within the Depressed Classes to represent them
in the proposed Round Table Conference in London, Ambedkar was nominated by the
British government to represent the Depressed Classes. In a bid to check Ambedkar,
M.C.Rajah convened an All India Depressed Classes Leaders special conference in
August 1930 at Allahabad. This conference disowned the resolutions taken at the first
session of the All India Depressed Classes Congress committee under the leadership of
Ambedkar and declared the All India Depressed Classes as the real body. But Rajah,
failing to get the British support in favour of his claim, came close to the Indian National
Congress. The Indian National Congress was also seriously trying to get the support of
the Depressed Classes so that the unity among Indians remains strong. Equally anxious
were the Hindu Mahasabha leaders to find some way out to check the disintegration of
the Hindus. In this process M.C.Rajah and B.S.Moonje, president of the Hindu Mahasabha
entered into an agreement known as the Rajah-Moonje Pact in 1932, based on the
principle of reservation of seats in joint electorates. Opinions among the Depressed
Classes were divided over the Rajah-Moonje Pact. A section of the Depressed Classes
made a statement that the All India Depressed Classes Association was not representative
of the Depressed Classes of India. They expressed their support in favour of separate
electorate. Dr.Ambedkar was very much opposed to the Rajah-Moonje Pact and stated
that the Depressed Classes had repudiated the Pact. Precisely we can say that the
Depressed Classes had unanimity on the question of reservation of seats for them in the
legislative bodies but they differed on the method of representation. In the interest of
creating further rift within the Indian society in order to check the growing momentum of
nationalist politics, the British government was very considerate towards the demands of
the Depressed Classes. Through its policy of protective discrimination the British government
tried to ensure educational facilities as well as reservation of jobs for the Depressed
Classes. All these caused serious concern for the Congress leaders.
Gandhi was very much concerned about the social and material development of the
Depressed Classes. To remove untouchability and to put the Depressed Classes on equal
footing, Gandhi suggested constructive programmes. Gandhi directed the Congress members
To organize the depressed Classes for a better life, to improve their social, mental and
moral condition, to induce them to send their children to national schools and to provide
for them the ordinary facilities which other citizens enjoy. (Young India, 16 February,
1922). Gandhi could visualise that in the face of social oppressions suffered by the
Depressed Classes, there was no option left to integrate them with the mainstream
political movement without winning over their confidence through constructive programme.
It is a fact that all within the Congress did not agree with Gandhi on his reformative
agenda to integrate the Depressed Classes into the mainstream nationalist politics but
Gandhi succeeded in drawing the attention of the Congress towards the problems of the
Depressed Classes. Along with political emancipation of India, Gandhi was very much
vocal for the social emancipation of the Depressed Classes. The Social and political
philosophy of Gandhi did not evoke positive response from a section of the Depressed
Classes because many of them were apprehending that in the absence of the British there
is the possibility of domination of the caste Hindus. Let us now understand as to what
prompted the British government to announce the Communal Award.
9.3 COMMUNAL AWARD
As you know, the British government sent Simon Commission in 1927 to work out the
possible administrative changes in order to make the legislative bodies more representative.
The Indian National Congress decided to boycott the Commission on the ground that
there was no Indian representative in the Commission, whereas the Depressed Classes
decided to cooperate with the Commission. The reason for cooperating with the
Commission was probably to create pressure on the upper caste leaders to give legitimate
political rights to the Depressed Classes. Inspite of the demand for separate electorate for
the Depressed Classes, the Simon Commission recommended for reservation of seats for
the Depressed Classes but did not support the demand for separate electorate. Although
the leaders of the Depressed Classes were not happy with the recommendations, it
definitely provided themmuch strength to bargain for their legitimate rights. This was the
time when Ambedkar emerged as the strong exponent of the rights of the Depressed
Classes and he attacked the Congress for its inability to address the problems of the
Depressed Classes. Ambedkar and R.Srinivasan were invited by the British government as
representatives of the Depressed Classes to attend the Round Table Conference in
London in 1930 to deliberate on the constitutional reforms. Instead of sympathies and
good will, the Depressed Classes leadership asserted that they would not be party to any
self-governing constitution for India unless their demands for equal citizenship rights,
adequate representation in the legislature and services, etc. are met. Gandhi did not agree
to Ambedkars demand for political representation and said, with all the emphasis that
I can command that if I was the only person to resist this thing, I will resist it with my
life. Gandhis stand failed to convince Ambedkar who was asking for separate electorate.
The Round Table Conference failed to resolve the issue of representation of the
Depressed Classes. Then in 1932 under Lord Lothian the Indian Franchise Committee
was constituted to decide on the matters concerning franchise. One of the directives given
to the Committee was that in place of nomination of Depressed Classes to legislatures
there would be election and for that to ascertain whether joint electorate or separate
electorate would be effective for the Depressed Classes. A significant development that
took place during this time was the signing of an agreement between M.C.Rajah and
B.S.Moonje, leader of the Hindu Mahasabha to prove Ambedkars position on
representation of the Depressed Classes wrong. Ambedkar described Rajah as a leader
of no consequence and asserted that the Rajah-Moonje pact had been repudiated by the
Communal Award and Poona Pact 99
Depressed Classes. Being challenged by M.C.Rajah, Ambedkar decided to impress upon
the British government the need for special provision for the Depressed Classes and
succeeded in his mission when the British Prime Minister Ramsay Mac-Donald announced
the Communal Award in August, 1932, making the provision for a separate electorate for
the Depressed Classes.
The Communal Award gave the Depressed Classes voting right along with caste Hindus
in the general constituencies and also an extra vote in special Depressed Classes
constituencies numbering 71 for a period of 20 years. The announcement of the
Communal Award was considered as a clear indication of widening the rift between the
Depressed Classes and caste Hindus posing a serious challenge to the Indian nationalist
movement. Gandhi, opposing the segregation of the Depressed Classes into a separate
electoral group, wrote,
So far as Hinduism is concerned separate electorate would simply vivisect and disrupt
it. For me the question of these classes is predominantly moral and religious.I feel that
no penance that caste Hindus may do can, in any way, compensate for the calculated
degradation to which they have consigned the Depressed Classes for centuries. But I
know that separate electorate is neither penance nor any remedy for the crushing
degradation they have groaned under (CWMG,Vol-LXIX, p.191).
Gandhi, in his letter to the British government, informed his decision for going to fast unto
death unless the government withdrew the scheme of separate electorate for the Depressed
Classes. He further explained that he might be wrong in taking this decision but to him
the scheme of separate electorate was against the interest of the Depressed Classes.
Gandhi was supportive of adequate representation of the Depressed Classes but he was
not agreeable to the proposal of separate electorate. He differed strongly on this matter
with the leaders of the Depressed Classes. The weapon of fast used by Gandhi aroused
strong public opinion. Public meetings were organised in different places to bring the caste
Hindus and the Depressed Classes together. Even the leaders of the Hindu Mahasabha
appealed to their followers to demonstrate equality in religious and social matters towards
the Depressed Classes. Appeal was also made to the Depressed Classes not to press for
separate electorate. Gandhi confided to his close associates that the Depressed Classes
would fail to understand his decision of fasting when they were granted some privileges.
Ambedkars response to Gandhis decision of fast was different and he said, I do not
care for these political stunts. This threat of Mr. Gandhi to starve himself to death is not
a moral fight but only a political move. I can understand a person trying to negotiate with
his political opponents on equal terms but I will never be moved by those methods.If
Mr. Gandhi wants to fight with his life for the interests of the Hindu community, the
depressed Classes will also be forced to fight with their lives to safeguard their interests.
The British government saw in Gandhis fast a ploy to coerce the Depressed Classes in
accepting the Congress view point. How the deadlock between Gandhi and Ambedkar on
the issue of representation of the Depressed Classes ended is the subject of our
discussion in the next section.
9.4 POONA PACT
The British government justified its action of announcing the Communal Award on the
ground that Indian leaders failed to arrive at an agreement on the issue of representation
of the Depressed Classes in the Round Table Conference. In the given situation, to
protect the interests of the Depressed Classes, the government had announced this
scheme. But Gandhis moral weapon forced various sections of the Indian leaders to
work out a compromise formula between the separate electorate and joint electorate.
Gandhi, in principle, was opposed to the reservation of seats either through joint or
separate electorate. But sensing the prevailing mood of the Depressed Classes he agreed
to accept the reservation of seats in joint electorates between the caste Hindus and
Depressed Classes. In spite of opposition to Gandhis approach to the issue of
representation of the Depressed Classes, Ambedkar agreed to consider Gandhis proposal
provided that the scheme guarantees better than the Communal Award. Ambedkar, after
meeting Gandhi who was at that time at Yervada jail, got the assurance of Gandhi that
the interest of his community would be safe in the proposed scheme. Gandhi assured that
he would end fast as soon as the separate electorate was replaced by joint electorate.
This softened Ambedkars attitude. After prolonged deliberations between the leaders of
the two groups, a formula based on the principle of joint electorate was devised and
against 71 seats given by the Communal Award 148 seats were reserved for the
Depressed Classes in the provincial legislatures. As regards the central legislature, 18
percent of the total seats meant for general electorate would be kept for the Depressed
Classes. It was also decided that the continuance of reservation would be decided in
future by mutual agreement. On 24 September 1932, the Poona Pact was signed between
the leaders of the Depressed Classes and caste Hindus and the same was sent to the
British Prime Minister for acceptance. The major provisions of the Poona Pact are as
follows:
There shall be seats reserved for the Depressed Classes out of general electorates. Seats
in the Provincial Legislatures shall be as follows- Madras-30; Bombay with Sind 15;
Punjab 8; Bihar and Orissa 18; Central Provinces 20; Assam 7; Bengal 30; United
Provinces 20 (Total-148).
Election to these seats shall be by joint electorates subject, however, to the following
procedure:
All the members of the Depressed Classes, registered in the general electoral roll in a
constituency, will form an electoral college which will elect a panel of four candidates
belonging to the depressed Classes for each of such reserved seats by the method of the
single vote; the four persons getting the highest number of votes in such primary election
shall be candidates for election by the general electorate.
Representation of the Depressed Classes in the Central Legislature shall likewise be on
the principle of joint electorates and reserved seats by the method of primary election in
the manner provided for in clause 2 above for their representation in Provincial Legislatures.
In the Central legislature eighteen per cent of the seats allotted to the general electorate
for British India in the said legislature shall be reserved for the Depressed Classes.
At a conference of the Hindu leaders in Bombay to ratify the Poona Pact, Ambedkar
said,
I was immensely surprised that there was so much in common between Mr. Gandhi and
myself.My only regret is why did not Mr. Gandhi take the attitude he took now at the
Round Table Conference. If he had shown some consideration and the same attitude as
he took now, I think it would not have been necessary for him to undergo the ordeal.
(The Times of India, 26 September 1932).
In the same conference the president made a resolution in the following words:
This Conference resolves that henceforth amongst Hindus no one shall be regarded as
an untouchable by reason of his birth and that those who have been so regarded hitherto
will have the same rights as other Hindus in regard to the use of public wells, public
schools, public roads, and all public institutions. These rights shall have statutory recognition
at the first opportunity and shall be one of the earliest acts of the Swaraj Parliament, if
it shall not have received such recognition before that time.
It is further agreed that it shall be the duty of all Hindu leaders to secure, by every
legitimate and peaceful means, an early removal of all social disabilities now imposed by
caste-men upon the so-called untouchable classes including the bar in respect of admission
to temples. (The Times of India, 26 September 1932, cited in Trilok Nath, Politics of
the Depressed Classes).
As promised, Gandhi ended his fast after the signing of the pact. He found in this victory
of his political and social goals. This further encouraged him to carry forward his
movement for social equality. The promise of a large number of seats for the Depressed
Classes aroused the hope of strong voice of the Depressed Classes in public life.
9.5 RESPONSES TO POONA PACT
The varied responses to the Poona Pact are the result of different perspectives on the
issue of the representation of the Depressed Classes. To Ambedkar, the rights of the
Depressed Classes were most important compared to political independence, whereas
Gandhi was fighting a two-pronged battle, one for Indias independence, the other for
maintaining the cohesiveness of Hindu society. Gandhi explained the essence of the
settlement in the following words:
The settlement is but the beginning of the end. The political part of it, very important
though it no doubt is, occupies but a small space in the vast field of reform that has to
be tackled by caste Hindus during the coming days, namely, the complete removal of
social and religious disabilities under which a large part of the Hindu population has been
groaning. I should be guilty of a breach of trust if I did not warn fellow reformers and
caste Hindus in general that the breaking of the fast carried with it a sure promise of
resumption of it if this reformis not relentlessly pursued and achieved within a measurable
period.the message of freedom shall penetrate every untouchable home and that can
only happen if reformers will cover every village. (CWMG, Vol-LI).
The Poona Pact evoked strong reactions from different circles; even the demand was
raised for its revision both from a section of the Depressed Classes and the Hindus as
well. The reactions were particularly sharp in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal where
Hindus constituted 31 percent and 44 percent of the population respectively. In a
memorandum, the All India Hindu Mahasabha urged that unfortunately, owing to the fast
of Mahatma Gandhi and the natural anxiety of the people to save his life, the Poona Pact
was hurried through. Raja Narendra Nath, who was a Hindu Mahasabha leader in
Punjab, opposed the Poona Pact on the very day and commented that the Poona Pact
has frustrated the very object for which the Communal Award, given by the Prime
Minister, was sought to be modified. He felt that the Poona Pact very much encouraged
separate electorate and the Depressed Classes would never forego their right to reservation.
Twenty-five Hindu M.L.C.s from Bengal, through an urgent telegram to the Prime
Minister, impressed upon him the necessity of modifying the Poona Pact so far as Bengal
is concerned. Rabindranath Tagore, who once urged upon the British Prime Minister to
accept the Poona Pact, later on changed his opinion. He wrote:
I remember to have sent a cable to the Prime minister requesting him not to delay in
accepting the proposal about Communal Award submitted to him by Mahatmaji. At that
moment a situation had been created which was extremely painful not affording us the
least time or peace of mind to enable us to think quietly about the possible consequences
of the Poona Pact the intolerable anxiety caused by such a crisis drove me precipitately
to a commitment which I now realize as a wrong done against our countrys permanent
interest I have not the least doubt now that such an injustice will continue to cause
mischief for all parties concerned keeping alive the spirit of communal conflict in our
Province in an intense form making peaceful government perpetually difficult. (J oint
Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform).
Even the members of the Depressed Classes Federation in Bengal were not happy with
the arrangement made by the Poona Pact. Ambedkar himself wanted the revision of the
Poona Pact because he felt that the political parties would put up their own Depressed
Class candidates which would create division within the Depressed Classes.
Scholars like Ravindra Kumar feel that the Poona Pact was definitely a victory for Gandhi
as he succeeded in keeping the Depressed Classes within the Hindu community. Ravindra
Kumar wrote, The Mahatma was determined to save Hindu society from caste warfare
of the most monumental proportions; and to the extent the Untouchables were a part of
Hindu society; to save them, too, from social annihilation. The results of the Poona Pact
were, therefore, of the most profound significance for Hinduism (Ravindra Kumar). If
Gandhi was successful in stalling the separation of the Depressed Classes, Ambedkar
succeeded in making the problems of the Depressed Classes from a moral issue to a
political right and thus ensured the voice of the Depressed Classes in making legislations.
Referring to the Poona Pact, Gail Omvedt has observed that in spite of the moralistic
atmosphere that surrounded the fast and pact it was hard bargaining and power
(mobilizing strength) that counted. (Gail Omvedt).
9.6 SUMMARY
To Gandhi, the problem of the Depressed Classes was predominantly a religious matter
and in no way he wanted any division within the Hindus for the greater cause of political
emancipation. Gandhi said, Without eradicating untouchability root and branch the honour
of Hinduism cannot be saved. That can only happen when untouchables are treated on
par with caste Hindus in every respect. However, because of social repression faced by
the Depressed Classes, their leaders became vocal for their political power. The
Depressed Classes represented to the British government for their due representation in
the legislative bodies. Inspite of his concern for the Depressed Classes, Gandhi could read
the design of the government in creating division within the Indian society by announcing
the Communal Award. This forced Gandhi to announce his decision for going to fast unto
death to resist the contemplated separation of the Depressed Classes. This decision of
Gandhi succeeded in bringing different groups together and the outcome was the Poona
Pact which ensured for the first time 148 reserved seats for the Depressed Classes out
of general electorate in the Provincial Legislatures. Gandhis success was in keeping the
Hindus united for the greater cause of political emancipation and also ensured the voices
of the Depressed Classes in the decision-making process.
1. What was the background to the representation of the depressed classes?
2. Briefly examine the essence of the Communal Award.
3. What do you understand by Poona Pact? Examine the responses to it.
4. Was Gandhi successful in resisting the separation of the Depressed Classes? Examine
at length.
SUGGESTED READINGS
1. Ravindra Kumar, The Making of a Nation: Essays in Indian History and Politics,
Manohar Publications, New Delhi, 1989.
2. Gail Omvedt, Dalits and the Democratic Revolution: Dr. Ambedkar and The Dalit
Movement in Colonial India, Sage, New Delhi, 2004.
3. Trilok Nath, Politics of the Depressed Classes, Deputy Publications, Delhi, 1982.
4. Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (different volumes).
UNIT 10 CONSTRUCTIVE PROGRAMME
Structure
10.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
10.2 The vision of a Non-violent Social Order
10.3 Origins and Background
10.4 The Basic Mechanism
10.5 The Agenda of Constructive Programme
10.6 Successes and Failures
10.7 Relevance in Contemporary Times
10.8 Summary
Suggested Readings
10.1 INTRODUCTION
The constructive programme was the product of Gandhis vision of a non-violent society.
It grew out of the knowledge he had grasped of the naked reality of our country at that
time through his intense travels throughout the nation. These programmes were not a
passing thought but a creation of well-planned and thoughtful strategy of his mind. It was
Gandhis firm conviction that self-reliant villages form a sound basis for a just, equitable
and non-violent social order, which can be a guiding principle for all citizens, constructive
workers and policy makers in India.

According to him, re-building of the nation could be
achieved only by reconstructing villages. He himself initiated such efforts at many places
including Champaran (1917), Sevagram (1920) and Wardha (1938). With the passage of
time, he visualised and developed an elaborate programme of constructive work, which
included economic self-reliance, social equality and decentralised political system.
According to him, life will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom, but
will be an oceanic circle whose centre will be the individual always ready to perish for
the village, the latter ready to perish for the circle of villages, till at last the whole
becomes one life composed of individuals, never aggressive but ever humble, sharing the
majesty of the oceanic circle of which they are integral units. Gandhi considered such
action plans as an absolutely integral part for the freedom movement.
Aims and Objectives
Gandhis vision of a non-violent social order through constructive programme
The agenda of constructive programme and its main elements
Its relevance in the contemporary times.
10.2 THE VISION OF A NON-VIOLENT SOCIAL ORDER
Gandhi was not only a revolutionary but also a practical idealist and visionary.
Revolutionaries try to change or remove from the existing system what they believe to be
wrong or evil. But, they do not often have an alternate arrangement or future planning in
the place of the old prevailing system. As a result, revolutions sometimes either remain
incomplete or their consequences are totally averse to expectations. Gandhi, however, was
a different and exceptional revolutionary in this regard. Gandhi could come up with
alternate solutions. He was extremely clear about removing certain evils in the society and
had equal clarity about the new changes that he wanted to bring about. The process of
changing the old structure and preparing the base for a new social order was going in
parallel in Gandhis scheme of reforms.
For this purpose, according to Gandhi, three points were important: (1) Removal of
exploitation of all kinds from the society, (2) Less governance, and (3) Constructive
programmes, which were must, in order to remove the obstacles coming in the way of
fulfilling the first two goals. In other words, the plan to uproot injustice or evils through
non-violent struggle to establish a non-violent social order is called Rachnatmak Karyakram
or constructive programme. Gandhi visualised that Swaraj would be attained of its own
accord by building up a self-reliant social order through constructive programmes.
Gandhi wanted to remove pauperism, unemployment, inequality, ignorance, filth and
disease. But the slavery of the country being a major obstacle in the above task, he first
thought of removing the same. Thus, his plan was to change the whole existing social
order and to establish a new non-violent social order, of which he had a clear vision. But,
he did not want to wait till the slavery was eliminated. In fact, he had in his mind a clear
programme which would cast away the slavery, and which at the same time would
construct the base of a non-violent society. That strategy was the constructive programme.
Gandhi believed that if this programme is practised in its fullness by the whole country,
Freedomwould automatically follow without even any need of offering a civil disobedience.
In a way, it can provide a complete substitute for such a direct action in the form of civil
disobedience. In 1942 he wrote, If we wish to achieve Swaraj through truth and non-
violence, a gradual but steady building up fromthe bottom upwards by constructive effort
is the only way. He designed the constructive programme to generate the inner strength,
to elevate internal growth in the masses, and to make them aware of their rights as well
as duties.
Describing the efficacy of constructive programme he wrote in 1922, It will steady and
calm us. It will wake our organizing spirit, it will make us industrious, it will make us fit
for Swaraj, it will cool our blood. It can be taken up by anybody. It is the drill of non-
violent soldier and through it they can make the villagers feel self-reliant, self-sufficient and
free, so that they can stand up for their rights. He said that as military training is required
for armed revolt, in the same way the constructive work is needed for civil resistance,
which he called as national ammunition.
For Gandhi, social, economic and moral freedoms were far more important than political
freedom, which was to come only through constructive programmes. That was why
constructive activities were far superior to political work for Gandhi. He wrote in 1931,
my work of social reform was in no way less than or subordinate to political work.
The fact is that when I saw that to a certain extent my social work would be impossible
without the help of the political work, I took to the latter and only to the extent that it
helped the former. I must therefore confess that work of social reform or self-purification
of this nature is a hundred times dearer to me than what is called purely political work.
In the constructive programme there is no room for hypocrisy, compulsion and violence,
and it does not provoke violent feeling in the opponent which may be aroused by direct
action. Moreover, the greater the cultivation of constructive non-violence, the less the
need to offer civil- disobedience.
10.3 ORIGINS AND BACKGROUND
When Gandhi returned to India from South Africa during the First World War, India was
in the iron grip of the British Empire. It was straining under the unjust laws imposed by
the Raj. The Indian society was blighted by fear, lack of confidence and even self-
respect. There was the fear of army, the police, laws, landlords agents, and money
lenders. It was this pervasive and strangling emotion that paralysed the people and
enabled the British to keep the country under their unrelenting grip of oppressive rule.
Gandhi saw the state of spiritual and moral degradation under the impact of corrupt and
exploitative colonialism that gripped the entire nation in severe poverty and exploitation.
The Indian National Congress was already a 30-year-old organisation, founded in 1885
and dominated by middleclass professionals. The goal of freedom and all Congress
activities were confined to a limited circle, and to learned discussions and resolutions by
upper class intellectuals. There was no direct involvement or commitment of the masses
for the countrys freedom. No attempt had been made to bring the masses into the
mainstream of the National Movement. The Congress was a very middle class or pro-
aristocratic institution, whose members dressed in western clothes, behaved like the
English people, held meetings and gave speeches only in English which the masses could
not understand. As a result, they could not identify with the masses and remained away
and aloof from them.
Gandhis observation of the Indian situation led him to two crucial conclusions: Firstly,
there was a strong opposition to the increasingly oppressive colonial rule and a widespread
demand for representative institutions. Though Gandhi admired its courage and patriotism,
he strongly disapproved of its violence on moral and prudential grounds. He believed that
violence was not a practicable option to build up moral courage, cultural self-confidence,
and the capacity for concerted action among the masses. According to him the method
of Satyagraha which he had discovered and developed in South Africa was best suited
to India.
Secondly, Gandhis study of India convinced him of its degenerate status. The centuries
of foreign rule had made the Indian people deeply divided, caste-ridden, conformist,
fragmented, selfish, contentious, cowardly, demoralised, and lacking in a social conscience
and civic virtues. Unless the country was revitalised and reborn, it could neither win nor
sustain and deserve its independence. Accordingly, Gandhi worked out a comprehensive
syllabus of national regeneration and reconstruction, which he appropriately called the
`constructive programme. It included both small and large items, covering different areas
of life.
Gandhi carried the message of Swaraj to the masses and tried to bridge the chasm
created by the Congress between it and the masses. So he went to the masses to
understand them and their problems. To achieve this great task of identification, he
transformed himself thoroughly and genuinely, physically as well as mentally, and spoke
politics to the masses in their own language, using cultural and religious symbols. Thus,
Constructive Programme 107
he felt it necessary to communicate with the masses, and then sought their participation
in the political activities.
10.4 THE BASIC MECHANISM
In 1920 Gandhi launched the constructive programmes through the Congress. Gandhi
aimed at re-generating a new society on a non-violent basis by empowering the masses
through training and discipline in constructive programmes, and to achieve the same, he
laid increasing stress on the necessity of working on this programme by any Satyagrahi.
He said, Civil disobedience is not absolutely necessary to win freedom through purely
non-violent effort, if the cooperation of the whole nation is secured in the constructive
programme.
It worked as the best propaganda technique for mobilising the masses, by disseminating
his message among the people. Its strength lay in the universal appeal of its high moral
objective and its downright adherence to truth. According to Gandhi, it is a step-by-step
and a very gradual process. It awakens the inner strength of the people, and of a country
as a whole. Constructive Satyagraha is nothing but internal growth and the concrete
expression of truth and non-violence.
Gandhi put greater emphasis on constructive programme because it was his belief that
without training in constructive work it was impossible to offer civil disobedience, i.e. the
direct action. To fight with the opponent, a Satyagrahi needs to generate inner strength
through self-suffering and self-purification by conscious cooperative efforts. It is a direct
personal service of the masses, and collective purificatory effort through service. It
includes organising and educating the people in a non-violent way, and thus creating an
atmosphere of profound determination by self-service. Gandhi demanded of individuals
and groups intending to offer civil disobedience, to undergo a rigorous discipline through
adequate practice of the constructive programme to acquire non-violent control over the
masses.
In fact, it was a pre-requirement for Satyagrahi to implicitly follow the constructive work
as an integral part of non-violence. It aimed at generating political power and awareness
but not to capture it. Starting with few individuals, it becomes infectious. In Gandhis
words, What a few may do, others will copy, and the movement will grow like the
coconut of the mathematical problem. Itsaim is to transform the existing social order
along non-violent lines even before political power and state machinery are captured by
Satyagrahis.
India is basically a country of agriculture, and most of the population is occupied in it.
The aim of constructive work was to stop kisans and labourers being exploited and to
make them aware of their rights. This work was a process of collective purification. The
collective work must throw together the people and their leaders whom they would trust
implicitly. Trust begotten in the pursuit of continuous constructive work becomes a
tremendous asset at the critical moment. Constructive activities were far superior to
political work because it displays to the masses the potentiality of Satyagraha which can
end all kinds of exploitation and elevate their status. In Gandhis constructive programme,
there was no room for violence but only a selfless service, non-violence, and unflinching
belief in the power and utility of constructive work.
The function of the constructive workers was to train the masses for Satyagraha, to
universalise Khadi and to reconstruct the village on the basis of a handicraft civilisation.
They have to identify with the villagers in order to win their hearts and confidence. Gandhi
was fully convinced that if our 7 lakhs villages will begin work with such faith and energy,
our slavery will disappear on its own, and each and every village will become self-reliant
and free. This was the real Swaraj of Gandhi. It is not directed by antagonism towards
anybody or to cause embarrassment to anyone. It is an urge to serve ones fellow-men
and aimed at purifying the individual and society of the weaknesses and evils.
10.5 THE AGENDA OF CONSTRUCTIVE PROGRAMME
Gandhis comprehensive plan of national regeneration, which he named the constructive
programme, aimed at establishing a social order, based on truth and non-violence. He
wanted to abolish the exploitation of man by man, in any shape or form. This was
perhaps more difficult than the achievement of freedom because in the process of
establishing a new social order, there was a possibility of conflict between groups and
classes of our own people.
Gandhis constructive programme was based on the idea that foreign domination in India
lived and prospered because of our negligence towards fundamental duties as a nation.
The advancement of any nation crucially depends on the performance of such duties. He
believed that when duties are fulfilled, the rights will automatically flow. The second was
the efficacy of such a programme in organising the nation. Such an organisation is built
on the work done in unity and cooperation. More real and more useful the work, the
stronger would be the organisation built around it.
The items included in Gandhis constructive programme were not arranged in order of
their importance. He clarified that, if anyone finds that some important subject in terms
of independence is left out, he can unhesitatingly add to the list. The reach of the
programmes proposed was vast and the full programme included eighteen items, which
were indispensable for the emancipation of the nation through non-violence. Gandhi did
not follow a particular pattern in giving the programmes but he placed the issues
according to their necessity. Through these programmes, he tried to touch many spheres
of life, and many of them encompass more than one field of life, i.e. economic, political
and social. We now discuss the agenda and aspects of the main programmes here.
10.5.1 Communal Unity
As is known, Gandhi strove hard throughout his life to bring about communal unity. Many
times, he resorted to fasting to subside the communal violence. Whenever there was
violence he reached the place without caring for his life.
According to Gandhi, communal unity does not merely mean political unity but should be
an unbreakable unity of hearts, and can be achieved only by living like people and living
with them as they live. This was what Gandhi did and achieved. That is why he wanted
every Congress man to be one with the people and to represent in his own person every
Hindu and non-Hindu to achieve such a unity. He wanted them to cultivate personal
contacts and friendship with people of different faith other than his own, and to have the
same respect for their faith as for his own.
Communal disunity and untouchability were the major hurdles in the way of establishing
social unity in our society that created discrimination in the minds of the people. These
social evils were age old and deep rooted in Indian social structure and the Indian
psyche. The British Government, taking advantage of our social situation, adopted the
policy of divide and rule and attempted to encourage and nurture the communal
differences to retain and sustain their power and politics. Moreover, religious elements of
our society purposely incited the poison of communal disunity in order to gain political
advantages. Gandhi wanted to bring such practices to an end.
10.5.2 Removal of Untouchability
Gandhi held that untouchability was a blot and curse upon Hinduism. It was an age-old
social evil which had to be removed to establish social equality in the society. Gandhi
endeavoured to abolish this evil. He started the Harijan newspaper to explain his ideas
to people and he travelled throughout the country to raise funds for Harijans. He also
accommodated a Harijan family in his Kochrab ashram, thereby courting discontent of
ashramites and an economic boycott from the rich.
He founded Harijan Sevak Sangh in 1932 after his Yeravada Pact Fast. Its objective
was total removal of the taint of untouchability in law as well as in practice from the
Hindu Society. Gandhi first expected the members of the Harijan Sevak Sangh to remove
the last trace of untouchability from their own hearts. Removal of untouchability was an
inevitable and most important task, because without social equality it was not possible to
bring Swaraj. He was appalled that the Congress men looked upon it as a mere political
necessity, and not as an urgent, indispensable requirement. It was his appeal to every
Hindu to make a common cause with them and befriend them in their awful isolation.
Gandhi held that if untouchability lived, Hinduism, and with it India would die. Gandhi
shook the very foundation of the curse of untouchability in the Hindu society. Though, he
could not eliminate it completely, his efforts in this direction lightened the misery and
restored the self-confidence of the depressed classes to some extent.
10.5.3 Khadi
Gandhi presented Khadi as a symbol of nationalism, economic freedom, equality and self-
reliance. It was his belief that reconstruction of the society and effective Satyagraha
against the foreign rule can be possible only through Khadi. Khadi is the core of the
constructive activities as recommended by him. He called Khadi the sun of the solar
system of the village economy. According to him there could be no Swaraj without
universal and voluntary acceptance of Khadi. In his scheme of reconstruction for free
India, villages should no longer depend on cities. In the task of village upliftment, he gave
first priority to khadi and other village industries. India being a country of agriculture, the
farmers spend half the year without work in idleness. So Gandhi thought spinning was the
best option for them as productive activity.
For Gandhi, spinning wheel was a symbol of identification with the poor. It was intimately
related to basic requirements of millions, i.e. food and clothing. He wanted them to be
self-reliant. He believed that poverty led to moral degradation. Thus, with Charkha, he
wanted to help the unemployed and poor. Many of his tours were proposed to organise
and finance the spinning wheel movement. The spinning wheel was at one time the symbol
of Indias poverty and backwardness. Gandhi turned it into a symbol of self-reliance and
non-violence. Khadi enabled him to carry his message of Swadeshi and Swaraj to the
people and to establish connection with them.
10.5.4 Prohibition
In Gandhis scheme of constructive programme, prohibition was a vital social and moral
reform. Gandhi attached much importance to this because the people in villages and cities
would be incapable of moral effort which was necessary for Satyagraha unless they were
free from the grip of intoxicants. He also felt that women and students had a special
opportunity to advance this reform. By acts of loving service they could acquire on
addicts a hold which would compel themto listen to the appeal to give up the evil habit.
He suggested that Congress Committee could open recreation booths for tired labourers
where they can rest, get healthy and cheap refreshments and also find suitable games.
This was a novel and non-violent approach towards Swaraj. In his efforts to build non-
violent social order, Gandhi did not want to wait or depend on the Government. He
directly dealt with the people and their problems and tried to arouse peoples inner
dormant strength and capacity through such programmes. He believed that constructive
workers could make legal prohibition easy and successful. Gandhi felt so strongly about
this addiction that he said if he was made a dictator for even sometime, he would first
make a law for prohibition.
10.5.5 Village Industries
For Gandhi, Khadi is the sun of the village solar system and other village industries are
the planets. Khadi takes the Central place in the upliftment of village economy. Without
khadi, the other industries cannot grow. Similarly, without the revival of other essential
industries khadi cannot make satisfactory progress. In order to make the villages self-
reliant, the development of both the industries is essential as they are inter-dependent.
Village economy remains incomplete without the revival and growth of other cottage
industries such as hand-grinding, hand pounding, paper, soap etc. The development of
such industries will make the villages self-sustained units and will end the exploitation of
the villages by the cities.
