Introduction
“In the history of nationalism, a single individual is often identified with the making of a nation. Thus, for example, we associate Garibaldi with the making of Italy, George Washington with the American War of Independence, and Ho Chi Minh with the struggle to free Vietnam from colonial rule. In the same manner, Mahatma Gandhi has been regarded as the ‘Father’ of the Indian nation”-NCERT (National Council of Educational Research and Training) – A Government body in India that dictates curriculum for elementary and secondary schools in India
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi or commonly known as Mahatma Gandhi was one of the most popular political personality of 20th century and his legacy still continues, especially in India. He is also christened as Father of the Nation in India. He is regarded as the most prominent freedom fighter of India against British colonial empire. When I searched Google, I came to know there have been approximately 250 stamps issued bearing Gandhi's image from 80 different countries worldwide. As per an article on gandhiworld.in, there are more than 70 countries that have statues of MK Gandhi. History books taught to students in Indian schools have chapters after chapters on MK Gandhi’s freedom struggle, his selflessness, integrity of character, fight against apartheid, fight against Hindu caste system and so on.
On the other hand, there are very less reference of other freedom fighters in such books; even if there are mentions they can be regarded as cursory at best. Thousands of freedom fighters were imprisoned in just one jail - the dreaded Andaman Cellular Jail by the British government, many were hanged, many were killed in shootouts, 30,000+ INA (Indian National army or Azad Hind Fauj) soldiers died fighting against British Army, many hundreds died during Army and Navy revolt thereafter. So, what is so special about MK Gandhi to get him such extensive coverage or were the prominent historians had a little amnesia?
No, we are not here to talk if some historians needed or even need a dose of Donepezil. We will only review the history of our beloved Gandhi-ji and how suitable the title of ‘Mahatma’ and ‘Father of the Nation’ are. In the following chapters, I would try to reveal various facets of this ‘great man’ which may help many readers to know him better. Then I will leave it to the judgement of our readers to decide if they want to join the campaign mentioned in the last section of this article.
I have also created a video on this topic. You are encouraged to watch the video as well. While watching the video, I request you to pause it at relevant places as I have provided lots of supportive content in parallel to the main narration.
This article is broken down into 8 pages. You can navigate directly to any of these pages from the navigation links at the end of each page.
1. Introduction
2. Stretcher Bearer – Gandhi in South Africa and his views on native black Africans
3. Cast(e) Some Light – Gandhi’s view on caste system and related varnashrama
4. Child Bearer – Gandhi’s view on women
5. Intoxicated Bravery – Gandhi’s view on revolutionaries and armed struggle
6. Appeasement – Gandhi’s contribution to the appeasement politics
7. Freedom Negotiator? – Gandhi’s so-called ‘freedom movements’
8. Conclusion
Stretcher Bearer
In our schools, we have all read the account of young Gandhi as a lawyer in South Africa protested against racial segregation in a train and he was forcibly thrown out of the train in Pietermaritzburg, a city in South Africa. History books also taught us that it was South Africa where Mr. Gandhi first forged the distinctive techniques of non-violent protest known as Satyagraha. It was just the half-truth which is more dangerous than a lie.The history books did not tell us what were Mr. Gandhi’s views on native Africans, what were his opinion of white Europeans vis-à-vis Indians there. Because, if the other half was told, we would not be celebrating Gandhi Jayanti on 2nd October. What if I tell you Gandhi considered native black Africans as ‘Kaffirs’ whereas white Anglo-Saxons and Indians, according to him, are descendants of superior Aryan blood! Are you shocked or are you suspecting I am peddling with some unsubstantiated conspiracy theories? Either way, I request you to read this rather long article till the end as I will be bringing the facts, not fiction as we have been fed.
Fact is Gandhi never fought against apartheid in Africa. He had absolute disdain for Africans and he worked along with British to serve their interest. He supported more taxes on African people and ignored the torture of the British Empire on Africans. He was more interested to influence British rule to get more privileges for Indians than the natives and in that process did not stop abusing Africans by calling them savage and kaffir.
"A general belief seems to prevail in the Colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than savages or the Natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir." (Reference: MK Gandhi - A Open Letter to Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly, 19th December 1894 – Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Volume 1)
“Ours is one continual struggle against a degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the Europeans, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir whose occupation is hunting, and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with and, then, pass his life in indolence and nakedness.” (MK Gandhi, A speech on 26th September 1896, CWMG Vol 1)
Gandhi’s race chauvinism was so pronounced that he equated Indians with Europeans and demeaned Africans. Next two quotes from ‘The Great Mahatma’ are enough to substantiate that.
“I venture to point out that both the English and the Indians spring from a common stock, called the Indo-Aryan.” (MK Gandhi, Open Letter to Legislative Council on 19th December 1894, CWMG Vol 1)
“We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do...We believe also that the white race in South Africa should be the predominating race.” (MK Gandhi, Indian Opinion, 24th September 1903, CWMG Vol 3)
When British imperials got into war with Boers (also known as Afrikaners, the descendants of the original Dutch settlers of southern Africa) in 1902, Gandhi assembled mostly South-African born Indians as stretcher-bearers and marched into war zone to support fallen British troops. He played the same stretcher-bearer role during the British war with Zulu in 1906. Gandhi had no qualms left to please his masters in British Empire during that time. During the war on 24th May 1906, Empire Day was being celebrated in honor of Queen Victoria and Gandhi wrote in ‘Indian Opinion’, a newspaper started by him:
“As the years roll on, the memory of that noble lady remains as fresh as ever. Her interest in India and its people was intense, and in return, she received the whole hearted affection of India's millions.... The great British Empire has not risen to its present proud position by methods of oppression, nor is it possible to hold that position by unfair treatment of its loyal subjects. British Indians have always been most devoted to their Sovereign, and the Empire has lost nothing by including them among its subjects...We venture to suggest that, if there were more of Queen Victoria's spirit of enlightenment put into the affairs of the Empire, we should be worthier followers of so great Empire-builder.” (MK Gandhi, Indian Opinion, 26th May 1906, CWMG Vol 5)
During that bloody war (also known as Bhambatha Rebellion of 1906), around four thousand Zulu died fighting British Empire. On 7th April 1906, Gandhi reported execution of twelve Africans by police in ‘Indian Opinion’ as:
“The twelve Kaffirs were blown to death at the mouth of the cannon on Monday”.
In reality, they were all shot at the back of the head. Gandhi continued:
“Some Kaffirs were killed will soon be forgotten. We cannot say for certain whether or not they have received justice. But wherever self-government has been granted, a people become overweening. They will take undue liberties, and the Imperial Government will hesitate to intervene.” (MK Gandhi, 7th April 1906, CWMG Vol 5)
Seriously! These words came out of you Mr. Gandhi. He was talking about justice as being overweening and taking undue liberties. He was justifying treacherous, occupying force of the erstwhile British Empire. In his South Africa days, Gandhi did not miss a chance to please the British Government for once. Even at that most unfortunate moment of native African civilization, he requested British:
“give the Indian community the chance once more of proving its worth... We have more than once pointed out the criminal folly of not utilising the admirable material the Indian community offers for additional defensive purposes. If it is not possible to turn the present Indian population out of the Colony, it is surely elementary wisdom to give it an adequate military training” (MK Gandhi, Indian Opinion, 28th April 1906, CWMG Vol 5)
Yes, readers you read it right. Epitome of non-violence was urging British colonial forces to give military training to Indians to help British against Africans. He also advised Indian traders and others to donate to the fund drive for British soldiers. So Bapuji, you were violent while fighting alongside the Empire against natives of another colony, but you were non-violent when fighting against the Empire in India! Whose side were you really, dear? As a matter of fact, British masters awarded two medals to him for his service – Queen’s South Africa Medal and Natal Native Rebellion Medal.
Lastly, we all should know that Gandhi’s statue was removed in 2018 from Ghana‘s most prestigious university after protests against his racist activities and views with regard to the black Africans. This statue was inaugurated by the former Indian President, Pranab Mukherjee in 2016. Students and citizens of Ghana started #GandhiMustComeDown movement in change.org to ensure Gandhi statue is removed. Is it not a national shame for us, Indians, that we still worship this innately racist person? When are we going to un-learn and re-learn?
Cast(e) Some Light
“As a savarna Hindu, when I see that there are some Hindus called avarnas, it offends my sense of justice and truth, and it cuts me to the quick.” – MK Gandhi, 1934. Yes, indeed. When I see news of Dalit children forced to sit separately in government schools in some Indian villages, even in the 21st century, blood starts boiling in my vein. What is really ailing our society? On the one hand a thin creamy layer of so-called backward castes is grabbing the benefit of ‘affirmative action’ by successive Indian governments in education and jobs while depriving the merit, and on the other hand another section of the same backward caste is getting exploited and living at the mercy of the so-called upper caste.One of the reasons for this sorry state of affairs is definitely the paucity of education. I mean real education, not just a degree in science or engineering or medical. Otherwise, why would a Dalit boy from India in California, USA, has to face discrimination from another two Indians in a faraway land?
Another factor is definitely economic. When a person is economically strong, generally he/she holds a position in society just by the virtue of his/her personal wealth. Can a school teacher really ask a boy to sit separately in the class while eating when his father is a well-known wealthy businessman in the neighborhood? Next day, his father will file a case against school administration. Then thirdly and most important factor which is also related to education, is caste-awareness in individuals.
As long as a Bengali having a surname Chatterjee or Banerjee would think he is Brahmin by birth, will do sacred thread ceremony of his boy, others in the neighborhood would call him for some puja or shradh to be a medium between the God and the family doing the ceremony, till then discrimination will exist, no matter what you do superficially. I apologize if I hurt anybody’s sentiment. I am not targeting Brahmins specifically. All so-called upper caste families have a role to play here. I, myself, come from this so-called upper-caste ‘kulin-kayastha’. Even though this menace of caste discrimination exists less in Indian urban society than in rural India, but nevertheless it is there. It would be wrong to say that the scar of casteism has been removed from India’s body.
