Home | Contact Us | Archive | Online Books | Subscribe    
Jana Sangh Today | A Monthly Magazine

Write to us | Email this Story

Paradox
Gandhi's Prejudice
Jul 2011

Overview of the prejudice

Although personally a devout Hindu, Gandhi turned more and more anti-Hindu, as his public life progressed. The driving obsession of his political life was to throw the British out of India. In order to do so, he was obsessed in his belief that Hindu Muslim unity was essential. Whether he was justified or not in holding these convictions would remain a matter of opinion. What however was a fact that he again and again demonstrated his readiness to sacrifice or sell out Hindu interests, Hindu honour and Hindu blood. For him, no price was too great for appeasing Muslims, so that they did not oppose Hindus. That he did not understand the Muslim mindset was proved by the conduct of the Muslim League and by the vivisection of the country.

In the words of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches, Volume 8,  Government of Maharashtra, 1990:

Gandhi 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 � The leading Moslems never condemned these criminals. On the contrary, they were hailed as religious martyrs� This attitude of the Moslems is quite understandable. What is not understandable is the attitude of Mr. Gandhi.

Hindu Heroes or Misguided Patriots

While replying to a question about the tragedy of Sind at Shikarpur,   Gandhi had complimented the strength and bravery of the Muslims in defending themselves, even though they were fewer in numbers. He had gone on to say that the Hindus lacked the strength that came from non-violence or the capacity to return blow for blow. Evidently,  he saw

no objection in a Muslim using violence. When, however, it came to Hindu heroes like Guru Gobind Singh, Ranjit Singh, Shivaji and Rana Pratap, he called them misguided patriots in the context of the theory of non-violence as described at length by Gandhi himself in Young India of 9 April   1925. Probably  conscious                                                     that he was heading into a trap of contradictions, he went on to add that if he himself was a contemporary and a fellow citizen of either Washington, Garibaldi or Lenin, he would have called each one of them a misguided patriot. He was answering a question asked by a revolutionary which read as follows:

            Last of all, I shall ask you to answer three questions: Was Guru Gobind Singh a misguided patriot, because he believed in warfare for noble cause? What will you like to say about Washington, Garibaldi and Lenin? What do you think of Kemal Pasha and De Valera? Would you like to call Shivaji and Pratap,

            well meaning and sacrificing physicians who prescribed arsenic when they should have given fresh grape juice? Will you call Krishna Europeanized because he believed also in the vinasha of dushkritas?

When it came to Sri Krishna, Gandhi, in the same article, changed his tune. He stated:

            I believe in Krishna perhaps more than the writer. But my Krishna is the Lord of the Universe, the creator, preserver and destroyer of us all. He may destroy because He creates.

Whether this was due to the fear of God, or the fear of antagonizing all or most Hindus, is a question that only Gandhi himself could answer. Nevertheless, no one can deny that Sri Krishna masterminded the strategy of the Pandavas in the Mahabharata war. Even if one is unfamiliar with the Mahabharata, the sermon of the Bhagwad Gita is self-explanatory advice. That when the cause is rightful no action, however violent, is wrong, even though it may  involve  shedding  the                                            blood      of     one's     own brothers. This was the dharma preached by Sri Krishna to Arjun. Gandhi has elsewhere praised the Gita to high heaven, and has himself, in Gujarati, interpreted it in simple words for the common reader.

Was his theory of non-violence then an excuse for criticizing Hindu heroes, each of whom fought relentlessly against Muslim conquerors of their time? Was there an ulterior motive in Gandhi? Was he trying to appease the Muslims? Why were the Ali Brothers so much on his mind, even as late as 1925, when the Khilafat Movement had been shattered long before? 

I have successfully presented them to the Ali Brothers and many other friends. (for text of complete letter, see annexure).

Incidentally, during 1925, Maulana Muhammad

Ali had the following to say about his erstwhile friend, Gandhi. This is quoted by R.C. Majumdar in The History and Culture of the Indian People, Volume 11, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay:

However pure Gandhi's character may be, he must appear to me from the point of view of religion inferior to any Mussalman, even though he be without character. He repeated it later, saying: Yes, according to my religion and creed, I hold an adulterous and a fallen Mussalman to be better than Mr. (no longer Mahatma) Gandhi.