10.5.6 Village Sanitation
Village sanitation occupied a prominent place in Gandhis constructive programme. He
bestowed supreme priority on sanitation and cleanliness. He was deeply pained and
disturbed by the unhygienic and polluting habits of the people. He felt people were
ignorant of the elementary laws of cleanliness, spitting, throwing food, refuse and peelings,
etc. all over. All these dirty habits spread the disease and foul the air. According to him,
a sense of national and social sanitation is lacking in our people. He said, we do not
mind dirtying the well, the tank, or the river by which side we performablutions. I regard
this defect as a great vice which is responsible for the disgraceful state of our villages
10.5.7 New or Basic Education
Gandhi was clear that the education of citizens is a backbone of any society. So he
envisaged a new educational systemfor non-violent society of his dreamand experimented
it for many years. Basic Education should be connected with life and should lead to the
development of mind, body and soul. It was Gandhis unflinching faith that there are
abundant power and potentiality in children. The nature and surroundings of society in
which the children are born and brought up can itself be very educative for their life and
development. They can learn many things by dealing with practical work and by direct
experiences.
Gandhis concept implies that nature, society and crafts are huge mediums of education.
According to him, true education is that which draws out and stimulates the spiritual,
intellectual and physical faculties of the children. This education ought to be for them, a
kind of insurance against unemployment. The Basic Education which was imparted
through the mediumof handicraft was specially designed to transformthe village children
into model villagers, which keeps them rooted to the soil and links to all that is best and
lasting in India.
10.5.8 Adult Education
For Gandhi, adult education means not only to teach illiterate to read and write but also
to open their minds to the vastness and greatness of their country. As the villagers
sometimes know nothing about their country except their own villages, Gandhi wanted to
develop and broaden their vision and wanted them to know about the rich and
magnificent cultural heritage of their country. Gandhis adult education means, true political
education of adult by word of mouth so that they can know that foreigners presence is
due to their own weaknesses and ignorance of power they possess to get rid of it.
Through this programme, Gandhi aimed at generating this awareness in them.
10.5.9 Upliftment of Women
In his mission of Swaraj, Gandhi needed the cooperation of women, kisans, labourers and
students. So, he had planned to work amongst them through constructive programme,
which was a concrete plan to generate awareness in them and get their support in the
freedom struggle. He believed that the movement cannot succeed without the active
participation of women.
The movement of 1930-32 generated unprecedented awareness in women. It was only
due to Gandhis efforts that women came out of their houses for the first time in the
history and participated in the Indian political struggle. Gandhi wanted to give women
equal status as of men. He believed that men should consider themselves as womens
friends and co-workers and not as their masters. He clarified that men are responsible for
the suppressive state of women by custom and law. He said, In a plan of life based on
non-violence woman has as much right to shape her own destiny as man has to shape
his.

Gandhi wanted to change customary and legal status of women in order to put them
on an equal footing with men.
10.5.10 Education in Health and Hygiene
Gandhi gives equal weightage to health and hygiene saying that ignorance and neglect of
the laws of health and hygiene are responsible for the majority of our diseases. To keep
our minds and bodies healthy Gandhi suggests some rules to be observed which include
purity of air, water and food, personal cleanliness and of surroundings, to maintain the
balance between physical and mental work; to stand and sit erect, be neat and clean in
every act, which must become an expression of our inner condition.
10.5.11 Provincial Languages
Gandhi realised that our craze for English language in preference to our own mother
tongue has created a rift between the educated and political minded classes and the
masses. If the masses do not understand each step with all its implications, they cannot
ably make their direct contribution to the freedommovement which is inherent in Swaraj
based on non-violence. So, it is absolutely inevitable to explain the steps in their own
languages.
10.5.12 National Language
Gandhi felt that India needs a common language, which is known and understood by a
large number of people and others can easily pick up. This is Hindi.

He was sure that
English can never be our national language, because it (Hindi) has long been accepted
as the lingua franca of India and much work has been done for its propagation and
instruction in it by Prachar Sabha all over the country.
10.5.13 Economic Equality
Gandhi holds that economic equality is the master key and the only solution to non-violent
independence. So long as there is a gulf between the rich and the poor the construction
of non-violent society is clearly impossible. A violent and bloody revolution is bound to
happen unless there is a voluntary abdication of rich. Therefore, Gandhi suggests the way
of equal distribution of wealth through his theory of Trusteeship, which implies that the rich
people are not the owners of their wealth but they are only trustees.
10.5.14 Kisans
India being an agricultural country, kisans are in majority in its population. Gandhi believed
that if they are made conscious of their strength, no power on earth can resist them. The
effective method of organising kisans is displayed by Gandhis kisan movement in
Champaran, Kheda, Bardoli and Borsad.
10.5.15 Labour
Gandhi considers Ahmedabad non-violent labour union as a model for India to copy.
Labour should have its own unions. The Union should have its own schools, hospitals and
a crche for workers children. It should also have a maternity home, its own printing
press, khadi depot and residential quarters. Moreover, the union should run night schools
for the general and scientific education of workers. They should teach the workers the
science of conducting a successful strike. Besides, capital should be labours servant and
not the master. The aim of constructive programme was to elevate the status of labour.
10.5.16 Students
According to Gandhi, the current education is unnatural and to acquire knowledge in
foreign language in the place of mother tongue is a waste of time for students. Gandhi
set out a clear programme to train and prepare the students, who are the future leaders
of the nation, as to what they should do and should not do. Students, in his opinion,
should keep away fromparty politics, political strikes and coercive and secret ways. They
should take to spinning, use khadi and village products, learn the national language and
enrich their mother tongue.
10.5.17 Adivasis
Service of Adivasis was also included in the constructive programme. Gandhi clarified that
this work is not merely humanitarian but it is a national service.
10.5.18 Lepers
Gandhi felt that we urgently need to pay our attention to this long neglected condition of
the lepers and our inhuman behaviour towards them. If we are to construct non-violent
social order, we will have to cultivate compassion, love and service towards the
economically and physically weaker and diseased people. Non-violent society is not
possible unless everybody enjoys the equal status and opportunities.
In order to generate non-violent strength among the masses through constructive work,
Gandhi had established many institutions, each with a specific goal. The main function of
these organisations was to promote, encourage and supervise the activities of constructive
programmes.
10.6 SUCCESSES AND FAILURES
Close to the epoch of freedom, Gandhi suggested dissolution of the Congress into Lok
Sevak Sangh. He wrote that, Congress has won political freedom, but it has yet to win
economic freedom, social and moral freedom. These freedoms are harder than the
political Gandhi did not believe in political power. Instead, he had tremendous faith in
the power of the people. He clarifies, If they (Swarajists) had power or office, it must
be by virtue of service, not by manipulation of the vote. The vote is there, no doubt. But
it must come, if it is to come, without asking. Is it not easy enough to see that service
requires no power, no office, no prestige? I would like every one of us to be a mere
servant of the nation.
Unfortunately, his basic social or political ideas were often not understood or followed by
even his close disciples. They reluctantly followed him or differed fromhimon the ground
that there was no integral relation between constructive work as defined by Gandhi, and
the Congress policy of non-violent mass action. Therefore, they wanted the resolution on
constructive programme to be split into parts, to which Gandhi strongly disagreed.
While the Congress worked for the programmes mainly as propagandists, the actual
educational part of the work was carried out by three organisations, namely the All India
Spinners Association, All India Village Industries Association and All India Harijan Sevak
Sangh. It was decided to integrate the Khadi work with all round village uplift work by
linking it with village industries and basic education. A joint board was created for these
institutions, and all three were linked to agriculture which would be the base.
The main function of this Coordination Committee, working under the direct guidance of
Gandhi, was to act as a watch and ward committee in regard to the constructive work,
and point out deviations from the principle of non-violence. However, it could not work
satisfactorily. The All India Spinners Association succeeded in constituting the biggest
voluntary cooperative society in the world with a capital of nearly ten lakhs of rupees
and an outturn of Rs.12, 002,430 worth of cloth.

It drew together around 3,024,391
spinners and 354,257 artisans spread over some 15,010 villages of India, and the total
wage of Rs.46, 030,081 was paid to the artisans by the association during the first
eighteen years of its existence.
The Association, however, passed through different phases. In the first phase, the
emphasis was given on the awakening of the mass consciousness, in the second on the
fulfillment of social justice by introducing the standard minimum wage. This trial achieved
a striking success in the first and a limited one in the last.
During the Quit India Movement of 1942, the British used violence against the people
and even against the constructive institutions. Though Gandhi tried to keep away these
institutions from politics, they functioned under constant government glare and even the
Ashrams premises were also occupied by the police all over the country. Gandhis hope
that their non-political status would secure them against Governments repression was
shattered.
Gandhi had built up these institutions with the hope that they would themselves become
a symbol of non-violence and that way guide the enthusiasm of the people. Addressing
the Trustees of the A.I.S.A, Gandhi said, The Spinners Association was brought into
being to give a concrete shape to this thought of mine. I had hoped that through the
Association I would be able to bring home the capacity of the spinning wheel to every
village and every home and thereby extend to the world a place that the spinning wheel
can occupy in the foundation of a non-violent society. But judging from the work done
during all these years, I have realized that the Spinners Association has not been able to
fulfill this aim of mine. Let alone the question of introducing a spinning wheel in every
home. It has not been able to do so even in every villageWhat power on earth could
have crushed it if the Spinners Association had spread itself far and wide in the seven
lakhs of villages of India? No Government can either imprison the 40 crores of people
or shoot them. Even if we imagine for a moment that the Government may shoot one
crore of people, still it cannot stop the progress of the aims and ideals for which the
Spinners Association stands.
The Spinners Association had treated khadi as an economic activity and not as a symbol
of non-violence as Gandhi had envisaged and became quantity and commercial-minded
regarding the khadi work. As a result, although khadi had fulfilled all expectations of
economic relief, its significance as a symbol of non-violence was side-tracked. Many of
the workers engaged in khadi work did not understand the implications and higher mission
of khadi and the truth of non-violence in their own lives. As a result, they naturally could
not infect the masses.
The success of khadi should not be measured in terms of its production and sale figures
and not even by the number of people wearing khadi. What mattered was the number
of people who are taught to be clothed themselves through their own efforts with a clear
and conscious understanding of the ideals of Ahimsa, Self-reliance and Self-sufficiency.
Khadi should be pursued not as an isolated economic activity, but as a means of the
revival of the entire village economy. And also many had taken to the spinning wheel out
of their reverence and faith in Gandhi. Gandhi wanted them to link their faith with
knowledge so that it can resist any attack.

For Gandhi, non-violence was a principle of
life, whereas for the Congress, it was only a policy which can be changed or used as
expediency. He pointed out in 1939 that non-violence does not seize power. It does not
even seek power, but power accrues to it. There was a rise of groups in the Congress
which had no faith in non-violence or constructive programme. Still they stuck to the
Congress because its name rendered the strength to their appeal to the masses.
The intrusion of internal corruption in Congress, influence and power, false entries in
Membership register and resorting to violence at the party elections have all weakened the
spirit of Satyagraha. In the process, the constructive programme and discipline were
neglected. In this way, even the Congress lagged behind and failed to rise to Gandhis
expectations in respect of non-violence, by attaching much importance to the numbers, at
the cost of depth.
There is also a criticism, as pointed out by Dhawan, that constructive programme works
as reformist and reactionary, which blunts the edge of popular discontent, side-tracks the
main issues, and postpones the revolution. According to Bhikhu Parekh, Gandhi believed
that, struggle for Indian political freedom and for Indian regeneration must go in parallel.
That means if the political freedom was given more importance than the latter, there was
a risk of valuing political power, prestige and office-holders compared to grass-roots
workers. Both the struggles had different logics and they came into conflict. Also the
freedomstruggle involved Satyagraha as well as working within the institutions provided
by the colonial state and these sometimes pulled in different directions. The other Indian
leaders had their own views and they did not agree with Gandhi on his priority to moral
regeneration and constructive programme.
Gandhi opined that different individuals had different capacities and talents. Some were
more suited for Satyagraha, while others were for constructive programme or conventional
politics. The freedom to do what they were best at and the accommodation of this
plurality in the political struggle ensured that division of work which was required for the
Indian freedom and regeneration.
According to some members, political freedom was the first requirement for moral
regeneration. Gandhi judged a Satyagraha from the point of view of its effect on Indian
society and its regeneration, while they judged it on the ground of how it affected
conventional politics and advanced their demand for representative institutions. As pointed
out by Bhikhu Parekh, Since Gandhi had not clearly worked out the relationship between
conventional politics, Satyagraha and the constructive programme and since it had to be
constantly redefined in the light of changing circumstances, his overall strategy remained
somewhat incoherent, rendering his leadership occasionally erratic, unpredictable and a
source of controversy.
As pointed out by Kishorlal Mashruwala, many Congress men and constructive workers
were very confused about the manner of working out of the constructive programmes. As
such they were enthusiastic about Gandhis plans and were eager to advance them. But,
when they approached Gandhi with their own plans and ideas, they felt, he was not very
encouraging and appreciative. So, they felt very confused.
Gandhi was also accused of leaving not much scope for his followers or co-workers to
work independently with their own responsibility and according to their own light. Even
the details of their private and personal conduct were laid down by him or had to be
previously approved. This nurtured diffidence. Gandhi often gave detailed instructions for
the work and it had become impossible for themto reach any decision without consulting
him. But if we try to judge from Gandhis point of view, he repeatedly says that,
Congress has not paid enough attention to the constructive programme. Talking about
removal of untouchability he says, I am sorry to have to say that many Congress men
have looked upon this itemas a mere political necessity and not something indispensable.
At other place he says, Congress men have not taken the interest they might have taken
in this (prohibition) very vital social and moral reform. Again he says, This (Adult
Education) has been woefully neglected by Congress men. About the National language
he said that we have the shameful spectacle of Congress men insisting on speaking in
English and compelling others to do likewise for their sake. Regarding kisans he says,
The method that some Congress men have followed to organize kisans has done them
no good and has probably harmed them. Anyway they have not wed the non-violent
method.
It should be clearly understood that social change is a very slow and gradual process.
Many of the social evils like untouchability, communal disunity and so on, were age old
and deep rooted in the Indian psyche. Perhaps, it was not possible to eliminate them
within a limited frame of time. This made the success of the programme difficult.
Gandhis personality was constantly developing and evolving. This also made difficult for
his followers and co-workers to keep pace with Gandhis dynamism. Gandhi could
generate tremendous awareness and could highlight the problems very powerfully and
effectively. Whether people agreed or disagreed with his ideas, whether they believed or
not in spinning wheel, but Gandhis message of inevitability of achieving economic
independence was conveyed and reached to them clearly. And this can be considered as
a success of the constructive programmes.
To sum up, perhaps it would not be fair to call it a failure as considerable work was
done on constructive programmes. As told by Gandhi, it was a tremendous task of
regeneration of India and so some deficiencies, lack of efforts, and differences of opinion
were quite natural and part of the process due to plurality and diversity of individuals. The
work has had to pass through various phases and circumstances, and even today it is
continuing in one or the other form.
10.7 RELEVANCE IN CONTEMPORARY TIMES
Even after more than sixty years of independence, we have not yet succeeded in
removing untouchability from practice, communal disunity, commercialisation of education
ignoring the development of body, mind, and soul, craze for foreign language that widens
the gap between the educated class and the masses. We have also neglected our
provincial languages and National Language; we disconnected ourselves from our culture.
Gandhis dream of villages becoming self-sufficient, self-reliant and free from exploitation
remains unfulfilled. Today, our villages are neglected and exploited and cities have become
congested due to urbanisation and industrialisation, creating more problems like insanitation,
filth, and spread of diseases, epidemics and environmental degradation. There is no well-
defined policy on Prohibition.
If we look into the history of the last hundred years, it is difficult to find a parallel to
Gandhis constructive programme. It was unique and universal, and was like a power
house to extract strength for Satyagraha. Without constructive programmes, the Satyagraha
movements would not have been successful in achieving the goal of the countrys freedom.
It played important role in the non-violent struggle for Indias freedom. It provided
strength and impetus to Satyagraha movements when it seemed to weaken on the surface.
It carried the workers to the remote villages throughout the nation, carrying the message
of Gandhi and prepared the concrete base for Swaraj by erecting new centres of
constructive work at various places.
Economically, it provides a decentralised system to prevent exploitation by keeping away
the middle man from production and sale. Politically, it calls for the participation of
majority of the people of the society, which can be possible only in politically small units
with equal distribution of responsibility. Educationally, the citizens will secure the development
of body, mind and soul. Culturally, it will raise the level of every citizen through the values
like love, compassion and service. Gandhi had designed the constructive programmes
keeping in mind the situation of our country at that time. But, they seemno less relevant
in the current scenario and modern times, as today we have created many more problems
through profligate life-style and wasteful patterns of consumption. The basic principles
used there still look worth emulating.
10.8 SUMMARY
Through Constructive Programme, Gandhi aimed at not only the political freedomof India
but also its socio-economic-cultural regeneration. He viewed it as a means of establishing
non-violent society, self-reliant and self-sufficient in all aspects. The constructive work, to
him, was an absolutely integral part of the freedom movement. It was the national
ammunition to fight the oppressive rulers, and a full substitute for armed revolt. It would
generate an expression of complete independence by the millions of masses fighting non-
violently to seek their rights towards an independent nation. It was also an instrument to
move determinedly towards regenerating the society and enabling its citizens to live up to
their non-violent and truthful Swaraj.
1. Why was the constructive programme initiated by Gandhi?
2. Describe the agenda of the constructive programme.
3. Do you think the constructive programme is relevant today? Why?
4. Explain the successes and failures of the constructive programmes.
SUGGESTED READINGS
1. Parekh, Bhikhu., Gandhi, Oxford, 1997.
2. Dhavan,G., The political philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi, Navajivan Publishing
House, Ahmedabad,1946.
3. Verma, M.M., Gandhis Technique of Mass Mobilization, R.K.Gupta&Co, New
Delhi, 1990.
4. Pyarelal., Mahatma Gandhi-The Last Phase, Vol.1, Navajivan, Ahmedabad, 1956.
5. The Constructive Programme Its perspectives and dynamics, compiled by Gopalrao
Kulkarni, C.K.Narayanswami, Neksat Khan, Congress House, 1945.
6. Gandhi, M. K., Constructive Programme- Its Meaning and Place, Navajivan,
Ahmedabad, 2003 edn.
7. Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Publications Division, New Delhi.
UNIT 11 GANDHI AND THE QUIT INDIA
MOVEMENT
Structure
11.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
11.2 The Impact of the World War II
11.3 Indian National Movement
11.4 The Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan
11.5 Quit India Movement
11.5.1 Consequences of the Quit India Movement
11.6 Gandhi and the Quit India Movement
11.7 Summary
Suggested Readings
11.1 INTRODUCTION
The Quit India movement in India in 1942 cannot be understood without a basic
understanding of the impact of the Second World War. Developments during the war not
only influenced Britain and India but also the relationship between the colonial powers and
their subject people throughout the world. It is also important to keep in mind the
evolution of the Indian national movement up to the outbreak of the war in 1939 and the
anti-colonial upheaval in 1942. Finally, since the focus of this course is on the role of
Gandhi and his thought, the political ideals and practice of Mahatma Gandhi as the leader
of the national movement need to be looked at closely.
Aims and Objectives
After reading this unit, you would be able to:
Understand the impact of World War II on India
The course of Indian National Movement
Examine the developments that led to the Quit India Movement.
11.2 THE IMPACT OF THE WORLD WAR II
The Second World War was an event that many commentators had been predicting for
sometime before the outbreak of hostilities. Nevertheless, the scale of the German and
J apanese victories and the rapidity with which the Axis powers expanded was not
anticipated by most observers. The War affected the former imperial powers in that
Britain became dependent on the financial and military support of the USA and faced
severe economic hardships. Its exports virtually disappeared and its debts mounted. It
was apparent that the world would be a very different place even if Britain and its allies
were to win the war. Eventually the war would compel Britain to loosen its grip on South
Asia and change its attitude towards the African and Asian colonies; but the British
political leadership, specially the British prime minister, Winston Churchill, was unwilling to
accept the dismemberment of the British Empire. It was Clement Attlee who presided
over the dismemberment of Empire in India. Churchill did his utmost to defend Britain and
preserve the Empire and by all accounts scuttled efforts in 1942 to create a National
government in India that would be willing to participate in the war on Britains behalf (R.J.
Moore). The war was transforming the economic and political relationship between Britain
and India but by 1942 many of these changes had not occurred and political decision
makers could not or would not accept the changes that had happened.
When the war ended in 1945, Britain had been reduced to the status of a second rate
power although it still held sway over large parts of the world. It was a power in decline
and needed the support of the USA in the Cold War era that began a few years after
the defeat of the Axis powers. It owed huge sums of money to the USA and also to
India in the form of sterling balances. These were sums of money that Britain owed to
India for the raw materials and finished goods the British government in India bought
during the war years. The rise of the USA as creditor and the worlds most productive
economy meant that Britain would be unable to play the role in the colonial world that
it had during the interwar period. The transformation of Britain also took place owing to
the churning of society that occurred because of the war. Full employment and economic
welfare became more important objectives of policy than the preservation of the Empire
(Floud and Johnson). The Labour party victory at the end of the war in that sense made
the final decision to withdraw from India easier although Labours anti-imperialism was
always faint-hearted (P.S. Gupta, Bayly and Harper). The victory of Labour, inspite of the
significant role of the Conservative Winston Churchill during the war, indicated the
changing political climate of Britain. The war changed the expectations of voters and the
fortunes of political parties. It is not surprising that it had a significant impact on the nature
of Indian nationalism and the freedom struggle.
11.3 INDIAN NATIONAL MOVEMENT
The Indian National Congress had opposed the Government of India Act of 1935 that
had introduced certain unacceptable features while granting Provincial autonomy with
considerable expansion of the electorate. The object of the British government was to
grant considerable freedom at the provincial level while retaining substantial power at the
level of the Central government; the central government intended to have substantial
powers over finance and the distribution of resources. There was a proposal for an All
India Federation that would bring together the representatives of the Princely States of
India and of British India into a single assembly that would represent the British Indian
Empire as a whole. The representatives of Indian India were to be chosen by the Princely
States and they were not to be coerced into joining the Federation. Only if a substantial
number of Princely states voluntarily accepted federation would the Union with British
India take place (Robin J effrey, Ian Copland). By the time the war broke out in 1939
this process had not made much headway. As a result of the dramatic changes that came
about due to the war, this plan of constitutional development was abandoned altogether.
It was alleged by militant nationalists and the left wing nationalists that the conservative
and moderate wing of the Congress was willing to accept the idea of an Indian
Federation despite the fact that the representatives of Princely States were to be chosen
by the Princes rather than the people of the state. On the other hand the struggle for
freedom and representative government in the Indian states, led by the States Peoples
Congress, intensified soon after the union of British India and Princely India was mooted
in the early 1930s. The Congress opposed the Federation because the Princes were
beholden to the British and were likely to side with them. If they chose their representatives
they would be spokesmen of the rulers and not the common people. The left wing of
Congress had numerous differences of opinion with the moderate sections within the
Congress and the willingness to compromise with the British on this question became one
of them. The conflict between Subhas Chandra Bose and the Gandhian leadership of the
congress was partly because of this (Gowher Rizvi).
It was also connected to the Congress attitude towards the impending war. The militant
nationalists thought that the outbreak of a war in Europe would provide Indian nationalists
an opportunity to strike at the foundations of British rule in India. The left wing of the
Congress had been arguing that Indians should refuse to support the British during the
war and opposed participation in the war effort. Militant nationalists had been opposed
to military recruitment in the years before the war began. The anti-war and anti-
recruitment propaganda in the years before the war in the Punjab, which was a major
source of manpower for the British Indian Army, worried the British government. Although
there were very large numbers of nationalists who remained opposed to the war effort
right through the war years, the British had little difficulty in finding recruits for their army.
The educated unemployed were willing to join as officers and those who sought a secure
pay and benefits joined as soldiers. It has been proposed that recruits came substantially
from the non-martial groups partly because the increase in the demand and price of
agricultural commodities fromthe Punjab made military service less attractive. There was
also recruitment of more educated soldiers for the more specialised branches of the army.
The British may have had reservations about the quality of the recruits that they got but
there was no shortage of manpower during the war years despite the rise of nationalist
feeling and the Quit India movement (Indivar Kamtekar).
Soon after the Second World War broke out the Congress ministries resigned from office
in the Provinces where they had been in power for over two years since 1937. The
ministries had not been consulted when the Viceroy pledged Indian support to Britain after
the outbreak of war. The Congress did not wish to embarrass the British during the war
although it refused to cooperate with the war effort. Gandhi supported the idea of
individual satyagraha and not a mass struggle against the British. It was the rapidity of the
Japanese advance towards India in 1942- the fall of Singapore, Malaya and then Burma
that changed the Indian perceptions of the war. The Japanese victories shattered the myth
about the might and invincibility of the British Empire. The fall of France in the summer
of 1940 and the Battle of Britain did not have the same impact on Indian perceptions,
but the early defeats of the British did create considerable ferment in political circles in
the country. Revolutionary and militant nationalists thought that the predicament of Britain
was an opportunity to end the British rule and this sentiment began to enter the
calculations of Congress leaders as well.
The fall of the impregnable naval base at Singapore and the Japanese advance towards
Burma in early 1942, led to a serious bid by the USA to get Britain to negotiate with
the Indian nationalists. President Roosevelt and Chiang Kai Sheik of China urged Winston
Churchill to win the support of Indian political parties to mobilise resources and
Gandhi and the Quit India Movement 121
manpower more effectively against the Axis powers. In response Churchill did send Sir
Stafford Cripps to India in March 1942 to negotiate with the Congress and the League.
The Congress leaders demanded responsible government and the substance of
independence during the war. The control over the Ministry of Defence was one of the
important points for the Congress CWMG, Vol. LXXVI, pp. 28-29). The conservative
Viceroy Lord Linlithgow was hostile to the idea of making concessions to the Congress
during the war and he showed little interest in winning the support of the Congress. He
collaborated with Winston Churchill in ensuring that the negotiations did not succeed (RJ
Moore). The British officials in India felt relieved that the Congress ministries had resigned
in late 1939 and did not have any desire to have them on board at the national level.
The presence of the Congress at the centre would only hamper the war effort which was
going ahead smoothly despite the ideological hostility of the Congress.
Gandhi was seriously disturbed by the military advance of the Japanese towards India. In
April 1942 he argued that the British should leave India now in an orderly manner and
not run the risk that they did in Singapore and Malaya and Burma. Britain cannot defend
India, much less herself on Indian soil with any strength. The best thing she can do is to
leave India to her fate. (CWMG, Vol-LXXVI, pp.60-61). The distressed Indian refugees
fleeing Burma and the scorched earth policies of the government in parts of eastern India
upset Gandhi. The language of Gandhi during this period indicates his immense anxiety
about the implications of the Japanese advance for the people of India. Gandhi argued
that the British presence is the incentive for the J apanese attack. If the British wisely
decided to withdraw and leave India to manage her own affairs in the best way she
could, the J apanese would be bound to reconsider their plans. (CWMG, vol. LXXVI,
pp. 67-68). He called the Cripps proposals a post-dated cheque on a crashing bank.
11.4 THE MUSLIM LEAGUE AND THE DEMAND FOR
PAKISTAN
The growth of communalism during the 1920s and 1930s was an important problem for
the Congress national leaders. For Gandhi, this was a major political issue as he was
greatly concerned with Hindu-Muslimunity and communal harmony. The Khilafat movement
had brought large numbers of Muslims in a common struggle with the Hindus against
British rule and policies in India but this feat could not be repeated later. Muslims on the
whole stayed away from the civil disobedience movement in many regions. The Congress
rule in seven provinces enabled the Muslim League to claim that it was oppressing the
Muslims and that the future of Indian Muslims in a country dominated by the Hindu
Congress would be very bleak. In March 1940, the Muslim League passed a resolution
demanding self-determination for the Muslimmajority regions of the North West and East
of India. It did not use the word Pakistan but the Lahore Resolution indicated the
determination of the League to represent the Muslims of India and a refusal to accept a
subordinate position to that of the Congress. The British welcomed the Lahore Resolution
because it gave them a reason for rejecting the claim of the Congress to represent all
Indians and their demand for independence. If important sections of Indian society were
not satisfied with the Congress then the constitutional future of India could not be
determined by the Congress alone.
The Congress leaders initially considered the Lahore resolution of the League as a
bargaining counter and that the problem could be overcome. Gandhi was perturbed by
the support for the demands of the Muslim League by the British government in India.
He believed that the British were deliberately promoting the ambitions of the Muslim
League to promote their interests in India and that the communal problem would not be
resolved as long as the British ruled India. The Congress had long blamed the British for
a policy of divide and rule and the third party was always held responsible for promoting
communal conflict and discord. The British endorsement of Jinnahs intransigent attitude
meant that they would not let the Indians resolve the communal problem as long as they
were the rulers. As the British lost their ability to even provide protection against external
threats Gandhi became more upset. After the failure of the Cripps Mission in April 1942
Gandhi grew increasingly restive and his language reflected that. Finally, Gandhi and the
Congress decided to launch the Quit India Movement. It was a rejection of British rule
in India even if it was not a bid for power by the Congress in the middle of the war.
Many historians today do not believe that the League had asked for a separate country
in March 1940. Yet few doubt that the Muslim community did not participate in the Quit
India movement in any significant way. This could be attributed to the distrust of the
Congress among many Muslims regardless of the differences between Muslims of different
regions of India. The Leagues propaganda against the Congress ministries during the
period 1937-39 also played a role in this process. Secondly, Muslim endorsement of the
Civil disobedience movement was also limited and the fear of a Hindu dominated centre
had grown after the British had introduced the idea of an All India Federation under the
Government of India Act of 1935 (Ayesha Jalal, David Page). Finally, Muslim politicians
as well as sections of the community feared that the Congress might use their political
clout to force the British government to make concessions to them during the war. These
three reasons could account for the poor participation of the Muslims of the subcontinent
in the Quit India movement. Those who believe that the League was indeed demanding
a separate state believe that this was a devious attempt by the Congress to wrench
power from an embattled colonial power in order to bypass the League demand for a
separate nation state. It has been noted that even during the Civil Disobedience
movement, the boycott of foreign goods was not endorsed by Muslim shopkeepers in
several towns of United Provinces and they resented Congress pressures to observe
hartals and stop trade in imported cloth. Even the Harijan welfare programme was
perceived as an attempt to consolidate the position of the Hindu community and weaken
the position of the Muslim community (William Gould).
11.5 QUIT INDIA MOVEMENT
The Quit India movement was different from the other two movements associated with
Gandhian leadership of the Congress. The resolution was passed by Gandhi without the
usual policy of slow escalation following the declaration to break the law in order to
achieve political goals. The movement was a product of the steady disillusionment of
Gandhi with British policies during 1942 and the gravity of the J apanese threat to the
security of the country. Gandhi did not advocate violence but he gave a powerful slogan
Do or Die that in the period of war and growing nationalist resentment was bound to
have grave consequences. Gandhi believed in ahimsa but preferred violence to cowardice.
The philosophical position of Gandhi can be debated but the launching of a mass
movement during wartime was bound to involve violence both by the nationalists and the
colonial rulers. Gandhi could not have been unaware of the consequences of his slogans
and programme for domestic order and he declared that the British should quit India
immediately even if it led to anarchy. Gandhi observed that the British withdrawal from
India may induce unity or it may lead to chaos. There is also the risk of another power
filling in the vacancy if it is there (CWMG, Vol. LXXVI, p. 121). A revolutionary
periodical from Tamluk, in Midnapur district of Bengal, claimed to have a message from
Gandhi that although he believed in non-violence he could not condemn the violent
resistance to the bestial repression by the government since it was just like the violence
of the mouse against the cat. (Biplabi, 26
th
March, 1943, Greenough).
The scale of the mass movement, at least in eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, was
unprecedented. Even in other parts of the country the movement was marked by acts of
violence, strikes, student protests and disruption of civic life. The Quit India movement did
not have a strong agrarian dimension because the duration of the struggle was cut short
by the massive repression that was unleashed by the colonial state. While the Non-
Cooperation and Civil Disobedience movements had involved the peasantry, both because
of Congress initiative and that of the peasants themselves, this did not happen in 1942.
It was more focused on nationalism and had less peasant participation (Gyan Pandey).
The Government had been waiting for the Congress to launch the Quit India movement
and had prepared itself to suppress the movement under draconian laws. Days after the
Quit India resolution was passed on 8
th
August 1942, the majority of the front ranking
Congress leaders were arrested throughout the country. The movement was therefore
taken over by the younger and more militant nationalists both within and outside the
Congress.
Militant students of Benares University and even schools played a significant role in this
movement. While there were workers, students and middle class radicals involved in most
parts of the country in Bihar and eastern Uttar Pradesh the movement spread to the
villages. Socialists like Jayaprakash Narayan played an important role in the Quit India
movement in eastern UP and Bihar. Popular opinion in the region had been disturbed by
the movement of wounded soldiers who passed through in trains. The fall of Burma and
the end of remittances from that country had created much anxiety about the very survival
of British rule. Rumours about the impending collapse of British rule led to the withdrawal
of money from banks and post offices and the loss of respect for British authority. The
Quit India movement in this region was marked by the pulling down of telegraph lines and
the removal of fish plates and rails to disrupt the movement of trains. The ferment was
higher than in the regions that were closer to the advancing Japanese armies (Kamtekar).
The existing millenarian tradition of protest in the Koraput region of Orissa combined with
the exactions because of the war to bring the peasants and tribals into a struggle against
the British during the Quit India movement. In Malkangiri the leadership of the local
Congress activist Laxman Naiko linked local protest with the ideas of Gandhi Raj and
Swaraj (Biswamoy Pati). In Midnapur in Bengal the Tamluk National Government was set
up by the Congress inspired revolutionaries. The resistance continued unabated until 1944
(Greenough, Chakravarty). In many parts of Bengal, the worker, tribal and peasant
movements picked up momentum by linking up with the Quit India movement. In
Dinajpur, Birbhum and Bankura districts Rajbangshis, Santals, Oraons and Mundas
participated in the struggle (Suranjan Das). The peasant movement in Bihar had become
vibrant much earlier under leaders like Swami Sahajanand but it emerged in full force
during the period 1942-43. Azad Dastas were created and they played a significant role
during this period when large tracts went completely out of British control. Several
divisions of the Indian army had to be deployed to suppress the rebellion in regions like
Azamgarh (Vinita Damodaran, Hutchins).