So, as long as we have faith in our chaturvarna of Vedas and we take pride in our upper caste lineage, whatever we do and talk of justice/truth, ultimately everything will go in vain. This is where Mr. MK Gandhi failed us and himself.
“Varnashrama, as I interpret it, satisfies the religious, social and economic needs of a community. It satisfies the religious needs, because a whole community accepting the law is free to devote ample time to spiritual perfection.... Therefore, when people in disregard of the law mistake duties for privileges and try to pick and choose occupations for self-advancement, it leads to confusion of varna and ultimate disruption of society” (MK Gandhi, Harijan, 4th March 1933, CWMG Vol 59)
“Varna means pre-determination of the choice of man's profession. The law of varna is that a man shall follow the profession of his ancestors for earning his livelihood. Varna therefore is in a way the law of heredity.” (MK Gandhi, Young India, 24th November 1927, CWMG Vol 40)
I wish I could ask Mr. Gandhi myself; did he really mean what he said and wrote? Any sensible person even in that period of time would have found it disgusting. It does not matter today what Vedic sages meant when Varnashram was created during those ancient times. There is no point arguing if they had right intent; or whether a person can move between one varna to another depending upon his/her profession. What matters is today and during Mr. Gandhi’s time this system had been rampantly abused to grossly mistreat fellow human beings. I fail to understand how a respected top-rung national leader could even think and preach such ideology publicly. In a free world, how can someone even think that it is a man’s duty to follow the profession of his ancestors for a living. He did not even stop there. ‘Mahatma-ji’ also said:
“one born a scavenger must earn his livelihood by being a scavenger, and then do whatever else he likes. For a scavenger is as worthy of his hire as a lawyer or your President. That, according to me is Hinduism.” (MK Gandhi, Harijan, 6th March 1937, CWMG Vol 71)
A great multitude among us wouldn’t acquire a new skill if we cannot earn a living out of it. This is like an engineer today telling his driver that my son will grow up to be an engineer, your son must become a driver. My son will have much better life than yours, but don’t worry, I will tell my son that our ‘Father of the Nation’ told both of you will have equal status in the society. I think I can rest my case here. But I would go on a little more.
"The law of heredity is an eternal law and any attempt to alter that law must lead us, as it has before led, to utter confusion. I can see very great use in considering a Brahmin to be always a Brahmin throughout his life. If he does not behave himself like a Brahmin, he will naturally cease to command the respect that is due to the real Brahmin. It is easy to imagine the innumerable difficulties if one were to set up a court of punishments and rewards, degradation and promotion. If Hindus believe, as they must believe, in reincarnation, transmigration, they must know that nature will, without any possibility of mistake, adjust the balance by degrading a Brahmin, if he misbehaves himself, by reincarnating him in a lower division, and translating one who lives the life of a Brahmin in his present incarnation to Brahminhood in his next." (MK Gandhi, Young India, 8th December 1920, CWMG Vol 22)
Superb! So, as per Mr. Mahatma, Shudras and Dalits are getting punishment of their past life. If a Brahmin commits a sin, we should not do anything. Rather we should leave it to the God and the God will demote him to a Shudra in the next life. Can you believe that we have national holiday on this man’s birthday?
He even said this while opposing inter-marriage, inter-dinning of castes “We do not associate with members of other communities for eating or enter into marriage relationships with them. With an arrangement of this kind, there is a good chance that loose conduct will be kept down.” (MK Gandhi, Bharat Sevak, October 1916, CWMG Vol 15)
By the way, this law of heredity never applied to Gandhi himself. The great son of Mother India, Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar said, “Mahatma was a Bania by birth. His ancestors had abandoned trading in favour of ministership which is a calling of the Brahmins. In his own life, before he became a Mahatma, when occasion came for him to choose his career, he preferred law to scales. On abandoning law he became half saint and half politician.” (Annihilation of Caste by. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar)
Hence Dr. Ambedkar asked, “Does the Mahatma practise what he preaches? One does not like to make personal reference in an argument which is general in its application. But when one preaches a doctrine and holds it as a dogma there is a curiosity to know how far he practises what he preaches. It may be that his failure to practise is due to the ideal being too high to be attainable; it may be that his failure to practise is due to the innate hypocrisy of the man.” (Annihilation of Caste by. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar)
Can anyone defend Mr. Gandhi on this? Still, I come across a sizeable group of people, along with some historians, trying their best to put the man on a divine pedestal. One of the arguments to defend his casteist comments is that the man changed later in his life. They say his writings in 1920s and 30s were more orthodox, but later his views changed to some extent. At least till 1938, I did not find anything different and if a man who conveyed such racist ideas in his 30s and 40s and continued with caste-ist ideas till the age of 68-69, does it really matter how much he changed in his last 9 or 10 years, if at all? Can such a man be an idol for others and can he be called ‘Mahatma’?
“The Hindu social structure has endured, I believe, on the foundation of the caste system...The caste system contains within it the seed of swaraj...The caste system is a perfectly natural institution. In our country, it has been invested with a religious meaning; elsewhere, its utility was not fully realized and so it remained a mere form, with the result that the countries concerned did not derive much benefit from it. These being my views, I am opposed to the movements which are being carried on for the destruction of the system.” (MK Gandhi, October’1916, CWMG Vol 15)
One other argument is that Gandhi was supportive of varna, but was against caste and he fought against untouchability. I think above quote destroys the arguments of such defenders and anyway, can these defenders really differentiate between varna and caste?
At least I cannot, and Dr. Ambedkar could not as well. Because end results of both are the same – meritless, hereditary imposition of one’s identity. Yes, Gandhi worked against untouchability. But what is the use of it if the root of the problem is not addressed. Untouchability or social segregation is the crime that meets our eyes, but varna or caste system penetrates deep into the mind.
Gandhi was just fine as long as untouchability was gone, but to him, pride of lineage must continue. It is not at all enough that upper castes becoming liberal enough to forgo caste injustice like untouchability, what is needed is let the idea of varna/caste go away from the mind of the society so that caste differences will fade away automatically. Speaking of curse of untouchability in one hand and then justifying varna/caste system on the other hand is sheer hypocrisy in itself.
Dr. Ambedkar summed up the hypocritical nature of Gandhi very succinctly in this quote: “I knew Gandhi better than most people because he opened his real fangs to me, and I could see the inside of the man. Gandhi was all the time double-dealing. He ran a paper in English and another in Gujarati, and if you read them both you will see how he was deceiving the people. In the English paper he posed himself as an opponent of the caste system and of untouchability and that he was a democrat, while in the Gujarati one he supported the caste system and professed all the orthodox dogmas that have kept India down all through the ages. Someone ought to write his biography by making a comparative study of the statements he made in these papers. The West reads only the English paper. Gandhi never wanted real upliftment of the Dalits. All he cared about were issues of absolutely no consequence to us like temple entry. Gandhi was never a reformer. He has no dynamics in him. All this talk about untouchability was just for the purpose of making the untouchables drawn into the Congress.” (Dr. B. R. Ambedkar in an interview to BBC Radio in 1955)
Readers can find the interview in YouTube and other sources:
Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar BBC Interview 1955 : Internet Archive
Child Bearer
“Education enables women to uphold their natural rights. Men and women are complementary to each other. Man is supreme in the outward activities and therefore he should have a greater knowledge thereof. Home life is entirely the sphere of woman and therefore in domestic affairs, in the upbringing and education of children women ought to have more knowledge. Unless courses of instruction are based on a discriminating appreciation of these basic principles, the fullest life of man and woman cannot be developed… I do not believe in women working for a living or undertaking commercial enterprises. To introduce English education in schools meant for women could only lead to prolonging our helplessness.” (MK Gandhi, Harijan, 20th February 1918, CWMG Vol 16)Once again I started a chapter with ‘Mahatma’s quote and I apologize to the readers for that. It is not a good writing habit. Nevertheless, I am not a professional writer as well. But, most of the time Mr. MK Gandhi makes my point of view so strong just by quoting him from his own text! Yes ladies, our ‘Father of the Nation’ wanted his daughters to be bound within four walls in child-bearing role only. Otherwise, fullest life of yours cannot be developed! This was not said centuries ago. Just to give a perspective, India’s first woman physician Kadambini Ganguly graduated from Calcutta Medical College in 1886 and she was heckled to the extreme by her male colleagues to ensure she did not become a doctor. I believe those male chauvinist doctors were not that wrong when ‘Mahatma’ can express similar views in 1937.
Gandhi had pretty strong views on birth control as well along with quite abhorrent view on woman physiology. As accounted by Rita Banerji in her book Sex and Power, "he believed menstruation was a manifestation of the distortion of a woman's soul by her sexuality". Well-known birth control activist Margaret Sanger went to meet Gandhi in 1935 in his ashram. To her surprise, Gandhi denounced the usage of any sort of birth control.
He viewed, in extreme cases wives should “leave” their husbands in order to control the size of their families rather than resort to birth control methods. Even though he had four children, he viewed all sex as lust and he became celibate (obviously self-proclaimed and did he take his wife’s permission?) after the birth of his fourth child. Following quote from this ‘great soul’ summarizes his stand. Is he calling self-aware, educated, disciplined woman a whore? Readers, please decide.
“Contraceptives are an insult to womanhood. The difference between a prostitute and a woman using contraceptives is only this that the former sells her body to several men, the latter sells it to one man. Man has no right to touch his wife so long as she does not wish to have a child, and the woman should have the will-power to resist even her own husband.” (MK Gandhi, Harijan, 5th May 1946)
With such ideas and such ‘great respect’ for women, I did not expect much from this man. But my reading and research continued. Especially, these days when crimes against women have increased throughout the world, I wanted to see what was Mahatma’s view on this. By the way, those who still think India as the worst country for women and Delhi as the rape capital of the world, I will have separate article on this. I hope you will be positively surprised that India scores far better than the developed nations such as the US, the UK in case of number of rapes per hundred thousand of population and rate of prosecution. But that is for some other day.
Now let us read an incident from Mr. Gandhi’s own book about the Gandhian method of saving girls from prying eyes.
