NATIONAL MOVEMENT AND THE ROLE OF MAHATMA GANDHI

I deem it an honour indeed that I should be asked to speak at this function

which is part of observance of Safdar Hashmis martyrdom-anniversary. It
was thought by the organisation that the theme should be one worthy of the
occasion. And so I was asked to speak on Mahatma andhi and the !ational
Movement. It is a very important theme" because it is my belief that in the
cause of the !ational Movement andhi occupied a crucially important
position. #he theme is appropriate" but Im not an e$pert on andhi. I have
read some of his writings" and I have seen secondary material on andhi"
and I have - as many of us have - met people who knew him" who were his
followers or his critics. In any case anyone who is seriously interested in
Indian history must be confronted in his own mind with the nature of the
!ational Movement" which could be regarded as the greatest creation of the
Indian people to date" and" within the nature of andhis legacy. I agreed to
speak on it" despite my limitations" because I thought the time has arrived
when certain %uestions with regard to andhi&is role" and with regard to the
!ational Movement and its nature" could be profitably raised.
I should like to begin with the embarrassment of my own first encounter
with the problem of assessment of andhi&i in slightly personal terms. My
difficulties are not e$ceptional. #hey might have been faced by many who
came to the communist movement during the last phase of the !ational
Movement. 'ith my parents it was not usual to refer to him as andhi&i" but
only as Mahatma&i.
(ven to refer to him as andhi&i was thought of as taking a liberty. It did not
mean that my father was not critical of certain positions taken by andhi&i)
but it meant that whatever the criticism it was within a framework in which
andhi&is total dominance of the !ational Movement was accepted as a fact"
and although one might differ" one must defer to andhis views. *rom this
background" suddenly to come to the references in communist literature
-reading +.,. -utts India #oday - about the mascot of the bourgeoisie" that
general of unbroken disasters" the .onah of +evolution" came as a personal
shock. /ne attributed this sense of shock to the petty - bourgeois class
psychology to which one belonged" but even this didnt satisfy0 and the
dissatisfaction with such an assessment of andhi&i persisted.
It later seemed to me while re-reading +.,. -utt that even within +.,. -utts
attack on andhi there were e$tremely important concessions - the
admission" for e$ample" that andhi alone could enter the house and hearts
of the Indian poor" where the Indian bourgeoisie could never gain entrance.
How and why did he have this particular %uality1 Any e$planation of how
andhi achieved this rapport with the Indian poor and with the Indian people
as a whole was missing in+.,. -utts analysis. I think that subse%uent
assessments of andhi became difficult because of a particular
misconception of its own position in the !ational Movement by the 2eft. #he
2eft not only decried the bourgeois leadership of the !ational Movement and
its various limitations" but tried to suggest as if the 2eft movement was
parallel to the !ational Movement" +.,. -utt" indeed" thought of the working
class movement and the communist movement" as essentially part of the
!ational Movement" in which it was contesting with the bourgeoisie for
leadership. 3ut in certain writings of (.M.S. !amboodiripad" for e$ample"
notably his latest collection of articles on the freedom struggle which are
built upon a reading of #arachands History of the" *reedom Movement and
certain other writings" it seems in fact as if there were three parties to the
struggle - imperialism" bourgeois nationalism" and Mar$-ism.or working class
movement.
#he subalterns take this to its logical e$treme in which the whole !ational
Movement is seen as an elitist movement. #he subaltern classes" according
to this theory" consisting of the 4amindars and other rural strata" had
autonomy" and based on this autonomy they contested for power with
imperialism" whereas the national elite merely benefited from their struggle"
and instead of transferring power to the subalterns they transferred power to
themselves. #herefore" in a sense" imperialism and nationalism were of the
same category" or belonged to the same class more or less" vi4." westerni4ed
elite" while the subalterns" who carried out the autonomous struggles"
would" as was almost fatally inevitable" lose out. It was on the basis of their
autonomous struggles that the national leadership or !ational Movement
took power from 3ritain. #his puts the Mar$ist movement also along with the
elitist nationalist leadership. #hen" because you have the term subaltern on
one side" you dont have the bourgeoisie on the other side" you have elites -
and whether they are imperialist elites or nationalist elites" it doesnt
apparently matter.
#he subalterns are so satisfied with their theology that andhi is not very
relevant to them" and although we are told by some scholars that subaltern
studies have opened a new vision on andhi" Ive not been blessed with
receiving that kind of insight from them. It seems to me that lumping
everyone in one basket of undifferentiated elites" or very thinly differentiated
elites" and treating the subalterns as autonomous" which means denying the
influence of andhi on those vast classes of the Indian poor" is a position no
serious historian can adopt. And if-you start with this denial" then" of course"
you cannot offer any real perception of andhi.