The British government survived the Quit India movement because it had vast resources
to suppress the movement. Although in the villages of eastern UP and Bihar, the British
power seemed to be on its last legs, in 1942; this was an erroneous assessment. The
Japanese offensive had bogged down in Burma and support from the United States had
begun to play a critical role in World War II by this time. The American Navy had
managed to secure a victory just about this time (Milan Hauner). Although the momentum
of the J apanese advance had broken by mid 1942, the outcome of the war was still
uncertain. The Quit India movement was launched because the leadership of the Congress
and Gandhi in particular felt that there was a need to protect India from a J apanese
invasion that was imminent. Gandhi argued that he wanted independence during the war
so that no Indian worth the name would then think of going over to the Japanese side.
In an interview with foreign correspondents he said that independent India would have an
interest in fighting the J apanese (CWMG, Vol-LXXVI, pp. 300, p. 298-303).
The Indian public opinion was growing increasingly hostile and restive and Gandhis
perceptions about British ineffectiveness were quite widely shared. The surrender of Indian
forces in Singapore and the disorganised retreat from Burma affected Indian public
opinion. Stories about the discrimination faced by Indians in the evacuation from Burma
aroused anti- British sentiment. For the most part, scarce resources were used to protect
European lives and interests and the majority of Indians had to fend for themselves.
Gandhi told Horace Alexander that the British left Burma and Malaya neither to God,
nor to anarchy, but to the J apanese. He did not want the story to be repeated in India
(Harijan, 5
th
July, 1942, CWMG, Vol-LXXVI, pp. 244-45). A whole host of resentments
against the British led to a violent upheaval after the Quit India movement was launched
but the fear of Japanese invasion was a primary factor in the decision to challenge British
rule during the war.
The Quit India movement was launched at one of the worst moments of the Second
World War in the East as far as the British were concerned. They were aware that a
movement was to be launched and they took swift and decisive actions to suppress the
movement. They tried to charge the Congress and Gandhi of harbouring sympathy for the
J apanese and of trying to arrive at a separate agreement with them. An enquiry by
Tottenham however could find no evidence of any direct link between the Congress and
the Japanese or of fifth column activities. Gandhi had declared that there was no quarrel
between the Indians and the J apanese but he had made no overtures for a separate
peace. In fact he had declared that he would resist a J apanese invasion by non-violent
means. In a letter to President Roosevelt of the USA, Gandhi had assured him that he
had no objection if Allied troops were stationed in India to fight the Japanese aggression
or in order to aid China but not for the maintenance of internal order. A treaty with a
free Indian Government could be drawn up for this purpose (Letter of J uly 1, 1942,
CWMG, Vol-LXXVI, pp. 264-265). A few days before the Quit India movement was
launched, Gandhi observed, We know that if India does not become free now the
hidden discontent will burst forth into a welcome to the J apanese should they affect a
landing. We feel that such an event would be a calamity of the first magnitude. We can
avoid it if India gains her freedom (Harijan, 2 August 1942, Pyarelal).
According to the British intelligence assessments there was a growing fear among the
moderate Congressmen that their leadership of the national movement and the Congress
party would be undermined if they failed to launch a movement against the British during
the middle of the war. Gandhi had been reluctant to embarrass the British during the early
stages of the Second World War but his attitude changed after the Japanese approached
the borders of India. The constant pressure from the left wing and militant nationalist
groups also shaped Gandhian strategy during the late 1930s and it is likely it did so in
1942 as well. The fight for control of the Congress party during 1938-39 had led to the
resignation of Subhas Chandra Bose as the Congress President and Gandhi had managed
to retain control. The growing discontent among sections of the population and the
frequent calls for a revolt against British rule at a time when its power had declined
probably indirectly influenced Gandhi and the moderate leaders of the Congress. The
broadcasts by Subhas Bose from exile in Germany and the creation of the first Indian
National Army began to influence public opinion in India.
The launching of the Quit India movement brought different sections of the Congress
together and represented a major effort to gain freedom. The August Kranti in 1942
became a major force unifying different sections of Indian nationalist opinion. Its value lay
not in achieving independence during the war but in shaking the foundations of British
power in India. It was a nationwide movement that established once again the credentials
of the Congress party to represent a wide swathe of Indian opinion. The growing
challenge from Jinnahs Muslim League and the need to find a solution to the communal
problem increasingly made the ideological conflict within the Congress a less pressing
political concern. The Quit India movement and the demand for Pakistan made the Left
wing and militant challenge to the Gandhian leadership of the Congress a less significant
issue.
The movement was more of an outcome of the failure of the Cripps Mission in March-
April 1942 that changed the situation and led to the Quit India movement in August 1942.
If the British government had offered India the assurance of independence after the war,
as the United States of America had done in the case of the Philippines, the cooperation
of the Indian National Congress during the war could have been possible. There was, of
course, the view of the Muslim League to consider but substantial acceptance of the
demands of the Congress for cooperation during the war could have led to the setting
up of a National Government in 1942.
There was a section of Indian society that was cooperating with the British because of
economic reasons because the British demand for commodities and manpower had
opened up opportunities for employment and profit. While this was no guarantee of
support to British power in India, it did not signify a total rejection of British power
during the war. Farmers with a surplus to sell, traders and industrialists found it worth
their while to cooperate and so the discontent in the country was not inexorably leading
to a mass movement. While this trend was more pronounced in the Punjab, it was not
confined exclusively to this region. While an outburst against the wartime hardships was
probably inevitable and the military defeats of the British made some upheaval highly
likely, the scale of the spontaneous outbursts would have been much less had the
Congress decided to cooperate with the British during the war. It could have cooperated
with Britain had it got an assurance of freedom after the war and the basis for an
honourable cooperation with the British in April 1942 in the struggle against the Axis
powers.
11.5.1 Consequences of the Quit India Movement
The Quit India movement was the last of the great nationwide movements launched by
the Congress and established the nationalist credentials of a whole range of leaders for
years to come. This was not inevitable but as the demand for Pakistan gained momentum,
the communal question overshadowed the social question. The Congress became
preoccupied with the question of partition rather than a mass struggle to promote a
popular and secular national movement. The post-war British willingness to consider
withdrawal fromIndia also made another nation-wide struggle for independenceunnecessary.
The belief of the Congress leaders, including Gandhi, that the opinions and aspirations of
the Muslim community ought to be respected, meant that a mass struggle that sought to
challenge the right of the MuslimLeague to represent the Muslims of India would not be
considered (Sucheta Mahajan). The post-war ferment and communitarian or communal
polarisation probably ruled out such a movement.
The outbreak of popular protest- the Tebhaga movement in Bengal, the cross communal
support for the Indian National Army officers put up for trial at the Red Fort, the
discontent that led to the mutiny by the naval ratings at Bombay and Karachi and other
stations in 1946- have been regarded as signs that indicate the possibility of a broad
national movement cutting across communal lines. However, the mass support for the
Pakistan movement, the killings during the Direct Action day in 1946 especially in
Calcutta, followed by rioting in parts of East Bengal, Bihar and Punjab are indications of
a contrary development (Ian Talbot, Suranjan Das). The support for communalism and
Muslim separatism or nationalism was also quite evident in the postwar period. This
movement could have been followed by another mass movement after the war had ended
but this did not happen. It has acquired greater significance in Indias freedom struggle
because it was not followed by another mass movement against British rule.
The Quit India movement was a rejection of British rule in the middle of the war and
the British suppressed it ruthlessly. Gandhi was imprisoned in the Aga Khan palace and
the British were prepared to let him die rather than make concessions when he went on
a fast during February-March 1943. It marked a low point in the relationship of the
British rulers and Gandhi as well as Viceroy Linlithgows and Prime Minister Churchills
distrust of and dislike for Gandhi. The British animosity towards the Congress and their
support for the League led to the spread of communal propaganda during the period
1942-45. The imprisonment of most of the top Congress leaders ensured that the League
was at complete freedom to propagate its views about Hindu domination and the rights
of Muslims to live in autonomous zones or an undefined realm called Pakistan. The Quit
India movement and the repression that followed enabled the League to mobilise Muslims.
In Gandhis view, the revolutionary violence of 1942 led to the communal violence of
1946 in Bihar. Referring to the role of the revolutionaries and socialists like Jayaprakash
Narayan, Gandhi said, If the Bihar masses had not had the lesson which they had at
your hands in 1942, the excesses witnessed last year would never have occurred. All
violence inevitably tends to excess. (Discussion with Aruna Asaf Ali and Ashok Mehta,
May 6, 1947, CWMG, Vol-LXXXVII, pp. 421-425).
Perhaps the August Kranti strengthened Muslim fears about the Congress attempt to
bypass them and wrest concessions from the British. In that sense the Quit India
movement weakened the capacity of the Congress to mobilise the masses on a secular
nationalist programme. This can be overstated since the weakness of the Congress to
mobilize the masses through the Muslim Mass contact programme arose fromthe inability
of the Congress to overcome the influence of local magnates and defenders of the status
quo during periods of mobilization (Gyan Pandey). If the Muslim anxiety about Hindu
domination depended on vague feelings rather than the actual behaviour of the Congress,
then even a National Government during the war might not have been able to create a
modus vivendi between the Congress and the League. Gandhi launched the Quit India
movement to save India from Japanese occupation but it helped the League to expand
its influence. It is arguable that regardless of what Gandhi and the Congress did during
the war, the League could have mobilised Muslim opinion against a Hindu-dominated
centre based on a unitary form of government in a country that had a permanent Hindu
majority.
11.6 GANDHI AND THE QUIT INDIA MOVEMENT
Gandhi was a firm believer in ahimsa and in the use of non-violent forms of protest and
civil disobedience to achieve independence. This was an article of faith and also a strategy
of struggle according to his closest supporters. Gandhi had defeated the challenge to his
leadership from militant nationalists and a section of the Left within the Congress party in
1938-1939 but with the outbreak of war, the political equations had changed dramatically.
While the All India Federation had been a feasible political scheme before the outbreak
of war, it had become redundant by the time the Quit India movement was launched. The
demand for Pakistan, which emerged in March 1940, itself was for some time
overshadowed by the advance of J apanese armies towards India. The failure of the
Cripps Mission has been attributed to various reasons but Gandhis hostility is an
important factor. It is unclear whether Gandhi would have been willing to accept a
National Government during the war if he had not taken such a dim view of British rule
in early 1942. Maybe the British policy of divide and rule- the encouragement to the
Muslim League inspite of the inability to protect India from external invasion- added to
Gandhis anxiety about the need to break free from British domination.
Nevertheless it was his rejection of British offers in March-April 1942 that led to his
growing hostility towards British rule in India. The demand for an Indian Defence Member
in a Viceroys Council or Indian control over defence during the war was not the only
issue for Gandhi. It is unclear whether Gandhis rejection of cooperation in the British war
effort was due to his commitment to non-violence or had more to do with the fear of
Japanese occupation of India than a moral rejection of Congress participation in war, with
the futility of violent resistance to Japan and the intransigence of the British government
than the rejection of Indian participation in a world war. His reluctance to disrupt the war
effort until the summer of 1942 indicates that his attitude on this question was shaped far
more decisively by the military tragedy facing India than any moral outrage at the thought
of the willing cooperation of the Congress in a military conflict. He certainly did not
denounce the negotiations over the question of the Indian control over defence during the
discussions with Sir Stafford Cripps. The commitment of Gandhi to non-violence had led
to the withdrawal of the Non-Cooperation movement in 1922 after the violence of Chauri
Chaura in Gorakhpur district of Uttar Pradesh. Yet Gandhi had resorted only to individual
Satyagraha against the British Indian governments participation in the Second World War
without consulting Indian opinion.
Finally, Gandhi rejected violence and war but he did not impose his views on the
Congress party. Although Gandhi did not accept partition in principle, he did not
denounce the Congress willingness to reluctantly accept the partition of the subcontinent.
Gandhi was not just powerless in the face of cataclysmic changes; he also was against
the imposition of views on people or the denial of the right to choose. He did not believe
that the majority was right and said so quite categorically in Hind Swaraj in 1909. He
did not have faith in the Westminster parliamentary democracy or in a simple notion of
the will of the people. Yet he sought to persuade people to accept his point of view
by setting an example and trying to arouse the conscience of the people (Parel, Dalton,
Habib, Brown). When he was faced with rejection of his views within the Congress party
or the national movement he would focus on social reforms or his constructive programme;
he would sometime claimthat he was not even a four anna member of the Congress; and
he would argue that his search for truth was an ongoing one and that he was striving
towards his goals.
Those who argue that Gandhi did not believe in absolute principles and commend the
anti-foundationalism of his ideas-must also concede that this poses problems for those
who want to judge him exclusively in terms of satya and ahimsa or even sarvodaya.
Ultimately, owing to the lack of very precise statements by Gandhi on a whole range of
questions that present day scholars and philosophers ask, it is not possible to come to
any definitive view about Gandhis position on some vital matters. It is arguable that even
in the case of those philosophers who write down their views in a systematic manner
there are gaps and silences that confound scholars subsequently. If as Gandhi claimed he
was trying to develop the science of satyagraha then it is an ongoing process and its
greatest practitioner might not have had all the answers. Not only did Gandhi not claim
to have all the answers he would not have liked people to think that he could supply
them with appropriate answers. He observed, I do not consider myself a Mahatma.
[Speech at Prayer meeting Patna, March 7, 1947, CWMG, Vol-LXXXVII, pp. 51-53.]
So the role of the satyagrahi in periods of war and communal polarisation will remain
open to interpretation for some time to come; this is even truer for those who would like
to fashion strategies for non-violent struggles for freedom in war and in peace.
11.7 SUMMARY
The Quit India Movement came at a time when the British supremacy was crumbling with
the approach of J apanese forces towards the Indian sub-continent and the Britishs
apparent inability to defend Indian territory. At the backdrop of the Second World War,
the British found themselves losing grip over the Indian affairs but holding on to it firmly
inspite of adverse situations. The Leagues demand for a separate state, the failure of
Cripps proposals, the Indian public unrest and Gandhis own skepticism about the ability
of the British to defend India-have all led towards the calling of the Quit India Movement.
It is termed as the last great movement that awakened the masses to take up cudgels
against the colonial rule.
1. The Indian National Movement gained momentum during the World War II years.
Substantiate.
2. Discuss at length the launching of the Quit Indian Movement.
3. Write short notes on:
a) The Impact of World War II on the Indian National Movement.
b) Consequences of the Quit India Movement.
SUGGESTED READINGS
1. Jalal, Ayesha., The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the demand for
Pakistan, Cambridge, 1985.
2. Tomlinson, B.R., The Political Economy of the Raj: The Economics of Decolonization
in India, London, 1979.
3. Chakrabarty, Bidyut., Defiance and Confrontation: The 1942 Quit India Movement
in Midnapur, Social Scientist, Vol 20, No.7/8, J uly-August, 1992, pp. 75-93.
4. Chandra, Bipan., Struggle for the Ideological Transformation of the National Congress
in the 1930s, Social Scientist, Vol 14, No 8/9, August-September, 1986, pp.18-39.
5. Pati, Biswamoy., Storm over Malkangiri: A Note on Laxman Naikos Revolt
(1942), Social Scientist, Vol 15, No 8/9, August-September1987, pp. 47-66.
6. Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Ahmedabad. Vol -76, 86 and 87.
7. Low, David., (ed), Congress and the Raj: Facets of the Indian Struggle, 1917-1947,
New Delhi. 1977
8. Dalton, Dennis., Gandhi: Ideology and Authority, Modern Asian Studies, Vol 3, no
4, Gandhi Centenary Number, 1969, pp. 377-393.
9. Gandhi, Devdas., (ed), India Unreconciled, Hindustan Times Press, New Delhi,
1944.
10. Hutchins, Francis., Spontaneous Revolution: The Quit India Movement, Delhi, 1971.
11. Pandey, Gyanendra., (ed), Indian Nation in 1942, Calcutta, 1988.
12. Toye, Hugh., The First Indian National Army, 1941-42, Journal of Southeast Asian
Studies, Vol 15, No2, September, 1984, pp.365-381.
13. Copland, Ian., The Princes of India in the Endgame of Empire, 1917-1947,
Cambridge, 1997.
14. Kamtekar, Indivar., The Shiver of 1942, Studies in History, Vo. No. 18, 1, 2002,
pp. 81-102.
15. Kamtekar, Indivar., A Different War Dance: State and Class in India, 1939-1945,
Past & Present, 176, 1, 2002, pp. 187-221.
16. Habib, Irfan., Gandhi and the National Movement, Social Scientist, Vol 23, No 4/
6 April-J une, 1995, pp. 3-15.
17. Nair, J anaki., The Unspeakable Violence of Isoor, 1942, in Mathew J ohn and
Sitharamam Kakarala (eds), Enculturing Law: New Agendas for Legal Pedagogy,
New Delhi, Tulika, 2007, pp. 97-116.
18. Brown, Judith., The Mahatma and Modern India, Modern Asian Studies, Vol 3, No
4, Gandhi Centenary Number, 1969, pp. 321-342.
19. Roy,Kaushik., Axis Satellite Armies of World War II: A Case Study of the Azad
Hind Fauj, 1942-45, The Indian Historical Review, Vol. No. 35, 1, 2008
pp.144-172.
20. Hauner, Milan., India in Axis Strategy: Germany, Japan, and Indian Nationalists in the
Second World War, Klett Cotta, Stuttgart, 1981.
21. Chopra, P.N., (ed), Quit India Movement: British Secret Report, Delhi, 1976.
22. Greenough, Paul., Political Mobilization and the Underground Literature of the Quit
India Movement, 1942-44, Modern Asian Studies, Vol 17, No 3, 1983, pp. 353-
386.
23. Pyarelal, (ed), Gandhijis Correspondence with the Government, 1942-44, Ahmedabad,
1945.
24. Moore, R.J ., Churchill, Cripps and India, 1939-1945, Oxford, 1979.
25. Floud, Roderick., and Paul J ohnson (eds), The Cambridge Economic History of
Modern Britain, Vol 2, Economic Maturity, 1860-1939 and Vol 3, Structural Change
and Growth, 1939-2000, Cambridge press, 2004.
26. Jeffrey, Robin., (ed), People, Princes and Paramount Power: Society and Politics in
the Indian Princely States, OUP, Delhi, 1978.
27. Henningham, Stephen., Quit India in Bihar and Eastern United Provinces: The Dual
Revolt, in Guha, (ed), Subaltern Studies II: Writings on South Asian History and
Politics, Delhi, OUP, 1983.
28. Amin, Shahid, Gandhi as Mahatma: Gorakhpur district, Eastern U.P., 1921-22, in
Ranajit Guha (ed), Subaltern Studies, Vol 3, Delhi, 1984.
29. Das, Suranjan., Nationalism and Popular Consciousness: Bengal 1942, Social
Scientist, Vol 23, No 4/ 6, April-J une, 1995, pp. 58-68.
30. Damodaran, Vinita., Broken Promises: Popular Protest, Indian Nationalism and the
Congress Party in Bihar, 1935-1946, Delhi, 1992.
31. Damodaran, Vinita., Azad Dastas and Dacoit Gangs: The Congress and Underground
Activity in Bihar, 1942-44, Modern Asian Studies, Vol 26, No 3, J uly 1992, pp
417-450.
32. Menon, Visalakshi., From Movement to Government: The Congress in the United
Provinces, 1937-42, Sage, Delhi, 2003
33. Gould, William., Hindu Nationalism and the Language of Politics in Late Colonial
India, Foundation Books, Delhi, 2005.
UNIT 12 PARTITION OF INDIA
Structure
12.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
12.2 British Policies and Partition
12.3 Muslim League and Jinnah
12.4 Congress and Partition
12.5 Gandhi and Partition
12.6 The 1946 Election and Popular Opinion
12.6.1 Cabinet Mission Plan and a Strong State
12.7 Social and Economic Background
12.8 Overview
12.9 Summary
12.10Terminal Questions
Suggested Readings
12.1 INTRODUCTION
The British conquered India and gave it a political unity that it had enjoyed only for short
periods of time in its long history. This political unification based on imperialist expansion
quickened the pace of political change in India in conjunction with the spread of modern
education and the growth of modern forms of transport and communications. Yet, when
the British left India in 1947, the country was divided along religious lines into India and
Pakistan. This has been attributed to a policy of divide and rule that the British followed.
That Britain was responsible in the break-up of British India was believed by all the
Indian nationalists including Gandhi; he believed that both Hindus and Muslims ought to
strive for communal harmony, which was consciously damaged by the third party i.e. the
British rulers. During the period of World War II, Gandhi even said that the communal
problemwould never be resolved until the British left India. Since the British deliberately
encouraged the League and its demand for Pakistan after March 1940, Gandhi argued
that Hindu-Muslim unity was a pre-requisite for fighting the British and for freedom
around 1942, and also argued that the communal problem would never be settled until
the British left India.
The partition of India was the product of complex processes and was the outcome of
several factors and the role of the British, the Muslim League and the Indian National
Congress for the division of the subcontinent. Partition was neither inevitable nor the
product of sheer chance. It was not the fulfillment of destiny or the logical outcome of
the two nation theory; nor was it simply an accident that was produced by a single wrong
decision or failure of judgment. It was the period 1937-1947 that saw the quickening of
the pace of political developments, but there were underlying differences in the levels of
economic and social development of the Hindu and Muslimcommunities of the subcontinent
that played a role. Conflicts based on class and culture got intertwined with new forms
of politics and concepts of democracy and nation-states during the closing years of
colonial rule.
Aims and Objectives
The socio-economic and political background to the partition of India
The role of the Congress and Muslim League in the process and
The 1946 popular opinion that also played a role in the partition
12.2 BRITISH POLICIES AND PARTITION
The Britishs purpose of the policy of divide and rule, for deliberately favouring one
community and then the other, is to prevent the coming together of Indians against the
British. The acceptance of the Muslim League demand for separate electorates in 1909
was a major divisive move that vitiated the political culture of India until independence in
1947. Some argue that the Muslim League deputation to the Viceroy in 1906 itself was
a command performance and the League was set up soon after by an elite group trying
to promote its interest. The British extended it to the Sikhs as well. Gandhi and B.R.
Ambedkar, through a compromise in 1932 thwarted a British attempt to drive a wedge
between the Depressed classes and the upper caste Hindus by offering separate
electorates to the former. The argument is no longer confined to the institutional
mechanisms of representative government that were slowly being introduced by the British
in India. Historians and anthropologists now argue that the British classification practices
encouraged the representation as well as the self-representation of Indians according to
caste and religion.
The Census listed various castes and communities in India, and also counted them. The
colonial practice of census and surveys thus encouraged the idea of enumerated
communities and led to the concept of majority and minority in different parts of the
country. Fuzzy identities were replaced by hard and singular identities often forcing groups
with complex and multiple identities to choose one (Cohn, Appadurai, Kaviraj). The
British Orientalist scholarship played a role in the development of ideas about the
peculiarities of Indian society. The codification of the laws of the Hindus led to the
freezing of the dynamic nature of traditional society and culture and valourised a primarily
textual and elitist upper caste conception of Hindu law and practices. The codification of
Muslim Law also led to the rigid interpretation of law and reduced the role of
interpretation that had been important in Muslim jurisprudence. The writing of history also
shaped ideas of community that soon became the commonsense of the time. The British
perception of Indian society in terms of religious and cultural differences led to the
exaggeration of religious and cultural conflict (Mushirul Hasan, Gyan Pandey).
As Gandhi had observed in Hind Swaraj, the Hindus and Muslims had learned to live
with each other before the British established their rule in India. It was British rule that
produced greater differences between the two communities. The historians focused only
on the periods of conflict ignoring the much longer periods of harmony between
Partition of India 133
communities. The colonial construction of the notion of communities grew more elaborate
with time and the introduction of representative government and separate electorates gave
the government ample opportunity to heighten this process of community formation. The
logic of competition then took over and stronger notions of the boundaries of communities
developed by the early twentieth century. The British were willing to go to any length to
prolong their rule in India; they deliberately encouraged Jinnahs Muslim League after
1940 to weaken the national movement and thwart Congress participation in government
during the war. They were willing to consider not only the partition of India but also the
balkanisation of India. Their attitude towards the Indian problem was shaped by Britains
role in Asia after World War II and the emerging Cold War (Bayly and Harper).
12.3 MUSLIM LEAGUE AND JINNAH
In the nationalist accounts of the partition of India, Mohammad Ali J innah played a
prominent role in the partition process. Other nationalist historians have argued that he
was alienated by the transformation of the Congress after mass mobilisation began under
Gandhi after 1920. This made J innah the moderate nationalist and constitutionalist less
relevant in national politics although he remained opposed to the hardline communal
politics. Gradually the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity turned hostile and became an
implacable foe of the Congress. He had opposed the Nehru report of 1928 that had
advocated a unitary form of government and representation to minorities on the basis of
numerical importance in different regions. There is a difference between Jinnahs Fourteen
points and the demand for Pakistan; J innah, as a liberal Muslim, was not averse to
negotiations with the Congress. It was the poor performance of the MuslimLeague in the
elections to the Provincial assemblies in 1937 that compelled him to rethink his strategy.
Rejection of a coalition government with the League in Uttar Pradesh by the Congress
after the formers poor showing in the elections led to a strong reaction fromthe League.
Outright condemnation of the Congress Ministries was orchestrated by the League and the
party decided to reject the notion that the Muslims could live as a minority under Hindu
Congress domination.
In 1940 the League declared the right of self determination of Muslim majorities in the
North West and East of India. The demand for separate states within a common
framework even if it meant statehood without a demand for a separate nation, as argued
by Ayesha J alal and the revisionists, fanned communal fears and animosities in the years
after (Ayesha J alal). If J innah did not want to divide the subcontinent, he chose an
unwise policy. The communal polarisation that resulted from enthusiastic responses to the
Pakistan idea undermined the cross communal alliances that were crucial to retain the
Punjab and Bengal in the autonomous Pakistan zones of an All India government. The
virulent campaign for Pakistan got intertwined with various communal, linguistic and
cultural anxieties and acquired a momentum of its own. Even if Jinnah did not want to
create a separate nation state, his campaign for seven long years made it possible. The
idea of using the power of the Muslim majority provinces to protect the interests of the
Muslims in the Muslim minority provinces by creating a common government at the
Centre was undermined by the unrestrained propaganda in the campaign for Pakistan. It
is arguable that Muslim interests would have been far better served by emphasising the
rights of provinces within a loose federation rather than the chimerical ideal of Pakistan.
In any case J innahs strategy and Muslim League propaganda rather than his hidden
objectives influenced Indian political developments and led to the partition of India.
12.4 CONGRESS AND PARTITION
The early nationalist accounts apportioned the blame for partition exclusively between the
British and the Muslim League. The Congress tried to bring under its umbrella all sections
of Indian society, but separate electorates, British policy of divide and rule, the intransigence
of Jinnah and the communal and reactionary grip over the League led to the partition of
the subcontinent. The Congress was unable to reach out to the Muslim masses and
therefore reluctantly accepted the wishes of the majority of the Indian Muslims to carve
a nation for themselves. This account has been challenged by two strands in Indian
history. Bipan Chandra argues that there was a Hindu tinge in the Congress and that
Hindu liberal communalists like Lala Lajapat Rai and Madan Mohan Malaviya were able
to create doubts about the inclusive nationalist credentials of the Congress party.
However, he believes that extreme communalism was promoted by the League and that
Congress failed to handle the problem (Bipan Chandra). This was both because of
pressure from Hindu communalists and insufficient mass mobilisation.
A second strand argues that the Congress was substantially to blame for the partition of
the country. The Congress did not have a sufficiently inclusive approach towards Muslim
communities in India. The culture and ideology of the Congress party was majoritarian-
the belief that the view of the majority party must prevail. It wanted to dominate public
life because it was the largest party. The other argument was that even Congresss
inclusive nationalismentailed the denial of Muslimidentity and that any signs of Muslimness
were regarded as separatist or communal. Ayesha Jalal is unwilling to accept the binary
opposition between Congress secular nationalism and Muslim communalism. In her Self
and Sovereignty, however, the distinction between a political and religious notion of
majoritarianismoften gets blurred and the basis for characterising individuals and political
demands or movements as acceptably communitarian or unacceptably communal is often
unclear. The Congress was not a party that wanted to establish Hindu majority rule and
a policy of safeguards for minorities, emphasis on fundamental rights and federalismcould
have taken care of the dangers of religious majoritarianism.
The argument has also been made that the Congress, particularly J awaharlal Nehru and
Vallabhbhai Patel, were supporters of a strong state and therefore preferred to have a
smaller and more centralised state than a united but confederal India with the Muslim
League. This was why they rejected the Confederation that was recommended by the
Cabinet Mission that came to India in 1946. It is argued that the partition of the
subcontinent was imposed by the central leaders of the Congress who favoured a tighter
grip over the provinces and a unitary conception of nationalism (A. J alal). Patel wanted
a strong state because of the need to create a unified nation and Nehru because he
favoured a policy of state backed economic growth. Although the Congress leaders did
favour the strong state this was not the view of the two leaders alone. A considerable
number of Congressmen and nationalists favoured a strong government for various reasons
(A. I. Singh, R.J . Moore).
It has been argued that many Indian Muslims did not accept the principles of liberal
individualismand believed that their representatives should belong to the Muslimcommunity
and share their values and concerns. It was not enough to represent them and their
secular interests (Farzana Shaikh). In the perception of many Congressmen and Hindu
nationalists, a weak centre in India had been responsible for repeated invasions and
British conquest and therefore the post independence state had to be strong enough to
protect its citizens and provide for their well-being. The beliefs of the leaders of the
Congress and the League were not those of a handful of leaders even if there is no way
of knowing how many shared such views. If indeed Jinnah and the Muslim League did
not want a separate state of Pakistan the leaders of the Congress could not have forced
it upon eighty million Muslims against their will (Asim Roy).
12.5 GANDHI AND PARTITION
The partition of India was a severe blow to the leaders of the Indian National Congress
who tried to avert it till the terms for preserving unity seemed unacceptable to them. The
strongest reaction to partition came fromGandhi who had worked for communal harmony
for decades. He had brought a large number of Indian Muslims into the national
movement by linking grievances about the treatment of the Khalifa and the dismemberment
of the Ottoman Empire with the nationalist outrage following the J allianwala Bagh
massacre at Amritsar in April 1919 and the imposition of martial law in Punjab. The
Khilafat and Non-Cooperation movement brought forth Muslim participation on a scale
which the Congress never managed to achieve after this. The withdrawal of the movement
in early 1922 was followed by the outbreak of communal conflicts in many parts of north
India stretching from Kohat to Calcutta between 1922 and 1926. The critics of Gandhi
think that the use of a religious issue like Khilafat was dangerous since it encouraged
extra-territorial loyalties and Pan-Islamic tendencies among Indian Muslims (B.R. Nanda).
It has also been argued that Gandhis collaboration with the Ali brothers led to Muslim
mass mobilisation within India for achieving objectives within India (Gail Minault). Secular
and Marxist historians consider the use of religion in politics a double-edged weapon
and therefore have regarded this strategy as fraught with dangerous consequences (Bipan
Chandra, Sumit Sarkar).
Gandhi believed in spiritualising politics and did not consider it essential to separate
religion and politics as in the western conception of secularism. He believed in communal
harmony and in Hindu-Muslim unity. His ideas and personality appealed to Maulana Abul
Kalam Azad, who began as a radical Pan-Islamist and became a supporter of composite
nationalism. Azad was a devout Muslim who believed in communal harmony and the need
to preserve the unity of the country. His role and personality is frequently contrasted with
that of the westernised Jinnah who was an unconventional Muslim fighting for the rights
of Muslims and a separate state using appeals to religion (Aijaz Ahmad, T.N. Madan).
The argument has been advanced that it was the emphasis on secularism and modernity
that led to the failure to deal with the specific grievances of the Muslim community. It is
difficult to accept this in so far as the problem was really about uneven development,
economic grievances and sharing of power rather than hard secularism or communitarian
identities. In so far as communitarian identities are concerned the Gandhian emphasis on
Hindustani in the Devanagari script had very little impact on the cultural politics of the
Hindi speaking states. This was not a matter that could be understood primarily in terms
of the secular-religious divide or the modernity and tradition distinction. The politics of
language did play a role in the alienation of the Muslims of North India. Gandhi, Nehru
and Bose despite their differences as well as moderate nationalists and progressive writers
were all in favour of Hindustani but could not make much headway (Francis Robinson,
F. Orsini).
The ideas of Gandhi were misunderstood by many and the message of communal
harmony and removal of untouchability were also regarded with suspicion by orthodox
and even moderate Muslims. Some Muslims felt this was a subtle way of consolidating
the Hindu vote bank and reducing the bargaining power of the Muslim community
(William Gould). There was some recrimination after the Khilafat-Non-Cooperation
movement was withdrawn and the Ali brothers were upset by Gandhis withdrawal of the
movement. The concept of Ramrajya was not a Hindu ideal as far as Gandhi was
concerned though it might have sprung from within the Hindu tradition. Many orthodox
Muslims regarded this as an unacceptable ideal and preferred to express themselves in an
Islamic idiom. The existence of separate electorates and fears of Hindu consolidation
ensured that the Muslims never supported the Congress in sufficient numbers during the
period that led up to independence and partition. After the Gandhi-Ambedkar pact of
1932 the reserved seats for the depressed Classes led moderate nationalists and Hindu
nationalists to enhance their influence among the depressed classes and thus to work for
Hindu consolidation especially in Bengal (Joya Chatterjee). To those who did not dwell
deeply on the matter, the Gandhian and Hindu nationalist concern with Harijan uplift
would appear as part of the same agenda.