"One day one of the young men made fun of two girls, and the girls themselves or some child brought me the information. The news made me tremble. I made inquiries and found that the report was true. I remonstrated with the youngmen, but that was not enough. I wished the two girls to have some sign on their person as a warning to every young man that no evil eye might be cast upon them, and as a lesson to every girl that no one dare assail their purity.
...What mark should the girls bear so as to give them a sense of security and at the same time to sterilize the sinner’s eye? This question kept me awake for the night. In the morning, I gently suggested to the girls that they might let me cut off their fine long hair. On the Farm we shaved and cut the hair of one another, and we therefore kept scissors and clipping machines. At first, the girls would not listen to me. I had already explained the situation to the elderly women who could not bear to think of my suggestion but yet quite understood my motive, and they were both of them noble girls.
...They came round after all, and at once the very hand that is narrating this incident set to cut off their hair. And afterwards analyzed and explained my procedure before my class, with excellent results, I never heard of a joke again. The girls in question did not lose in any case; goodness knows how much they gained. I hoped the young men still remember this incident and keep their eyes from sin." (Satyagraha in South Africa’ by MK Gandhi, Chapter 35)
So, this was the solution from ‘Mahatma’. To protect themselves from any sexual harassment, women have to change themselves, not the men? So, should the women today cut their hair too, or take some other measures to make themselves unattractive as hair cutting may not help in this age, or may be just clad themselves with a tent? I am losing all hope on the man now.
If this was his solution to protect women, it is understandable that his views of rape victims would not be drastically different. It was not. Gandhi indirectly did blame women for rape.
“I have always held that it is physically impossible to violate a woman against her will. The outrage takes place only when she gives way to fear or does not realize her moral strength. If she cannot meet the assailant’s physical might, her purity will give her the strength to die before he succeeds in violating her” (MK Gandhi, Harijan, 1st September 1940, CWMG Vol 79)
Readers, Bapu just encouraged suicide and indulged in victim shaming! Are we going to say that 80 years back world was just like that, why should we blame just one poor fellow!
“It is my firm conviction that a fearless woman, who knows that her purity is her best shield can never be dishonored. However beastly the man, he will bow in shame before the flame of her dazzling purity.” (MK Gandhi, Harijan, 1st March 1942, CWMG Vol 82)
As per the article on The Guardian, dated 10th January, 2010, Gandhi even justified honor killing. “Gandhi believed Indian women who were raped lost their value as human beings. He argued that fathers could be justified in killing daughters who had been sexually assaulted for the sake of family and community honour.”
If this is the view of a man about women in general, we must be curious how he treated his wife whom he referred as "she was never the temptress". When Kasturba Gandhi was suffering with pneumonia, Gandhi did not allow doctors to administer penicillin branding it as "alien" substance and finally she died from this illness in 1944. Interestingly though, a few years later Mr. Gandhi used Quinine to treat his malaria. Just to demonstrate what was his wife's value to him this quote should be enough. Now please don't tell me he equated her with cow because cow was sacred to him!
"I simply cannot bear to look at Ba's face. The expression is often like that on the face of a meek cow and gives one the feeling as a cow occasionally does, that in her own dumb manner she is saying something" (MK Gandhi, A letter to Maganlal Gandhi, 10th January 1919, CWMG Vol 17)
I can go on with Gandhi’s quotes on women, sexuality and related subject for long. But then we will lose focus on other topics. Hence, I request the readers to read on their own for Gandhi’s views on women and sexuality. Before closing this chapter, I would like to talk a little about Gandhi’s infamous relationship with his grand-nieces Abha and Manu. This has been well circulated, read and gossiped item.
I do not need to provide any special introduction or attention to it. Gandhi made contradictory statements throughout his life. He made some very progressive statements on women as well. Many contemporary writers, his partymen, blind followers and a section of the historians have always tried to defend him with those positive statements. But, remember that such contradictions only expose hypocrisy of a man and shows blatant opportunism in his character. In Dr. Ambedkar’s statement – “Gandhi was all the time double-dealing” is very apt to describe the man.
I would only like to point out what Gandhi did with his grand-nieces is called child sexual abuse, which is a punishable offence by law in any country now and even in his time. I only want you to come out and say a spade a spade. Just because this man is hailed as a ‘Mahatma’, ‘Father of the Nation’, we should not be afraid to put forward our opinions and demand a change in this decades old hypocrisy.
Otherwise, like us, our future generations will also continue seeing this man on Indian currency notes, and celebrate 2nd October. If that is the case, we should stop teaching our kids about morality. Let us end this chapter with some more quotes as well and think deeply who is this man we admire (or influenced to admire) so much. It is time to make the change.
Gandhi on his naked bathing partner, Sushila Nayar, a sister of his secretary who also used to give him massage: "While she is bathing, I keep my eyes tightly shut. I do not know … whether she bathes naked or with her underwear on. I can tell from the sound that she uses soap. What can be terrible is that she massages me while I am lying naked. So long as I have not become wholly free from passion, I have to be very alert while I bear with that massage." (M. K. Gandhi. CWMG Vol 74, 12th September 1938)
Gandhi to Manu in their first night: “We both may be killed by the muslims and must put our purity to the ultimate test, so that we know that we are offering the purest of sacrifices, and we should now start sleeping naked.” (Gandhi: Naked Ambition by Jad Adams, 20th December 1946)
“If I don't let Manu sleep with me, though I regard it as essential that she should, wouldn't that be a sign of weakness in me?” (M. K. Gandhi, Letter to Vinoba Bhave, 10th February 1947, CWMG Vol 93)
Manu -"Bapu is a mother to me. He is initiating me to a higher human plane through the Brahmacharya experiments, part of his Mahayagna of character-building." (The Diary of Manu Gandhi)
Prime minister of the Indian state of Travancore C. P Ramaswamy Iyer on Gandhi: “a most dangerous, semi-repressed sex maniac” (Gandhi: Naked Ambition by Jad Adams)
This is what happens after years of mental and sexual abuse at an adolescence age:
Morarji Desai after Manu was admitted to hospital for an “unknown” ailment - "Manu's problem is more psychological than physiological. She appears to have despaired for life and developed allergy to all kinds of medicines." (Letter to Jawaharlal Nehru from Morarji Desai on 19th August 1955)
Intoxicated Bravery
"A white woman was killed by an explosion… intention was to kill a magistrate… We have no reason to rejoice at the introduction of Russian methods in India. The Indian people will not win their freedom through these methods...these incidents will distract people from their duty." (MK Gandhi, Indian Opinion, 9th May 1908, CWMG Vol 8) The above quote of MK Gandhi came after Khudiram Bose and Prafulla Chaki tried to bomb Magistrate Douglas Kingsford’s carriage. Magistrate was sitting in a different carriage and unfortunately two British women died in that incident. There was no word of appreciation for the valiant effort of Khudiram in Gandhi’s words. Khudiram Bose was one of the youngest martyrs of Indian freedom movement and we celebrate Martyrs' Day on 30th January. What a fallacy!
I know many readers outside West Bengal may not have even heard about Khudiram Bose as our education boards are too busy eulogizing Gandhi and his lieutenants in Indian National Congress. So, for their knowledge, Khudiram Bose and Prafulla Chaki were not some village boys who got upset with British rule and decided to bomb them. They were part of an organization named Anushilan Samiti that was in forefront of fighting against British rule. Douglas Kingsford was well-known for his notoriety against Indian revolutionaries.
This was neither the first and nor the only incident when Gandhi not only completely distanced himself from freedom fighters who chose the violent path. He used to criticize them vehemently and portrayed strange softness towards British rule. Gandhi even called Madan Lal Dhingra mentally deranged, a traitor, murderer and a coward after the assassination of Curzon Wyllie in 1909. He said so in his newspaper ‘Indian Opinion’.
Here are his words: “Mr. Dhingra's statement, according to me, argues mere childishness or mental derangement...In my view, he has acted like a coward...No act of treachery can ever profit a nation” (MK Gandhi, Indian Opinion, 14th August 1909, CWMG Vol 9)
Madan Lal Dhingra was a revolutionary, a martyr and a soldier of India. Even if Gandhi did not agree with his method of work, how could he use such foul language about a freedom fighter? Who was he trying to please through his newspaper?
In fact, Gandhi’s effort and sincerity to save Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev from the gallows is always open to doubt. During the Gandhi-Irwin Pact in March 1931, only the political prisoners of non-violent protests were released. Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose in his book wrote that there are such instances like “armistice between the Sinn Fein Party and the British Government, when the strong attitude adopted by the former had secured the release of an Irish political prisoner sentenced to the gallows”. Netaji also wrote:
“But the Mahatma who did not want to identify himself with the revolutionary prisoners, would not go so far and it naturally made a great difference when the Viceroy realised that the Mahatma would not break on that question.” (The Indian Struggle (1920–1942) by Subhas Chandra Bose)
Even in a meeting with the Viceroy, Gandhi was not sincere in his request to release Bhagat Singh along with Rajguru and Sukhdev.