Imperialist historians" or 3ritish overnment officials during the 3ritish
period" and post-Independence 3ritish historians thereafter" have always
tried to argue that andhi was only a Mahatma to look at from outside0
otherwise he was a very clever politician" a master of manipulation" and that
the 3ritish in a sense themselves created the myth of andhi with their
actions" both constitutional and political. #hose who are familiar with Seals
work would remember that" according to him" the nationalist appeal did not
ac%uire any popular support till the elections of 5678" because it was the
overnment of India Act 5679 rather than andhis and other nationalist
mobilisations which gave Indian politicians the necessary impetus to reach
out to the Indian masses. As for those who in the !on-:ooperation
Movement of 567;-75" risked their lives and property for Indian freedom at
andhis call" .udith 3rown has already put them in their place) they were
merely andhis sub-contractors or intermediaries. #heirs was a business
enterprise" no real movement. So" not andhism" nor any other strand in
the !ational Movement" 2eft or any other" but the constitutional measures of
the 3ritish government" particularly the overnment of India Act 5679"
created that massive nationalist following among the Indian people. #he
application of the !amierist method by the :ambridge School -Seal" .udith
3rown and others - results" as has been said about its application to (nglish
history" in an e$tensive loss of the wood for the trees. I particularly
remember the fact that Seal tells you about -adabhai !aoro&is personal
financial problems" but you will never realise from Seal that -adabhai
!aoro&i wrote papers over time which" collected together" became almost the
nationalist bible on the economic role of imperialism. He has no e$planation
why -adabhai !aoro&i continued to be supported by 3ombay mill-owners
even when he supported and urged the passage of industrial labour
legislation. #hat ideas have a momentum of their own is a fact which the
:ambridge school and its supporters so easily overlook. #here are thus
obvious imperfections in their approach to andhi on which I need not dilate
further with the general imperialist approach to the !ational Movement.
'e are then favoured also by the psychoanalysis of andhi" e.g. undertaken
by (rikson and <akar" where particularly his relations with his .another are
emphasised" and for some reason Indian culture is itself described as
feminine. I have not been able to see how this gender characterisation of
any culture is possible. Such an approach" which is (urocentric" and
psychological" results in an obvious depreciation and belittling of andhis
importance.
#he literature containing the andhian or nationalist adulation of andhi&i" is
considerable0 some of it is also academically important and contains criticism
here and there. #arachands book on the *reedom Movement has certain
criticisms for e$ample" on andhis role in the Second +ound #able
:onference. So one can not dismiss this entire body of literature as mere
adulation. 3ut by emphasising andhis immense achievement as a person
and not relating it" I think" to the social environment and the historical
situation" this body of literature though important =and one must remember
that most of the massive literature on andhi comes from this large body of
literature> is not very satisfying to me in its total perception. ,artly this is
because its conception of social development is not one which I share. 3ut
essentially I think one has an inward reservation about it" because the focus
is so much on andhi that the people of India whom he worked and died for"
appear merely as obedient admirers.
!ow with the rather arrogant criticism" for which I apologise" of various
historical interpretations" I would like to go on to my provisional views0 and
as I describe these I think the ma&or %uestions that I pose would basically
appear.
*irst of all" I would argue that andhi&i autobiography My ($periments 'ith
#ruth is very important for us. It is so honest that perhaps of all great
figures in modem history andhi becomes easily the victim of *reudian
psychoanalysis. 3ut while I would accept every fact that andhi&i gives of
himself" and as he gives it - and of the most dramatic events he is perhaps
the dullest narrator - yet I would argue that he is perhaps not the best
authority for our own perception of the genesis of his thought. *or e$ample"
he always described himself as a Sanatani Hindu0 yet he did not pray in a
temple. =#his hesitation to bow before images may have come from his
mother who belonged to a 3hakti sect in which image worship was
condemned.>
#he basic point is that the serious body of thought that andhi first came
into contact with was modem" western thought. It was not traditional Indian
thought. It was after his modem education at +a&kot and at 2ondon that he
even read the 3hagvad ita =in (ngland>. 'hile he may have &oined a
vegetarian society" and might have come into contact with #heosophists -
although one understands that his ma&or contact with #heosophists" that
also of not a long duration" was in South Africa" in -urban - essentially it
was liberal values that andhi assimilated when he was in (ngland. #hese
influences were strong enough for him to go to *rance when the centenary
celebrations of the *rench +evolution were taking place. 'e know that when
he went to South Africa in the early 5?6;s to stay there with some small
breaks for twenty-one years" he began reading +uskin and #olstoy and other
western thinkers. His criticism of certain features of both western and Indian
civili4ations did not come from a reading of modem (uropean writing.