The essentialist understanding is that Pakistan was the product of a longstanding difference
between Hindus and Muslims in the subcontinent. The historicists have rightly focused on
the changes during the last decade of colonial rule. Historians disagree on the precise
reasons for the partition of the subcontinent but agree that it came about towards the end
of colonial rule because of the failure of the Congress and the League to come to a
settlement. The British policy of encouraging Muslimseparatismand eagerness to withdraw
from India after the Second World War made the partition more likely. There is a sense
in which the economic and political consequences of World War II had an impact on
political developments that could not be foreseen. Likewise the consequences of the
demand for partition and the jostling for power in the localities speeded up the process
of communal polarisation that influenced the decisions of the principal protagonists in the
story of partition. In the final analysis the postwar crisis and the polarisation in society
during the last few years of colonial rule contributed to the climate in which the decision
was taken in 1946-47.
12.6 THE 1946 ELECTIONS AND POPULAR OPINION
The League was able to use the British compulsion to justify a constitutional deadlock in
India to build a substantial following during the period 1940-1946. The election results of
1946 gave the Muslim League the authoritative position to represent Indian Muslims that
Jinnah had long wanted. The poor performance in the 1937 elections was a thing of the
past and the League was in a position to drive a hard bargain. In 1937 the League was
unable to gain acceptance as a coalition partner in the United Provinces but in 1946 it
was able to speak for the majority of Muslims who had the right to vote at that time.
The Congress too had won the majority of votes from among the non-Muslims eligible
to vote- about one-tenth of the total population. The election results of 1946 surely
indicated the strength of the Muslim League, reasons for the Leagues victory being the
use of populist slogans and not merely religious appeals by the League. Fear of Hindu
majority rule and the Congress also played a part in ensuring the victory of the League
(David Gilmartin, Ian Talbot). The Communal polarisation had grown although the violence
was to become significant only in 1946. It was the growth in the electoral strength of the
League and the popularity of the notion of Pakistan that compelled the Congress to take
the demands of the League seriously. The demand for Pakistan was no longer seen as
a bargaining counter but a serious demand, while the supporters of the two-nation theory
regarded the verdict of 1946 as a vindication of their stand. Even if Congressmen were
reluctant to accept Pakistan as a demand of Muslim nationalism they were aware of the
popularity of the idea. Even Gandhi felt that the demand was granted by the Congress
because you asked for it. The Congress never asked for it. But the Congress can feel
the pulse of the people. It realized that the Khalsa as also the Hindu desires it. We do
not wish to force anyone. We tried hard. (Gandhis address to the prayer meeting, 11
th
J une 47, CWMG, vol 88, pp. 73-75, cited in S.Mahajan, p. 335). Gandhi was eager
to avoid the division of the country and did not participate in all the discussions of the
Congress about these developments during 1946. He was in Noakhali in East Bengal
trying to restore harmony. He was kept informed by the Congress leaders and he did
participate in some of the discussions leading upto partition.
On 14
th
J une, 1947 Gandhi told the delegates to the AICC session that they could
remove the members of the Working Committee if they believed they were acting
wrongly. He did not think they were in a position to challenge and replace them and
Gandhi himself did not feel that the conditions were appropriate for him to take up the
flag of revolt (Prayer meeting, 5
th
J une 1947, CWMG, Vol 88, p.154 cited in S
Mahajan, p.371). Gandhi was against the partition of the country but he did not want to
rebel against the Congress because it had to reluctantly accept the partition of the country.
He was not in favour of a mass movement against the decision to partition the country
because the conditions were not conducive for such a movement and because he was not
sure whether he could secure the support of the people in such an endeavour.
12.6.1 Cabinet Mission Plan and a Strong State
In Sole Spokesman, Ayesha Jalal had suggested that the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946
was the one that came closest to what J innah really wanted but the Congress leadership
had other plans based on the preference for a strong centre. In Self and Sovereignty, the
communitarian perspective is used to understand the alienation of the Muslims from the
Congress as well as the multiple identities that unitarian or singular conceptions of
nationalism sought to control or delegitimise in the name of nationalism. It is important to
highlight that if there had been no demand for Pakistan, no matter what the demand
meant to different groups, the federal character of the polity would have been easier to
preserve. Even if the Muslims of Punjab and Bengal were to demand substantial
autonomy within a federation, based on the self-confidence of Muslim elite about being
able to wield power at the provincial level because of their numerical preponderance, it
would have been on a less communal basis. Muslim communitarian identities, as well as
the multiplicity of other identities, would not have been adversely affected if a demand for
provincial autonomy within a federation had been advocated by the League.
The communitarian anxieties of the Sikhs of the Punjab too contributed to communal
tensions and the demand for Pakistan created higher levels of polarisation in a region that
was an important contributor of manpower to the British Army in India. The tensions
were more likely to spin out of control in this region where there were so many volunteer
organisations and demobilised soldiers after the war ended. In the eastern region, there
was communal polarisation but fewer demobilised soldiers and a weaker martial
tradition. The fear of living under a majority community was not confined to the Muslim
community alone. Hindus and Sikhs in the Punjab too began to worry about their fate in
a future Pakistan and a Muslim majority group in the North West was also a cause for
concern. Some Sikhs demanded a separate homeland and adequate safeguards for their
community.
The opposition to the division of the province on religious lines was stronger in Bengal
than in the Punjab. The British had deliberately promoted Jinnahs League during the war
but were reluctant to support his claim for a separate state. Their reluctance to prevent
the spread of virulent propaganda helped the League gain adherents. The British also
preferred the League and Wavells Breakdown Plan indicated a withdrawal to the North
West of India away from Congress controlled areas. It is another matter that the decision
to withdraw announced in 1947 and the advancement of Indian independence compelled
Indians to come to a decision sooner than they would have liked and probably made
partition and the violence that accompanied it more likely. Some historians believe that the
British wanted to retain influence in the region after they left and therefore promoted a
smaller and more pliable country like Pakistan.
The Cabinet Mission Plan was not accepted by the Congress because it gave very limited
powers to a common central government for the whole subcontinent. It also created three
Groups of provinces, two groups with Muslim majority provinces in the North West and
North East of India. It was grouping that was a source of difficulty for the Congress.
Initially the Congress was willing to accept the Cabinet Mission proposals. When it was
clarified that the scheme for Groups of provinces could not be modified, Sardar Patel
decided to oppose it (Nandurkar). Gandhi wanted a duly constituted court to pronounce
its judgement on the different interpretations of the proposals by the Congress, the League
and the Cabinet Mission itself (Interview to Preston Grover, October 21, 1946. CWMG,
Vol LXXXVI, p.10). Though Gandhi was opposed to the idea of the partition of India,
he also opposed the compulsory inclusion of Assam, North West Frontier Province and
the Sikhs of the Punjab in the Groups that would be dominated by the Muslim League
under the Cabinet Mission Plan (Instructions for Congress Working Committee, 28/30
December, 1946. CWMG, Vol- LXXXVI, pp.285-286).
Nehru argued that a central government was bound to increase its powers and that a
future Constituent Assembly would be free to determine the future of India. Maulana Azad
felt that this was a blunder since the acceptance of the Cabinet Mission proposals could
have preserved the unity of India (M. Azad).
In order to preserve the unity of the country and restore communal harmony, Gandhi
proposed that Muhammad Ali J innah be made the Prime Minister of India. This was a
proposal he made twice- once in 1946 and the second time in April 1947. In May 1947
he wrote to Lord Mountbatten that the British should leave the Government of the whole
of India, including the States to one party (CWMG, Vol. LXXXVII, p. 436). Mountbatten
should hand over power to either the Muslim League or the Congress, grant Dominion
Status, remain as Governor-General for the next thirteen months and then leave them to
their own devices (Interview with Lord Mountbatten, May 4, 1947. CWMG, Vol-
LXXXVII, Appendix. XV, pp. 549-550). These proposals were not accepted by the
Congress leaders. This has been interpreted as the rejection of Gandhis vision or the
clinching evidence for the political ambitions of the top leaders of the Congress.
It is arguable that the gestures of goodwill that Gandhi made would not have resolved the
problem of sharing power between two major political parties representing two different
ideologies. In any case Gandhi did not feel he could confront the Congress leaders on
this question because he was not sure whether even the Hindus would be willing to follow
his advice. Gandhi did not accept the idea of partition and thought that the partition
should not divide the hearts of people even if the boundaries were redrawn. It was a fait
accompli but should not be allowed to influence the ordinary people. Gandhi was as
much against forced partition as against forced unity (CWMG, Vol-LXXXVII, p.30).
Although he could not resolve the dispute between the Congress and the League or
launch a mass movement, Gandhi worked for communal harmony in the riot affected
areas. Even those scholars like Sumit Sarkar who believe that a mass movement against
the British was possible during the last two years of colonial rule, during the winter of
1946-47, believe that Gandhis struggle against the blazing fires of communalismin Bengal,
Bihar and Delhi was of immense significance and constituted his finest hour (Sumit
Sarkar).
12.7 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BACKGROUND
The discussion of the partition of India cannot be reduced to the intentions or decisions
of a few top leaders, no matter how significant their role might have been in the closing
years of colonial rule. Moreover, the notion of inflexible forces in history leading to
communal polarisation and partition are also untenable. The argument of the Indian
communists that there are many nations in India and that the demand for Pakistan was
a nationality demand is logically consistent but does not tell us how and why it emerged
during the last decade of colonial rule. Yet there is a middle level formulation about the
growing support for a separate state of Pakistan or partition of Punjab and Bengal during
the last few years of colonial rule. The inchoate demand for Pakistan stirred poets and
propagandists who influenced the popular mood and fuelled communal tensions and
anxieties. Several scholars like Mushirul Hasan, who do not subscribe to the binary
opposition between Indian nationalismand Muslim communalism and separatism, believe
that the propaganda of the League had a deep impact on several sections of society
(Mushirul Hasan). This helped to create not only support for a separate state in the
Muslim majority regions like Punjab and Bengal but also fuelled anxieties among the
minorities in these regions.
The Sikhs had created their own reform movement and the Singh Sabha movement
strengthened the communitarian identities of the Sikhs in the Punjab. The fear of being left
defenceless, especially after the community had played a vital role in the agricultural
colonisation and military service, created a vital unsettling factor. The growth of various
volunteer organisations and communal polarisation undermined the cross-communal alliance
created by the Unionist Party of the Punjab under Fazli Husain and Sir Sikandar Hyat
Khan. The politics of the Punjab was heavily influenced by certain forms of communitarian
identities based on caste, language and religion but these were often competing and
overlapping identities. Nevertheless the propaganda of the League upset this alliance and
compelled those Muslims like Sikandar Hyat Khan, who believed in provincial autonomy,
to accept the ideological preeminence of the League leadership. The support for Jinnah
and the Muslim League may not bring back memories of the legendary Islamic hero
Saladin, but the Pakistan idea had acquired considerable support in the North West of
India (Akbar Ahmad and Ian Talbot). The attitude of the Muslim landlords of Punjab
was of crucial importance in the creation of Pakistan (Hamza Alavi).
Ayesha J alal has argued that although Punjabis were especially unwilling to make
concessions to rival communities the majority of Punjabis were opposed to the partition
of their province on religious lines in March 1947 (J alal, EPW, August 8, 1998). She
argues that Hindus had indicated their unwillingness to accept Muslim domination at the
provincial level twice before; this was reflected in their response to Lala Lajpat Rais
proposals in 1924 and C. Rajagopalacharis formula of 1944 calling for the separation of
Hindu majority regions in Punjab and Bengal. Jalal argues that sub-regional and class
factors influenced the behaviour of individuals more than communitarian identities, but the
central leadership imposed the partition of the Punjab fromabove. It is arguable that rival
communitarian and nationalist or communal perspectives led to a paralysis of political will
or the unwillingness to come to a compromise that enabled the British government and
the central leaderships of the League and the Congress to impose their will on the Punjab.
This failure to come to an agreement was not the failure of a few leaders in the Punjab
but of the clash of economic interests of social groups that underpinned communitarian
identities and of widespread and extreme distrust of the other.
Communitarian differences were sustained by economic and legal-constitutional arrangements
like the Punjab Land Alienation Act of 1900 and the district-wise enumeration of
agricultural castes whose lands could not be taken away by urban moneylenders. Marxist
formulations about the economic basis of communalism or the communalisation of the
class struggle may seem overstated or too general but communitarian identities have
always been underpinned and qualified by economic and class differences. The opposition
to Hindu merchant-moneylender domination brought together the Hindu, Sikh and Muslim
agrarian interests in the Punjab in the Unionist party. The Congress led popular and
peasant movements but its mass base was limited. The Congress in the Punjab was
weaker than in the United Provinces because it was perceived as a representative of
urban Hindu groups and its Hindu Mahasabha rivals often stole the support that the
Congress sought in the crucial years before partition. The Muslim League was able to
destroy the support for the Unionist party by winning the support of the landowners of
western Punjab, forging an alliance with the pirs and sajjda nashins, a network that had
been used by the British and the Unionist party earlier (David Gilmartin).
The partition of Bengal has been regarded as a tragedy that could have been averted but
for the imposition from above. Sarat Bose argued for a united autonomous Socialist
Republic of Bengal and the idea also appealed to Suhrawardy who felt that the loss of
Calcutta would weaken the economy of East Pakistan (Sugato Bose, Christopher Bayly
and Tim Harper, pp. 292-301). Gandhi himself offered to act as Suhrawardys honorary
private secretary in May 1947 if he worked to retain Bengal for the Bengalis by non-
violent means (CWMG, Vol-LXXXVII, p. 460). J oya Chatterjee has argued that the
bhadralok of Bengal had turned to a more Hindu nationalist position after the Communal
Award of 1932 and weakened the social dominance of the upper castes in Bengal. In
order to bolster their position, the bhadralok turned to the Depressed Castes to maintain
their hold on the province. Sarat Chandra and the Hindu Mahasabha played an active
role in creating a Hindu nationalist tendency. There was a strong movement by Hindus
and a section of the Congress to call for the partition of Bengal in the late 1940s. This
movement was popular in the eight Hindu majority districts of south-central Bengal (Joya
Chatterjee, 1994). It was not the only trend in Bengal politics, but secular nationalismand
socialist radicalism were not as robust as believed earlier (Pradip Datta).
Although there was the growth of a radical peasant movement in East Bengal, it had
acquired a religious or communitarian perspective. Whether the peasants who supported
the Krishak Praja party during the 1930s and 1940s were communal or not, they were
no supporters of the Hindu landlords and the bhadralok (Tajul Hashmi). Some historians
have argued that Muslim rent receivers were considered part of the peasant community
but not Hindus in a similar economic position because of acceptance of insider exploitation
(Partha Chatterjee). Anti-landlord and anti-moneylender legislation supported by the
Krishak Praja party was viewed by Hindu bhadralok as anti-Hindu and communal.
Radical initiatives were often seen in terms of their impact on specific communities.
Advocates of Pakistan advised Muslim peasants during the Tebhaga movement: why
agitate for a larger share of the crop when under Pakistan you would have it all? For
their part, the Hindu communalists reminded peasants of the plight of their co-religionists
in Noakhali. The call for Direct Action by the League led to a bloodbath in Calcutta in
1946 and killings in East Bengal strengthened fears of Muslim majority rule in a united
Bengal.
There is a persistent belief that a mass movement in 1946-47 could have dissolved the
communal tensions and a last anti-imperialist struggle could have helped to bring about
national unity. Officers and soldiers of the Indian National Army created by Subhas
Chandra Bose inspired Indians from all regions and communities, particularly in Punjab
and Bengal. The postwar discontent was leading to peasant movements and protests in
Bengal, Andhra and elsewhere. The grievances of the soldiers in the British Indian Army
posted overseas and the mutiny of the naval ratings in 1946 led to hopes of a popular
struggle against an emasculated British government in India. Although there were mass
demonstrations in support of the INA officers and soldiers, the communal polarisation had
also grown quite substantial. Some historians have noted the tendency of some peasant
radicals to participate in communal movements. Others have observed that supporters of
the INA, and some soldiers as well, were involved in communal violence during August
1946 in Calcutta (Suranjan Das).
The social discontent of the post-war period in combination with the communal polarisation
did not bode well for an anti-imperialist struggle to combat the idea of Pakistan. Muslim
mass contact had not worked well in the 1930s before the Muslim League had
demonstrated its electoral strength. Any movement launched in a period of social tensions
of the post-war years was bound to exceed the limits of non-violence prescribed by
Gandhi. Therefore the option of a mass movement was not accepted by Gandhi. A
movement launched by the left nationalists, with or without the support of the Congress,
was unlikely to break the communal impasse produced by the fear of Hindu and Muslim
majority rule. Members of the Muslim middle class and the capitalists had realised that
a separate state was bound to give them a distinct advantage and they were unlikely to
forego it. In Bengal not only did Muslimmerchants like Ispahani favour Pakistan but the
Marwaris of Calcutta also wanted to be free of Muslim domination (Claude Markovits).
The left wing nationalists were too weak to influence the outcome of any mass movement
and there were clear material and cultural rewards that members of the Muslim elite of
Punjab and Bengal were unwilling to forego. The East Bengal assembly, however, voted
against the partition of Bengal.
According to Joya Chatterjee, a section of the Hindu elite and the Congress were willing
to go to any extent to escape the Muslimmajority rule. They wanted to remain in power
in the newly carved Hindu majority state of Bengal. At the time of the drawing up of the
boundary of West Bengal, the Congress wanted to create a state with an unequivocal
Hindu majority, containing as few Muslims as possible (J . Chatterjee, 2008, p39). In
Punjab the problem of settling the demobilised soldiers would have posed a problem for
peace as well as communal harmony if there was a confrontation between rival communities
for dominance after the rout of the Unionist party. Therefore, the chances of a mass
movement overcoming the problems posed by the demand for Pakistan were rather
limited, but cannot be completely ruled out. The differences between himand the radicals
and the left were too substantial for Gandhi to overlook when he suggested to the AICC
that the Congress Working Committee leadership should be opposed and removed.
12.8 OVERVIEW
Gandhi was not in favour of partition and he was willing to go further than all the
prominent members of the Congress to avert it. He had been willing to offer the
primeministership to Jinnah if that could avert partition. Yet he was aware that he had lost
the support of large numbers of Hindus and that the Muslims no longer trusted him. The
Muslim voters had not reposed any faith in the Congress even during the heyday of the
Gandhian leadership of the Congress and it was unlikely that in a period of great
communal polarization, they would listen to him. The Muslimmass contact movements had
not succeeded because of the conservative social base of the local Congress party and
its members (Gyan Pandey, Sumit Sarkar). If Gandhi could not get the Muslims to join
the Congress during the 1930s, then there was little chance that any gesture of goodwill
or any mass movement could have brought a sizable Muslim following in 1946-47.
This was the logic not only of communal politics but also of electoral politics based on
a limited franchise and separate electorates. The problem was not so much the denial of
the religiously informed identities of Indian Muslims as the Muslim perception, and the
League propaganda, that their economic and political rights were threatened by a
monolithic Hindu community and an overbearing Congress party. Uneven development and
struggle for dominance led to the growing polarisation; the real distribution of power and
resources created mutual rivalry and distrust, not so much differences about religion.
These factors explain why the unorthodox Jinnah was able to become the leader of Indian
Muslims and a devout Muslim and an avowed nationalist like Maulana Azad had very
little support within his community during 1946-47. Even with adult franchise, the
problems associated with religiously determined majorities and power sharing was not
likely to disappear. This might have been a factor in the acceptance of partition as a
resolution of the communal problem. The scale of the violence during partition was
unforeseen and the migrations were on a much larger scale than anyone had imagined but
it resolved the question of power sharing with religiously defined minorities in both India
and Pakistan.
Many Gandhians believe that Gandhis friends and supporters abandoned him and his
ideals even before he was assassinated. This has been termed a betrayal of Gandhian
ideals. Liberals see a departure from Gandhian ideals but not a complete break (Anthony
Parel). Marxists have called the transition to power that his leadership of the Congress
helped to bring about as a passive revolution (Partha Chatterjee). Yet the fact remains that
he was unable to carry forward his agenda on a range of issues because of his pivotal
role in Indias freedom struggle. Gandhi was not able to promote Hindu-Muslim unity
despite the great emphasis he placed on communal harmony. The left nationalists and
Marxists believe that his methods of struggle, howsoever laudable, were unable to
produce a radical transformation of the national movement. Therefore the possibility of
reducing the influence of the conservative Hindu and Muslimelites, who were locked in
a struggle for power and dominance, by mass mobilisation, could not be realised.
12.9 SUMMARY
Gandhi struggled valiantly, but could not preserve the unity of India. It was not something
even a leader as great as he was could have handled by himself. Powerful economic and
political forces were at play and eventually prevailed. Gandhi did not know how to cope
with the constitutional problems and alternatives that were discussed before the final
partition of the country; he was not too old and marginalised to offer his views. Therefore
he did not offer his views forcefully on a constitutional solution to the communal deadlock
in 1946-47, although the idea of the oceanic circle gives us a glimpse of his vision for
India. Probably he immersed himself in fighting communalism by touring the riot-affected
regions because that was something he could do without any help from others. The
satyagrahi who believed in non-violence and a decentralised government was unable to
give detailed advice on how competing notions of nationalismand nationalist projects for
modernisation could be best tackled. He was unhappy with partition but he was not
willing to fight the party he had led for nearly three decades. The partition of India was
the outcome of several factors that have been dealt with so far. No single individual
brought it about or could have averted it. This holds true for Gandhi as well.
1. Enumerate the Socio-economic reasons behind partition.
2. What was the role of the League and the congress regarding partition?
3. Do you think Gandhi was responsible for partition? Give reasons.
SUGGESTED READINGS
1. Raghuramaraju, A., (ed), Debating Gandhi: A Reader, OUP, Delhi, 2006.
2. Ahmad, Aijaz., Lineages of the Present: Ideology and Politics in Contemporary South
Asia, London, Verso, 1995
3. Ahmad, Akbar., J innah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity: The Search for Saladin,
Routledge, London, 1997.
4. Singh, Anita Inder., The Origins of the Partition of India, 1936-1947, OUP, Delhi,
1987
5. Parel, Anthony., Gandhis Philosophy and the Quest for Harmony, Cambridge, 2007.
6. Arjun Appadurai., Number in the Colonial Imagination, in Carol Breckenridge and
Peter Veer (eds), Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament, Philadelphia, 1993.
7. Roy, Asim., (ed), Islam in History and Politics: Perspectives from South Asia, OUP,
Delhi, 2006.
8. Jalal, Ayesha., The Sole Spokesman, Jinnah, the Muslim League and the demand for
Pakistan, Cambridge, 1985
9. Jalal, Ayesha., Nation, Reason and Religion: Punjabs Role in the Partition of India,
Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 33, no 32, August 8-14, 1998, pp 2183-2190.
10. Jalal, Ayesha., Self and Sovereignty: Individual and Community in South Asian Islam
since 1850, Oxford, Delhi, 2001.
11. Nanda, B.R., Nehru, the Indian National Congress and the Partition of India, 1935-
47, in Philips and Wainwright (eds), The Partition of India: Policies and Perspectives,
1935-1947, London, 1970.
12. Bimal Prasad., Gandhi and Indias Partition, in Amit Gupta (ed), Myth and Reality:
The Struggle for Freedom in India, 1945-47, New Delhi, 1987.
13. Chandra, Bipan., Communalism in India, New Delhi, 1984
14. Bayly, Christopher and Tim Harper., Forgotten Wars: The End of Britains Asian
Empire, Allen Lane, 2007.
15. Markovits, Claude., Businessmen and the Partition of India, in C. Markovits,
Merchants, Traders, Entrepreneurs: Indian Business in the Colonial Era, Permanent
Black, Delhi, 2008.
16. Page, David., Prelude to Partition: The Indian Muslims and the Imperial System of
Control, 1920-1932, Oxford, Delhi, 1982.
17. Gilmartin, David., Empire and Islam: Punjab and the Making of Pakistan, Oxford,
Delhi, 1989.
18. Robinson, Francis., Separatism among Indian Muslims: The Politics of the United
Provinces Muslims, 1860-1923, Cambridge, 1974.
19. Shaikh, Farzana., Community and Consensus in Islam: Muslim Representation in
Colonial India, 1860-1947, Cambridge, 1991.
20. Orsini, Francesco., The Hindi Public Sphere 1920-1940: Language and Literature in
the Age of Nationalism, New Delhi, Oxford, 2002.
21. Minault, Gail., The Khilafat Movement: Religious Symbolismand Political Mobilisation
in India, New York, 1982.
22. Pandey, Gyanendra., The Construction of Communalism in Colonial North India,
Oxford, Delhi, 1990.
23. Pandey, Gyanendra., Remembering Partition: Violence, Nationalism and History in
India, Cambridge, 2001.
24. Alavi, Hamza., Social Forces and Ideology in the Making of Pakistan, Economic
and Political Weekly, Vol 37, No 51, December 21-27, 2002, pp. 5119-5124.
25. Brown, J udith., Gandhi: Prisoner of Hope, New Haven, 1989
26. Chatterjee, J oya., Bengal Divided: Hindu Communalism and Partition, 1932-1947,
Cambridge, 1994.
27. Chatterjee, Joya., The Spoils of Partition: Bengal and India, 1947-1967, Cambridge,
2008.
28. Talbot, Ian., Provincial Politics and the Pakistan Movement: The Growth of the
Muslim League in North West and North East India, 1937-1947, Karachi, 1988.
29. Gandhi, M.K., Hind Swaraj, Navjivan Trust, Ahmedabad, original edition,1909.
30. Mushirul Hasan.,(ed), Indias Partition- Process, Strategy and Mobilisation, Oxford,
Delhi, 1993.
31. Hasan, Mushirul., Nationalim and Communal Politics in India, 1885-1931, Delhi,
1991.
32. Azad, Maulana Abul Kalam., India Wins Freedom, Delhi, Orient Longman, 1989
33. Ispahani, M.A.H., Factors Leading to the Partition of British India, in C.H. Philips
and M.D. Wainwright (eds), The Partition of India: Policies and Perspectives, 1935-
1947, London,1970.
34. Das, M.N., (ed), A Centenary History of the Indian National Congress, Vol III,
1935-1947, Vikas Delhi, 1985.
35. Nandurkar., (ed), Sardars Letters- Mostly Unknown I, Ahmedabad, 1977.
36. Gupta, Partha Sarathi., Imperialism and the British Labour Movement, 1914-1964,
London, 1975.
37. Datta, Pradip., Carving Blocs: Communal Ideology in Early Twentieth-century Bengal,
38. Peter Ronald deSouza., Institutional Visions and Sociological Imaginations: The
Debate on Panchayati Raj, in Rajeev Bhargava, (ed), Politics and Ethics of the
Indian Constitution, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 2008, pp. 79-91.
39. Ahmad, Rafiuddin., (ed), Understanding the Bengal Muslims: Interpretive Essays,
40. Moore, R.J., Escape from Empire: The Attlee Government and the Indian problem,
Oxford, 1983.
41. Moore, R.J., Endgames of Empire: Studies of Britains Indian Problem, Delhi, 1988.
42. Gopal, Sarvepalli., J awaharlal Nehru: A Biography, Vol I, 1889-1947, New Delhi,
1976.
43. Das, Suranjan., Communal Riots in Bengal, 1905-1947, Delhi, 1991
44. Mahajan, Sucheta., Independence and Partition: The Erosion of Colonial Power in
India, Sage, Delhi, 2008 edition.
45. Sugato Bose., Between Monolith and Fragment; A Note on the Historiography of
Nationalism in Bengal, in Shekhar Bandyopadhyay (ed), Bengal: Rethinking History
Essays in Historiography, New Delhi, Manohar, 2001, pp. 283-96.
46. Sarkar, Sumit., Popular Movements and Middle Class Leadership: Perspectives
and Problems of a History from Below, Calcutta, 1983.
47. Thomas Pantham., Gandhi and the Constitution: Parliamentary Swaraj and Village
Swaraj, in Rajeev Bhargava, (ed), Politics and Ethics of the Indian Constitution,
Oxford University Press, Delhi, 2008, pp. 59-78.
48. Madan, T.N., Modern Myths, Locked Minds: Secularism and Fundamentalism in
India, OUP, Delhi, 2003.
49. Gould, William., Hindu Nationalism and the Language of Politics in Late Colonial
India, Foundation Books, Delhi, 2005.
UNIT 13 MODERATES, EXTREMISTS AND
REVOLUTIONARIES
(GOKHALE, TILAK AND BHAGAT SINGH)
Structure
13.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
13.2 The Moderates
13.2.1 Ideology and Methods of Work
13.2.2 Contribution
13.2.3 Gopal Krishna Gokhale
13.2.4 Gokhale and Gandhi
13.3 The Extremists
13.3.1 Ideology and Methods
13.3.2 Significance of the Extremists
13.3.3 Bal GangadharTilak
13.3.4 Tilak and Gandhi
13.4 The Revolutionaries
13.4.2 Role of the Revolutionaries
13.4.3 Bhagat Singh
13.4.4 Bhagat Singh and Gandhi
13.5 Summary
Suggested Readings
13.1 INTRODUCTION
The Indian National Congress was not a monolith and consisted of groups with different
shades of opinions and beliefs. The Indian National Congress, which was established in
1885, had three main aims: 1) to bring together political workers from different parts of
the country, 2) to promote national consciousness among the people and 3) to educate
the people and influence public opinion in the interest of the country. It developed over
a period of time through three stages of leadership, often described as Moderate,
Extremist and Gandhian. The stages of development of Congress leadership were more
or less concurrent with the three distinct phases in its history: 1885-1905, 1905-1919,
and 1920-1947. Though there were other prominent Congress leaders, it was the
leadership of Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi that
represented the essence and character of the Congress during the respective periods.
In the early years of the twentieth century, especially when the mass phase of the
Swadeshi movement in Bengal ended in 1907, a new aspect was added to Indias
struggle for independence by the emergence of revolutionary groups. These groups
advocated the use of revolutionary terrorism as a political weapon and attracted a number
of youth from all over the country, thereby contributing to the spread of national
consciousness. Bhagat Singh typically represented the character of the revolutionaries in
1920s.
Aims and Objectives
After studying the unit, you will be able to understand
the emergence of the three strands of Indian National movement- moderate, extremist
and revolutionary
their ideologies and methods of work
their contribution to the Indian National movement
the significant similarities and differences between the ideas of Gandhi and Gokhale,
Tilak, and Bhagat Singh.
13.2 THE MODERATES
During the early years (1885-1905) the Indian National Congress, henceforth referred to
as INC, provided a common stage for the leaders from diverse parts of the country.
Though the Congress represented the entire nation, members of some classes, castes,
occupations and provinces were more conspicuous than others. The members of the
educated middle class were predominant in numbers. The members of the Brahmin caste
were comparatively higher to those of other castes. While a number of journalists, doctors
and teachers were also members, it was the lawyers who dominated in the occupations.
The members from Bombay, Bengal and Madras presidencies were more in number
compared to members from other parts of the country. The masses and the landed class
were conspicuous by their absence. In short, the Congress was by and large a middle
class affair, and it was but natural that majority of the members of the INC belonged to
the middle class during the early years since it was this class that took to modern
education and played a pioneering role in its foundation.
The Congress, since its establishment, was under the influence of Moderate leaders, most
of whom were first generation English educated Indians. The moderate leaders were
influenced by Western political ideas and practices, especially by the political philosophy
of liberalism. The liberal philosophy of moderate Congress leaders gave emphasis on: 1)
dignity of the individual 2) Individuals right to freedom c) Equality of all irrespective of
caste, creed or sex. This liberal philosophy guided the moderate leaders of the Congress
in opposing the autocratic attitude of the British government, demanding rule of law and
equality before law, and advocating secularism. Some of the prominent moderate leaders
who became presidents of the Congress in its early years were Dadabhai Naoroji,
Badruddin Tyabji, Pherozeshah Mehta, P. Ananda Charlu, Surendranath Banerjee, Romesh
Chandra Dutt, Ananda Mohan Bose and Gopal Krishna Gokhale. Some other moderate
leaders were Mahadev Ranade, Madan Mohan Malaviya, G. Subramaniya Iyer and
Dinshaw E. Wacha.
13.2.1 Ideology and Methods of Work
The moderate leaders made modest demands from the British rulers in a very cautious
and peaceful manner, mainly for two reasons. Firstly, most of the moderate leaders had
an enduring attachment for the British way of life, a belief in the British sense of justice
and fair play and a deep sense of gratitude towards British rulers. They believed that it
was the association with the British rule and English education that had exposed themto
modern ideas such as liberty, equality, democracy and dignity of the individual. Moreover,
they were convinced that it was only due to the British rule that the much needed law
and order, and effective administration had been established in India. Secondly, the
moderates were also aware that the INC was a young organisation in its early stage of
development. They did not want to incur the wrath of the British rulers, which could have
resulted in suppression of their activities and nipped the Congress in the bud.
The moderates genuinely believed that India had gained fromthe political connection with
the British and often acknowledged their loyalty to British rule. However, this did not
mean that they were not patriotic. The moderates disfavoured a direct confrontation with
the British rulers, but wanted to change their rule to reflect the interests of the country.
Later, when many of the moderate leaders realised that British rule had done a lot more
harm to the country than good, they underwent a change of heart and began to press for
Swaraj or self-government for India within the British Empire. They were aware that
national consciousness among the Indian people had to be promoted and consolidated
before throwing a direct challenge to the British rule.
The historian Bipan Chandra has summed up the political method of the Moderates as
constitutional agitation within the four walls of law and slow, orderly political progress.
The moderate leaders adopted the strategy of influencing and organising public opinion to
compel the British to approve their (moderates) demands bit by bit. Their political
strategy was to emphasise building-up public opinion in India as well as outside India,
especially in Britain. In India they sought to promote national consciousness and educate
the people on political issues by submitting petitions to British authorities, organising
meetings, passing resolutions and giving speeches. Outside India, in Britain, they made
efforts to familiarise the people of Britain and the Parliament with the real conditions in
India. They carried out active propaganda to influence the public opinion in Britain by
sending delegations of leading Indians to Britain. In 1889, a British Committee of the INC
was founded. In 1890, this Committee started a journal called India. Dadabhai Naoroji
spent a major part of his life in Britain and played an exemplary role in propounding
Indias case.