“He is undoubtedly a brave man but I would certainly say that he is not in his right mind. However, this is the evil of capital punishment, that it gives no opportunity to such a man to reform himself. I am putting this matter before you as a humanitarian issue and desire suspension of sentence in order that there may not be unnecessary turmoil in the country. I myself would release him, but I cannot expect any Government to do so. I would not take it ill even if you do not give any reply on this issue.” (MK Gandhi in a meeting with Viceroy on 18th February 1931, CWMG Vol 51)
After the Bhagat Singh’s execution, Netaji wrote about a protest against Gandhi when he went to Karachi to attend All-India Congress Committee session: “Nevertheless, when the Mahatma alighted near Karachi, there was a hostile demonstration, and several young men received him with black flowers and black garlands. The feeling among a considerable section of the youths was that the Mahatma had betrayed the cause of Bhagat Singh and his comrades.” (The Indian Struggle (1920–1942) by Subhas Chandra Bose)
In another instance, after Udham Singh took the revenge of Jallianwala Bagh massacre by assassinating the erstwhile Lieutenant Governor of Punjab, Michael O' Dwyer, this is what came out of Gandhi’s pen: “We had our differences with Sir Michael O’ Dwyer but that should not prevent us from being grieved over his assassination... We have our grievances against Lord Zetland. We must fight his reactionary policies, but there should be no malice or vindictiveness in our resistance. The accused is intoxicated with thought of bravery.” (MK Gandhi, Harijan, 23rd March 1940, CWMG Vol 78)
Readers, I do not know about you, but I am appalled by this reaction from Gandhi. When whole India was getting flooded with sympathy for Udham Singh, is this how an important leader of India supposed to react – “accused is intoxicated with thought of bravery”. I am not sure why Gandhi’s non-violence used to become too pronounced when British officials were at the receiving end. He even wrote this in his newspaper ‘Young India’ on 6th April 1921 on General Dyer who ordered to fire on unarmed civilians in Jallianwala Bagh:
“Thus, I would not punish or procure punishment even of General Dyer for his massacre, but I would not call it voluntarily doing injury to him to refuse to give him pension, or to condemn his action in fitting language.” (M. K. Gandhi, Young India, 6th April 1921, CWMG Vol 23)
But when it comes to the cause of political pan-Islamism during Khilafat movement, he could easily accept violence as a way to defend Islam for Ottoman Empire in faraway Turkey. It was a “just cause” to him. Was India’s freedom from British not enough as a “just cause”? Oh, did I forget what was his strategy to save The Crown during the Zulu war!
“But I would be untrue to my faith, if I refuse to assist in a just cause any men or measures that did not entirely coincide with the principle of non-violence. I would be promoting violence, if finding the Mussalmans to be in the right, I did not assist them by means strictly non-violent against those who had treacherously plotted the destruction of the dignity of Islam. Even when both parties believe in violence, there is often such a thing as justice on one side or the other. A robbed man has justice on his side, even though he may be preparing to regain the lost property by force.” (M. K. Gandhi, Young India, 1st June 1921, CWMG Vol 23)
This chapter will remain unfulfilled without the mention of Royal Indian Navy revolt in 1946, in Bombay. After Azad Hind Fauj, this was another development that shook the British Empire. Later British High Commissioner John Freeman stated "The British were petrified of a repeat of the 1857 Mutiny, since this time they feared they would be slaughtered to the last man". During this crucial period when the revolt was spreading across other navy bases in Calcutta, Madras, Karachi, Vizag along with support from British Indian Army, Gandhi and Indian National Congress could have seized the opportunity to free India for real. They could have mobilized civilians and led a revolution against the Empire with the active help from armed forces. But Gandhi (and INC) chose a different path. When the revolutionaries in navy were looking for political support and leadership, this response from Gandhi came as nothing short of treachery.
“This mutiny in the navy and what is following is not, in any sense of the term, non-violent action... Burning of tram-cars and other property, insulting and injuring Europeans is not non-violence of the Congress type, much less mine...Let the known and unknown leaders of this thoughtless orgy of violence know what they are doing and then follow their bend...Why should they continue to serve, if service is humiliating for them or India?... As it is, they are setting a bad and unbecoming example for India." (M. K. Gandhi, Press Statement on 23rd February 1946, CWMG Vol 89)
Gandhi’s misplaced views on revolutionaries, whom I believe were the true freedom fighters of India, can go on and on. But to prevent increasing the length of this lengthy article further, let us close this chapter with an excerpt from a letter to Mr. Gandhi from Shachindranath Sanyal who is often considered as mentor of Chandrashekhar Azad and Bhagat Singh:
“You [Gandhi] have criticized the revolutionaries most unsympathetically and even you went so far as to describe them as the enemies of the country, simply because they differ from your views and methods. You preach tolerance but you have been violently intolerant in your criticisms of the revolutionaries. The revolutionaries have risked their everything to serve their motherland, and if you cannot help them, at least be not intolerant towards them.” (Shachindranath Sanyal, Published in ‘Young India’ on 12th February 1925, CWMG Vol 30)
Appeasement
It is a very easy escapist idea and a popular belief that British constructed the Hindu and Muslim divide in India by using divide and rule policy in daily political life. The fact is British Raj indeed exploited a pre-existing divide and caused further mistrust, but the divide was there nonetheless. It would be a lie to say everything was fine with India before British arrived. Historical evidences say otherwise. On a lighter note, section of the Indian media even says this division started after 2014 as if Hindus and Muslims in India were living a life ‘happily ever after’ before that. But that topic is for some other day. Hindu-Muslim riots were documented hundreds of years before even British came to India. In the fourteenth century, the famed Moroccan scholar Ibn Battuta wrote about the state of Hindu-Muslim relations in the south Indian town of Mangalore: “…war frequently breaks out between them (the Muslims) and the (Hindu) inhabitants of the town; but the Sultan (the Hindu King) keeps them at peace because he needs the merchants”.
Distrust that is already created between these two communities, even though both the groups belong to the same civilizational background, is very deep rooted and it would be extremely unfair if we start analyzing it here. But it can be said without any doubt that both the communities played their fair bit of role. By the way, I am not trying to hide behind a shield called secularism here. Among many reasons, one of the primary reasons is political identity based on pan-Islamism. Otherwise, why would in this age a head of the state from central-Asia or Europe would suddenly become very concerned about well-beings of Indian Muslims or why would a country in Indian sub-continent would have their combat weapons named after central-Asian invaders (e.g., Babur, Ghauri, Ghazi) who invaded the same sub-continent, their motherland, few hundred years back. According to my opinion, answer to the problem is further integration, eliminating religion from education, extending civilizational/cultural heritage and spirituality sans religious rituals to the minority. It is not going to happen over a short period of time. But appeasement is definitely not an answer. It may create short term political gain, but in the long term it will encourage further alienation, ghettoization and disharmony. Because appeasement nurtures the identity-based politics instead of demolishing it. If appeasement was really a right strategy, Hindus and Muslims would have been living in perfect harmony today.
Readers might be thinking why I have started this chapter little opinionated, without facts and quotes. The reason is it is a sensitive topic that requires defining the right perspective at the very beginning. Otherwise, people will start branding me as either a 'sickular' or a 'bhakt'. I know some people will still do that and its okay.
Now let’s come back to our topic. There are multiple instances which can be cited when Gandhi chose appeasement for temporary relief during communal riots that ultimately caused more harm, especially to the majority Hindu community. This spans across multiple time periods from Khilafat movement to Moplah riot in Malabar to Kohat riot in Rawalpindi during 1920s till Noakhali riot to Great Calcutta Killing in 1940s and to even post-independence Kashmir war of 1947-48.
I will not be able to cover each of these phases of communalism as I do not want to make any one chapter too long and thereby lose focus on other aspects of Gandhi’s life. So, I will concentrate only on Gandhi’s involvement in a pan-Islamist campaign, known as Khilafat Movement that started in 1919. In my opinion, the movement had far reaching impact in India’s political history that ended with partition.
Even though the movement had absolutely nothing to do with India’s freedom struggle, Gandhi, in order to get Muslim support, ensured all the support from his and his party’s side to the movement and even included Hindus in a pan-Islamic movement. Stated objectives of the movement were (a) To protect the Holy place of Turkey, (b) To restore the Territories of Turkey, (c) To restore the Ottoman Empire. India’s independence was nowhere in the picture. But that did not deter Gandhi.
Anyway, I will be mostly quoting Dr. Ambedkar in next few paragraphs as he provided very apt analysis of the situation at that time. I do not think I need to add anything on top of them.
“The movement was started by the Mahomedans. It was taken up by Mr. Gandhi with a tenacity and faith which must have surprised many Mahomedans themselves. There were many people who doubted the ethical basis of the Khilafat movement and tried to dissuade Mr. Gandhi from taking any part in a movement the ethical basis of which was so questionable. But Mr. Gandhi had so completely persuaded himself of the justice of the Khilafat agitation that he refused to yield to their advice. Time and again he argued that the cause was just and it was his duty to join it...Mr. Gandhi not only agreed with the Muslims in the Khilafat cause but acted as their guide and their friend...it was started by the Khilafatists to help Turkey and adopted by the Congress only to help the Khilafatists: that Swaraj was not its primary object, but its primary object was Khilafat and that Swaraj was added as a secondary object to induce the Hindus to join it” (Pakistan or The Partition of India by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar)
Did this really help in Hindu-Muslim unity? Please keep reading. Dr. Ambedkar continued and tore apart Gandhi’s hypocritical appeasement.
“These are not the only things Mr. Gandhi has done to build up Hindu-Moslem unity. He has never called the Muslims to account even when they have been guilty of gross crimes against Hindus.
It is a notorious fact that many prominent Hindus who had offended the religious susceptibilities of the Muslims either by their writings or by their part in the Shudhi movement have been murdered by some fanatic Musalmans. First to suffer was Swami Shradhanand, who was shot by Abdul Rashid on 23rd December 1926 when he was lying in his sick bed. This was followed by the murder of Lala Nanakchand, a prominent Arya Samajist of Delhi. Rajpal, the author of the Rangila Rasool, was stabbed by Ilamdin on 6th April 1929 while he was sitting in his shop. Nathuramal Sharma was murdered by Abdul Qayum in September 1934. It was an act of great daring. For Sharma was stabbed to death in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Sind where he was seated awaiting the hearing of his appeal against his conviction under Section 195, 1. P. C., for the publication of a pamphlet on the history of Islam. Khanna, the Secretary of the Hindu Sabha, was severely assaulted in 1938 by the Mahomedans after the Session of the Hindu Maha Sabha held in Ahmedabad and very narrowly escaped death.
This is, of course, a very short list and could be easily expanded. But whether the number of prominent Hindus killed by fanatic Muslims is large or small matters little. What matters is the attitude of those who count, towards these murderers. The murderers paid the penalty of law where law is enforced. The leading Moslems, however, never condemned these criminals. On the contrary, they were hailed as religious martyrs and agitation was carried on for clemency being shown to them. As an illustration of this attitude, one may refer to Mr. Barkat Alli, a Barrister of Lahore, who argued the appeal of Abdul Qayum. He went to the length of saying that Qayum was not guilty of murder of Nathuramal because his act was justifiable by the law of the Koran. This attitude of the Moslems is quite understandable. What is not understandable is the attitude of Mr. Gandhi.