He was reluctant to discuss Mustafa Kemal Pasha. Was it because he had removed the Khalifa from the throne of Turkey and the Khilafat Movement was an agitation to achieve the opposite i.e. to retain the Caliphate?

It is now for the reader to judge and dispose. Islam draws no dividing line between violence and non-violence. It is clear what is halal and what is haram. But violence has not been called haram in any context. Yet, Gandhi even from this specific angle, never criticized Islam. In fact, he praised Muslim strength and bravery. 

Anexure

Questions raised by the Revolutionary and answers given by the Mahatma

My Friend, The Revolutionary

The revolutionary whom I endeavoured to answer some time ago, has returned to the charge and challenges me to answer certain questions that arise out of my previous answers  to him. I gladly do so. He seems to me to be seeking light, even as I am, and argues fairly and without much passion. So long as he continues to reason calmly, I promise to continue the discussion, His first question is:

            Do you really believe that the revolutionaries of India are less sacrificing, less noble or less lovers of their country than the Swarajists, Moderates and the Nationalists? May I challenge you to keep before the public the names of

            some Swarajists, Moderates or Nationalists who have embraced the death of a martyr for the sake of the motherland? Can you be bold, nay, arrogant enough to deny it in the face of historical facts that the revolutionaries have sacrificed more for their country than any other party which professes to serve India? You are ready to make compromises with other parties, while you abhor our party and describe the(ir) sentiments as poison. Will you not tremble to use the same word of intolerance for the sentiments of any other party which is decidedly inferior in the eyes of God and men to us? What makes you shrink from calling them misguided patriots or venomous reptiles?

I do not regard the revolutionaries of India to be less sacrificing, less noble or less lovers of their country than the rest. But I respectfully contend that their sacrifice, nobility and love are not only a waste of effort, but being ignorant and misguided, do and have done more harm to the country than any other activity. For, the revolutionaries have retarded the progress of the country. Their reckless disregard of the lives of their opponents has brought on repression that has made those that do not take part in their warfare more cowardly than they were before. Repression does good only to those who are prepared for it. The masses are  not  prepared  for the

repression that follows in the trail of revolutionary activities and unwittingly strengthen the hands of the very Government which the revolutionaries are seeing to destroy. It is my certain conviction that had the Chauri Chaura murders not taken place the movement attempted at Bardoli would have resulted in the establishment of swaraj. Is it, therefore, any wonder that with such opinion I call the revolutionary a misguided and therefore, dangerous patriot? I would call my son a misguided and dangerous nurse, who because of his ignorance and blind love fought at the cost of his own life the physicians whose system of medicine no doubt did me harm but which I could not escape for want of will or ability. The result would be that I would lose a noble son and bring down upon my head the wrath of the physicians who, suspecting my complicity in the son's activities, might seek to punish me in addition to continuing    their   harmful                                          course of treatment. If the son had attempted to convince the physicians of their error, or me of my weakness in submitting to the treatment, the physicians might have mended their way, or I might have rejected the treatment, or would, at least, have escaped the wrath of the physicians. I do make certain compromises with the other parties because, though I disagree with them, I do not regard their activities as positively harmful and dangerous as I regard the revolutionaries. I have never called the revolutionaries �venomous reptiles�. But I must refuse to fall into hysterics over their sacrifices, however great they may be, even as I must refuse to give praise to the sacrifice in the illustration supposed by me. I feel sure that those who through insufficient reasoning or false sentiment, secretly or openly, give praise to the revolutionaries for their sacrifices, do harm to them and the cause they have at heart. The writer has asked me to quote instances of non-revolutionary patriots who gave their lives for the country. Well, two completed cases occur to me as I write these notes. Gokhale and Tilak died for their country. They worked in almost disregard of their health and died much earlier than they need have. There is no necessary charm about death on the gallows; often such death is easier than a life of drudgery and toil in malarious tracts. I am quite satisfied that among the Swarajists and others there are men who will any day lay down their lives if they felt convinced that their death would bring deliverance to the country. I suggest to my friend, the revolutionary, that death on the gallows serves the country only when the victim is a �spotless lamb�.