13.2.2 Contribution of the Moderates
The moderate leaders of the Congress tried to generate public opinion on all important
measures of the Government. The Congress programme during the early phase (1885-
1905) can be divided under three categories:: 1) constitutional and administrative reforms
2) social reforms and defence of civil rights and 3) economic reforms.
One of the major demands of the moderate leaders was proper representation of Indians
on the Legislative Councils as well as increase in the power of these Councils. The
moderate leaders also pressed for reforms in the administrative system. They vehemently
argued for 1) increase in the number of Indians in the higher echelons of administration
2) separation of judiciary fromthe executive 3) promotion of primary education, technical
and higher education 4) establishment of agricultural banks to prevent the farmer from
being exploited by the money-lender 5) development of irrigation to avoid famines 6)
extension of medical and health facilities 7) reform of the police system which was
dishonest, inefficient and unpopular.
Moderates, Extremists and Revolutionaries (Gokhale, Tilak and Bhagat Singh) 149
The moderate leaders voiced their opinions on issues related to territories outside India.
They opposed the annexation of Burma, and the attack on Afghanistan and the tribal
people of the North-western India. They demanded improvement in the condition of the
Indian workers who had migrated to other countries like South Africa, Malaya, Mauritius,
West Indies and British Guyana.
The moderates, who had developed a firm commitment to the principle of democracy,
also tried to safeguard the Civil Rights of the Indian people, and supported social reforms
in Indian society. According to them, a vigorous movement to eradicate social evils and
backwardness was necessary to make India fit for self-government. They defended the
freedom of speech, the Press, thought and association. Their advocating of these ideas
popularised them among the Indians.
It was, however, in the economic critique of colonial rule that the Moderates played their
most important role. The Moderate leaders like Dadabhai Naoroji and Mahadev Govind
Ranade made scathing criticism of the economic policies followed by the British rulers in
India. The moderate leaders through books, newspaper articles and speeches exposed the
British Governments economic exploitation of India. The Drain Theory, in which the
moderates argued that wealth from India was being drained to England, exploded the
myth that British rule was good for India. The moderates demanded changes in official
policies on industry, agriculture, tariff, transport and taxation that would improve the
system of India.
13.2.3 Gopal Krishna Gokhale (1866-1915)
Gopal Krishna Gokhale, one of the most prominent Moderate leaders of the INC, was
born on 6 May 1866 in Kotaluk village of Ratnagiri District (Maharashtra). He belonged
to the first generation of Indians to receive college education. He graduated from the
Elphinstone College in Bombay in 1884 where he became extremely proficient in English
and developed a liking for poetry of Tennyson and Browning. During his college days he
was exposed to western political thought and the writings of John Stuart Mill, Edmund
Burke, John Bright and John Morley. Though later Gokhale made a scathing critique of
the British colonial rule, his respect for English political theory and institutions that he
acquired in his college years remained with him for the rest of his life. After graduating,
Gokhale played an important role in establishing the Deccan Education Society at Poona
in 1885. Gokhale devoted 18 years (1885-1902) teaching at the New English School and
Fergusson College, Poona. In 1888, he became the secretary of the Bombay Provincial
Congress and began his career as a public figure. He actively participated in the meetings
of the INC between 1889 and 1896, and was instrumental in holding the annual session
of the Congress in Poona in 1895. In the annual sessions of the Congress, Gokhale
spoke on subjects close to the hearts of the moderates, especially about administrative
reform. Gokhale went to England to give evidence before the Welby Commission in
1897; worked as a plague volunteer in 1898; and finally in 1900 and 1901, worked as
an Elected Member of the Bombay Legislative Council. After retiring from the Fergusson
College in 1902, he devoted the last 13 years of his life as elected member of the
Imperial Legislative Council. Gokhale founded the Servants of India Society in 1905.
Though a moderate who had faith and trust in British democracy and ideal of equality and
fraternity, Gokhale always acted in the Imperial Council as a leader of opposition. In his
speeches he gave emphasis on the poverty and economic exploitation of the masses,
social reforms, the need for communal harmony and universal education and need to
spiritualise politics.
13.2.4 Gokhale and Gandhi
Gandhi valued the contribution of the moderates in laying the foundation of the Indian
National movement. He was aware that it was Moderate leaders like Dadabhai Naoroji
who had exposed the exploitative nature of British rule. According to him, deriding elderly
leaders like Naoroji and Gokhale would be like kicking the very step from which we
have risen. Gandhis concern for social reform was a legacy of the moderates; he wanted
his followers to question unjust social practices and had included a number of social
reforms in his Constructive Programme. At the same time, however, he did not agree with
the approach of constitutional agitation followed by the moderates. He was especially
against petitioning which admitted the inferiority of the Indians. Unlike the moderates,
Gandhi did not consider British rule as good and indispensable. For him British rule was
an evil rule. Moreover, the Western style democracy and secularism, which was eulogised
by the moderates, was not acceptable to Gandhi.
Gandhi shared a very special relationship with Gokhale. Gokhales firm belief in the need
for spiritualisation of politics, communal harmony and universal education inspired Gandhi
and considered Gokhale as his political guru. Gokhale not only strongly supported
Gandhi during his struggle in South Africa but also helped him to collect funds for the
relief of the suffering there. Gokhale guided Gandhi to travel in India for one year and
gain experience of the Indian problems and conditions and only then concern himself with
politics. Gandhi derived the principle of spiritualisation of politics fromGokhale. He also
learnt from him that the means for bringing about change in society should be pure,
peaceful and legitimate. Gandhi said: Gokhale taught me that the dream of every Indian
who claims to love his country, should be not to glorify the country in language but to
spiritualize its political life and institutions. He inspired my life and is still inspiring in that
I wish to purify myself and spiritualize myself. I have dedicated myself to that ideal. I may
fail and to the extent I fail, I am an unworthy disciple of my master. Gandhi had great
respect for Gokhale; when Gokhale died, Gandhi took a vow to walk barefoot for a
whole year.
Gokhale and Gandhi differed on certain issues relating to modern technology, Western
education and industrialisation. Gokhale criticised certain ideas put forward by Gandhi in
his Hind Swaraj. According to Gokhale, though the village industries were of importance,
to survive in a competitive world it was necessary for the Indians to accept modern
means of technology and energy for production of goods. Gandhi did not accept
Gokhales faith in constitutional method as a means of achieving political reform. He did
not have faith in Western education while Gokhale made utmost efforts to spread it in
India. Unlike Gokhale, Gandhi was religious but his religious ethos was tempered by
rationalism. Gokhale and Gandhi had a different style of functioning. The speeches of
Gokhale were addressed not to the masses but to the educated middle class; he worked
for the masses, but did not work among them. In contrast, Gandhi chose to work not
only for the masses but also among them.
13.3 THE EXTREMISTS
The rise of extremism on the Indian political scene was not sudden. In fact it had been
growing steadily since the uprising of 1857. Though the uprising was brutally suppressed
by the British, the ideas of Swadharma and Swaraj, which had kindled the uprising
continued to linger on as an undercurrent among the Indian people. The English educated
class had remained aloof from the uprising. In the latter half of 19th century, the work
of leaders like Ramkrishna Paramhansa, Swami Vivekanand, Swami Dayanand Saraswati,
and Vishnusastri Chiplunkar and Sri Aurobindo instilled a sense of pride in the ancient
Indian civilisation. They were successful, to a certain extent, in promoting political
radicalism and bridging the gulf between the masses and the English educated class. The
work of the moderate leaders had also exposed the evils of British rule and promoted
the spread of national consciousness. The peaceful methods used by the moderate
leaders were not effective in making the British Government accept their demands. As a
result a number of politically conscious people became frustrated and disillusioned. At the
end of the 19
th
century, a strong feeling arose among the people that more radical
political action was needed to force the British to accept popular demands.
Various international events also gave impetus to the growth of extremism in India.
Revolutionary movements in Ireland, Russia, Egypt, Turkey, China and the Boer War in
South Africa made the Indian leaders aware that the British rule could only be challenged
by putting a united stand against it. The defeat of the Italian Army by the Ethiopians in
1896, and the Russian Army by the Japanese in 1905, showed that the Europeans were
not invincible. All these instilled a sense of self-respect and self-confidence in the Indian
Nationalists.
The extremist leaders of INC like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, Lala Lajpat
Rai and Aurobindo Ghose articulated radical political ideas against colonial rule. The first
three of them became famous as the trio of extremist leadership: Lal-Bal-Pal. They
became prominent after the Partition of Bengal in 1905. Their radical ideology and
programme became popular during the movement against Partition of Bengal, also known
as the Swadeshi Movement
Unlike moderates, the extremist leaders neither believed in the goodness of the British rule
nor in their sense of justice and fair play. They were aware that the British were driven
by selfishness and had come to India to exploit her resources. Since exploitation of India
was the chief motive of the British, the extremists did not expect them to take a
sympathetic view of the popular demands of the Indian people. Therefore, it was
necessary to use pressure to make them accept the demands, not by petitioning or
praying like the moderates, but by openly agitating against them. For the Extremist leaders
like Lokmanya Tilak, Swaraj was a birth right and was not at all dependent on British
assurances.
The extremists programme of action was radically different from that of the moderates
and aimed specifically at arousing emotive indignation against British rule and thereby
promoting active involvement of the masses in the agitations. The extremists aimed at
preparing the masses for the struggle to gain Swaraj by educating them, uniting them and
instilling in them a sense of self -respect, self-reliance, and pride in their ancient heritage.
Aurobindo Ghose and Lokmanya Tilak had played a major role in developing the blue
print of the extremist programme, which involved the following activities:
a) Boycott of foreign goods and promotion of Swadeshi goods to give impetus to
the growth of indigenous industry and commerce.
b) Non-cooperation with the bureaucracy; this included boycott of governmental
activities.
c) Establishment of schools and colleges that gave education in the Indian languages and
instill in the students pride for the glorious heritage of India, make the students
nationalistic and public spirited in character and knowledgeable, self-reliant and
independent in spirit.
d) Passive Resistance to British rule by non-payment of revenue and taxes and by
organising separate indigenous administrative institutions parallel to those of the
British at the level of villages, talukas and districts.
The Extremist leaders disfavoured the use of violence against British rule and did not
approve the methods of political murder and assassination used by the Indian revolutionaries.
However, they did take a sympathetic view of the activities of the revolutionaries. For
them the young revolutionaries were no doubt misguided and reckless but their violent
actions were provoked by the equally violent repressive policies implemented by the
British Government.
13.3.2 Significance of the Extremists
There was a fundamental change in the nature of Indian nationalism under extremist
leadership due to their forceful articulation of the demand for Swaraj and use of more
radical methods than those of the moderates. Their concept of nationalism was emotionally
charged and based on rich interpretation of Indian religious traditions. The Extremist
leaders tried to reorient Indian religious traditions to worldly life and link them with the
national liberation struggle. Aurobindo Ghose reinterpreted Vedanta philosophy, which
advocated unity of man and God and based his concept of nationalism on it. To him
national work was the work of God, which should be done in the spirit of Karma Yoga
because the true nationalist was an ideal Karma Yogi, who performed his functions in the
spirit of disinterestedness. The service of the millions of Indians was service of God
because God was present in them. The extremists conceived the nation as Mother India,
which represented united power or Shakti of millions of her children. Tilak reinterpreted
the message of the Gita in his famous book Gita Rahasya. To Tilak, the Gita gave a
message of disinterested action with full self-knowledge rather than that of Bhakti or
Sanyasa. National work done for general welfare was a type of disinterested action. The
new nationalism of the extremists was an attempt to create a nation in India by reviving
the spirit and action of the ancient Indian character. They vehemently opposed foreign
rule. According to them, a good or just government was not a substitute for self-
government and freedom was an inalienable right of all human beings.
The extremists emphasised the mobilisation of people against foreign rule by launching
political movements. If the nation was not ready to undertake political movement, then it
was the duty of the leaders to prepare the people for it. The extremists were ready to
suffer imprisonment, deportation and other physical suffering for the sake of mobilising the
masses for struggle against foreign rule. They saw struggle against foreign rule as a full
time activity and devoted their whole life for it. The demonstrations, processions undertaken
by the extremists brought about an involvement of the common people in agitations against
British rule. They also made use of popular symbols like Shivaji, and religious symbols
like God Ganapati and Goddess Kali for mobilising the people. Thus, under the Extremist
leadership, the Indian National Movement gradually began to acquire a mass character.
However, the extremists could not fully exploit the potential of mobilised people or of
their radical methods like boycott and passive resistance. They were successful in arousing
the urban middle and lower classes, apart from mobilising the peasants and workers.
The Extremist leaders used religious symbols in arousing the masses; however, they did
not mix religion and politics. Their concept of nationhood encompassed all religions in
India. Though the Dharma advocated by leaders like Tilak and Lajpat Rai looked like
it had a Hindu connotation, for the extremists, it actually meant universal moral law
under whose unifying influence, the different religions and communities in India would
coexist peacefully.
13.3.3 Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1856-1920)
Bal Gangadhar Tilak, the foremost Extremist leader, was born in a middle class family in
Ratnagiri District (Maharashtra) on 23 J uly 1856. His father, Gangadhar Pant, was a
school teacher and a scholar of Sanskrit. The influence of his father instilled in Tilak love
for Sanskrit and respect for ancient Indian religion and culture. Tilak graduated fromPune
in 1875 and later studied law. Believing that the best way to serve the country was to
educate the people, Tilak, along with his friend Gopal Ganesh Agarkar, founded the New
English School in Pune in 1876. However, he soon realised that merely educating young
children was not enough and the people should also be aware of the condition of the
country. To achieve this, they started two weeklies in 1881, Maratha in English and
Kesari in Marathi. In 1885, they started the Deccan Education Society. Tilak was also
one of the leading Sanskrit scholars in India. He studied the classical literature in Sanskrit
on metaphysics, religion and astronomy and wrote a number of books. Tilak, along with
Aurobindo Ghose, was instrumental in developing the action programme of the extremists:
Boycott, Swadeshi, National Education and Passive Resistance. To bring the masses
together, he started the Ganapati Festival in 1894 and Shivaji Festival in 1896, mobilise
the masses and accelerate the attainment of Swaraj. He gave the slogan freedom is my
birth-right and I will attain it. He suffered imprisonment for trying to mobilise people
against British rule. The British authorities arrested him in 1908 for writing an allegedly
seditious article in Kesari. He was deported to Mandalay, where he wrote his famous
commentary on Gita, the Gita-Rahasya. After being released fromMandalay in 1914, he
played an important role in the signing of the Lucknow Pact in 1916. In the same year
he founded the Home Rule League for the goal of achieving Swaraj.
13.3.4 Tilak and Gandhi
Gandhi considered Gokhale as his political guru, but at the same time he also described
himself as a true disciple of Lokmanya Tilak. Two things, which they had in common,
were love of country and the steady pursuit of Swaraj. Gandhi remarked that no one
perhaps realized the evil of existing system of government as Tilak did. The root of
Gandhis theory of political disobedience lies in political tradition of the extremists.
Gandhis principles of Satyagraha were drawn from ideas of passive resistance developed
by Aurobindo Ghose in his essay on Passive Resistance. Gandhi further developed the
interpretation of Gita as given by Aurobindo Ghose and Tilak. They had interpreted it as
the philosophy of Karma Yoga, or performance of action in the spirit of disinterestedness.
Gandhi adapted this interpretation to his views on truth, non-violence and service of the
people by giving it a moral and nonviolent dimension. Gandhis concept of Anasakti Yoga
was an advance over the Nishkama Karma Yoga of Tilak. Tilak opined that man should
perform disinterested action while doing work assigned to him in the Varna society.
Gandhis Anasakti Yoga meant that man should undertake action in a detached manner
while performing his Swadharma or duty of man in present circumstances. By linking
Swadharma with the message of Gita, Gandhi was able to connect it with moral and non-
violent action. According to Gandhi in the present circumstances it was the duty of man
to avoid war; therefore, Anasakti and war could never go together. Though Gandhi
developed and improved upon Tilaks interpretation of Gita, he acknowledged the
greatness of Tilaks Gita Rahasya and wrote, I believe this commentary on the Gita will
be a more lasting monument to his memory.
Gandhi developed his political strategy on the foundations laid by the Extremist leaders.
In a sense Gandhian politics was a continuation of Tilaks politics; many issues which
were close to the heart of Tilak like democratisation of Indian politics, anti-colonialism,
passive resistance and his interpretation of Gita were later taken up by Gandhi. In fact,
Gandhi based his strategy of agitation on the principles of Swaraj, Swadeshi, national
education and boycott which had been enunciated by the extremists. He agreed with Tilak
that Swaraj was a birthright and learned fromhimthe importance of enlisting the support
of the masses in a movement against British rule. Like Tilak, Gandhi deemed it necessary
to sacrifice and endure suffering in the cause of the country.
Gandhi admired Tilak for his indomitable will, his vast learning, his love of country, and
above all, the purity of his private life and great sacrifice. Gandhi was also conscious that
his method was different from the method of Tilak. Gandhi differed with regard to the
meaning of Swaraj and means to achieve it. The extremists wanted to expel the British
but were in favour of keeping the western institutions established by them. Gandhi did not
have much faith in Western institutions like parliamentary democracy, army, industries, law
and railways. For the extremists there was no place for saintly qualities in the sphere of
politics, while Gandhi gave highest priority to morality and nonviolence in personal life and
public action. The Extremists and Gandhi differed regarding the relationship between the
means and the ends. Tilak favoured the use of plurality of means to achieve Swaraj for
the country. Though he thought that purity of means was desirable, he did not see this
as a rigid rule. Tilak maintained that British rule in India was immoral and therefore if
Swaraj could not be achieved by using pure and non-violent means, then there should
be no hesitation in adopting other lesser means. For Tilak it was the purity of the goal
of Swaraj, which mattered the most. Gandhi did not agree with Tilaks ambivalent
position about ends and means. He believed that the means must be ethically right, pure
and non-violent; if not, the end itself would lose its value. He did not agree with Tilaks
view that falsehood should be paid in the same coin. To Gandhi, falsehood and untruth
could only be countered by truth.
13.4 THE REVOLUTIONARIES
Though the Indian National Movement was largely non-violent, a small revolutionary
movement did emerge in the early decades of the 20
th
century. In 1897, the Chapekar
brothers had assassinated two unpopular British officials at Poona. In 1904, V.D.
Savarkar had established a secret revolutionary society known as the Abhinav Bharat.
However, it was the failure of the Swadeshi movement that gave real impetus to
revolutionary activities, a first of its kind. The brutal suppression of the Swadeshi
movement by the British and the ineffectiveness of passive resistance advocated by the
extremist leaders provoked the youth of Bengal to engage in individual heroic actions like
assassinating unpopular officials.
In Bengal, a number of societies like Anushilan Samiti and Yugantar came into
existence and planned assassinations of unpopular British officials. Revolutionaries like
Khudiram Bose and Prafulla Chaki made attempts to kill unpopular British officials.
Syamji Krishnavarma, V.D. Savarkar and Lala Har Dayal, Madame Cama and Ajit Singh
coordinated the revolutionaries in Europe. The British framed a number of draconian laws
to suppress the revolutionaries. In this early phase, the revolutionaries did not try to
organise a mass armed revolution; instead, they focused on acts of individual heroism.
The second wave of revolutionary activities commenced in the early 1920s. The withdrawal
of Non-Cooperation in 1922 made the youth more radical. In North India, revolutionaries
organised themselves under Hindustan Republican Association (HRA), and later, under the
leadership of Bhagat Singh and Chandrasekhar Azad. In Bengal too revolutionary activities
were revived under the leadership of Surya Sen.
The revolutionaries questioned the non-violent strategy of struggle adopted by the INC,
as they believed passive resistance could not be effective against the British. They
believed in adopting violent methods and aspired to organise an armed mass revolution
to drive away the British from the country. However, they adopted the path of the Irish
nationalists and Russian Nihilists in the short term- the path of heroic action or
revolutionary terrorism. The assassination of unpopular British officials was done by the
revolutionaries to achieve three things: (a) to strike fear in the officials (b) to remove the
fear of the Indian people and (c) ignite a feeling of national consciousness.
The second wave of revolutionary activities in the 1920s had a different character. The
revolutionaries gradually moved away from individual heroic action and were attracted by
the possibility of armed mass struggle. A number of them also came under the influence
of Socialism. In 1924, the Hindustan Republican Association was formed with the aimof
organising armed revolution against the British. But the British suppressed the movement
by arresting a number of revolutionaries and implicating them in the Kakori Conspiracy
Case in 1925. The revolutionaries of North India like Bhagat Singh and Chandrasekhar
Azad came under the influence of socialist ideas. In September 1928, they renamed their
organisation as the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA) to reflect their
newly acquired ideology, which gave importance to socialist principles and revolution by
the masses. Bhagat Singh and B.K. Dutt made a public propaganda of this changed
ideology during their trial in a court for throwing a harmless bomb in the Central
Legislative Assembly in 1929. In Bengal too, individual heroic action was replaced by
group action. A group of revolutionaries, led by Surya Sen, carried out a large-scale
armed attack on the Chittagong armoury of the government in April 1930.
13.4.2 Role of the Revolutionaries
The revolutionary movement in India could not survive the harsh measures initiated by the
British against its leaders. Bhagat Singh and his fellow revolutionaries were tried for the
murder of Saunders in the Lahore Conspiracy Case and were hanged on 23 March
1931. Chandrasekhar Azad was killed in a shooting encounter with the police at
Allahabad in February 1931. Surya Sen was arrested in February 1933 and hanged.
Many other revolutionaries were arrested and sentenced to jail; some were sent to the
Andaman Jail.
The revolutionaries could not sustain their activities because they failed to get a consistent
and active support of the people and failed to develop a base among the Indian masses.
Moreover, their use of violence as a political weapon gave a justification to the British
to counter themby using more violence. The revolutionaries failed in achieving their long-
term goal of armed mass revolution against the British. Nevertheless, the selfless sacrifice
of the revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh, Chandrasekhar Azad , Surya Sen and hundreds
of others gained for them unparalleled popularity among the people. Many, however, did
not agree with their method of using violence for achieving independence.
13.4.3 Bhagat Singh (1907-1931)
Bhagat Singh was born on September 28, 1907 at the village Khatkar Kalan, tehsil
Banga, district J alandar. Bhagat Singhs family background and the political events
happening in Punjab played an important role in shaping his ideas. His grandfather, Sardar
Arjan Singh was a member of the Arya Samaj, which represented nationalist aspirations
in Punjab. His father Kishan Singh and uncle Swaran Singh were political activists and
were involved in a number of agitations against the oppressive British rule. Bhagat Singhs
elder uncle was the famous revolutionary nationalist leader, Ajit Singh, who had founded
the Bharat Mata Society (Mother India Society) along with Lala Lajpat Rai in 1907.
Bhagat Singh was educated in Dayanand Anglo Vedic High School in Lahore, where he
came into contact with nationalist leaders like Lala Lajpat Rai and others. Bhagat Singh
was inspired by the Ghadar Movement, especially by the sacrifice made by the young
revolutionary Kartar Singh Saraba. He considered Saraba as his role model. The Russian
Revolution of 1917 also made a deep impact on him by attracting him to socialist ideas.
Events like J allianwala Bagh Massacre (13 April 1919) and failure of Gandhis Non-
cooperation movement to bring Swaraj disillusioned Bhagat Singh. He began to search for
new ways to achieve independence. In 1926, he established the Navjivan Bharat Sabha
to train and recruit youth for revolutionary activity. Though Bhagat Singh started as a
believer in individual heroic action, after 1927 he gradually moved away from it and
began espousing radical socialist belief and mass armed action, and played an active role
in the H.S.R.A. But the brutal lathi charge on an anti-Simon Commission demonstration
on 30 October 1928 led to a sudden change. The great Extremist leader, Lala Lajpat Rai
was killed due to the blows of lathis. In retaliation, Bhagat Singh, along with Chandrasekhar
Azad and Rajguru, assassinated Saunders, the British officer in charge of the lathi charge.
Later, on 8 April 1929, Bhagat Singh and B.K. Dutt threw a harmless bomb in the
Central Legislative Assembly to protest against the suggested black laws and used their
trial proceedings as a forum for propaganda of their changed socialist and revolutionary
ideas. Bhagat Singh was tried in the Lahore Conspiracy Case and executed on 23 March
1931, in spite of massive protest by the Indian masses.
13.4.4 Bhagat Singh and Gandhi
One of the reasons why Gandhi wrote Hind Swaraj was to counter the ideology of
violence adopted by the Indian revolutionaries. He wanted to tell them that they were
following a suicidal policy as violence would beget violence, and that it was no solution
for Indias ills. Only the use of a different and higher weapon would protect Indias
civilisation. He did not agree with the arguments of the revolutionaries who justified the
using of force for the British expulsion. According to Gandhi, use of force would only get
us what the British got. It will not result in Swaraj. Unlike the revolutionaries, Gandhi
did not believe that mere physical expulsion of the British was necessary to gain Swaraj
for India. Gandhis concept of Swaraj had a much higher connotation than the Swaraj of
the revolutionaries. He also attacked the view of the revolutionaries that there was no
connection between the means and the end. For him, ends and means were equally
important.
Bhagat Singh criticised the political methods used by the Congress under the leadership
of Gandhi, though he accepted that it was Gandhi who aroused political consciousness in
the masses, started a mass movement and trained them to fight against injustice. As
Bhagat Singh felt the withdrawal of the Non-cooperation movement without a sufficiently
important reason clearly showed that Gandhi and the Congress were in not favour of
revolution and were inclined towards conciliation with the British. To Bhagat Singh, the
Congress was a party of the middle classes, white collared people and small traders; it
did not represent the peasants and the workers. In his opinion, the Congress could never
provide revolutionary leadership until it broadens its base to include the peasants and
workers.
Gandhi clarified his stand on the activities of the revolutionaries in many of his writings.
He admired their courage, commitment and sacrifice but not their use of violence, as
violence is counterproductive and harmful and was a wrong course to achieve Swaraj.
Gandhi and Bhagat Singh were opposed to each other in approach; Bhagat Singh
believed in violence, and did not shy away fromusing it to achieve independence. Gandhi
believed that only complete adherence to non-violence would free the country. Gandhi and
Bhagat Singh represented two different strands of Indias struggle for independence.
13.5 SUMMARY
In this unit we have studied the ideology, methods and contribution of the three different
strands of Indian National Movement- the moderates, extremists and revolutionaries. The
moderates stood for the constitutional method of attaining responsible government, believed
in petitioning and prayer, and had faith in the goodness, justice and fair-play of the British.
The extremists advocated both constitutional and extra-constitutional means for the
achievement of Swaraj, which was considered by them as a birth-right of every man.
To counter the British rule, they developed the four-point programme of Swadeshi,
Boycott, National Education and Passive Resistance against the British. The revolutionaries
abhorred British rule and advocated the use of violence to get rid of the British from
India. Initially they undertook acts of individual heroic action by assassinating unpopular
British officials, but later began advocating collective armed action against British rule.
We have also reviewed the contribution of Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Bal Gangadhar Tilak
and Bhagat Singh and studied the similarities and differences of their ideas and methods
with those of Gandhi. Gandhi considered Gokhale to be his political guru and was
influenced by his ideas about spiritualisation of politics, communal harmony and education.
Tilak gave a mass orientation to the struggle against British rule by mobilising the masses,
and set an example for others to follow by undergoing imprisonment and making
tremendous sacrifices for the sake of the country. Gandhi further improved upon and
continued their programme and considered himself as a true disciple of Tilak. Bhagat
Singh was attracted by Marxist and socialist ideology and tried to reorient the objective
of the revolutionaries from individual heroic action to mass armed struggle against colonial
rule. He criticised the Congress for being conciliatory towards the British and not
supporting revolution. Gandhi appreciated the sacrifice and commitment of the revolutionaries
but disapproved of their method of violence. Thus, there was a fundamental difference in
their approach though their common goal was to achieve independence for India.
1) Critically examine the ideology and methods of the moderates.
2) Discuss the four-point action programme developed by the extremists.
3) Explain the statement Mahatma Gandhi further improved upon and continued the
programme of the extremists.
4) Assess the contribution of Bhagat Singh to the Indian Freedom Struggle.
5) Explain Gandhis critique of the revolutionaries.
SUGGESTED READINGS
1. Argov, Daniel., Moderates and Extremist in the Indian Nationalist Movement 1883-
1920, Asia Publishing House, Bombay, 1967
2. Chandra, Bipan., History of Modern India, Orient BlackSwan, Hyderabad, 2009
3. Chousalkar, Ashok., Indian Idea of Political Resistance, Ajanta Publications, Delhi,
1990
4. Parel, Anthony., (ed.), Hind Swaraj and Other Writings, Cambridge University Press,
New Delhi, 1997
5. Gupta, D.N.,(ed.), Bhagat Singh Select Speeches & Writings, National Book Trust,
New Delhi, 2007
6. Singh, Bhagat (compiled with an introduction by Chamanlal), Bhagat Singh: J ail
Notebook and other Writings, Left Word Books, New Delhi, 2007
7. Tripathi, Amales., The Extremist Challenge, Orient Longman, Calcutta, 1967
UNIT 14 JINNAH AND SAVARKAR
Structure
14.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
14.2 Muhammad Ali Jinnah
14.2.1 Early Years (1875-1904)
14.2.2 Early Political Career (1904-1912)
14.2.3 Congress-MuslimLeague Unity (1912-1920)
14.2.4 Parting of Ways (1920-1930)
14.2.5 Round Table Conferences (1930-1932)
14.3 Vinayak Damodar Savarkar
14.3.1 Early Years (1883-1906)
14.3.2 Savarkar in London (1906-1910)
14.3.3 Savarkar in Andamans (1911-1920)
14.3.4 Savarkar and Hindutva (1920-1924)
14.3.5 Savarkar and the Hindu Sanghatan (1924-1937)
14.3.6 Savarkar and the Hindu Rashtra (1937-1943)
14.4 Jinnah: Two-Nation Resolution 1940 and After
14.5 Savarkar: Postscript (1948-1966)
14.6 Summary
Suggested Readings
14.1 INTRODUCTION
The Indian FreedomStruggle had many luminaries who contributed immensely with their
ideologies. But some of them did not necessarily find Gandhis leadership as inspiring and
held on to their respective ideologies steadfastly. Prominent among them are Muhammad
Ali Jinnah, the founder of the state of Pakistan and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, who had
leanings towards right-wing ideology. Both were critics of Gandhis leadership in the
national freedom movement. Their ideologies had an overwhelming influence on some
sections of their respective communities. This Unit attempts to make the learner understand
the varied perspectives of these distinguished men, and how their ideas shaped a part of
nations history.
Aims and Objectives
The political ideology of Jinnah
His parting of ways with Congress and demand for a separate state
Ideological leanings of Savarkar
His espousal of the Hindu Rashtra
14.2 MUHAMMAD ALI JINNAH
14.2.1 Early Years (1875-1904)
Mammad, as his pet name goes, was born to Mithibai and J innabhai Poonja, an Ismaili
Shia converted from a Hindu Kucchi family. He was educated briefly in Bombay and
mainly in Karachi. After completing schooling, he was recommended for apprenticeship to
a British firm. In London, Jinnahbhai shortened his name to its present form. He gave up
the apprenticeship and registered at the Lincolns Inn and qualified for the Bar at the
young age of 19. He returned not to Karachi but to Bombay in 1896. For three years,
his practice would not pick up. In 1900, for a short period, he accepted the post of
Acting Presidency Magistrate. Thereafter, he became one of the most successful lawyers
at the Bombay Bar.
14.2.2 Early Political Career (1904-1912)
In London, J innah had come close to the Moderate leader Dadabhai Naoroji, who was
seeking election to the House of Commons. He won by a narrow majority. Jinnah would
visit the Parliament and also get to know a number of Liberal Party members. In India,
J innah attended the 1904 Congress session in Bombay, where he met Gopal Krishna
Gokhale, his future mentor, for the first time. The year 1905 was marked by the Partition
of Bengal. This gave a fillip to the Swadeshi Movement, particularly in Bengal and
Maharashtra, both in its peaceful and revolutionary forms.
The following year, a Delegation of Muslims, led by Aga Khan, met Viceroy Minto, who
demanded special privileges to make up for the harsh treatment meted out to the Muslims
for their participation in the 1857 uprising. The Viceroy was more than receptive to their
demands. Following this, the Muslim League was established to protect and advance the
political rights and interests of the Mussalmans of India. The Aga Khan, though absent,
was elected the president at this Dacca meeting.
Jinnah, non-existent in the above development, was busy in Calcutta, working as secretary
to Dadabhai Naoroji presiding over the Congress session. He helped draft the Presidential
address that talked of Swaraj for the first time. This reflected the new nationalist spirit,
though Swaraj, then, meant Dominion Status within the Empire.
In 1908, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, though politically not on the same side of the Moderate-
Extremist divide, engaged Jinnah to defend him at his sedition trial. Jinnah argued that it
was not sedition for an Indian to demand freedom and self-government in his own
country. Still, Tilak was convicted.
The Morley-Minto scheme of Reforms, given effect to in the Indian Councils Act 1909,
created a separate electorate for the Muslims and under a system of weightage, enabled
the Muslims to obtain more seats in the various councils than their population in the
country.
Jinnah was against separate electorates and, at the 1910 Allahabad Congress, condemned
its extension to the local bodies. Ironically, he was among the first batch of Muslims
chosen to represent the community under the new Act. In the Imperial Legislative Council,
he proved to be a worthy disciple and colleague of Gokhale. Together they got the
systemof Indentured labour to South Africa abolished. Jinnahs Wakf Validating Bill was
the first private bill to be enacted by the Council. Jinnahs credentials as a liberal, secular
Moderate constitutionalist were well established by this time.