Mr. Gandhi has been very punctilious in the matter of condemning any and every act of violence and has forced the Congress, much against its will to condemn it. But Mr. Gandhi has never protested against such murders. Not only have the Musalmans not condemned these outrages but even Mr. Gandhi has never called upon the leading Muslims to condemn them. He has kept silent over them. Such an attitude can be explained only on the ground that Mr. Gandhi was anxious to preserve Hindu-Moslem unity and did not mind the murders of a few Hindus, if it could be achieved by sacrificing their lives.” (Excerpts from Pakistan or The Partition of India by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar)
Even though Gandhi was determined to “induce the Hindus to join it [Khilafat Movement]”, how did this appeasement work out? Moplah riot in Malabar and Hindu genocide in the year of 1921 that killed thousands of Hindus. Let’s hear from Dr. Ambedkar again:
“The aim was to establish the kingdom of Islam by overthrowing the British Government. Knives, swords and spears were secretly manufactured, bands of desperadoes collected for an attack on British authority. On 20th August a severe encounter took place between the Moplas and the British forces at Pinmangdi. Roads were blocked, telegraph lines cut, and the railway destroyed in a number of places. As soon as the administration had been paralysed, the Moplas declared that Swaraj had been established. A certain Ali Mudaliar was proclaimed Raja, Khilafat flags were flown, and Ernad and Wallurana were declared Khilafat Kingdoms. As a rebellion against the British Government it was quite understandable. But what baffled most was the treatment accorded by the Moplas to the Hindus of Malabar. The Hindus were visited by a dire fate at the hands of the Moplas. Massacres, forcible conversions, desecration of temples, foul outrages upon women, such as ripping open pregnant women, pillage, arson and destruction—in short, all the accompaniments of brutal and unrestrained barbarism, were perpetrated freely by the Moplas upon the Hindus until such time as troops could be hurried to the task of restoring order through a difficult and extensive tract of the country. This was not a Hindu-Moslem riot. This was just a Bartholomew [reference to the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre in 1572].” (Pakistan or The Partition of India by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar)
Gandhi’s appeasement did not end there. He however, conveniently laid the blame of Moplah barbarism on the Hindus.
“Hindus must find out the causes of Moplah fanaticism. They will find that they are not without blame. They have hitherto not cared for the Moplah. They have either treated him as a serf or dreaded him. They have not treated him as a friend and neighbour, to be reformed and respected. It is no use now becoming angry with the Moplahs or the Muslims in general.” (MK Gandhi, Young India, 26th January 1922, CWMG Vol 26)
“Moplah bravery must command admiration. These Malabaris are not fighting for the love of it. They are fighting for what they consider is their Religion and in the manner, they consider is religious.” (MK Gandhi, Young India, 27th November 1921, CWMG Vol 25)
"My own experience but confirms the opinion that the Mussalman as a rule is a bully, and the Hindu as a rule is a coward. Need the Hindu blame the Mussalman for his cowardice? Where there are cowards, there will always be bullies... But as a Hindu, I am more ashamed of Hindu cowardice than I am angry at the Mussalman bullying." (MK Gandhi, Young India, 29th May 1924, CWMG Vol 28)
Interestingly, same Gandhi asked Hindus to do repentance after Muslims were killed in Bihar riot in 1946 that happened as a repercussion of Noakhali massacre of Hindus. This time Gandhi even fasted unto death to stop the Bihar riot.
“Hindus in Bihar have committed a grave error, they have been very unjust to Muslims. Hence they should do their duty by contributing to a fund for the relief of Muslims by way of repentance.” (MK Gandhi, 8th March 1947, CWMG Vol 94)
Before closing the chapter, I would like to reiterate that the entire episode of Khilafat movement resulted in the rise of Ali brothers and Muslim League that finally ended up with partition of India. This should be a lesson to all even today.
Freedom Negotiator?
In this last chapter, we will look into Indian freedom struggle after Gandhi came back to India, his non-violent movements and more importantly, efficacy of such movements. I kept this chapter at the very end, because I wanted to ask the readers a very simple question. Would you accept a person having ideas that are racist and casteist, who is a political opportunist, sexist, misogynist, sexually abusive and supportive of British Crown, as the leader of India’s freedom struggle?I do not think such a person deserves to run any high public office, leave aside being the most prominent leader of our freedom movement. It is beyond my understanding what Indian National Congress saw in Mr. Gandhi between 1915 to 1920 that it allowed him to lead the party and all of its activities. Is leadership crisis a perpetual challenge in this more than century old party?
Let us start a little before when Gandhi returned to India permanently in January of 1915. By that time Britain has declared war on Germany and the First World War had begun. Even after supporting Britain’s cause for long 21 years without any benefit to his motherland, Gandhi did not hesitate to help them again.
He started recruiting Indians in noncombatant role to support British army, back in August 1914. He himself served as Sergeant-Major in British army in the past during his stay in South Africa, as part of Indian Ambulance corps. Gandhi began another recruitment drive among Indians for British army in 1918 and this time it was only for combatant roles. As per estimates, more than 74,000 Indian soldiers died in WWI, while fighting for the British cause.
“I recognize that, in the hour of its danger, we must give, —as we have decided to give—ungrudging and unequivocal support to the Empire, of which we aspire, in the near future, to be partners in the same sense as the Dominions overseas...If I could make my countrymen retrace their steps, I would make them withdraw all the Congress resolutions, and not whisper “Home Rule” or “Responsible Government” during the pendency of the war. I would make India offer all her able-bodied sons as a sacrifice to the Empire at its critical moment; and I know that India by this very act would become the most favoured partner in the Empire and racial distinctions would become a thing of the past.” (A letter from Gandhi to Viceroy Chelmsford 29th April 1918, CWMG Vol 17)
While Gandhi was too busy helping British, there were great (and forgotten) revolutionaries who were trying to utilize this opportunity to give the final blow to the British empire and win the freedom for India. One such endeavor was the Gadar Movement that involved Indians in US, India and Germany to work with Irish Republicans and German foreign office to overthrow British rule in India. One of the leaders of Gadar Party, Rashbehari Bose was the key person who later built Indian National Army during WWII and handed over the leadership of the army to Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. You may read more on Hindu–German Conspiracy to know further.
India’s revolutionary movements were at the peak during the first two decades of the twentieth century. With little more support and some God’s grace, India would have earned her respectful freedom during that time itself. I would like to mention about another great revolutionary before moving out of WWI era. He was Jatindranath Mukherjee or commonly known as Bagha Jatin. He was an eminent leader in Jugantar Party. I do not know why Bollywood has not yet made a movie with his biography. He along with other like-minded revolutionaries made alliance with Germany to get financial and arms support. He finally died in a gun fight with police at Balasore, Odisha while waiting to receive a German ship carrying cargo load of arms and ammunitions.
“Had E.V. Voska [the Czech spy who betrayed the Indo-German plot] not interfered in this history, today nobody would have heard about Mahatma Gandhi and the father of the Indian Nation would have been Bagha Jatin,” observed Ross Hedvicek - American publicist of Czech origin. (The Intellectual Roots of India's Freedom Struggle (1893-1918) by Prithwindra Mukherjee)
In the rest of the chapter, we will review ‘major freedom movements’ led by Gandhi and Indian National Congress. These were primarily – (1) Champaran agitation in 1917, (2) Kheda agitation in 1918, (3) Khilafat movement from 1919 to 1924, (4) Non-cooperation Movement from 1920 to 1922, (5) Salt march or Dandi march in 1930, (6) Quit India Movement in 1942. We have already discussed about complete lack of usefulness of Khilafat Movement with respect to India’s freedom struggle and more importantly, how dangerous its implications were in Indian history. So, here I will not go through it again.
But before going through the other movements, we should look at Gandhi’s position on India’s independence. It will give us a peek into this man’s mind with regard to independence and also his vision of future India. During his life, Gandhi played with different terms such as ‘Hind Swaraj’, dominion status and ‘Purna Swaraj’ when referring to independence. When he said dominion status he categorically meant “This does involve the existence of the 'Empire'” [23rd February 1922: CWMG, Volume 26]. These words were so open for interpretation and his demands were so flexible even Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose wrote about ‘Purna Swaraj’ in 1930:
“he [Gandhi] virtually gave up the use of the word 'independence' and substituted in its place the more elastic expression, 'substance of independence' or another expression especially coined by him-namely, Purna Swaraj, which he could interpret in his own way.” (The Indian Struggle (1920–1942) by Subhas Chandra Bose)
Gandhi in his days in South Africa stated his vision of ‘Hind Swaraj’ or ‘Spiritual Swaraj’ as independence for India. As per that British can rule on us indefinitely as long as they obey/let us obey our religion, do not bring modern schools and courts, do not bring European clothes, make Hindi as the common language, do not bring railways, abolish machinery, hospitals, medicines and contraceptives. Kudos for such a magnificent vision of modern India and brilliant negotiation tactics with the mighty British Empire!
"I admit you are my rulers. It is not necessary to debate the question whether you hold India by the sword or by my consent. I have no objection to your remaining in my country, but although you are the rulers, you will have to remain as servants of the people...We consider our civilization to be far superior to yours...you should only live in our country in the same manner as we do. You must not do anything that is contrary to our religions. It is your duty as rulers that for the sake of the Hindus you should eschew beef, and for the sake of Mahomedans you should avoid bacon and ham...We consider your schools and law courts to be useless. We want our own ancient schools and courts to be restored. The common language of India is not English but Hindi. You should, therefore, learn it...We cannot tolerate the idea of your spending money on railways and the military. We see no occasion for either. You may fear Russia; we do not...We do not need any European cloth. We shall manage with articles produced and manufactured at home." (MK Gandhi, Hind Swaraj written in 1909, CWMG Vol 10)
Wait! Do not get shocked as yet. There is more of such utterly regressive narrow minded thought pattern by our Father of the Nation.