            �India's path is not Europe's�. Do you really believe it? Do you mean to say that warfare and organization of army was not in existence in India, before she came in contact with Europe? Warfare for fair cause - Is it against the spirit of India? Vinashya cha dushkritam - Is it something imported from Europe?    Granted

            that it is, will you be fanatic enough not to take from Europe what is good? Do you believe that nothing good is possible in Europe? If conspiracy, bloodshed and sacrifice for fair cause are bad for India, will they not be bad as well as for Europe?

I do not deny that India had armies, warfare, etc, before she came in contact with Europe. But I do say that it never was the normal course of Indian life. The masses, unlike those of Europe, were untouched by the warlike spirits. I have already said in these pages that I ascribe to the Gita, from which the writer has quoted the celebrated verse, a totally different meaning from that ordinarily given. I do not regard it as a description of, or an exhortation to, physical warfare. And, in any case, according to the verse quoted it is God the All Knowing Who descends to the earth to punish the wicked. I must be pardoned if I refuse to regard every revolutionary as an all-knowing God or an avatar. I do not condemn everything European. But I condemn, for all climes and for all times, secret murders and unfair methods even for a fair cause.

            �India is not Calcutta and Bombay�. May I most respectfully put

            it before your Mahatmaship that the revolutionaries know the geography of India enough to be able to know this geographical fact easily. We hold this fact as much as we hold that a few spinners do not form the Indian nation. We are entering villages and have been successful everywhere. Can you not believe that they, the sons of Shivaji, Pratap and Ranjit, can appreciate our sentiments with more readiness and depth than anything else? Don't you think that armed and conspired resistance against something satanic and ignoble is infinitely more befitting for any nation, especially Indian, than the prevalence of effortlessness and philosophical cowardice? I mean the cowardice which is pervading the length and breadth of India owing to the preaching of your theory of non-violence or more correctly the wrong interpretation and misuse of it. Non-violence is not the theory of the weak and helpless, it is the theory of the strong. We want to produce such men in India, who will not shrink from death  - whenever

            it may come and in whatever form - will do the good and die. This is the spirit with which we are entering the villages. We are not entering the villages to extort votes for councils and district board, but our object is to secure co-martyrs for the country who will die and a stone will not tell where his corpse lies. Do you believe like Mazzini that ideas ripen quickly, when nourished by the blood of martyrs?

It is not enough to know the geographical difference between Calcutta and the villages outside the railways. If the revolutionaries knew the organic difference between these, they would, like me, become spinners. I own that the few spinners we have, do not make India. But I claim that it is possible to make all India spin as it did before, and so far as sympathy is concerned, millions are even now in sympathy with the movement, but they will be with the revolutionary. I dispute  the  claim  that  the

revolutionaries are succeeding with the villagers. But if they are, I am sorry. I shall spare no  pains to frustrate their effort. Armed conspiracies against something satanic is like matching satans against Satan. But since one Satan is one too many for me, I would not multiply him. Whether my activity is effortlessness or all efforts, remains perhaps to be seen. Meanwhile, if it has resulted in making two yards of yarn spun where only one was spinning, it is so much to the good. Cowardice, whether philosophical or otherwise, I abhor. And if I could be persuaded that revolutionary activity has dispelled cowardice, it will go a long way to soften my abhorrence of the method, however much I may still oppose it on principle. But he who runs may see that owing to the non-violent movement, the villagers have assumed a boldness to which only a few years ago they were strangers. I admit that non-violence is a weapon essentially of the strong. I also admit that often cowardice is mistaken for non-violence.

My  friend  begs  the question when he      says  a  revolutionary is one who �does the                     good and dies�. That is precisely what I question. In my opinion, he does the evil and dies. I do not regard killing or assassination or terrorism as good in any circumstances whatsoever. I do believe that ideas ripen quickly when nourished by the blood of martyrs. But a man who dies slowly of jungle fever in service bleeds as certainly as the one on the gallows. And if the one who dies on the gallows is not innocent of another's blood, he never had ideas that deserved to ripen.