Jinnah and Savarkar 161
14.2.3 Congress-Muslim League Unity (1912-1920)
The year 1912 marked a liberal phase in the history of the Muslim League. President
Shafi presented the new Constitution and invited Jinnah to join the League. The next few
years saw J innahs efforts to get the League closer to the Congress. In 1913, J innah
joined the Muslim League while continuing to be in the Congress. He belonged to the
Congress and the MuslimLeague, and was a respected figure not only in the Government
camp, but also in India and in England.
Sarojini Naidu, also a disciple of Gokhale, wrote a book Mohammed Ali Jinnah, an
Ambassador of Unity, in which she emphasised that Jinnahs ambition was to follow in
the footsteps of Gokhale. Gokhales death in early 1915 followed by that of Pherozeshah
Mehta left Jinnah as the spokesman for the Moderate camp. Annie Besant and Tilak were
pioneering the Home Rule movement. A Congress liberal, Mazhar-ul-Huq, was presiding
over the Muslim League. Jinnah took upon himself the task of getting all these groups
together and set out to obtain consensus on the agreement that he had drawn up. The
object was national unity which has brought Hindus and Muslims together, involving
brotherly service for the common course. A.C.Mujumdar, presiding over the Lucknow
Congress session in 1916, welcomed Tilaks new party. Tilak was willing to make
common cause with Gokhales disciple. The Muslim League and the All-India Congress
Committee resolved to make a joint demand for Representative Government in India.
The Congress made vital concessions to the Muslimsentiments, particularly the three main
demands of the Muslims, viz. separate electorates, extent of Muslim representation, and
the safeguards. In a way, the Lucknow Pact endorsed the assumptions on which the
Morley-Minto reforms had enacted in 1909. This reflected the Hindu-Muslim unity in
making a common political demand on the British Government.
In August 1917, the Montague proclamation was issued: The policy of His Majestys
Government is that of increasing the association of Indians in every branch of the
administration and the gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to the
progressive realization of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British
empire
At that time, Gandhi was a mere witness to these events. Since his return from South
Africa he was trying to understand India. He was being slowly drawn into various local
movements- Champaran in Bihar, Kheda and Ahmedabad in Gujarat. At the Amritsar
Congress in 1919, Tilak, Gandhi and Jinnah, all received Montagues initiatives with
enthusiasm.
But within weeks, the introduction of the Rowlatt Bill spoiled the situation. When Gandhi
tried to apply his satyagraha technique, he realised that the masses needed to be trained
in non-violence. After some Himalayan failures, and withdrawal of the non-cooperation
movement, Gandhi gradually convinced the Congress party of the soundness of his
philosophy.
Jinnah, however, could not accept Gandhis new approach. Muslims in India were pained
that following Turkeys defeat in the war, Britain had taken over the holy places including
the Kaaba. Britain had also gone back on their promise to protect the Khalifa. The
Muslims started a Movement to protect the Khilafat, and sought Gandhis guidance. The
Khilafat Movement had religious implications and Jinnah was against bringing religion into
politics. Gandhi saw in this an opportunity to get the Muslims into the mainstream
nationalist politics and to make them abide by non-violence. This was the first major
national non-violent mass uprising in history, but it also marked the parting of ways
between two powerful personalities. In 1920, at the special Calcutta session and then at
Nagpur, Gandhi took control of the Congress Party and restructured it. J innah felt
humiliated and left the Congress party.
14.2.4 Jinnah: Parting of Ways (1920-1930)
Jinnah continued to work for Hindu-Muslim unity. At the Muslim League sessions, he
would plead against a political party for Muslims. In the Imperial Legislative Council, he
would work in cooperation with Motilal Nehru. His objective, while presiding over the
1924 session of the League, was a complete settlement between the Hindus and Muslims
as was done in 1916 without in any way being antagonistic to the Congress.
In 1926, Motilal Nehru and Abul Kalam Azad floated the Indian National Union and
Jinnah, along with M.R.Jayakar, fought and won the elections on that ticket. When the
statutory Simon Commission was appointed in 1927, Gandhi called for a boycott and
nearly all leaders, including Jinnah, joined in. He was also in the All-parties Conference
that tried to respond to the British challenge and draft an acceptable constitution. The
Nehru Committee had compromised on Dominion status instead of Independence .It had
also, after much deliberation, suggested Joint Electorates.
J innah looked at Separate electorates as a necessary evil. He was willing to consider
other safeguards that would ensure protection to the minorities as an interimmeasure. In
March 1929, the Nehru Report came up for discussion at a meeting of the Muslim
League in Delhi. To accommodate the different schools of thought among the Muslims,
Jinnah moved a resolution containing Fourteen Points. At this stage, while a number of
safeguards were suggested to protect the Muslimas well as Hindu minorities as an interim
measure, the principle of Separate Electorates was being given up. But the Hindu
Mahasabha members in the Congress came in the way and an opportunity to do away
with separate electorates was lost.
Now, Jinnah, in danger of losing his grip over the Muslim League, withdrew. After its
ultimatum to the Government for accepting the Nehru Committee Report before 31
December 1928 was not heeded, the Lahore Session, with J awaharlal Nehru as
president, passed the Purna Swaraj resolution that marked a radical departure for the
Indian Nationalist movement. Further, Gandhi had undertaken the Dandi March. The
Satyagraha movement that enveloped India and the British oppression that followed
equally abhorred the constitutionalist Jinnah.
14.2.5 Round Table Conferences (1930-1932)
Jinnah and his associates, who had boycotted the Simon Commission, now inexplicably
accepted a nomination fromthe Viceroy for the drafting of a Constitution for this country
under direct British auspices.
Jinnah participated in the First Round Table Conference. He pointed out that there were
four main parties sitting round the table now. There are the British party, the Indian
Princes, the Hindus and the Muslims. Jinnah had recognised over the years a wide range
of special Muslim interests, needs, and demands; but this statement marked a new
departure and became a major theme of his Pakistan strategy.
In December 1930, when presiding over the Muslim League at Allahabad, Mohammed
Iqbal gave public expression to the idea of a northwest Muslim State, may be within the
Indian Federation. It marked a subtle beginning of the conception of Pakistan.
In December 1931, J innah again left for England. He participated in the Second Round
Table Conference, but stayed on in London and practised at the Privy Council. His
parting message to the Muslimyouth contained an emphatic claimfor communal rights and
safeguards, though he also repeated that communal unity was essential for Swaraj. The
discord between the Hindus and the Mussalmans was sapping the strength of India and
making the claim for self-government sound like hollow mockery. J innah appeared to
aggravate the disease deliberately, which he was most anxious to heal.
Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald had realised that it was difficult to find an answer to
the communal problem. On January 14, 1931, Aga Khan, Jinnah and Shafi called on the
Prime Minister and warned him that unless the Governments policy statement contains an
announcement of satisfactory safeguards for the communities, most of the Muslimdelegates
will dissociate themselves from the Conference.
M.C. Chagla, one of the closest associates of J innah tried to analyse: Why did Jinnah
change? There could be many possible explanations for this. He had to be a leader, and
the prime mover in whatever cause he worked with. With the emergence of Gandhiji in
Indian Politics, J innah felt that his importance would gradually diminish. J innah was a
complete antithesis of Gandhiji. While Gandhiji believed in religion, in abstract moral
values, in non-violence, Jinnah only believed in hard practical politics.
In 1934, J innah returned to India. The Government of India Act 1935 had given effect
to most of what he wanted. In view of the elections due in 1937, Jinnah announced the
formation of a Muslim League party to fight the elections. He fought the election on the
Muslim League manifesto claiming special treatment to the Muslims. The League did not
do too well and formed government in only three provinces while the Congress formed
ministries in most provinces.
So far, Jinnah had only the Congress to contend with. Hindu Mahasabha, like many other
groups in the twenties and the thirties, was under the Congress umbrella. Jinnahs lawyer
friend M.R.J ayakar had strayed towards the Mahasabha. Savarkar too joined the battle
vigorously. Meanwhile, Jinnah determinedly argued on basis of his Two-Nation theory.
14.3 VINAYAK DAMODAR SAVARKAR
14.3.1 Early Years (1883-1906)
Vinayak, popularly known as Veer Savarkar, was born in Bhagur, near Nashik, on May
28, 1883, to Damodarpant and Radhabai. His father was well to do, knew English and
well versed in Indian classics. Though Savarkar was to become an advocate of casteless
society, his early years were conditioned by his pride in belonging to the Chitpavan
Brahmin heritage.
From his childhood he was inspired by the revolutionaries Wasudeo Balwant Phadke and
the Chapekar brothers, who had taken up arms against the British. The execution of
Chapekar brothers for the Rand Murder in 1899 had provoked Savarkar into the vow:
...For the freedom of my country I shall, in armed warfare, be a martyr like Chapekar,
or become victorious like Shivaji, and crown my Motherland with Swaraj...To regain the
independence of my country I shall raise armed revolt, and shall fight till I die while killing
the enemy.
Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, a strong nationalist was editing the newspaper Kesari.
Savarkar, from his school days was familiar with the happenings reported therein. Tilak
believed in Hindu identity and Hindu Sanghatan. His political strategy was based on
Shatham prati shthyam and Sadhananam Anekata. Savarkar was influenced by both
the nationalist and Hindu sanghatan motivations.
Savarkar had, while at school in Nashik, started several groups. Rashtrabhakta Samooha
was a secret society. Its public face Mitra Mela was started in J anuary 1900. Soon
there were many Mitra Melas in Maharashtra. Savarkar wove these members into
Abhinav Bharat, a secret society on the lines of Mazzinis Young Italy.
When he joined Fergusson College in Pune, Savarkar had an opportunity to inspire
revolutionaries among the students and to work with Tilak in the Swadeshi Movement;
and started to protest against Viceroy Curzons Partition of Bengal in 1905. A bon fire
of foreign clothes was organised by Savarkar and Tilak addressed the procession. Tilak
recommended Savarkar for a scholarship to study in London that was arranged by Pandit
Shyamaji KrishnaVarma (1857-1930).
14.3.2 Savarkar in London (1906-1910)
Krishna Varma was a Sanskrit scholar who was deeply influenced by the founder of Arya
Samaj Maharshi Dayanand, Lokmanya Tilak and the sociologist Herbert Spencer. He had
started a journal Indian Sociologist, founded the Indian Home Rule League and set up
India House as a hostel for the young students.
Savarkar reached England in J uly 1906 ostensibly to study law but really in search of
revolutionaries from Russia, Ireland, Egypt and China, to learn how to organise a
revolutionary movement. Krishna Varma welcomed the young revolutionary with open
arms. Savarkar immediately set for himself certain tasks. He presented Mazzinis philosophy
to the Marathi readership through translation and a long preface. He started a number of
Hindu and Sikh festivals in London, as also celebration of the Golden Jubilee of 1857
uprising. He set up Free India Society, which was open to all, but was meant to be a
conduit for Abhinav Bharat. He sent delegates to the International Socialist Union at
Stuttgart who unfurled Indias flag designed by him. Krishna Varma, while supporting all
these activities preferred the safety of France and left Londons India House in charge of
Savarkar. In the first issue of Talwar, an organ of the Abhinav Bharat, Savarkar had
predicted a war in Europe in 4 or 5 years. The liberation of India was to be achieved
by a preparation for war, which included:
i) The teaching of Swadeshi and boycott, imparting national education and creating a
national spirit;
ii) Purchasing and storing of weapons in neighbouring states;
iii) Opening of small bomb factories;
iv) Purchasing weapons in foreign countries and smuggling them into India;
v) Adopting guerrilla tactics whenever possible;
vi) Waiting for a favourable opportunity to rise in revolt; and
vii) Carrying patriotism and politics into the ranks of the Indian military forces and
seducing them.
Savarkar favoured the use of bombs and selective assassinations to terrorise the British.
When such events took place in India, Lord Morley authorised suppressive measures.
Tilak was sentenced to six years in jail and sent to Mandalay. This came as a thunderbolt
to the Indians in London.
One of Savarkars associates, Madanlal Dhingra, asked his leader, whether the time for
martyrdom had really come. Savarkars epigrammatic reply was: If a martyr is
determined and ready, that fact by itself generally implies that the time for martyrdommust
have come. Dhingras attempt to kill Lord Curzon, just returned from India, failed. But
he was successful in killing William Curzon-Willey, ADC to Lord Morley. This was just
a few days before Gandhi arrived in London for negotiations with the British Government.
Dhingras trial was a formality. He did not defend himself except through a written
statement that was drafted by Savarkar.
In 1906, Gandhi had visited India House and met Shyamaji and Savarkar. He visited
Savarkar even after the Dhingra episode. As they discussed the political situation, even
Gandhis lieutenants from South Africa were converted by Savarkar to his school of
violence. Savarkar clarified his position in Talwar started from Paris in November 1909:
We feel no special love for secret organizations, or surprise and secret warfare. We feel
that whenever the open preaching and practicing of truth is banned by enthroned violence,
then alone secret societies and secret warfare are justified as the inevitable and indispensable
means to combat violence by force.
Gandhi believed in total openness even with his oppressors. Despite their differences,
Gandhi presided over the Dussehra celebrations in London that Savarkar addressed. It
was agreed upon that neither side would refer to the controversial issues.
Consequently, Gandhi wrote Hind Swaraj, as an answer to the Indian School of Violence
and its prototype in South Africa. I came in contact with every known anarchist in
London. Their bravery impressed me, but I felt that their zeal was misguided. I felt that
violence was no remedy for Indias ills. Hind Swaraj can be read as a narration of
dialogue between Savarkar as the Reader and Gandhi as the Editor.
The British Collector of Nashik, J ackson, was killed in December 1909. It was found
that the Brownie pistol that was used was sent by Savarkar from India House in London.
This led to Savarkars arrest. Savarkars strategy was to avoid a trial in India. The British
Court ruled otherwise. While he was being taken to India for the trial, Savarkar tried to
escape at Marseilles by jumping out of the porthole of the ship. He was rearrested on
the French soil and handed over to the British guard on the ship. Savarkar tried to make
jurisdiction an issue at his trial. The International Court of Justice in The Hague gave a
verdict in favour of Britain. Savarkar was ultimately sentenced to transportation for two
terms of life imprisonment, a total of 50 years in jail and sent to the Andaman Islands.
This marked the end of Savarkars revolutionary phase.
14.3.3 Savarkar in Andamans (1911-1920)
The hard life in the cellular jail transformed Savarkar in several respects. He discovered
that the Jail Administration had chosen Muslim warders over the largely Hindu prisoners.
He also found that religious conversions were being encouraged. Savarkar started
Shuddhi. This led to continuous confrontation. Finally, a truce had to be called. But such
events led to hardening of Savarkars attitude towards Muslims.
The second major change took place when the Secretary of State for India Montague
proclaimed the Governments intention of gradual introduction of Responsible Government.
Then followed Montagues Report in 1919. Savarkar sensed an opportunity to fight for
Indias freedom by constitutional means.
Savarkar was anxious to join the mainstream struggle in India. He made repeated
attempts to secure release, promising assistance in war effort and then in working the
proposed Reforms. In the May 26, 1920 Gandhi wrote in Young India pleading for the
release of Savarkar on the ground that he was no longer carrying on revolutionary activity.
Savarkar brothers were brought to India but kept in jail until 1924.
14.3.4 Savarkar and Hindutva (1920-1924)
While in Jail, Savarkar wrote the Essentials of Hindutva. He made a distinction between
various terms Hinduism, Hindutva and Hindudom. Hindutva, he defined, as far more
comprehensive, referring not only to the religious aspects of the Hindu people as the word
Hinduism does, but also their cultural, linguistic, social and political aspects. He mentions
two important criteria: India as a Pitrubhumi and India as a Punyabhumi. He shows
how the Bauddhas, Jains, Sikhs, Lingayats and the so-called untouchables and tribals, all
fall within this category. He replaced the Veda-oriented definition of Tilak (to include non-
vedic sects and religions) and the territorial definition of an Indian as assumed by the
Congress (to exclude the Muslims). He defined India as a territory indicated by the river
Indus on the one hand and the Oceans on the other (Asindhusindhu paryantah).
Further, he reasoned out how the Christians, the Parsis and the Jews are not antagonistic.
He viewed Muslims as owing extra-territorial loyalty to the Turkish Khalifa. At the end
of the War, when the British ill-treated Turkey, most Indian leaders, for different reasons,
supported the Khilafat. Gandhis support, in particular, upset Savarkar.
He enunciated Hindu Nationalism as the basis of the Indian nation. He disliked the special
privileges that were granted to Muslims by the British and endorsed by the Congress in
association with the Muslim League in the Tilak-Jinnah Lucknow Pact of 1916.
14.3.4 Savarkar and the Hindu Sanghatan (1924-1937)
Savarkar was released from jail, but kept under detention in Ratnagiri, on condition that
he would not indulge in any political activity; he decided to devote himself to Hindu
Sanghatan. He began working for the Hindu Sabha, started by his elder brother Babarao,
as a non-political body.
Savarkar wanted to integrate the untouchables into Hindu fold as a part of the Hindu
Sanghatan. He spent most of his time for this and used innovative methods. He started
a restaurant to be run by the Untouchables; he built Patit Pavan Mandir as a pan-Hindu
temple, he found new professions for them such as playing in a band and arranged for
sahabhojan cutting across castes. He restarted Shuddhi movement to reconvert those
who had been converted to Islam or Christianity by inducement, coercion or deception.
Despite his pride in the Hindu religion, Savarkar identified seven shackles that have tied
up Hindu community socially: Vedoktabandi, Sindhubandi, Shuddhibandi, Vyavasyabandi,
Sparshabandi, Rotibandi and Betibandi, which he wanted to fight against.
In March 1927, Gandhi visited Ratnagiri and met Savarkar. Gandhi sensed the latters
revolutionary zeal and felt it could be used for some constructive purpose under the
changed circumstances. While there was some congruence in their views on social issues,
there was considerable divergence on issues like shuddhi. Gandhi was as much against
re-conversion as against conversion.
During the Ratnagiri period, Savarkar was continuously warned that his sentence of life
transportation was not lifted. This prevented him from anti-British political activity. To
some extent, the British were able to tame Savarkar. Now, his political writings were
directed more against the Muslims and against Gandhi, whom he treated as a British
loyalist and a Muslim apologist. Savarkar did not endorse the Salt Satyagraha movement
called by the congress.
14.3.5 Savarkar and the Hindu Rashtra (1937-1943)
Savarkars younger brother, Dr. Narayan was active in the Congress, and invited
Vinayakrao to join it but the latter chose not to. Babaraos Hindu influence became
more significant for him. In his presidential addresses to the Hindu Mahasabha, Savarkar
explained his Hindutva thesis elaborately. He mentioned that two antagonist nations were
living in India, side by side. He pointed out that Gandhis Congress was assuming that
the two communities had actually merged while it was only their dream. He felt that
acceptance of Hindutva was essential for Indians.
He appealed to his followers to join the military. When the Second World War started
in 1939, he was happy at the opportunity for Hindus to learn military skills at the expense
of the British rulers, to be used against them later. He equally welcomed the opportunity
offered by the Japanese through the Indian National Army.
14.4 JINNAH: TWO NATION RESOLUTION 1940 AND
AFTER
In Sind, Bengal and the Punjab, the Muslim League formed ministries with the help of
other parties, including Hindu Mahasabha and the Congress, but where the Congress had
won majority they formed their own ministries. In the United Provinces, there was an
understanding that the Congress and the League would collaborate. But the Congress
preferred to go ahead and formed its own ministry. There developed a feeling that this
ministry was unfair to the Muslims.
When the Viceroy brought India into the war without consulting the provincial ministries,
the Congress decided to give up office and resigned from the Legislature. Jinnah asked
the Muslims to observe Friday, December 22, 1939 as the Day of Deliverance.
At the 1940 Lahore session of the Muslim League, J innahs presidential address was
emphatic and the Muslim League passed the Pakistan resolution. India, which was one
country, and the people of India who constituted one nation till then, was as per Jinnah
becoming two separate nations.
With J innah and Savarkar talking of the Two Nations in India, the problem was getting
aggravated. In various attempts to solve the problem raised by J innahs demand of
Pakistan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad and Jinnah had reached an agreement. But Jinnah insisted
on its being approved by the Hindu Mahasabha, which promptly vetoed it.
During the War period, there were different views propagated by different leaders. There
were those who wanted to take advantage of the problems the British were facing.
Subhash Bose escaped from detention, and, with the help of Germans and the Japanese,
built up the Indian National Army to fight the British. Some others wanted to help the
British in the war effort against the Japanese, making Freedom a post-war condition. In
1942, Stafford Cripps came to India with proposals that assured Freedom on termination
of the War. These also included seeds of autonomy for provinces, enabling the Provinces
to opt out. Gandhi described Cripps Proposals as Post-dated cheques on a crashing
Bank. Gandhis view was that the Japanese had no reason to eye India except the British
presence. He wanted the British to Quit India and let the Indians handle the Japanese
threat and all other problems.
In August 1942, Gandhi decided on a mass movement. Jinnahs reaction was against the
movement. He viewed it as an attempt to coerce the British to hand over the transfer of
power to the Hindu majority, leaving the minorities and others at the mercy of the
Congress rule.
J innahs strategy was to call Congress a party of the Hindus and Savarkar accused
Gandhi of being pro-Muslim; Ambedkar would not let Gandhi speak for the Untouchables.
That Gandhi represented large masses of Indians, irrespective of religion or caste or class,
was conveniently ignored by the British, who had their own interests to protect.
Gandhi and its important leaders were imprisoned. This gave an opportunity to Jinnah and
the MuslimLeague to consolidate their position and win the post-war elections. The same
could not be said of the Hindu Mahasabha. In spite of repeated appeals by Savarkar for
Hindus to vote against the Congress and for the Hindu Sanghatan, the Hindu Mahasabha
was unsuccessful.
Though there were numerous efforts at negotiations that would lead to smooth transfer of
power, various political and communal groups stuck to their rigid stance. This enabled the
British to monitor the events to serve their own ends. At the end of the War and with
the Labour party coming to power in Great Britain, Indias independence could be taken
for granted. The problemwas to whomthe power be transferred. The clumsy negotiations,
the communal riots and the impatience of the leaders, who had taken part in a long
drawn freedom struggle finally led to the partition of the country.
Freedommeant different things to different leaders and parties. For Gandhi, it meant self-
rule and self-control for all Indians. For Savarkar it was Hindu-hita (Welfare of the
Hindus). For Ambedkar social justice for the Depressed Classes was more important than
political freedom for India, to restrain the tyranny of caste Hindus. For J innah formation
of Pakistan out of Muslim majority seemed to define Indias Freedom.
Gandhi was insistent that even if the country is to be partitioned, it should be done
voluntarily by a free India. He hoped that the British policy of Divide and Rule would
fail and that Indians would prefer to live together.
After intense negotiations, it was decided to partition the country and Pakistan was
founded few hours before Indias Tryst with Destiny on the midnight of 14-15 August
1947. Jinnah became the first Governor General of the new Nation Pakistan. He died the
next year.
14.5 SAVARKAR: POSTSCRIPT (1948-1966)
What led to Indias freedom will always be a debatable issue. Did the armed efforts
made by revolutionaries and the threat posed by the Indian National Army and the Naval
Mutiny play a part? Savarkar and his admirers like to believe this. The Constitutionalists
think that this is a natural culmination of the Queens Declaration of 1857 and Montagues
Proclamation of 1917. There can be little doubt that the mass movement spearheaded by
Gandhi and the Congress not only led to a smooth transfer of power but also to a
continuity in administration that has proved unique amongst all the colonies.
For Savarkar and Gandhi, Akhanad Hindusthan was important for different reasons.
Savarkar remarked that From Quit India the Congress has inevitably landed on Split
India. The story of Partition of India is too complicated to apportion the blame. Jinnah,
as father of Pakistan, would proudly claim credit for it. Savarkars followers put the
blame at the doorstep of the Congress. However, it was also Savarkars own inability to
influence the course of events.
When freedom came on 15 August 1947, Savarkar unfurled the new National flag along
with the Bhagwa jaripataka on his terrace, all alone. The grief of Partition kept
gnawing at Savarkars followers. Few months later, on 30 J anuary 1948 Gandhi was
killed by Nathuram Godse. In the Trial, Savarkar too figured as one of the eight accused.
Apart from the approver Badge, Savarkar was the only person acquitted since there was
no evidence against his role. The matter did not end there. Some legal matters were not
thoroughly explored. Efforts were made officially and unofficially to fill the gaps. A
commission was appointed by notification of March 22, 1965 and the enquiry conducted
by J ustice J ivanlal Kapur. Savarkars role became highly contentious and remains so to
this day. The later part of his life was spent in giving intermittent speeches and writings.
He died on 26
th
February, 1966 due to ill-health.
14.6 SUMMARY
Jinnah and Savarkar represented two different ideologies that had a profound influence on
some of the sections of their communities. While the former stood for Muslim assertion,
the latter sought a Hindu Rashtra. Gandhi was opposed to both the stands as he felt it
was the amalgamation of these communities that would ensure the existence of a peaceful
society. Nonetheless, they did play a significant role in shaping the history of the nation.
These influences resonate to this day though not to the extent of inflicting irreparable
damages. The only common thread that tied all the communities together was the
achievement of freedom in a non-violent, peaceful manner and this mode of leadership
was successfully spearheaded by Gandhi.
1. Briefly examine J innahs early political career and his efforts to forge Congress-
Muslim League unity.
2. Discuss briefly Jinnahs parting way with Congress and his demand for a separate
nation.
3. Examine the early influences on Savarkar that shaped his ideological leanings.
4. Elucidate Savarkars scheme of a Hindu Rashtra.
SUGGESTED READINGS
1. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar: Samagra Savarkar Volumes 1 to 10, 1993-1994,
Savarkar Prakashan, Mumbai
2. Keer, Dhananjay., Veer Savarkar, Popular Prakashan, Mumbai, 1966
3. Walport, Stanley., Jinnah of Pakistan, Oxford University Press, Mumbai, 2000
4. Majumdar, A.C., Jinnah and Gandhi, Minerva Publications, Kolkata
5. Pyarelal and Sushila Nayar., Mahatma Gandhi, Volumes 1 to 10,Navajivan Publishing
House, Ahmedabad (1956-1995).
UNIT 15 TAGORE, NEHRU AND AMBEDKAR
Structure
15.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
15.2 Rabindranath Tagore
15.2.1Tagores Political Philosophy
15.2.2Nationalism
15.2.3Swaraj
15.2.4Swadeshi Samaj
15.3 Tagore and Gandhi
15.4 Jawaharlal Nehru
15.4.1Political Ideas of Nehru
15.4.2Nationalismand Internationalism
15.4.3Democracy
15.4.4Socialism
15.4.5Secularism
15.5 Nehru and Gandhi
15.6 Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
15.6.1Dr. Ambedkars Social and Political Ideas
15.6.2Criticismon Caste System
15.6.3Nationalism
15.6.4Democracy
15.6.5Socialism
15.7 Ambedkar and Gandhi
15.8 Summary
Suggested Readings
15.1 INTRODUCTION
Mahatma Gandhi led the Satyagraha movement in India to attain Swaraj. He mobilised
the masses to participate in the nationalist movement. Gandhis principles of Truth, Non-
violence and morality appealed to the masses and a unique bond was established between
them. In the course of his Satyagraha, Gandhi had to deal with the contemporaries who
were also associated with the nationalist movement, with their own distinct perspectives.
Notable among them were Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore, Jawaharlal Nehru and Dr. B.R.
Ambedkar. Gandhi had both agreements and disagreements with them on certain issues
but he maintained his close association and friendship with them. They were his
contemporaries and close companions in the larger framework of national freedom
struggle.
Aims and Objectives
The political philosophy of Rabindranath Tagore
Political ideas of Jawaharlal Nehru
The political and social ideas of Dr. .B.R.Ambedkar and
Gandhis close association with these renowned men
15.2 RABINDRANATH TAGORE
Rabindranath Tagore, popularly known as Gurudev, was a renowned poet of international
repute, who received Nobel Prize for his literary contribution in 1913. A versatile genius,
his interest was not confined to poetry and literary activities. He made notable contributions
to religious and educational thought, to moral regeneration and economic reconstruction.
His contribution in the field of political philosophy and socio-political reforms is of
immense importance for which he is acclaimed as one of the architects of modern India.
Tagore had very close friendship with Gandhi. Gandhi called him Gurudev while Tagore
referred to Gandhi as Mahatma as early as February 1915, when Gandhi had just
arrived from South Africa. They had an intellectual debate over certain issues, and their
friendship lasted till Tagores death in 1941.
Rabindranath Tagore was born at a time when the currents of nationalist, religious and
literary movements were prominent. He was influenced by Raja Rammohan Roy and
Bankimchandra Chatterjee, known for their immense contribution to the nationalist movement
in Bengal. The spirit of patriotismin Tagore was evident even in his early years. In 1875
he attended the Hindu Mela, a patriotic gathering held annually at Calcutta and recited a
Bengali poem, Hindu mela Uphar, composed by himself. Again in 1887 he recited
another poem, attacking Lord Lyttons repressive policy and maladministration. Thereafter
through his works, he expressed his patriotic feeling.
Tagore played a prominent role in the Swadeshi movement that swept through Bengal
with the background of Partition of Bengal in 1905. He presided over the annual session
of Bengal Provincial Congress held at Pabna (now in Bangladesh) and elucidated his plan
of making the society an effective agency of creative activity and chalked out a
programme for national reconstruction with the village people as the nuclei. Tagore was
concerned by the split that took place in the Surat session of the Congress between
Extremists and Moderates. In his presidential speech at Pabna, he emphasised the need
for resolving the conflict without transcending the limits of discipline. However, Tagore
could not reconcile his conscience with the differences prevalent in the Congress. Being
a Universalistic, his mind was not confined to a particular political doctrine. He was
especially pained by the revolutionary path chosen by few youths, which he considered
as a futile attempt, an inconsistent gesture in the great Indian tradition. Though he left
active politics, his patriotism made him a close observer of the nationalist movement. He
expressed his anguish towards the British government through literary works and letters.
His fiery writings inspired many people to plunge into national movement. Tagore strongly
condemned Jallianwala Bagh massacre of 13
th
April 1919 and anguished by the incident,
a month later, he returned the title of Sir conferred on him by the British government.
In his letter to viceroy, Tagore said, The rulers who have handy the efficient machinery
to crush the human life and use it against innocent, unarmed and vulnerable people cannot
stand on the justification that it was a need of political compulsion.
Tagores entire life was devoted to literary writing and was influenced by his love for man
and humanity; like Gandhi, he wrote extensively on the issues of history, religion,
education, society, polity, village life, civilisation, culture etc. Among these are essays such
as the Bharatbarsh Dharm, Swadeshi Samaj, Atma Parichay, Kalaniketan, and Swaraj
Sadhana. He established Shantiniketan with the objective of building educational institution
outside State-sponsored system and taking students closer to the nature and practical life.
15.2.1 Tagores Political Philosophy
Tagore propounded the philosophy of practical humanism. He was concerned with man,
not as the citizen of a particular state. For him humanity stood above everything. He was
aware of the arrogant and irrational power of the British rulers who insulted and injured
humanism; as a humanist, he resolved to fight this evil and had firm conviction in the
principle of morality, goodness and love and championed individual freedom. He believed
that the essence of freedom is illumination of the soul by a process of self-realisation.
Therefore for peace, prosperity and progress of man and society the people should be
awakened first. According to Tagore man has two entities self and the universe which
should be harmonised. Tagore preached Universalism. He believed that cooperation and
reciprocity of different cultures and civilisations is the need of present age. The synthesis
of different cultures may enlighten the world.
15.2.2 Nationalism
Although Tagore praised western civilisation, he criticised the concept of nationalism which
emerged in the West. Tagore was aware that Nationalism has released man from the
shackles of feudalism. It has provided an opportunity for the people living in a distinct
country to have an independent existence. Nationalism has inculcated desire in the subject
people to free themselves from the shackles of foreign rule. However in the practice
Nationalism has evils which the poet has criticised. Tagore said that Nationalismhas bred
disharmony between nation states. It has led to international discord, bitterness and strife.
It has inculcated spirit of exclusiveness and intolerance. Above all, love for ones own
country has led to hatred for the others. Self-interest and Self-aggrandisement are the
features of Nationalism. Greed, material prosperity and the consequent mutual jealousy led
the nation to the powerfulness by creating fear of each other. This instinct of selfishness
and lust for power are greatest dangers to mankind. When a Nation considers itself
greater than people, it attacks the very vital of humanity. The West, under the impact of
nationhood, has lost the consciousness; the living bond of society is broken and is
replaced by mechanical organisation.
In his book Nationalism, Tagore advocated that unlike the West, India sought unity in
diversity. Tagore opined that India is a country of divergent races, religions and languages.
She has accommodated foreign religions and cultures. This assimilative potentiality of
Indian civilisation and social system is immensely unique. The basis of Indian civilisation
is society and the spiritual ideal of man, which is eternal. Commenting on nationalism in
Japan, Tagore said that Japan took the concept of nation from the west but she has kept
intact the spirit of the East. She has her own soul, which must assert itself over all her
requirements.
Tagore, Nehru and Ambedkar 173
To Tagore, nationalism can serve greater good to humanity if it believes in national self-
respect. Nationalism should be based on the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity
instead of suspicion, fear, distrust and national egoism. To him, humanity is greater than
nationalism and it can prosper and progress by happy synthesis of the spiritual unity of
East and the scientific and technological advancement of the West.
15.2.3 Swaraj
Tagores view of civilisation was based on reason and goodness in which the individual
will not be oppressed. He therefore urged for Swaraj or Home rule. However he had
a conviction that the awakening of India was a part of the awakening of the world.