“Medical science is the concentrated essence of Black Magic. Quackery is infinitely preferable to what passes for high medical skill...Hospitals are the instruments that the Devil has been using for his own purpose, in order to keep his hold on his kingdom. They perpetuate vice, misery and degradation, and real slavery…India's salvation consists in unlearning what she has learnt during the past fifty years. The railways, telegraphs, hospitals, lawyers, doctors, and such like have all to go…Indians should wear no machine-made clothing, whether it comes out of European mills or Indian mills…England can help India to do this, and then she will have justified her hold of India.” (MK Gandhi in a letter to H. S. L. Polak, 14th October 1909, CWMG Vol 10)
Yes readers, this is what our ‘Father of the Nation’ brought to negotiation table with British. Should I be happy that British did not pay heed to his negotiation terms? Otherwise, we might be living in a completely different India today. With this regressive ideology Gandhi started his campaign in India and the first prominent one was Champaran Movement of 1917. This was a peasant agitation against British government in the current day Bihar. Farmers in Bihar, Odisha and Bengal were brutally forced to cultivate Indigo with almost no payment. As a side effect of indigo cultivation, soil used to become infertile.
So, farmers demanded to grow other crops like rice and pulses. Gandhi went to Bihar on 10th April 1917 and took lead of the agitation. Under the pressure of this movement, Governor of Bihar appointed a committee of enquiry in June 1917. Eventually British government agreed most of the demands of the farmers on 2nd November 1917 by introducing Champaran Agrarian Bill. Historians like to call this movement as a historical moment of Indian independence struggle. It was definitely a big achievement, but I would not consider it as an independence movement.
Right after Champaran, Gandhi led another peasant movement in Kheda district of Gujarat in 1918. At that time the area was badly hit by famine that resulted in major crops failure. But government there did not offer any relief and demanded full realization of land tax. Due to non-payment of tax, government officials appropriated peasants’ properties including house, and auctioned their cattle. Gandhi led similar Satyagraha movement in Kheda along with Ballavbhai Patel. At the end of the agitation around June 1918, government agreed to suspend tax for the current year and the next year and all confiscated properties were returned.
Both Champaran and Kheda movements were localized farmer agitations. Success of both the movements was widely publicized throughout India and gave strong platform to Gandhi in national politics. But by no means that makes these movements as national in nature and they definitely cannot be categorized as part of our freedom struggle.
Non-cooperation Movement of 1920
Gandhi’s next big move came in 1919 as form of Khilafat Movement, followed by Non-cooperation Movement that was launched on 4th September 1920. He urged Indians to boycott British products, resign from public office, surrender British provided titles, withdraw students from government schools and colleges, boycott British courts, and refuse to pay taxes.
During this time charka (spinning wheel) were distributed among public. Khadi (hand-woven natural fiber cloth) and charka became symbol of freedom movement. Gandhi toured whole India along with Ali brothers of Muslim League to encourage and integrate both Khilafat and Non-cooperation movements. By that time, Gandhi also started to accept ‘Parliamentary Swaraj,’ though he was fully committed to ‘Hind Swaraj’ personally.
But still ‘Swaraj means full Dominion Status’ [CWMG, Volume 25] to him as written in January 1922. When revolutionaries were fighting for full independence, Gandhi was more than happy with dominion status. In September 1920, he made promise to the nation that he will bring Swaraj within one year i.e., within September 1921 and also started a fund drive called ‘Tilak Swaraj Fund’ with target of ‘minimum’ 1 crore rupee (approximately Rs. 1170 crore in 2021) to fund Non-cooperation movement.
"If there is a sufficient response to my scheme, I make bold to reiterate my statement that you can gain swarajya in the course of a year," announced our ‘Father of the Nation’. (MK Gandhi, during speech on non-cooperation resolution, Calcutta Congress, 8th September 1920, CWMG Vol 21)
Anybody at that time would have understood that the hollow promise did not have any basis. Even Subhash Chandra Bose had doubt in it. Netaji stated: “Either he did not want to give out all his secrets prematurely or he did not have a clear conception of the tactics whereby the hands of the Government could be forced...possibly the Mahatma expected a 'change of heart' on the part of the British Government, leading to an acceptance of India's national demands...What was to him a question of faith-namely, that Swaraj would be won within one year - was by no means clear to me and personally speaking, I was prepared to work for a much longer period.” (The Indian Struggle (1920–1942) by Subhas Chandra Bose)
But Gandhi continued his fund drive for Congress with full momentum to attain Swaraj in one year. He made several (as per my count over 20 times in a span of few months; Ref: CWMG Volume 22 and 23) requests in public meetings and print media for donations with a promise of Swaraj. Here are few examples:
“I repeat the promise that I made, that, if we can only do that, we do not require one year, we do not even require nine months to attain our goal.” (30th December 1920, CWMG Vol 22)
“I will live to erect this flag of swaraj inside this year!... you will see to it that swaraj is secured before this year is out.” (23rd January 1921, CWMG Vol 22)
“Take up the spinning-wheel. Purify yourselves, sacrifice yourselves for the sake of the country... if you will do that, I promise you swaraj within one year.” (30th January 1921, CWMG Vol 22)
“I am convinced that the country has never been so ready for establishing Swaraj as now.” (23rd January 1921, CWMG Vol 22)
“giving money to the Tilak Swaraj Fund is a business deal, a bargain for swaraj, a duty towards Tilak Maharaj” (Public meeting at Kapadwanj, 4th May 1921, CWMG Vol 23)
“I am here to beg from you contributions to the Tilak Swaraj Fund. If India does not fulfil her pledge by June 30, it will not be possible to win our goal.” (Public meeting at Wadhwan, 9th June 1921, CWMG Vol 23)
But as expected, Swaraj did not come by September 1921. In the meantime, people around India suffered due to police repression during Non-cooperation Movement. He extended his promised timeline till December 1921 and tried emotional blackmailing through his newspaper:
“Correspondents have written to me in pathetic language asking me not to commit suicide in January, should Swaraj be not attained by then and should I find myself outside the prison walls.” (MK Gandhi in Young India on 17th November 1921, CWMG Vol 25)
When the extended period also ended, Gandhi resorted to a strange view (because how can he lie, after all he is the ‘Mahatma’) of Swaraj and declared “India is already free”.
“I share Mr. Pearson's view that India is 'already free'. She became free when Lalaji, Pandit Nehru, Chitta Ranjan Das and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad were arrested. She became free as soon as it became clear that repression had fallen flat and that the people were not to be deterred from forming associations and holding public meetings even though they were assaulted and flogged. Freedom was ours when we were ready to pay the price for it. The settlement of our differences with the administrators is a matter of time. We cannot be said to be free so long as we need a certificate of freedom. He is not healthy who has need to prove his health by producing a health certificate. Every man and woman who visited the Congress pandal felt in his or her own person the glow of freedom”, said the ever-changing ‘Mahatma’. (MK Gandhi in Young India on 12th January 1922, CWMG Vol 25)
Bravo 'Mahatma', bravo! I am speechless. By this definition of Swaraj, India became free in 1857 when Mangal Pandey died and inspired many or when thousands of brave revolutionaries were shot or hanged and inspired the innumerous Indians to come forward. This kind of juggling with words would even make today’s politicians ashamed. Did I mention that 1 crore collection target was already met in in July 1921?
He even denied his promise, “My promise was conditional. Laying down conditions which could be easily fulfilled, I told the people. Fulfill these conditions and win Swaraj…they have not understood the meaning of swaraj at all. Swaraj means self-reliance. To hope that I shall get swaraj for them is the opposite of self-reliance.” (MK Gandhi in Young India on 11th December 1921, CWMG Vol 25)
Fantastic! So cleverly he just switched blame to the public. Finally, on 4th February 1922, Chauri Chaura incident happened when demonstrators attacked and set fire to a police station. 22 policemen and 3 civilians died. Gandhi withdrew the Non-cooperation movement. Yes, this was his only exit route from his false promise. Many leaders in Congress did not support Gandhi’s view of stopping the movement for such isolated incidents. Chittaranjan Das and Motilal Nehru came out of Congress and formed Swaraj Party. Gandhi was arrested for 6 years on 18th March 1922. But he was released unconditionally in less than 2 years!
Civil Disobedience Movement of 1930
Next big non-violent movement under Gandhi was in 1930 that started with Salt March in Dandi as part of Civil Disobedience movement. He was practically in retirement from active politics from 1924 to 1928 [The Indian Struggle (1920–1942) by Subhas Chandra Bose]. But before going there we need to understand what other freedom fighters were doing during that time period.
That was the time when Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Sukhdev, Chandrasekhar Azad, Ram Prasad Bismil, Ashfaqullah Khan, Sachindra Nath Sanyal and many other revolutionaries were inspiring the whole India to take up the gun, fight with British and die for the motherland. Some of them took heroic steps like looting cash meant for British treasury from train known as Kakori Train Robbery (9th August 1925) in history.
Some were setting up bomb factories (HSRA had set up bomb factories in Lahore and Saharanpur in 1929). Some were taking guns to shoot down British officers responsible for repression (Bhagat Singh shot John P. Saunders on 17th December 1928), and thereby instill terrible fear in the administration and at the same time inspiring hundreds of thousands of other Indians to come forward.
That was the time when Master-da Surya Sen led a group of revolutionaries on 18th April 1930 to raid the armory of police and auxiliary forces from the Chittagong (situated in present day Bangladesh) armory. The group took control of the region for few days. Unfortunately, they could not get hold of ammunition and large backup British force defeated them in a heroic fight.
That was the time when Benoy Basu and Dinesh Gupta joined Bengal Volunteers - a group organized by Subhas Chandra Bose in 1928. Both Benoy and Dinesh along with Badal Gupta assassinated Lt. Colonel NS Simpson, the then Inspector General of Police (Prisons), who was known for his notorious brutality to the revolutionaries in jail. On 8th December 1930, Benoy, Badal and Dinesh entered Writers Building (a government building in Kolkata) in European attire and Simpson was shot seven times with three bullets to his head. British understood they were not safe anywhere.