            One of your objections against the revolutionaries is that their movement is not mass movement, consequently the mass at large will be very little benefited by the revolution, for which we are preparing. That is indirectly saying that we shall be most benefited by it. Is it really what you mean to say? Do you believe that those persons who are ever ready to die for their country - those mad lovers of their country - I mean the revolutionaries of India in whom the spirit of nishkama karma reigns, will betray their   motherland    and   secure privileges for a life - this trifling life? It is true

            that we will not drag the mass just now in the field of action, because we know that it is weak, but when the preparation is complete, we shall call them in the open field. We profess to understand the present Indian psychology full well, because we daily get the chance of weighing our brethren along with ourselves. We know that the mass of India is after all Indian, it is not weak by itself but there is want of efficient leaders; so when we have begot the number of leaders required by constant propaganda and preaching, and the arms, we shall not shrink from calling, and if necessary, dragging the mass in the open field to prove that they are the descendants of Shivaji, Ranjit, Pratap and Gobind Singh. Besides we have been constantly preaching that the mass is not for the revolution but the revolution is for the mass. Is it sufficient to remove your prejudice in this connection?

I neither say nor imply        that     the    revolutionary                                               benefits if the masses do not. On the contrary, and as a rule, the revolutionary never benefits in the ordinary sense of the world. If the revolutionaries succeed in attracting, not �dragging�, the masses to them, they will find that the murderous campaign is totally unnecessary. It sounds very pleasant and exciting to talk of �the descendants of Shivaji, Ranjit, Pratap and Gobind Singh�. But is it true? Are we all descendants of these heroes in the sense in which the writer understands it? We are their countrymen, but their descendants are the military classes. We may, in future, be able to obliterate caste, but today it persists and therefore the claim put up by the writer cannot in my opinion be sustained.

            Last of all, I shall ask you to answer these questions: Was Guru Gobind Singh a misguided patriot because he believed in warfare for noble cause? What will you like to say about Washington, Garibaldi and Lenin? What do you think of Kamal Pasha and De Valera? Would you like to call Shivaji and Pratap, well-meaning and sacrificing physicians who prescribed arsenic when they should have given fresh grape juice? Will you like to call Krishna Europeanized because he believed also in the vinasha of dushkritas?

This is a hard and rather awkward question. But I dare not shrink in it. In the first  instance  Guru  Gobind  Singh  and  the others whose names are mentioned did not believe in secret murder. In the second, these patriots knew their work and their men, whereas the modern Indian revolutionary does not know his work. He has not the men, he has not the atmosphere, that the patriots mentioned had. Though my views are derived from my theory of life I have not put them before the nation on that ground. I have based my opposition to the revolutionaries on the sole ground of expedience. Therefore, to compare their activities with those of Guru Gobind Singh or Washington or Garibaldi or Lenin would be most misleading and dangerous. But my test of the theory of non-violence, I do not hesitate to say that it is highly likely that had I lived as their contemporary and in the respective countries, I would have called everyone of them a misguided patriot, even though a successful and brave warrior. As it is, I must not judge them. I disbelieve history so far as details of acts of heroes are concerned. I accept broad facts of history and draw my own lessons for my conduct. I do not want to repeat it in so far as the broad facts contradict the highest laws of life. But I positively refuse to judge men from the scanty material furnished to us by history. De mortuis nil nisi bonum. Kemal Pasha and De Valera too I cannot judge. But for me, as a believer in non-violence out and out they cannot be my guides in life in so far as their faith in war is concerned