According to Tagore, Swaraj cannot be attained by blind obedience to an outside power
but only by the realisation of self in the light of intellect. He attributed Indias decline and
fall to the fact that India had surrendered her right to reason and judge the blind forces
of Shastric injunctions and social conventions. Tagore further said, Those who have failed
to attain Swaraj within themselves must lose it in outside world too. Political independence
is not the real Swaraj. Swaraj means moral and spiritual transformation of the individual
in society. Swaraj, to him, was an internal attribute of man which could not be attained
by any external means. It is through political consciousness and the consciousness of the
self that Swaraj can be attained in the real sense of the term. Political agitation may end
foreign rule but it would not be permanent. Swaraj is futile if the people are not educated
or taught to be self-reliant. Thus Tagores concept of Swaraj is essentially related to self-
realisation and creativity. In his own words The village of which the people come
together to earn for themselves their food, their health, their education, to gain for
themselves the joy of so doing, shall have lighted the lamp on the way to Swaraj. It will
not be difficult therefrom to light others, one after another and thus illuminate more and
more of the path along which Swaraj will advance by the organic processes of its own
living growth. Tagore associated the welfare of the people with Swaraj. For him the
welfare of the people is a synthesis comprised of many interrelated elements: health, work,
reason, wisdom and joy. As he said, If even the people of one village of India, by the
exercise of their own power, make their village their very own, then and there will begin
the work of realising our country as our own:
15.2.4 Swadeshi Samaj
When Tagore urged for Swaraj he had a complete image of Swaraj in his mind which
tried to preserve the continuity of Indian traditions. Tagore pointed out that the western
civilisation revolves around the State; State is the keystone of the political arch. However,
in India, society has been the main spring of constructive activity through ages. In his
essay Swadeshi Samaj published in 1904, Tagore has elaborately discussed this idea
which reveals his emphasis on society. Swadeshi Samaj is a manifesto of Tagores belief
that Indias problems are essentially social and must be resolved through society. The
fundamental purpose of his scheme was to make society supreme and to promote social
co-operation. To Tagore, society is the life force of Indias civilisation. But it was crushed
under the aegis of the British rule and the society which had hitherto been supreme made
secondary. This emphasis on supremacy of the state, he says, led to all calamities in India.
State interference of any kind is likely to dwarf individuals inner faculties, weaken the
sense of responsibility, destroy the power of self-help and kill initiative. The states
function should be restricted to the extent of hindering of hindrances.
15.3 TAGORE AND GANDHI
Tagores achievement in literary and creative spheres equals Gandhis achievement in
political sphere. Both of themexhibited the urge to put India in world literary and political
thought. They were contemporaries in their works and deeds. The friendship and affection
between the two continued inspite of their differences.
Tagore first came to know Gandhi for his work in South Africa through C. F. Andrews,
who closely associated with Gandhi in South Africa. Andrews, a prolific correspondent,
regularly kept Tagore informed of Gandhis activities in South Africa. The real interaction
between Tagore and Gandhi began in 1914, upon Gandhis return to India. Gandhi chose
Tagores Shantiniketan to send the members of Phoenix Ashram till his arrival. Gandhi
recalled later, It was here that the members of my South African family found warm
hospitality in 1914, pending my arrival from England, and I too found shelter here for
nearly a month.
Gandhi visited Shantiniketan on 10
th
March 1915. To this day it is observed as Gandhi
punyaha Din at Shantiniketan every year. It is during February 1915 that Tagore referred
Gandhi as Mahatma and their association began with the exchange of letters and articles.
They expressed each others confidence and support on some basic issues. In 1920
Gandhi even invited Tagore to visit his ashram. However after 1920 Tagore began to
express doubts about some aspects of the political movement led by Gandhi, especially
his non-cooperation movement.
Both Tagore and Gandhi were basically humanists. The ideal of Indian independence was
the bond between them. They sought to utilise the inner capacities of the people in
creative ideals. Gandhis Village Swaraj and Tagores Swadeshi Samaj had a common
meeting ground and both believed that Indias domination by foreign rule was self-made
and could be challenged by the soul-force. Both of them rejected material civilisation of
the West. On many occasions Gandhi sought Tagores advice and intellectual support
before launching a major course of action. For instance, he wrote to Tagore before the
resumption of civil disobedience in J anuary 1932, before his famous fast on the issue of
depressed castes and separate electorate and again at the time of his entry at the
Guruvayyur temple. Tagore and Gandhi were completely in agreement on the issue of
communalism. Gandhi was the gospel of communal harmony and Tagore fiercely criticised
communalism through his writings. In 1937 Tagore requested Gandhi to be a Life Trustee
of the Vishwa Bharati. In 1934 Gandhi had become Advisor to the Village Industries
Association in Shantiniketan at Tagores request. Gandhi had, on several occasions,
mobilised funds for Vishwa Bharati.
There were differences between these luminaries, the foremost being the issue of non
cooperation movement which Gandhi launched. Tagore believed that the idea of non
cooperation is political asceticism. It may develop into frightfulness in the human nature,
losing faith in the basic reality of life. Secondly, Tagore raised the issue of Charkha, in
his essay, Cult of Charkha (1925). Gandhi propounded his Constructive Programme for
rural development and economic regeneration through propagation of Charkha. Tagore
expressed apprehensions about not only its economic efficacy, but also the use of moral
language in place of the economic. He criticised the undue emphasis and blind faith in
Charkha that distracted attention from other more important factors in the task of all-
round reconstruction. He asked, Is charkha alone capable to bring us Swaraj or remove
our poverty? How long would it possible to hide ourselves away fromcommerce with the
outside world? Tagore insisted that more than Charkha, it is the internal union of hearts
that attains Swaraj. Tagores doubts were genuine but Gandhi had his own philosophy
regarding the Charkha. For him it was the symbol of Swadeshi and nationalism. Moreover
Gandhi had not recommended charkha alone, but a chain of activities for the rural
reconstruction. Gandhi and Tagore differed on the efficacy of fasting. Tagore found it
painful to contemplate the suffering while Gandhi brought it upon himself by fasting.
15.4 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU
Few statesmen in the twentieth century have attained the stature of Jawaharlal Nehru. He
is a symbol of Asias political awakening and is recognised as an indomitable fighter for
freedom and international peace. Indian by birth yet western by education, modern in
outlook yet influenced by the heritage of India, staunch patriot yet a man with international
vision. Nehru was the symbol of a new society - liberal, humanist and equalitarian.
Nehrus public life spanned over a period of 45 years- 30 were devoted to the struggle
for independence, and for 18 years he held the dual position of national leader/Prime
minister and world statesman.
Nehru began his political activities by participating enthusiastically in Home Rule League
established by Tilak and Annie Besant. Nehru joined civil disobedience movement
launched by Gandhi and had come under the influence of Gandhi. He faced six months
imprisonment during civil disobedience movement. In the early years of 1920 Jawaharlal
stood for the ideal of complete independence for India instead of dominion status. Gandhi
had reservations about the hasty decision of Purna Swaraj; hence never adopted it as
Congress resolution. However, when Nehru became the President of the Indian National
Congress at Lahore, the historic independence (Purna Swaraj) resolution was passed on
the midnight of December 31, 1929. In the 1930s, Nehru was imprisoned on various
occasions for around 6-10 years. He became the President of the Congress again in
1936, 1937 and 1946. During Quit India movement, he was imprisoned for nearly three
years. After release, he became the leading spokesman of India in several negotiations
with the British. In 1946 he formed the Interim Government of India. On 15
th
August
1947 he became the first Prime minister of Independent India. Until his death in 1964 he
earned reputation for India in the international politics and laid a strong foundation of
modern India.
Jawaharlal Nehru was a keen student of History and his Glimpses of World History and
The Discovery of India are the testimonies of it. These texts have made notable
contributions in the realm of learning and Indian History.
15.4.1 Political Ideas of Nehru
Nehru was not a political philosopher in the academic sense but he was certainly a man
of ideas. His ideas reflected in his writings, speeches and policies which he introduced as
the head of the state. It was ideological foresight of Nehru that laid the foundations of
a strong, democratic, secular and socialist India.
15.4.2 Nationalism and Internationalism
Nehru was a great nationalist. He supported liberal nationalismand rejected the aggressive
expansionist nationalismbased on religious or racial superiority. To Nehru, Nationalism as
it existed in India was both a composite and a living force. Supporting the nationalist
movement against the arrogant British rule, Nehru said that Indias desire to control her
own affairs needs no justification. The British rule of 180 years is just a small phase in
the long history of India. Nationalismgives strength and unity to the State. He was a firm
believer in the right to self-determination.
Nehru believed that in spite of numerous diversities, there is a unity running throughout
Indian History. India has an assimilative quality which has created a composite Indian
culture. He had a firm conviction that nationalism is not only a psychological feeling but
also a rational understanding of nations rich heritage. He opined that the attempt of
European Historians to subvert Indian history, would not allow Indians to have a proper
understanding of the prosperous Indian traditions. He therefore tried to Discover Indias
luminous history and culture.
Nehrus dream was of a strong India, not in the sense of military preparedness but strong
by actions, cultures and ideas; strong to serve humanity by peaceful means. There was
gradual change in Nehrus Nationalismtowards Internationalism. In 1929 he had declared
that India wants freedom from British domination but does not want to de-link herself
from the rest of the world. After Independence India would make all efforts of
International co-operation and establish World Federation. However, World Federation
can be established only by independent, sovereign States. After Independence Nehru
made efforts in this direction and propounded peaceful means to resolve international
conflicts. It was under his leadership that the principle of Non-alignment became the
foundation of Indias Foreign Policy. In accordance with Internationalismhe suggested five
principles (Panchasheel) of international relations. viz.1) Non-aggression, 2) Mutual Respect
for each others territorial integrity and sovereignty, 3) Non-interference in each others
internal affairs 4) equality and mutual co-operation 5) peaceful co-existence.
15.4.3 Democracy
Nehrus strong commitment to Democracy was deeply rooted in humanism. He criticised
authoritarianism, Nazism and Fascism. He was a passionate and genuine defender of
freedom. His idea of democracy was closer to Western democracy, with due emphasis
on elections, adult franchise, representation, political parties and democratic institutions like
Parliament. As a political successor of Gandhi, he emphasised nobility of means.
Nehru had firm conviction that Democracy cannot succeed if there is economic disparity.
He associated Democracy with socialism, equitable and just distribution of wealth and
means of production. He believed that Democracy and capitalism are contradictory to
each other. Democracy implies political power in the hands of all the people, whereas in
capitalism the real power goes in the hands of few. In Nehrus ideal of Indian democracy,
people were at the centre stage. He defined democracy as an ideology that provides
equality and justice to the people. He emphasised the need to create feeling of
participation among people, for better relations with government. Nehru favoured
Parliamentary democracy for its lasting impact and also for its principles of continuity and
change.
15.4.4 Socialism
As a student in London (1910-12), Nehru became attracted to the ideas of Fabian
Socialism. Nehrus participation in the Brussels Congress of oppressed nationalities (1926-
27) and later his visit to Soviet Union (1927) convinced him that the only key to the
solution of problems of India and the world lay in Socialism. In line with the Fabian
tradition, he realised the importance of State and accepted it as a perpetual necessity for
realising an egalitarian society. He believed Socialism as an economic theory of state
ownership and control of the basic means of production and distribution. It was the
economic technique for the liberation of masses from feudal autocracy. Nehrus fascination
for Socialismand economic development emanates from his deep concern for the suffering
of Indian masses and a strong will to better their lives. However Socialism for Nehru was
not just an economic doctrine but a philosophy of life which involved profound changes
in habits, instincts, values and motivation. He looked upon socialism as an extension of
democracy and Liberty. Democracy has no meaning without equality and equality cannot
be established so long as the instruments of production are not owned by the state. He
had firm conviction that socialism can be established not by revolution or violence but
through democratic, peaceful means without uprooting the Indian tradition.
In 1936 Lucknow Congress, he not only reiterated his belief in Socialism but even
expressed the desire that the Congress should become a Socialist organisation. After
independence Nehrus approach to Socialism took a concrete shape. The Directive
Principles in the Indian Constitution was a clear reflection of Socialism. The Avadi Session
(1955) of the Congress adopted Socialist pattern of Society as the national goal. In
accordance with it, the 1956 Industrial Policy was drafted. Socio-Economic Planning is
the indispensable aspect of Nehrus Socialism. He was inspired by the Russian experiment
of planning, during his visit. He believed that the problem of Indian mass poverty and
national economic stagnation could not be solved except through planning on socialistic
basis. For Nehru, Planning was the process through which production would be increased
and greater distributive justice achieved. It was essentially linked up with industrialisation
and not ready to pay the price of human suffering for planning, as it did in Soviet Union.
The credit for introducing and initialing democratic planning in India goes to Nehru.
15.4.5 Secularism
Nehru was a thorough secularist and no religious creed satisfied his scientific quest for
truth and reality. As a humanist thinker, Nehru respected the great founders of religion but
he unhesitatingly condemned the role of organised religion in society. He was aware of
its dangers and misuse. Nehru had realised the relevance of secular State in order to
preserve and protect the composite cultural tradition of Indian Society. It was also
essential for the maintenance of social stability and religious harmony among diverse
groups. To maintain national unity and orderly progress in a pluralistic society, Nehru
considered Secularism as a vital necessity.
It implied that state should not have any religion; neither should it have affinity with any
religion but it should protect the rights and freedom of all religious communities. He also
believed that material progress should be based on ethical and moral principles and
continued his faith in Gandhian principle of spiritualisation of politics.
15.5 NEHRU AND GANDHI
In 1916 Lucknow Congress, Nehru met Gandhi and came under his spell. Their
partnership of exceptional energy and integrity survived numerous strains and stresses
subjected by upheavals of politics and life. Nehru developed great admiration towards
Gandhi for his work in South Africa. It was the cause of Indian Freedom that brought
Gandhi and Nehru together and kept their association intact for many a year. Nehru was
impressed by Gandhis tremendous earnestness and devotion to work and the latter
became a fatherly figure to Nehru. He also admired the harmonious poise and emotional
interaction that characterised the personality of Gandhi. In a telegram sent to Gandhi in
May 1933, when he was about to embark on his twenty-one days fast, Nehru wrote,
I feel lost in strange country where you are the only familiar landmark and I try to grope
my way in dark but I stumble. Whatever happens, my love and thoughts will be with
you.
Nehru, however, disapproved Gandhis fasts of self-purification. His rational mind always
questioned it. On numerous occasions, Nehru was assailed by doubts about Gandhis
policies: In 1934, on the withdrawal of Civil disobedience movement, in 1937 on the
formation of Congress ministries in provinces. There were few instances of clashes
between Nehru and Gandhi as well. For instance, at Madras Congress Session of 1927
Nehru moved the resolution of complete independence. Gandhi was absent from the
proceedings on this occasion. But when he learnt that Nehrus resolution had been
approved, he exclaimed, The Congress stultifies itself by repeating year after year
resolutions of this character when it knows that it is not capable of carrying them into
effect. What disturbed Gandhi at Madras session was the tone of Nehrus speeches, his
surge to radicalism and his apparent abandonment of non-violence. In a letter of 4
th
January 1928 Gandhi wrote to Nehru, in which he said, Most of the resolutions you
framed and got carried could have been delayed for one year. Your plunging into the
republican army was a hasty step. (Nehru had presided over a Republican Congress at
the Madras Session) A few weeks later Gandhi wrote again, stressing the differences
which had come into open. I see quite clearly that you must carry on open warfare
against me and my views. For if I am wrong... it is your duty... to rise in revolt against
me. The differences between you and me appear to be so vast and so radical that there
seems to be no meeting ground between us. But this dissolution of comradeship - if
dissolution must come - in no way affects our personal intimacy.
These differences never clashed to the breaking point. Nehru tried to make compromise
partly because of powerful emotional bond and partly because of his conviction that
Gandhis leadership was inseparable during the freedom struggle. On many occasions
Gandhi supported Nehru. In 1929 and in 1946, at the time of elections to the post of
Congress president, Gandhi supported Nehru against senior leaders like Vallabhbhai Patel
and Acharya Kripalani. This time the choice assumed greater importance because of the
impending formation of an Interim Government. One month after the election the Viceroy
invited Nehru, as Congress President to form an interim Government. Nehru and Gandhi
were in agreement regarding issues like commitment to the freedom and unity of India,
pluralist society, Hindu-MuslimUnity, composite culture of India, secularismand peaceful
and non-violent methods of settling disputes within and between nations. After independence,
however, Nehru did not subscribe to Village Swaraj, which was so dear to Gandhi.
15.6 DR.BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar was a social revolutionary, a profound scholar, a charismatic
leader of the downtrodden masses. He denounced caste system and fought relentlessly to
establish a society based on the democratic ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity. He
firmly believed that democratic society in India would be possible only when the
hierarchical structure of Varna system is dismantled. A giant among intellectuals in legal
acumen and Parliamentary skill, Ambedkar was the Chairman of the Drafting Committee
of the Indian Constitution.
Born in an untouchable community, Ambedkar bore the brunt of caste discrimination and
often faced humiliation for belonging to lower caste. Ambedkar was educated in India
and Sayajirao Gaikwad, the Maharaja of Baroda provided scholarship to him for higher
studies. Ambedkar did his M.A. from Columbia University and went to London School
of Economics. After a brief stint in India, he left for London again; in June 1921, he was
awarded M.Sc. in Political Economy by the London School of Economics for his thesis
Provincial Decentralization of Imperial Finance in British India. In 1922, he received the
degree of Doctor of Science and Law.
Ambedkars work in public life developed in three directions: first, awakening and
organising untouchables; second, securing political representation for the untouchables; and
third, encouraging the depressed classes to take education. In March 1924, Ambedkar
founded Bahishkrit Hitkarni Sabha for the upliftment of untouchables. Ambedkar started
fortnightly Marathi newspaper Bahishkrit Bharat in 1927, through which he started
educating the depressed classes, making themaware of their political rights and relentlessly
campaigned against untouchability. Ambedkar did not join the Congress movement and
concentrated on social reform for he believed that Congress protects the interests of the
upper castes. In December 1927 Ambedkar launched his first Mahad Satyagraha, to
establish civic rights of the untouchables to draw water from a Public tank called
Chawdar tank at Mahad. On 25
th
December 1927, Ambedkar and other untouchables
publicly burnt Manusmriti, as they considered it as a symbol of the slavery of the
untouchables. In 1930 Ambedkar led another historic Satyagraha for the rights of
untouchables entry to the Kalaram temple at Nasik. This Satyagraha was launched just
9 days before (3
rd
March 1930) the Dandi March led by Gandhi. These Satyagrahis
were peaceful and disciplined and large number of people from depressed classes
participated in it.
Ambedkar knew that unless the depressed classes do not get share in the political power,
their subjugation would not end. Therefore, while giving evidence before the Southborough
committee, appointed by British government in 1918 Ambedkar demanded separate
electorate to the untouchables. A similar demand was also put forth before the Simon
Commission. The British government nominated himas representative of depressed classes
to the three Round Table Conferences to be held in London. These conferences were
organised to frame new Act or a Constitution for India in accordance with demands of
the people of India. In the First and Second Round Table Conferences, Ambedkar
reiterated his demand of separate electorate for the depressed classes and was successful.
The Macdonald Award, known as Communal award, granted the depressed classes
separate electorate. Gandhi vehemently criticised the principle of separate electorate and
began to fast unto death against the award. Dr. Ambedkar had no option but to sign
Poona Pact with Gandhi that scrapped the separate electorates. Disturbed by Gandhis
attitude towards untouchables, Ambedkar wrote a book entitled Annihilation of Caste
and made a historic announcement at Yeola that the untouchables would leave the Hindu
fold and accept another religion.
After 1935 the political scene in India had considerably changed. Provincial autonomy
was inaugurated under the Government of India Act 1935. Ambedkar was convinced that
Congress would neither take any initiative in the social reconstruction nor would it
safeguard the interests of the Depressed Classes. Preceding the 1937 elections to the
Provincial assemblies, he felt the need for having Political Organisation of the Labourers
and the Depressed and in October 1936 he founded Independent Labour Party. The
Party won 15 out of 17 seats in the Bombay Provincial Assembly elections (Dr.Ambedkar
too got elected). In 1942 the British government nominated Dr. Ambedkar as member of
Governor Generals Executive, as the in-charge of the Labour department. In 1946
Ambedkar founded the Peoples Education Society which started a number of Colleges
for the students of depressed classes. In the same year elections to the Constituent
Assembly were held and Ambedkar got elected. In August 1947 he was elected as the
chairman of the Constitution drafting committee. After independence Jawaharlal Nehru
included Ambedkar as Law Minister. However, he resigned from the post when he saw
opposition to the Hindu code bill which he had proposed. He also established Bharatiya
Buddha Maha Sabha in 1955. On 14
th
October 1956 he, along with his followers
embraced Buddhism at a historic ceremony in Nagpur.
15.6.1 Social and Political Ideas
Prior to Ambedkars voicing the concerns, the Dalits had hardly any role in the socio-
political life of India. The Social reform movement had also not focused on the caste
issue. Jotiba Phule was perhaps the first person to detest caste hierarchy and inequality.
Ambedkar believed that eradication of caste system should be central in the social
reforms, for political reforms are futile without social reforms and equality.
15.6.2 Criticism on Caste System
Ambedkars life was shaped and influenced by bitter and discriminatory personal experiences
for being a dalit. He therefore wanted to enquire into the origin and development of caste
systemand the practice of untouchability. His rational enquiry of the Hindu religion led him
to the conclusion that Varna and caste system is the basis of Vedic culture. According to
Ambedkar, Chaturvarna, as a basis of social organisation, is not only based on division
of labour but also a division of labourers. Chaturvarna presupposes classification of
people into four definite categories, the shudras being at the bottom of the ladder. They
were denied all rights and privileges including that of securing education. He further argued
that the early period of Aryan society recognised only three Varnas. Ambedkar explained
the process of division of society into castes and sub-castes. He said that the subdivision
of the society was quite natural but the unique feature was that they lost open-door
character and became self-enclosed units. Prohibition of inter-marriage or endogamy
further accentuated the caste divisions.
Ambedkar felt that caste system wrought injustice on the lower castes by denying them
basic human rights and preventing them from rising to the cultural level of higher castes.
Thus untouchables remained uncivilised and backward. Also the caste consciousness
prevented the feeling of fraternity in the Indian Society. Dr. Ambedkar foresaw that only
a casteless society that has inner strength can defend itself and also attain the goal of
Swaraj.
Ambedkar had realised that the caste-based agricultural economy is the root cause of the
suffering of the downtrodden and urged the villagers to leave the village and move to
cities, to Educate, organise and resist and to assert their rights.
Ambedkar detested the inherent inequalities in the society that provided no scope for
individual development and for disabling the individual to choose his occupation; he also
lamented on the lack of integrity, fraternity and equality. He thoroughly disliked Hinduism
on these grounds and embraced Buddhism for it provided a rationalistic view, democratic
principle, morality, the message of love and compassion. It enabled the disciples to modify
or even abandon any of Buddhas teachings, according to a given circumstance. Thus
Ambedkars Dhamma was manifestation of creative reinterpretation of Buddhism.
15.6.3 Nationalism
Ambedkar viewed nationalism as an emotional feeling that has great strength and
impossible to root it out. He reiterated that Indians would develop nationalism only when
there is integration and respect for basic human rights. In a discriminatory society, the
spirit of oneness cannot come into existence. Ambedkar believed not only in political
integrity and independence but also in social integrity. Ambedkars nationalism was not
aggressive nationalism, for he knew that it can become irrational and can give birth to
intolerance. It was rational and secular. He believed that nationalism based on religion is
fundamentally against democracy. Moreover India is a multi-religious country; the
nationalist movement was led by both communities to establish a secular democratic state
and not a theocratic state.
15.6.4 Democracy
Ambedkar believed that without social reforms, political reforms are meaningless because
the state ultimately is a social institution. Social traditions and customs influence the State
apparatus. Therefore political reforms alone cannot bring about social revolution. Instead
progressive views and ideas evolved from social reform can reflect in the governance of
the State.
Dr. Ambedkar refers to Democracy as a system which brings about fundamental changes
in the social and economic life of the people without resorting to disputes and bloodshed.
He desired to remove contradictions created by economic and social inequalities. He
wanted to establish the principle of one man, one vote and one value, not only in political
life of India but also in social and economic life. Thus he wanted political democracy to
be accompanied by social democracy. He was convinced that political democracy cannot
last without social democracy.
Dr. Ambedkar was a great admirer of Parliamentary system of government. According to
him, three important factors are inherent in the parliamentary systemof Government. First,
hereditary rule has no sanction in parliamentary democracy. Second, no single individual
can presume the authority or superiority and cannot carry out administration single-
handedly. The law must be made by the representatives of the people. Third, the elected
representatives, the legislators and ministers must have the confidence of the people.
Ambedkar pointed out the essential conditions for the successful working of democracy.
1) There must be no glaring inequality in the society. Such a division in the society has
within itself the germs of revolution, impossible for Parliamentary system to cure
them.
2) There must be statutory provisions to mitigate the suffering of the oppressed classes
and to protect their interests.
3) Existence of an effective opposition is an important factor in the working of a
successful democracy. The party in power must be subject to scrutiny and vigilance.
A strong opposition party can check the misuse of power by the ruling party.
4) There must be equality in law and administration. Ambedkar opposed Spoils
System as it existed in USA. He believed that there was a need of a permanent
civil service, recruited on the basis of merit for implementing the policy of the
government.
5) There should not be tyranny of the majority over the minority. In democracy the
majority is at the helm of governmental affairs. Enough care should be taken to
ensure the safety and security of the minorities and effectively redress their grievances.
6) There must be a steady growth of Constitutional conventions and people must be
educated in the observance of these conventions.
7) Dr. Ambedkar appreciated Harold Laski for his insistence on the moral order as a
requirement of democracy. He believed that without moral order, democracy cannot
sustain. Conscience of people is a test of democracy. For Ambedkar, democracy
was not only a form of government, but also a way of life through which social
justice can be established.
15.6.5 Socialism
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkars concept of Parliamentary Democracy is reconciled with his
concept of socialism. In democracy individual rights are indispensable and they can be
protected by socialism. Individual rights are dependent upon the economic structure of the
society. He was aware that if left to the market forces, depressed classes would become
more vulnerable and would not be able to sustain in the capitalist system. He therefore
advocated State Socialism, in which State should control basic industries, so that
economic exploitation could be avoided. He recommended economic planning and
collective farming and demanded nationalisation of insurance. Ambedkars State socialism
reflected in the Directive Principles of State Policy in the Indian Constitution. He used the
Constitutional tool for implementing State Socialism since he knew that Constitution is
beyond the reach of Parliamentary majority to amend or abrogate it.
15.7 AMBEDKAR AND GANDHI
On 8
th

August 1930, Ambedkar presided over the All India Depressed Classes
Congress at Nagpur. In his presidential speech Ambedkar expressed his disapproval of
the Civil Disobedience movement launched by Gandhi. However, Gandhis Satyagraha had
influenced Ambedkar considerably as reflected in the Mahad Satyagraha. Gandhi was a
towering figure in Indian politics and Ambedkar had great respect for him for he
effectively voiced the concerns of the downtrodden and espoused the removal of
untouchability. Ambedkar had made efforts to cooperate with Gandhi in the Untouchability
removal programme as early as 1924.
However Gandhi and Ambedkar had differences on certain issues such as untouchability
and representation of the depressed classes. Gandhi had faith in Varna System and
believed that to eradicate the practice of untouchability, it is not essential to end the Varna
system. Ambedkar criticised Varna system for being divisive and emphasised the need of
dismantling the caste system in order to end untouchability. He also felt that the issue of
untouchability and caste system were relegated to background by the Congress. In his
books What Congress and Gandhi have done to the untouchables and the brochure
Mr. Gandhi and the Emancipation of the untouchables, Ambedkar expressed his views.
He therefore decided to work outside Congress party.
Ambedkar aimed at securing political power to the untouchables. He demanded rightful
representation of the depressed classes in the legislative council and demanded separate
electorate in the First Round Table Conference. However, Gandhi disapproved the idea
of separate electorate for untouchables for he believed that the untouchables were part of
Hindu Society and separate electorate may divide the Hindu Society. Ambedkar criticised
Gandhis role as representative of the untouchables. Gandhi began fast unto death against
the award. Ambedkar had no option but to sign the Poona pact with Gandhi that
scrapped the separate electorates but made the provision for the reserved joint electorates.
Gandhi succeeded in keeping the untouchables in the Hindu fold and gave a larger share
of seats to the depressed classes than the promised seats by the communal award. Inspite
of that, Ambedkars bitterness towards Congress and Gandhi continued. After independence
however Ambedkars principle of Separate electorate for untouchables was not incorporated
in the Indian Constitution and the provision of reservation for S.C. and S.T. was made
to safeguard the interests of the Depressed Classes.
Ambedkar and Gandhi differed in their views about the methods of annihilation of castes.
While Gandhi propounded Village Swaraj and villages as the basic units of democracy,
Ambedkar advocated leaving village life to condemn caste hierarchy and upper caste
domination. Urbanisation was his answer for breaking the chains of the caste system.
Ambedkar and Gandhi stood on the same side on the issue of non-violence; while Gandhi
viewed non-violence as a principle and not just policy, for Ambedkar it was primarily
a policy. Ambedkar agreed with Gandhi on the issue of purity of means, which to him
was an important differentiating feature between Buddhism and Marxism.
15.8 SUMMARY
Gandhis leadership in the national freedom struggle was unparalleled. Nevertheless he
thoroughly valued and respected his distinguished contemporaries, who were also his close
associates. Gandhis ideas converged and differed with those of his associates; but they
never came in the way of consolidating their association and drawing strength and
inspiration fromeach other. This Unit dealt with Gandhis distinguished contemporaries like
Tagore, Nehru and Ambedkar. Inspite of their differences, they forged amicable relations
and worked together for the larger goal of national freedom. Their political maturity and
acumen were unparalleled and it is this intellectual convergence along with the mass
support that ensured the independence for the nation.
1. Examine at length Tagores ideas on nationalism, swaraj and swadeshi samaj.
2. Elucidate the political ideas of Nehru with special reference to nationalism and
internationalism.
3. Discuss at length Dr.Ambedkars social and political ideas.
4. Highlight Gandhis convergent and divergent views from that of Tagore, Nehru and
Ambedkar.
SUGGESTED READINGS
1. Dhananjay Keer, Dr.Ambedkar, Life and Mission, Popular Prakashan Pvt.Ltd,
Bombay, 1981.
2. B.R.Ambedkar, Writings & Speeches, Vols. I- X.
3. B.R.Ambedkar, What Congress & Gandhi have done to the untouchables.
4. Bhagwan Das(ed) Thus spoke Ambedkar, Vol - I
5. Chousalkar, Ashok., Indian Idea of Political Resistance- Aurobindo, Tilak, Gandhi &
Ambedkar, Ajanta Publications, New Delhi,1990
6. W.N.Kuber., Dr.Ambedkar : A Critical Study, Peoples Puboishing House, New
Delhi, 1973.
7. V.T.Patil, Studies in Ambedkar, Devika Publications, Delhi
8. Tagore, Rabindranath., Selected Essays, Rupa & Co, 2004.
9. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, (ed) The Mahatma Gandhi and the Poet, National Book
Trust, New Delhi, 2001.
10. K.N.Mukherji., Political Philosophy of Rabindranath Tagore, S. Chand & Company,
New Delhi, 1982
11. Tagore Rabindranath, Nationalism and Macmillan, London,1950
12. R.K.Prabhu and Ravindra Kelkar., (ed), Truth Called them differently (Tagore-
Gandhi controversy) Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1961
13. Sarvepalli Gopal., J awaharlal Nehru- A Biography, Oxford University Press, 1993.
14. Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Second series,32-39, 2006-2007, OUP, New
Delhi
15. J awaharlal Nehru- An Autobiography, OUP, New Delhi, 1989.
16. Benjamin Zachariah., Nehru, Routledge, 2004.
17. Michael Brecher., Nehru: A Political Biography, Beacon Press, 1962.
18. Donald Eugene Smith., Nehru and Democracy: The Political Thought of Jawaharlal
Nehru Asian Democrat, Orient Longman, 1958.
19. J awaharlal Nehru, The Discovery of India, The Oxford University Press, 1946.
20. J awaharlal Nehru, A Bunch Of Old Letters - Being Mostly Written To J awaharlal
Nehru And Some Written By Him, Asia Publishing House, Bombay, 1958.
21. B. R. Nanda, Jawaharlal Nehru, Oxford University Press, 1998 (2nd edition)
22. Frank Moraes, Jawaharlal Nehru, A Biography, McMillan, 1957.
UNIT 16 GANDHI AND THE LEFT
Structure
16.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
16.2 Gandhi and the Left-An Uneasy Relationship
16.3 M. N. Roy and Gandhi
16.3.1Roys Critique of Gandhi
16.3.2New Humanismof M. N. Roy and Gandhi
16.4 Gandhi and the Indian Communists
16.4.1Dange on Gandhi and Lenin
16.4.2Danges Assessment of Contribution of Gandhi
16.5 Gandhi and the Democratic Socialists
16.5.1Gandhi and RamManohar Lohia
16.5.2Dr. Lohia on the role of Gandhi
16.5.3Dr. Lohias Critique of Gandhi
16.5.4Dr. Lohia on Satyagraha
16.6 Summary
Suggested Readings
16.1 INTRODUCTION
In this unit, we shall study the complex relationship between Gandhi and the Indian Left.
The Indian Left consisted of the Radical Humanists led by M. N. Roy, Indian Communists
led by Shripad Amrit Dange and the Democratic Socialists led by Dr. Ram Manohar
Lohia. All these leaders took part in the Indian freedom movement and spent a number
of years in jail. They strongly appreciated the contribution made by Gandhi but had their
own differences of opinions. M. N. Roy was a harsh critic of Gandhi and despite
differences, Dr. Lohia was an ardent admirer of Gandhi. This unit discusses at length
Gandhis relationship with the leaders of Left-wing ideology and how, inspite of differences,
they shared the common goal of Indian independence.