Exactly around that time Gandhi realized high tax on salt was the most critical item to take forward with British Empire in the negotiation table. Britain’s Salt Act of 1882 prohibited Indians from collecting or selling salt, a staple in their diet. Indian citizens were forced to buy this mineral from their British rulers. Gandhi started his 24-day march from 12th March 1930 to 5th April 1930. He along with his 78 trusted volunteers travelled 390 kilometers from Sabarmati Ashram to Dandi. He broke the Salt Law on 6th April 1930 by collecting salt from sea water. After that Civil Disobedience erupted in various parts of the country. Gandhi was sent to jail on 5th May 1930. Police started suppressing the agitations with force.
Gandhi was released from jail on 26th January 1931. Finally, Gandhi came to agreement with the Viceroy Irwin on 5th March 1931 that is known as Gandhi-Irwin pact in history. This ended the Civil Disobedience Movement that started with the Salt March. Gandhi had to let go many demands and the pact did not mention of independence or not even dominion status. In the words of JB Kripalni, a Gandhian himself:
"This pact was a compromise wherein Gandhiji had seemingly to give in a lot. Everybody expected that any pact with the Government would include a judicial inquiry into the excesses committed by the police and the army during the course of the movement. Gandhiji was, however, requested by Irwin not to insist on such an inquiry, as it would affect his prestige. Gandhiji, always anxious to accommodate his opponents, agreed...Jawaharlal's reaction was different. He took it as a surrender and opposed it." (Gandhi His Life and Thought by JB Kripalni)
Subhash Chandra Bose also opposed the pact. He stated that Irwin understood that it was the right time to the negotiation. “he [Mr. Irwin] was far-sighted enough to realise that if an understanding was to be arrived at between the Government and the Congress, it was desirable to do so while the Mahatma was the leader of the latter body, for according to sane Britishers, 'Gandhi was the best policeman the Britisher had in India'*”, Subash asserted. (The Indian Struggle (1920–1942) by Subhas Chandra Bose)
*This was the opinion expressed by Miss Ellen Wilkinson, Ex-M.P. after her visit to India in 1932 as a member of the Indian League Deputation.
Subhash Bose continued further on the compromise made with this pact and reaction thereafter.
“It [Gandhi-Irwin Pact] was a lengthy document and from the Congress point of view the drafting was faulty, because it did not give the impression that the Congress had scored a victory. The perusal of the terms of the pact had a damping effect on all 'Congressite' readers… Even the blind followers of the Mahatma, when they read the forecasts, invariably remarked that it was unthinkable that their leader — meaning the Mahatma — would agree to those terms. Nevertheless, what was unthinkable came to be actual.” (The Indian Struggle (1920–1942) by Subhas Chandra Bose)
Gandhi on behalf of the Congress agreed to suspend the Civil-Disobedience Movement. The Viceroy on behalf of the Government agreed:
- To release simultaneously all political prisoners incarcerated in connection with the non-violent movement.
- To restore confiscated property and land to the owners where it had not been already sold or auctioned by the Government.
- To withdraw the emergency ordinances.
- To permit people who live within a certain distance of the seashore to collect or manufacture salt free of duty.
- To permit peaceful picketing of liquor, opium and foreign-cloth shops, the last item designed not as a discrimination against British goods but as an encouragement to the Swadeshi movement (i.e. indigenous industries).
Readers, as you can see this pact did not mention anything about the independence. It did not even provide future consideration for dominion status. Subhash Bose also stated, “The politically trained section of the people could analyse the terms of the Pact and to them it was a great disappointment. Youth organisations in the country, taken as a whole, were also dissatisfied. But to the mass of the people, it appeared as a great victory for the Congress.”
He criticized the pact as it “avoided the main issue of Swaraj”, excluded release of all other political prisoners except non-violent protesters among total 8 objections Netaji had. Yes readers, ‘Mahatma’ just left all other political prisoners at the peril of British repression. Netaji even said “[The Pact] proved to be not a blessing but a curse”.
Quit India Movement of 1942
Now I will move on to the next and the last phase of Gandhi’s movements i.e., Quit India Movement of 1942. During the period between 1931 and 1942, Gandhi continued with his negotiation strategies with the British Empire.
Gandhi went to London in September 1931 to attend the 2nd Round Table Conference and returned back to India empty handed on 28th December 1931 though his image to the ordinary mass did not fade.
“Thanks to the propaganda of the Congress, the failure of the Mahatma to achieve something tangible for his country at the London Conference had not produced any depressing effect,” observed Subhas. (The Indian Struggle (1920–1942) by Subhas Chandra Bose)
In 1932, Congress launched another Civil Disobedience Movement, urged people to boycott foreign clothes and other goods like the last time. In the meantime, government also broke the Gandhi-Irwin pact in several instances. But government was prepared this time and suppressed the movement quickly and Gandhi also officially suspended the movement on 23rd July 1933.
“Government forces were in complete readiness to strike immediately and ruthlessly. And they were not content with striking at those who worked in the open, but made a clean sweep of the brains and financiers of the movement as well,” observed Subhas. (The Indian Struggle (1920–1942) by Subhas Chandra Bose)
In 1934, Gandhi withdrew himself from political activities of Congress and “devoted his entire energies to Harijan work.” [JB Kripalni – Gandhi and His Life and Thought]. He started his India tour with goal of big collection drive for Harijan fund. He fasted for the cause of Harijan movement. This shifted the focus from the independence movement. Netaji wrote, “there is no doubt that the fast served to side-track the civil-disobedience movement and caused a diversion of men, money and public enthusiasm to the anti-touchability (or 'Harijan')”.
Even though Gandhi was not there in active politics he had huge popularity among the mass and clout over Indian National Congress. But younger leadership started showing dissatisfaction.
“the discontent of this younger section became more and more manifest in their open criticism of Gandhiji. Some of them went so far as to consider Gandhiji a reactionary and a friend of the capitalists and even of the imperialists. A highly critical pamphlet was issued by Jayaprakash against Gandhiji.” (Gandhi His Life and Thought by JB Kripalni)
Readers, I would like to give a perspective of what parallel activities were being carried out by Netaji when Gandhi temporarily moved out of politics or better to say from freedom movements. During the period between 1933 and 1936, Subhash Bose toured practically the whole Europe trying to build contacts with various leaders including Mussolini, to gain support for India’s cause.
British Government obviously tried its best to prevent his making contacts with different governments and with important personalities in different countries. In Fascist or pro-Fascist countries, the British agents tried to paint him as a Communist. In Socialist or democratic countries, on the other hand, they tried to describe him as a Fascist.
In spite of these obstacles, however, he was able to do useful propaganda for India and rouse sympathy for the Indian freedom movement in several countries in Europe. In some of these countries, organizations were started for developing cultural and economic contact with India. [The Indian Struggle (1920–1942) by Subhas Chandra Bose]
In 1938, Subhash Chandra Bose was elected as Congress President. He was re-elected for his 2nd term in 1939 as well against Gandhi’s wish. In his weekly paper Harijan, Gandhi openly acknowledged the defeat. Long before 1939, Netaji also wanted India to take fullest advantage in case war breaks out in Europe. In March 1939, under Netaji’s leadership a proposal was made for Congress to send an ultimatum to British and prepare for national struggle. This was rejected by Gandhi wing and Nehru in the Congress.
Under determined opposition from the Gandhi wing, Subhash Bose left Congress and founded Forward Bloc. On the night of 17th January 1941, Netaji escaped (also known as Great Escape in history) from home vigilance to free India with foreign help.
In the meantime, Cripps Mission also failed, as Congress rejected the promise of Dominion Status after the end of WWII and Stafford Cripps returned for England on 11th April 1942. After 9 days of deliberations, Congress finally passed the Quit India resolution on 14th July 1942.
Even though call for uncompromising struggle (non-violent) against British Empire was a welcome move, it was not clear how strong was the motive of Congress or Gandhi. As usual, it was soft to British and that inherently makes the movement a half-hearted effort. In the resolution it was stated:
“In making the proposal for the withdrawal of the British rule from India, the Congress has no desire whatsoever to embarrass Great Britain or the Allied Powers in their prosecution of the war or in any way to encourage aggression on India… Nor does the Congress intend to jeopardize the defensive capacity of the Allied Powers. The Congress is therefore agreeable to the stationing of the armed forces of the Allied in India, should they so desire in order to ward off and resist and protect and keep China” (The History of Indian National Congress, Volume 2 by Pattabhi Sitaramayya)
Anyways finally, on 8th August 1942, Gandhi delivered his Quit India speech in Bombay and the movement was officially launched. British police and administration were well prepared for it. Next day morning, on 9th August, Gandhi and many other Congress leaders were arrested and the whole movement virtually became leaderless.
But the agitation broke out in many parts of India and many became violent. Incidents like torching post offices, police stations, railway stations emerged in the news. British administration launched brutal attack on agitators. British controlled the movement within a few months.
“By the end of September, the authorities had arrested sixty thousand agitators-or freedom fighters, in the nationalist lexicon-and shot dead about a thousand. The viceroy banned the Congress Party. He deployed fifty-seven battalions of regular British soldiers to contain and suppress the civilian revolt…The viceroy's iron fist strategy was applauded by Churchill,” noted Dilip Hiro in his book The Longest August: The Unflinching Rivalry Between India and Pakistan.
“By the time the one-eyes Field Marshal Archibald Wavell succeeded Lord Linlithgow in September 1943 as viceroy, British India had been pacified, its jails overflowing with Congress partisans,” the book further commented.
At the end of the Quit India movement, Indian National Congress became weaker and the Muslim League began dominating the Indian Muslim’s heart. The excerpts from the same book may substantiate my point.