 I believe in Krishna perhaps more than the writer. But my Krishna is the Lord of the universe, the creator, preserver and destroyer of us all. He may destroy because He creates. But I must not be drawn into a philosophical or religious argument with my friends. I have not the qualifications for practicing the philosophy I believe. I am but a poor struggling soul yearning to be wholly good - wholly truthful and wholly non-violent in thought, word and deed, but ever failing to reach the ideal which I know to be true. I admit, and assure my revolutionary friends, it is a painful climb but the pain of it is a positive pleasure for me. Each step upward makes me feel stronger and fit for the next. But all that pain and pleasure are for me. The revolutionaries are at liberty to reject the whole of my philosophy, To them I merely present my own experiences as co-worker in the same cause even as I have successfully presented them to the Ali Brothers and many other friends. They can and do applaud whole-heartedly the action of Mustafa Kemal Pasha and possibly De Valera and Lenin. But they realize with me that India is not like Turkey or Ireland or Russia and that revolutionary activity is suicidal at this stage of the country's life at any rate, if not for all time in a country so vast, so hopelessly divided and with the masses so deeply sunk in pauperism and so fearfully terror-struck.

Abdul Rashid: Murderer and Brother

On 23 December, 1926, Swami Shraddhananda was murdered in Delhi by one Abdul Rashid. The swami was recovering from an attack of pneumonia. He was in his bed when the miscreant killed him with a dagger. In this context, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar quotes from an article Through Indian Eyes (The Times of India, 30 November, 1927): It is reported that earning merit for the soul of Abdul Rashid, the murderer of Swami Shraddhananda, in the next world, the students and professors of the famous Theological College of Deoband finished five recitations of the Koran and had planned to finish daily a lakh and a quarter of recitations of Koranic verses. Their prayer as God Almighty may give the marhoom (i.e. Rashid) a place in the ala-e-illeeyeen (the summit of the seventh heaven.

Gandhi's comments:

Let every Mussalman also understand that Swami Shraddhanandaji was no enemy of Islam, that his was a pure and unsullied life and that he has left for us all the lessons of peace written in his blood �. I have called Adbul Rashid a brother, and I repeat it, I do not even regard him as guilty of swami's murder. (Rashid was sentenced to death and hanged by the British rulers).

In contrast to what Gandhi wrote about the Swami, Government of India issued in 1970 a commemorative stamp in honour of the swami. The leaflet inter-alia says that the title of Mahatma on Gandhi was conferred by the Gurukul Kangri Institute at Haridwar founded by the swami.

Swami Shraddhanand was born at TaIwan (Jullundur) in 1913 (Vikram Era) corresponding to 1856 A.D. in a well-known and well-to-do khatri family. His father, Shri Nanak Chand was in the service of the East India Company. Swamiji was originally given the name of �Brihaspati�, but later he was called Munshi Ram by his father. This name continued to be in vogue till he was initiated into �Sanyas�. He was the youngest in the family. His school education began at Varanasi and ended at Lahore after passing the examination for pleadership.

He was married to Shrimati Shiva Devi. His wife died when he was 35 years old leaving behind her two sons and two daughters. Munshi Ram had started life as a Naib Tehsildar but he relinquished this post after a short time as he found the duties not consistent with his selfrespect. Later, he practised as a pleader at Phillaur aud Jullundur but gave up this lucrative profession also when the call came from Swami Dayanand Saraswati to serve the Arya Samaj an appeal that he found irresistible.

He founded the Gurukul at Kangri at Hardwar, a unique seat of learning in keeping with the ideals of the Vedic seers. The underlying idea was to produce good and disciplined citizens in the community completely imbued with ancient Vedic ideals and a national outlook. This is the institution which Ramsay Macdonald visited and where he likened Munshi Ram to a biblical prophet walking the shores of Galilee. This is also the institution towards which Mahatma Gandhi was first drawn while he was in South Africa and where he stayed first on his return to India. It was this institution which conferred on Gandhiji the title of the �Mahatma�.

Comments.

April 2017

Editorial
Editorial

Reader's Write
Don't Fall Prey To Communal Instigation

Reader's Write
Defining The Minority

Media
The Destruction Of Mecca

Media
Pew Research Puts Islam As Most Popular Religion By’ 70

Editorial
Invasion Of Assam : Peep Into The Past

Ideology
Pakistan 'Kills 100 Militants' After In Sufi Shrine

Online Books
Prafull Goradia Website
Fico Tech
 


Write


Read

© janasangh.com 2017 Designed & Hosted by GreenMindz