Aims and Objectives
Gandhis relationship with the Leftist leaders
The views of M.N.Roy, S.A. Dange and Dr.R.M.Lohia on Gandhi
Their critiques of Gandhis thoughts and views
16.2 GANDHI AND THE LEFT: AN UNEASY
RELATIONSHIP
When Gandhi entered the Indian politics, the Left was gaining popularity as the people
were influenced by the Great October Revolution of 1917. Gandhi did not subscribe to
the socialist ideology as his philosophy was deeply rooted in religious idioms and
metaphysics. He deeply believed in God. The Leftist leaders did not appreciate his social
and political views but took notice of Gandhi because he mobilised the masses on a large
scale against the British. Initially, the Leftist movement in India was weak but over a
period of time, there emerged three schools- Radical Humanism, Communism and
Socialism. Radical Humanism was a school of thought expounded by M. N. Roy who
decided to part company with Marxists to establish his own political party. The Indian
Communist party was established in 1925 and Dange was its prominent leader. The
Congress Socialist party was established in 1934 and Dr. Lohia was one of its prominent
leaders.
Though there was a close relationship between the Left and Gandhi, it was an uneasy
relationship because the Left did not approve of the spiritualism of Gandhi, his concepts
of trusteeship and decentralisation. The Leftist leaders believed in modernist ideas of
progress and politics. They sometimes joined the freedom movement. Sometimes they
were out of it. In 1942 they opposed the Quit India movement. But the Congress
socialists were followers of Gandhi and they took part in all major Gandhian movements.
16.3 M. N. ROY AND GANDHI
Manavendranath Roy was a great Indian revolutionary who took part in revolutionary
movement during the Ghadar movement. Subsequently he left the country and carried out
revolutionary activities in Mexico and other countries. He came to Soviet Russia and
became a follower of Lenin. He took part in the activities of the Communist International
and attended its second conference. He had difference of opinion with Lenin regarding the
role of Communists in the national liberation movement. He was instrumental in the
establishment of Communist Party in India. Roy subsequently resigned fromthe Communist
India. He was arrested and sentenced to six years of imprisonment. After his release from
the prison, he decided to join the Congress party. He sought to provide an alternative
leadership to the Congress. He was a critic of Gandhi. Therefore, he established Radical
Democratic Party and put forward his own alternative programme which was based on
rationalism, secularism, scientific outlook and democracy. In 1942, he opposed the
Congress partys Quit India Movement and actively supported the British government
because it was his contention that Hitler and Fascism were enemies of humanity and they
should be defeated at any cost. In 1946 Roy decided to abolish his Radical Democratic
Party and expounded his concept of New Humanism. He wanted to work on non-party
lines. In this concept of New Humanism, Roy came closer to Gandhi.
16.3.1 Roys Critique of Gandhi
Roy was a harsh critic of Gandhis leadership as well as his ideology. In the third
conference of the Communist International, Lenin was of the opinion that in the Asian
Countries, due to the weakness of the working class movement, the communists should
support national liberation movement because it was a progressive force. Roy opposed
this line and said that the national liberation movements are dominated by reactionary
Gandhi and the Left 187
elements and the communist association with themwould harmthe interests of progressive
forces. He was of the opinion that Gandhi was a religious and cultural revolutionist and
he advocated socially reactionary policies. But Lenin saw progressive elements in his
leadership.
Roy returned to India and after his release from the jail he decided to join the Congress.
But he did not change his opinion of Gandhi and Gandhism. He felt that Gandhis religious
ideas were reactionary and his concept of inner voice irrational. In modern times, instead
of relying on science, he relied on religious superstitions and outdated metaphysics.
Religion did not encourage morality as the human reason provided free flow of thought.
He did not accept Gandhis concept of RamRajya as he did not approve monarchy and
wanted to establish Swaraj or self-rule. Though Gandhi criticised parliamentary democracy,
he had suggested remedies to its reform. The monarchy could be no substitute for it. Roy
also felt that Gandhi was bewildered about future. Due to reactionary pacifism of Gandhi,
the Congress would not grow as a party of forward looking people. Gandhi relied upon
backward Indian civilisation for the revival of India. Roy opined that the Indian civilisation
had become bankrupt and was backward looking.
Roy was also critical of Gandhis economic idea. He held that Gandhis concept of
trusteeship was based on wrong assumption as the rich would not help poor at the cost
of their own interests. Also his opposition to machine was wrong. He did not realise that
the machines reduced the amount of hard labour the man had to perform and produced
good quality products in plenty. His glorification of village was misplaced because it
represented backward Indian world view. Spinning wheel was no match for machines.
But despite this criticism, Roy said that he understood the greatness of Gandhi because
he was instrumental in creating political awareness in the minds of the people. He became
an embodiment of primitive, blind and spontaneous spirit of revolt of masses.
16.3.2 New Humanism of Roy and Gandhi
In 1946, at the Conference of Radical Democratic Party, Roy decided to abolish his
Radical democratic party and expounded 22 principles of New Humanism and decided
to work on non-party lines. In 1948, the party was formally abolished. Roy appreciated
the ethical content of Gandhis philosophy and especially his efforts to pacify the victims
of the Communal riots in Bengal. In the philosophy of New Humanism he laid stress upon
4 principles: freedom, abolition of party politics, and opposition to parliament and
democracy, decentralisation of political power and replacement of the capitalist economy
by co-operative economy. He sought to curb the political power of the state by giving
power to peoples committees at the grass roots level. Thus, in many respects, Roy came
close to Gandhis ideas. There were similarities between New Humanism and Gandhism
as Roy pointed out that the greatest task was to educate people in human values.
Roy wrote an article to show differences between Gandhism and New Humanism. He
held that Gandhi was not a true Humanist as his ideas were based on compassion and
not on science and reason. He did not consider man as the greatest value but held him
as the instrument to fulfil Gods Will. His morality was not based on human will but it
was based on divine will. New Humanism wanted to resuscitate the values preached by
the philosophers of renaissance and enlightenment.
It seems that on many points Roy and Gandhi came closer to each other as they believed
in the supremacy of morality and freedom, decentralisation of political power and curbing
of power of the state by empowering people. The difference was in their materialism and
spiritualism.
16.4 GANDHI AND THE INDIAN COMMUNISTS
We have seen that M. N. Roy played a key role in the establishment of the Communist
Party in India. The Communist Party in India was established in 1925 and slowly its
influence spread in different labour areas of the country. In Bombay, Shripad Amrit Dange
and his Colleagues, and the revolutionary activists of Tashkand played a key role in the
development of the party. In 1924, the British government banned the party and
conspiracy cases were slapped against its leaders and were sentenced to imprisonment.
The Communists used this occasion to defend their ideology. The Communists continued
to spread their influence through their ideology in the court, through their trade unions and
kisan sabhas.
The Communists supported the Congress movement for liberation of India though they did
not appreciate the policies of the Congress party as they held that the Congress made
compromises with the British rulers because of its bourgeois character. After their release
from prison, the Communists attended the Congress sessions. In 1942 the Communists
supported the British government and considered the Second World War as peoples war.
In 1946, the Communists supported the revolt of the Naval ratings though the Congress
government did not support them.
Like Roy, the Communists were opposed to most of the social and political ideas of
Gandhi. They did not appreciate many of the policies of the Congress governments which
were formed in 1937. But at the same time, the party supported anti-British policies of
the Congress.
16.4.1 Dange on Gandhi and Lenin
Shripad Amrit Dange was a prominent leader of the Communist Party who cut his
political teeth during the Non-Cooperation movement. He was a follower of Lokmanya
Tilak and continued his legacy of anti-imperialism. He was arrested and sentenced to long
imprisonment in the Meerut Conspiracy case. He was a prominent trade union leader and
spent 17 years of his life in the jail before and after independence. Dange was a
Communist leader who wanted to seek closer relations with national movement.
In 1921 he wrote his book on Gandhi and Lenin. At that time Dange had embraced
Communist ideology but had not mastered the essence of Marxist philosophy. In this
book, Dange said that Bolshevismwas a science of total change and Lenin was its leader.
Gandhi was a principal leader of Indian masses who wanted to overthrow the British rule.
In his book Hind Swaraj, Gandhi had opposed both imperialismand capitalism. Gandhi
wanted peaceful change on the lines proposed by Tolstoy. He said that the tyrants
tyrannised because tyrannised souls allowed them to do so. Both Gandhi and Lenin
wanted to liberate them. Gandhi believed in individual purification and advocated universal
peace. Lenin was more practical because he wanted to destroy capitalism and establish
workers federation through the use of force. Gandhi opposed modern production system
while Lenin wanted to collectivise it to secure common good. He wanted to use surplus
value for the development of working class. The dictates of conscience would not do, as
man should confront evil to achieve social change.
Dange said that Gandhis method of non-co-operation was based on the principle that the
people should build their own state within the state. When the internal state grew to its
full measure, the external state would collapse. Internal state meant growing power of
non-cooperation movement and external state meant that co-operation would sap the
morale of the British rulers. Dange said that the rulers would try to suppress the peoples
attempt to win Swaraj. To counter it, the alliance of workers and peasants was needed.
He appreciated the moral fervour of Gandhi and recognised the revolutionary potential in
his method of non-cooperation but did not support Gandhis opposition to machine and
his insistence on decentralisation based on village industry. He termed Lenin as a great
revolutionary who had opened new page in the world history and held that it was the
continuation of the work began by Tilak and Gandhi. Subsequently, Dange said that he
did not now support all the views expressed in the book.
16.4.2 Danges Assessment of Contribution of Gandhi
Throughout his life, Dange considered Gandhi as his teacher because he taught him that
we had to rely on masses to provide support to national movement. Gandhi was honest
and sincere but the Congressmen who backed him were influenced by the capitalist
classes. It was Danges contention that it was difficult to overthrow the British rule with
the help of non-violence alone and Gandhi learnt this lesson during the non-cooperation
movement. In 1922, he withdrew non-cooperation movement because of violence at
Chauri-Chaura but he did not withdraw civil disobedience movement in 1931, despite
violence at Peshawar and Sholapur. He created unique awareness in the minds of the
people about their rights.
Paying this tribute to Gandhi on the occasion of his birth centenary in 1969, Dange wrote
that Gandhi was a great leader of anti-colonial movement who taught people to fight
against injustice. He advocated Hindu-Muslimunity and tried hard to abolish untouchability.
When he was born in 1869 the world was dominated by imperialism and when he died
in 1948, the imperial forces were overthrown all over the world. Gandhi played an
important role in this process of great change.
Dange opined that Gandhi continuously learnt fromthe masses and it was not Gandhi who
made the people radical but it was the people who motivated Gandhi to launch
movements. Gandhi wrote a book called Hind Swaraj in 1909 and in this, he glorified
the ancient Indian civilisation, laid emphasis on the backward means of production,
pleaded for the path of non-violence. But in due course of time he realised that these
ideas could not be implemented in practice. Dange said that Gandhis concept of
trusteeship was flawed because businessmen and capitalists would not accept it. As far
as the question of purity of means was concerned, the question of the means to be
employed was decided by ones opponent. Infact the violent power of all the oppressors
was rooted in the state power. The people had to use violent methods to oppose them.
His insistence on spinning wheel and village industry was misplaced because people
wanted greater amount of production and higher living standards.
Summarising his arguments, Dange said that history did not change because of great ideas
of great leaders. These ideas effected change in the society when the material conditions
of the society were conducive to the change and then the ideas caught the imagination
of the people. Some of the ideas of Gandhi failed because they were not appropriate to
the material conditions of the society. Dange was critical of Gandhi but like M. N. Roy,
his criticism was not vitriolic. Dange showed limitations of Gandhi but appreciated his
great contribution to Indias freedommovement and the role he played in the emancipation
of the people from the foreign rule.
16.5 GANDHI AND THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS
Democratic socialists were the third component of the Indian Left. There were two
schools of socialists: the socialists in the Congress led by Pandit J awaharlal Nehru and
the socialists led by J ayaprakash Narayan, Narendra Deo and Dr. Lohia. The Nehru
School of Socialists were influenced by the policies and programmes of the British Labour
Party. Jayaprakash and his associates were more influenced by Gandhian ideas. In 1934,
the Congress socialist party led by J ayaprakash was established within the Congress
party. The basic difference between the communist and the socialist parties was that the
socialists wanted to bring about socialism by peaceful means and without the support of
dictatorship of proletariat. They believed in the decentralisation of political power. The
party worked as a ginger group. The most glorious chapter in the history of socialismwas
Quit India movement of 1942 when the young socialist leaders assumed the leadership of
the movement after the arrest of national leaders. In 1948, the Congress Socialist Party
decided to come out of the Congress and established the Socialist Party under the
leadership of J ayaprakash Narayan.
16.5.1 Gandhi and Ram Manohar Lohia
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia was one of the prominent leaders and intellectuals of the
Socialist Party. Born in 1910, he had his schooling at Bombay and college education at
Calcutta. He studied Ph.D in Economics in Germany and in 1933, secured the degree.
He decided to join the Congress party and worked with Pandit Nehru. He went
underground during the Quit India Movement but was arrested and put up in Lahore jail.
He took part in the Goa liberation movement. He helped the Nepali leaders to form the
Nepali Congress. He wrote a number of books on important issues.
The socialist leaders like Jayaprakash, Narendra Deo and Lohia had close relations with
Gandhi though they differed with him ideologically. The socialists were atheists and
materialists while Gandhi was a believer in God and spiritualism. Dr. RamManohar Lohia
made penetrating analysis of Gandhian philosophy as well as his contribution to the Indian
Society.
16.5.2 Dr. Lohia on the Role of Gandhi
Dr. Lohia had closely associated with Gandhi and held many discussions with him. He
pointed out that Gandhis persona left a lasting impression on the people. The greatest
contribution of Gandhi was creating an awakening in the minds of the people about their
rights. This was a greater achievement than winning Swaraj for India. He was aware of
the problems faced by the modern society and did not provide medieval solutions to
them. He gave a weapon of Satyagraha in the hands of ordinary Indians to fight against
the British rulers. Modern state had acquired tremendous power and it has to be
controlled through peoples power. We had to instill courage in the minds of ordinary
people. Man should rely upon his own strength to fight against injustice. He also pointed
out that Gandhis insistence on the purity of means was important because impure means
sullied noble ends. Lohia was doubtful about the correctness of statement that means or
ends could replace each other. But Gandhis point of view was clear. He did not depict
the glorious picture of future ends that were to be achieved by human beings and by
forgetting our immediate tasks of overcoming evil. He said that for Gandhi one step
towards progress was sufficient. He continuously moved ahead, resolving problems that
came his way, learnt from his experiences and changed his opinions where necessary.
During the First World War, he supported the British war efforts but subsequently called
it a satanical rule. He sought change in the external world as well as in the change of
heart of man. His concept of Gram Swaraj was a good example of direct democracy in
which people would be free, self-reliant and self-dependent. He insisted that the spirit of
Gandhis ideas should be followed and not the words because the words were spoken
in the specific context and their meanings changed.
Dr. Lohia held that Adi Shankara, Marx and Gandhi were three great philosophers who
tried to resolve the problem of duality. Shankara advised people to follow the path of
knowledge and ignore empirical reality. Marx wanted to overcome contradictions by
abolishing contradiction with the help of armed revolution. Compared to Marx, Shankara
was liberal. Gandhi believed in the non-dualistic monism of Shankara but advocated the
path of selfless action; he was not oblivious of empirical reality as he wanted change in
it through continuous striving. Gandhis slow but resolute movement towards progress was
the message of his life as he moved ahead resolving day to day problems of the people
firmly adhering to the final goal.
16.5.3 Dr. Lohias Critique of Gandhi
Dr. Lohia opined that like socialism, communismand capitalism, Gandhismcould not be
considered as the fourth alternative. In fact, important insights of Gandhi could be
incorporated in socialism. He criticised Gandhi on three counts: Gandhis concepts of
trusteeship and change of heart, his insistence on spinning wheel and the outdatedness of
some of his ideas in modern times.
According to him, Gandhis concept of trusteeship was not based on the correct
understanding of reality as the capitalists and the rich deceive and amass wealth. Similarly,
his concept of change of heart could not be implemented because one can change the
heart of an individual, but cannot effect change of an institution like bank. If they allowed
change of heart, the very survival of the institution would be in danger. In fact, the
ultimate goal of trusteeship was collectivisation of means of production and abolition of
right to property. It was difficult to achieve these goals without the militant struggle of the
masses. Their hearts could not be transformed without straggle.
Spinning wheel or charkha was not relevant today because production had been
mechanised and people wanted better living standards. Spinning had become an empty
ritual; instead of using charkha, people should be asked to use small machines which
would decentralise production; retaining control over the machines would rest with
workers. Dr. Lohia did not want to reject technology. He wanted to decentralise it in the
hands of individual producers to overcome individual alienation.
Dr. Lohia supported Gandhis concept of non-violence but he was not sure about its
utility in inter-state relations. Lohia categorised Gandhians into three types- those who had
assumed power and become ministers; those who lived in the Ashrams, which received
liberal government grants; and those who rebel and continuously waged struggles against
injustice. He was of the opinion that the rebels represented the true spirit of Gandhi.
16.5.4 Dr. Lohia on Satyagraha
Lohia opined that Gandhi gave the weapon of Satyagraha to the people to fight against
tyranny. We have seen that judicial and legal processes often leave the task of giving
justice to the people incomplete and people had to come forward to secure their rights.
Civil disobedience had to be kept civil and non-violent.
Dr. Lohia was critical of Vinoba Bhaves interpretation of Satyagraha and said that
Satyagraha was a continuous process of reforming social and political institutions of their
ills. Satyagraha enables one to face a series of defeats in the hope that ultimately truth
would triumph and gives inspiration to people to fight against injustice. It should be
accompanied by mass participation of people. It taught man to live like a human being
with dignity and self-respect and sought to increase the strength of good. It was therefore
commendable that Gandhi made even an ordinary person to wield this powerful non-
violent weapon.
Dr. Lohia felt that the practice of Satyagraha should be redefined and should consist of
civil disobedience, imprisonment, physical labour with digging axe and ballot box. He saw
an interconnection between them. He pointed out that civil disobedience was meant to
wage fight against injustice, repressive law and oppressive policies of the government. The
result of taking part in Satyagraha could be imprisonment and the Satyagrahi should
willingly court it. The use of digging axe was a symbol of physical labour which would
restore dignity to physical labour and encourage constructive activities in the society. He
added ballot box to the list because, according to him, it was the goal of Satyagraha to
effect political change through transfer of power. This transfer should take place through
the democratic method of elections.
16.6 SUMMARY
In the preceding pages, we have seen how different groups of the Indian Left had tried
to understand the social and political ideas of Gandhi. The Left leaders M. N. Roy, S.
A. Dange and R.M. Lohia had differences of opinion with Gandhi though all the three
admired his contribution in the democratisation of Indian society. They criticised Gandhi
for his concept of trusteeship, excessive reliance on non-violence and insistence on
spinning wheel and called many of his ideas as outdated. They did not believe in
spiritualism and religion, but appreciated the moral fervour created by Gandhi. They also
held that we could not usher in a new society without the support of science, technology
and rationalism. Machine-based mass production was the need of the hour to provide
basic needs of the society and to ensure decent living standards of the people. Dange
tried to understand Gandhis contribution through historical perspective and sought to take
his anti-imperialist and democratic legacy ahead. Dr. Lohia wanted to integrate important
Gandhian insights into his concept of Socialism. M. N. Roys concept of New Humanism
and his plan of democratic decentralisation had brought him closer to Gandhi. Thus, the
Indian Lefts engagement with Gandhi was rewarding.
1. What were the causes of uneasy relationship between Gandhi and the Left?
2. What are the basic tenets of New Humanism? How does it differ from Gandhism?
3. Explain the Marxist perspective on Gandhi with the help of Danges book Gandhi
and Lenin
4. Evaluate critically Dr. Ram Manohar Lohias assessment of Gandhi.
5. Write short notes on the following:
M. N. Roy on revolution in Asia.
Dange on positive contribution of Gandhi
Dr. Lohias Concept of Satyagraha.
SUGGESTED READINGS
1) Karnik,V. B., M. N. Roy : Political Biography, Nar Jagrati Samaj, Mumbai, 1978.
2) Roy, M. N., New Humanism, Renaissance Publishers, Calcutta, 1953.
3) Roy, M. N., Politics, Power and Parties, Renaissance Publishers, Calcutta, 1960.
4) Chandra, Bipan., (ed.), Indian Left: Critical Appraisals, Vikas, New Delhi, 1983.
5) Dange, S. A., Selected writings of Com. S. A. Dange, Vol. I Peoples Publishing
House, Delhi, 1976.
6) Dange,S. A., Twelve Lectures (in Marathi), Abhinav Publications, Mumbai, 1975.
7) What is History (in Marathi), Abhinav Publications, Mumbai, 1972.
8) Lohia, Ram Manohar., The Wheel of History, Navahind Prakashan, Hyderabad,
1965.
9) Lohia, R. M., Marx, Gandhi and Socialism, Navahind Prakashan, Hyderabad, 1963,
10) Kelkar S, and Indumati., (ed.), Lohia Vichar Darshan (Marathi) Gopal Mokashi,
Pune, 1991.
SUGGESTED READINGS
Ahir, D.C., Gandhi and Ambedkar, Ajay Prakashan, New Delhi, 1969.
Anand, Y.P., Mahatma Gandhis Works and Interpretation of the Bhagvad Gita,
Radha Publications, New Delhi, 2009.
Bakshi, S.R., Gandhi and Khilafat, Gitanjali Publishing House, New Delhi, 1985.
Bakshi,S.R., Gandhi and Champaran Satyagraha, Akashdeep Publication House, New
Delhi, 1988.
Bakshi,S.R., Gandhi and Civil Disobedience Movement, Gitanjali Publishing House,
1983.
Banerjee, Gopal., (ed.), S.A. Dange - A Fruitful Life, Progressive Publishers, Kolkata,
2002.
Bawa, Vasant Kumar., Quakers and Gandhi: TheStart of a Dialogue and an
uncompleted Journey (Autumn 2004, Issue of The Wood Brooke Journal), Woodbrooke
Quaker Study Centre, Birmingham, 2004.
Beall, J . D, and D. North-Coombes., The 1913 Disturbances in Natal: The Social and
Economic Background to Passive Resistance, Journal of Natal and Zulu History, vol.6,
1983, pp.48-81.
Bhana, Surendra, Gandhis Legacy: The Natal Indian Congress, 1894-1994, University
of Natal Press, Pietermaritzburg, 1997.
Bharathi,K.S., Gandhi and Nehru, Indus Publishing Company, New Delhi, 1990.
Bharathi,K.S., The Social Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi, Concept Publishing Company,
1991.
Bharatiya, L.K., Towards Rural Industrialisation, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay,
1975.
Bhattacharya, Sabyasachi., The Mahatma and the Poet, National Book Trust, New
Delhi, 1997.
Bhattacharya,B., Evolution of the Political Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi, Calcutta
Book House, Calcutta, 1969.
Bose, Nirmal,Kumar., Gandhism and Modern India, The Gauhati University Press,
Guwahati, 1970.
Britton, Burnett., Gandhi Comes to South Africa, Greenleaf Books, Canton Maine,
1999.
Brown, J udith M, and Martin Prozesky., (eds), Gandhi and South Africa: Principles
and Politics, University of Natal Press, Pietermaritzburg, 1996.
Chada, Yogesh., Gandhi: A Life, J ohn Wiley & Sons, New York, 1997.
Chakravarty,Gargi., Gandhi: A Challenge to Communalism, Subir Ghosh, for Eastern
Books, Chaturanya, New Delhi, 1987, reprint 1991.
Chaudhri, Sandhya., Gandhi and Partition of India, Sterling Publishers, New Delhi,
1984.
Chowdhuri, Satyabrata Rai., Leftism in India, 1917-1947, Palgrave, Basingstoke, UK,
2007.
Cray,R,M, Parekh, Manilal,C., Mahatma Gandhi: An Essay in Appreciation, Association
Press, Y.M.C.A, Calcutta, 1931.
Dalton, Dennis., Gandhi During Partition: A Case Study in the Nature of Satyagraha.
N the Partition of India: Policies and Perspectives, 1935-1947, Edited by C.H.Philips
and Mary Doreen Wanwright, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1970.
Dayal, Parmeswari., Gandhi Theory of Social Reconstruction, Atlantic Publisher and
Distributors, New Delhi, 2006
Eric, Itzkin., Gandhis Johannesburg: Birthplace of Satyagraha, Witwatersand University
Press, J ohannesburg, 2000.
Gadre,G.D., Books that influenced Mahatma Gandhi, India News, April 16, 1971.
Gandhi, Devdas., (Comp) India Unreconciled: A Documented History of Indian
Events from the crisis of August 1942 to February Political 1944, New Delhi, The
Hindustan Times, 1944.
Gandhi, M.K., Basic elements of True Labour Movement, translated into English by
H.C.Gupta, Central Board for Workers Education, Nagpur, 1964
Gangrade,K.D., Gandhian Ideal Development and Social Change, Northern Book Centre,
New Delhi, 1991.
Ganguly, S.M., Leftism in India: M.N. Roy and Indian Politics, 1920-1948, South Asia
Books, Columbia M.O, 1984.
Ghose, Sankar., Jawaharlal Nehru, A Biography, Allied Publishers, New Delhi, 1993
Ghose, Sankar., Mahatma Gandhi, Allied Publishers, New Delhi, 1991.
Goel, S.K., Gandhian Perspective on Industrial Relations: A Study of Textile Labour
Association Ahmedabad, 1919-1948, Shipra Publications, Delhi, 2002.
Green, Martin Burgess., Origins of Nonviolence: Tolstoy and Gandhi in their Historical
settings, University Park and London; The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1986
Gupta ,R.C., Indian Freedom Movement and Thought: Nehru and The politics of
Right versus left (1930-1947), Edited with an introduction by J .C.J ohari, Sterling
Publishers, New Delhi, 1983
Habib, Irfan., To make the Deaf hear: Ideology and Programme of Bhagat Singh and
his Comrades, Three Essays Collective, New Delhi, 2007.
Hasan,Zaheer., The Relevance of Ruskin and Gandhi, Shree Publication House, New
Delhi, 1985.
Heehs, Peter., Indias Freedom Struggle 1857-1947, Oxford University Press, Delhi,
1989.
Hunt, J ames D., Gandhi in London, (revised ed.,) Nataraj Books, Springfields, 1993
Hunt, J ames D., Gandhi and the Nonconformists: Encounters in South Africa,
Promilla & Co., New Delhi, 1986.
Hutchins, Francis G., Indias Revolution: Gandhi and the Quit India, Cambridge
University Press, 1973.
Hutchins,F,G., Indias Revolution, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, M.A., 1973.
J ack, Homer,A., (ed) The Gandhi Reader, Samata Books, Madras, 1984.
J ha, D.C., Mahatma Gandhi: The Congress and The Partition of India, Sanchar
Publications, New Delhi, 1995.
J oshi,P.C., Mahatma Gandhi: The New Economic Agenda, Har Anand Publications,
New Delhi, 1996.
Kalelkar, Kaka, Anand, Y,P., (ed and translated) Mahatma Gandhi Gitapadarthakosha:
Meaning of all words in the Gita, and their places of occurrence, National Gandhi
Museum, New Delhi, 2003.
Kasturi, Bhashyam., Walking Alone: Gandhi and Indias Partition, Vision Books
Private Ltd, New Delhi, 1999.
Kaur, Harpinder, Gandhis Concept of Civil Disobedience, Intellectual Publication
House, New Delhi, 1986.
Keer, Dhananjay., Veer Savarkar, Popular Prakashan, Bombay, 1966.
Kumar, R., Essays on Gandhian politics; The Rowlatt Satyagraha of 1919, The
Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1971.
Kunte, B.G., (ed.), Sources Materials for a writing of the freedom movement in
India: Mahatma Gandhi, 1965.
Kytle, Calvin., Gandhi Soldier of Non-Violence: An Introduction, Seven Locks Press
Incorporation, 1969, reprinted 1982.
Lahiry, Ashutosh., Gandhi in Indian Politics: A critical review, Firma KCM private Ltd.,
Calcutta, 1976.
Masselos , J im., Indian Nationalism: An History, Sterling Publishers, Bangalore, 1991.
Mehta, P. J ., M.K. Gandhi and the South African Indian Problem, G. A. Natesan &
Co., Madras, 1911
Minault, Gail., The Khilafat Movement: Religious Symbolism and Political Mobilization
in India, Columbia University Press, New York, 1982.
Murthy, B. Srinivasa, (ed)., Mahatma Gandhi and Leo Tolstoy Letters, Long Beach
Publications, Long Beach CA, 1987.
Nair, C.Sankaran, Gandhi and Anarchy, Mittal Publications, New Delhi, 1992.
Nanda, B. R., Gokhale: The Indian Moderates and the British Raj, Princeton (1977);
Oxford, 1998
Suggested Readings 197
Nanda,B.R., Road to Pakistan: the Life and times of Mohammad Ali Jinnah,
Routledge, New Delhi, 2010.
Narasimhaiah,C.D., Gandh and the West, Mysore university press, Mysore, 1969.
Patil, V.T., Mahatma Gandhi And The Civil Disobedience Movement: A Study In The
Dynamics Of The Mass Movement, Renaissance Publishing House, Delhi, 1988.
Patricia, Marcello,C., Mohandas K.Gandhi: A Biography, J aico Publishing House,
Mumbai, 2009.
Prakash, Almeida., Jinnah: Man of Destiny, Kalpaz Publications, New Delhi, 2001
Prasad, Nageshwar.,(ed.) Gandhi Historical and Contemporary perspectives, Segment
Book Distributors, New Delhi, 1990.
Prasad, Rajendra., Constructive Programme- Some Suggestions, Navajivan Publishing
Puri, Bindu., (ed) Mahatma Gandhi and his Contemporaries, Lias, 2002.
Pyarelal, Mahatma Gandhi: The Early Phase, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad,
1965.
Ram, R. Kumar S., Quit India movement 1942-1945, Commonwealth Publishers, New
Delhi, 2009.
Rammanohar Lohia, Itihaas Chakra (The Wheel of History), Navahind Prakashan,
Hyderabad, 1963.
Ramu, P.S., Gandhi, Subhas and Quit India, S.S. Publications, Delhi, 1955.
Rawding, F.W., Gandhi and the struggle for Indias Independence, Cambridge University
Press, 1982.
Ray, Sibnarayan., (ed.) Gandhi, India and the World: An International Symposium,
Nachiketa Publication Ltd, Bombay, 1970.
Reddy, E.S., Gandhijis Vision of a Free South Africa, Sanchar, New Delhi, 1995.
Rothermund, Dietmar., Mahatma Gandhi: AnEessay in Political Biography, Manohar
Publications, New Delhi, 1991.
Roy, Ramashray., Gandhi and Ambedkar, Shipra Publications, New Delhi, 2006.
Ruhe, Peter., Gandhi, Phaidon Press Ltd, London, 2001.
Ruskin, J ohn, Unto This Last: Four Essays on the First Principles of Political
Economy, George Allen, Sunnyside, Orpington, London, 1900
Sadiq Ali, Shanti, (ed.,), Gandhi and South Africa, Hind Pocket Books, New Delhi,
1994.
Sarkar, Sumit., (ed.) Towards Freedom: Documents on the Movements for Independence
in India, 1946, Part-1 and Part-2, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2007.
Seal, Anil., Emergence of Indian Nationalism, Cambridge University Press, 1968.
Sen, Ela., Gandhi: A Biographical study, Susil Gupta Ltd, Calcutta, 1946.
Settar,S., Gupta, Indira Baptista., Pangs of Partition Vol.1, Indian Council of Historical
Research/ Manohar Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi, 2002.
Shankar, Rama Hari., Gandhis Encounter with Indian Revolutionaries, Siddharth
Publicatons, New Delhi, 1996.
Shukla, Vivekananda., Rebellion of 1942: Quit India movement, Deep & Deep
Publications, 1989.
Singh, Hari., Gandhi Rowlatt Satyagraha and British Imperialism: Emergence of
Mass Movements in Punjab and Delhi, Indian Bibliographies, Delhi, 1990.
Singh, Nand Kishore., Mahatma Gandhi and Non-Cooperation Movement, Anupama
Publications, Delhi, 1992.
Singh, Pritam., (Comp) Gandhis Constructive Programme, Paramount Publications,
Lahore, 1944.
Sinha, R.K., Gandhian Non- Violence and the Indian National Struggle, H.K.
publisher, Delhi, 1992.
Sorab, Ghaswalla., Lokmanya Tilak: Symbol of Swaraj, Rupa Publisher, New Delhi,
2003.
Surendra, Bhana, Vahed, Golan., Making of a Political Reformer: Gandhi in South
Africa, 1893-1914, Manohar Publications, New Delhi, 2005.
Tendulkar,D.G., Gandhi in Champaran, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting of
India, The Publications Division, New Delhi, 1995.
Tewari, J yotsana., Sabarmati to Dandi, Raj Publications, New Delhi, 2010.
Tidrick, Kathryn., Gandhi: A Political and Spiritual Life, I.B.Tauris, 2007.
Tripathi, V.K., (ed) Satyagraha against Imperialism: The Great Indian Experiment in
Gandhis Words, Sadbhav Mission, Delhi, 2006.
Upadhyaya, J ,M., Mahatma Gandhi as a Student, Publications Divisions, New Delhi,
2008 reprint.
Uppal, J .N., Gandhi: Ordained in South Africa, Publications Division, New Delhi,
1995.
Walker, Roy., Sword Of Gold, Orient Longman Ltd on behalf of Gandhi Peace
Foundation, New Delhi, 1969.
Wolpert, Stanley., Gandhis Passion: The Life and Legacy of Mahatma Gandhi,
Oxford University Press, 2001.
Wolpert, Stanley., Tilak and Gokhale: Revolution and Reform in the Making of
Modem India, University of California, Berkeley, 1962.
Suggested Reading compiled by Ms. Mamata Tyagi, Research and Teaching Assistant
(IGNOU)
Suggested Readings 199

01 Gandh The Man and His Times @nadal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

01 Gandh The Man and His Times @nadal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIT 1 INTRODUCING GANDHI

You might also like