“The Congress Party's loss proved to be Jinnah's gain, with the League filling some of the vacuum left by the banishing of the country's leading political organization. Within two months of the Quit India campaign, the Dawn, founded as a weekly journal in Delhi by Jinnah, was turned into a daily newspaper as the official mouthpiece of the Muslim League. Jinnah toured the country propagating his two-nation theory. The League made solid gains, winning forty-seven of the sixty-one by-elections in Muslim constituencies between 1937 and 1943, with Congress Muslims securing a derisory four -the remaining seats going to unaffiliated Muslims.” (The Longest August: The Unflinching Rivalry Between India and Pakistan – by Dilip Hiro)
Final Thoughts
Readers, this brings us to the closure of this rather long chapter. Rest few paragraphs will be mostly my opinion that I have drawn from various readings, some of which I have shared in this article.
First of all, I do not consider Gandhi had right ideals. His views on native Africans, caste system, women were extremely regressive. This alone makes him ineligible as a leader leave aside being called ‘Mahatma’ or ‘Father of the Nation’. His views on medical science, industrialization and his vision of modern India were archaic to say the least and very dangerous for a modern nation.
Secondly, his stance against the British Empire was not only soft, it was absolutely unacceptable as a leader of the freedom movement. Starting from his days in South Africa till the day of India’s independence, he always was too sympathetic to the British cause. Moreover, his opinions on revolutionaries were simply pathetic. He might not have agreed with their way of functioning, but at least he should have shown respect to those selfless souls.
Finally, all the movements spearheaded by him, except for the two peasant agitations in Champaran and Kheda, were nothing but failure. Whatever propaganda his blind supporters may have done, it does not change the fact. Participation of India in the Khilafat Movement was an absolute blunder. Gandhi kept on making false promises of Swaraj for one year during the Non-cooperation Movement of 1920 that he ended abruptly without any success.
Salt March of 1930 ended with a disastrous pact with Viceroy Irwin, without gaining anything. Quit India Movement also fizzled out quickly and it was not really led or guided by any top or medium rung leaders. It spawned out as some spontaneous agitations (very much violent), which achieved nothing at the end.
All these movements failed because they were bound to be failed. Mighty British Empire would not let its ‘Jewel of the Crown’ go just by some dharnas and agitations or by making some khadis from spinning wheels. In fact, no nation can be freed this way. Take the example of Bangladesh or America or any other country. Peaceful agitations may work against someone’s own government to repeal some laws or make the government accept some other demand. But history has taught us it can never work against an occupying force like the British Empire. It is insanity to even think about it unless someone has a hidden agenda.
First East India Company and then British Empire ruled on us on the basis of sheer power – military power. You have to instill fear in your enemies so that they fear to walk on the street because they or their families may get killed. That is what our revolutionaries did. They have to fear that they are not safe even in their own country. This is what some revolutionaries like Madanlal Dhingra and Udham Singh did. They used our police force and our army men to act against us. There were few thousand of Britishers at the top, but rest were all us. Only way to get rid of British were to arouse nationalism and defection among armed forces and police. That is what Subhash Chandra Bose did. You need to build organizations inside and outside India, get support of enemy’s enemy to help you. Americans took help of French in their war of Independence. Bangladesh took help of India in their fight against West Pakistan. That is what Gadar Party, Bagha Jatin, Subhash Chandra Bose did. When Navy Revolt (along with that Army and Air Force also revolted) happened in 1946, British generals asked Gurkha Regiment to fire on the ratings (junior members) of revolting British Indian Navy in Karachi and they refused to fire. British Empire realized that they have lost control over the armed forces and their time has come to pack the bags.
Gandhi was a pacifist and that too selectively. Head of an occupying force or an imperialist nation would love to have an opponent like him. Because there was no imminent danger to British from him. Negotiations can continue for ages. Rather if the mood of the nation changes to so-called non-violence, it is lot easier to manage them as opposed to someone who is going to Germany and other enemy nations and trying to make a pact or someone who breaks the loyalty of the armed forces.
Otherwise, why thousands of revolutionaries faced such inhuman torture in British jails and Gandhi’s jail terms were always reduced. If Gandhi had to complete all his jail terms, he would have spent 11 years and 19 days in jail. But he altogether spent 6 years and 10 months in prison [mkgandhi.org].
If Gandhi was so dangerous for the British Empire, wouldn’t they have put him in jail for very long even if they did not subject him to torture like the revolutionaries. Even Nelson Mandela spent 27 years in jail. British showed such leniency because Gandhi could control the mass the way that would cause least trouble to the British administration.
Let us face it readers. If there was no WWII that broke the backbone of the British Empire, if there was no Azad Hind Fauj, if there was no revolt in the armed forces in 1946, British would have continued for very long period in India and may be even today we were living in some sort of dominion status!
Lastly, I hope I have clarified why I have titled this chapter as ‘Freedom Negotiator?’. Because, by no means, Gandhi was a freedom fighter. At best he was a freedom negotiator and that too with a very poor scorecard. At worst…? Allow me to be little diplomatic this time…
Conclusion
Now we are almost at the end of our short journey towards analyzing the magnificent life of MK Gandhi. We need to ask ourselves, should we continue accepting what has been fed to us for decades or choose what is right and truthful? Some of you may ask why do we care? India is still a poor nation, millions of hungry bellies to feed, thousands of roads, bridges and hospitals to build. How does it matter if Gandhi is called Father of the Nation or not?
You are partially right. It will not have any direct impact whatsoever to India’s GDP growth or increase in per capita income. But those are not the only parameters which define a nation. Any nation is built up on its history, culture and civilization.
Otherwise, it is a mere conglomeration of beautiful roads, buildings and technological wonders. It will fall down at the slightest disorder in its economic balance. India has great scientists, engineers, economists, bureaucrats and overall large population of young and hardworking people who with right guidance has the potential to take the nation forward. But future economic progress should go hand-in-hand with self-awareness, righteousness and national pride. We cannot do that if our knowledge of our past is distorted and built on a shaky base.
Hence, I would like you all to join a campaign to remove MK Gandhi as the Father of the Nation of India. Rabindranath Tagore conferred the title of ‘Mahatma’ to Gandhi in the year of 1915. There are some confusions on this fact as well. I am not going into that.
Nevertheless, I am at a loss to understand what Gandhi had achieved in 1915 to be awarded such title. But anyway, it was conferred by a private citizen of India and today if some people want to continue with that tradition, I have no objection. But, as an Indian citizen, I object to the title of ‘Father of the Nation’. This land ruled by 100 to 200 kings at any given point of time, was known by ‘Hind’, ‘India’, ‘Indostan’, ‘Hindustan’ for many centuries (as early as 400 BC by Herodotus) before Gandhi was even born.
So, calling a person with lack of character and integrity in personal life, having such regressive attitude towards African native people and women, having parochial attitude towards caste system and dubious contribution to the cause of Indian freedom struggle Father of the Nation is a repulsive notion to me. I refuse to call him ‘Father of the Nation’. It is an insult to many other finest human beings this land has produced by conferring one single person with this title, that too a person who has such a questionable past.
I request the Indian Government not to use either ‘Mahatma’ or ‘Father of the Nation’ in any government text for Gandhi (including history books) and publicly state that India does NOT have such title. If any private citizen is using such a title, it is completely his or her personal choice. I also request the Indian Government to revise the school history books to give due importance to other freedom fighters.
I also urge our union government to stop printing Gandhi’s picture on the Indian currency notes. Rather show more dedication to many true great souls of this land such as Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Swami Vivekananda, Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar.
If you agree to this, please join this online petition campaign and also spread the awareness. Thank you.
A note to the readers:
There is an enormous volume of work already done by many authors to substantiate further what I tried to cover in a very concise form and it includes writings from Gandhi too. I do not know whether I should laugh, consider this as arrogance of the man or pity common mass of our nation for falling victim in this propaganda for decades. While writing this article, my problem was not that I was getting too little information on this topic. Rather my problem was of plenty. What I have presented here is miniscule compared to the available material. I sincerely request all of you to read these books, journals and articles yourself to know even more. I am providing a few names for your future reading.
Book references:
2. Annihilation of Caste by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar
3. Pakistan or The Partition of India by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar
4. The Indian Struggle (1920–1942) by Subhas Chandra Bose
5. The South African Gandhi: Stretcher-Bearer of Empire by Ashwin Desai, Goolem Vahed
6. The Longest August: The Unflinching Rivalry Between India and Pakistan by Dilip Hiro
7. Gandhi: Naked Ambition by Jad Adams
8. Young India by Lala Lajpat Rai
9. Satyagraha in South Africa by M. K. Gandhi
10. The Moplah Rebellion 1921 by Diwan Nair
11. Gandhi His Life and Thought by JB Kripalni
12. The History of Indian National Congress, Volume 2 by Pattabhi Sitaramayya
13. The Diary of Manu Gandhi
14. Selections from Gandhi by Nirmal Kumar Bose
15. My Days with Gandhi by Nirmal Kumar Bose
16. The Intellectual Roots of India's Freedom Struggle (1893-1918) by Prithwindra Mukherjee
17. Sex and Power: Defining History, Shaping Societies by Rita Banerji
Articles:
If this true, why Nelson Mandela, a Zulu, endorse Gandhi.... I did not know of this and am curious
ReplyDeleteWe dontknw why mandela did what he did. . But am sure you would have heard of south africans refusing to install a statue of Gandhi in their country. . They are more aware of his history than we foolish indians are and thats our ignorance
DeleteThanks for commenting here. I do not know what were in minds of N. Mandela and M. L. King. If they really admired Gandhi, or there was some compulsion. I read different stories with different aspects in different articles, but beyond that I do not have knowledge.
DeleteLike Federrer cannot play cricket or baseball and Sachin tendulkar cannot play soccer, not all will have true information of gandhi. Mandela and king might have half info like us. Like Ambedkar got info regarding manusmriti from translation made by mueller which was misinterpreted and as ambedkar didn't know to read sanskrit. False info was carried forward.
DeleteOh my, such stated upheaval in pronounced thoughts and actions affecting India as a society till today....
ReplyDeleteReading this against background of reading Savarkar who remained steadfast in all his thoughts - freedom, society and its practices, government, till his very end
Nice Artical.
ReplyDelete