I do not think there is in the entire body of Indian tradition such an
emphasis on dignity of labour as he obtained from" and which he himself
attributed to" a reading of +uskin" whose book @nto #his 2ast he also
translated into u&arati.
His emphasis on peace" and not war" as means of settling political issues
came from #olstoy rather than any Indian tradition. In the Indian tradition
ahimsa is seen more as abstaining from taking of life and" therefore" a
logical early stage to vegetarianism. It has not been in traditional Indian
thought perceived as a means of carrying out a revolution. #herefore the
essential strands in andhis own intellectual make-up are certainly modem
and this is a very important point to remember. andhi recognised the debt
he owed to these thinkers. He was too honest a man not to e$tend this
recognition. 3ut his own belief that these writings merely strengthened"
merely underlined" merely reinforced what was present in his mind" perhaps
dormant" from Indias own tradition" must be doubted.
!ow clearly having found this body of thought which appealed to him"
which re&ected capitalism" which was the creation of the modem western
civili4ation" which re&ected imperialism that had established itself through
war and massacres" andhi re&ected western civili4ation itself nearly
wholesale. #his re&ection became the starting point for asserting the
superiority of Indian civili4ation which neither possessed capitalism" nor
possessed imperialism. So the very poverty of Indian civili4ation in material
terms became for andhi the ground for asserting its superiority.
#his process was a very comple$ one" and the comple$ities" and the
contradictions are apparent in andhis ma&or work Hind Swara&" written on
a voyage from (ngland to South Africa in 56;6. Already by the time of Hind
Swara&" andhis internal perception of the genesis of his own thought is
complete. He reads into the 3hagvad ita that" which it seems to one is not
there. He reads a message of duty" he reads a message of dignity of labour"
and he reads a message of peace. He was similarly to assert e%ually
unhistorically that the message of peace can be read as strongly in the
Auran. andhis words often seem much more a restatement of the !ew
#estament than either of the 3hagvad ita or the Auran. #hey are not to be
seen as an assertion of the traditional against modem values. 'hat we get is
the assertion of modem values in traditional garb" a re-reading of Indian
culture in a totally ahistorical way" but e$tremely creative fashion.
Something of it was there in the 3engal +enaissance" in +am Mohun +oys
appeal to the @panishads" and in his appeal to certain legal books which
gave inheritance rights to women. In andhis case the convergence of
statement of modem values in traditional terms was far more complete and
far more e$tensive" although" for this reason" the contradictions within it
were also very glaring.
andhis reading of Indian culture cannot be &ustified by any reading of
historical te$ts. 3ut what he was ascribing to Hinduism or Islam - his
ascriptions to Islam were" of course" comparatively fewer - were the
principles he had in mind with regard to Hinduism" which led to the
remoulding of Hinduism in its present form. /ne of the achievements of
andhi is" I think" that he changed the course of Hinduism or at least gave a
new face to Hinduism" even when all the time he was saying that he was
merely asserting its ancient values. @ltimately" and over a long process" he
'ould accept a position of traditional Hinduism" only to undermine it0 for
e$ample his acceptance first of the vama principle in the Hind Swara& and
then his steady undermining of it until almost nothing remained of it by the
56B;s. /r" his acceptance first of a special position for women in the house
as implied in the Hind Swara& and then his undermining of it till in the 56B;s
he was arguing - I still remember an interview of a newspaper
correspondent with andhi in 56B9-BC - for the e%uality of women. andhi
clearly said that he not only believed in the e%uality of men and women but
that women could do all the things that men could do" and men would not be
able to do all the things that women do. #he correspondent asked andhi
that if ahimsa permitted war" could women be soldiers0 and andhi said they
would be better soldiers and generals than men. So this was a man who by
the 56B;s was not prepared to accept any difference" any disability" in
women in relation to men. May be there are certain statements which
militate against this but generally the tone of andhis later thought is to
re&ect any kind of ine%uality between man and woman.
#hen there is his emphasis on monotheism when he was all the time denying
this emphasis. He would say that he was a Sanatani Hindu and on this basis
he would support the movement of the untouchables to enter temples" and
yet" unlike todays politicians" in his personal life he never gave concession
to anything short of monotheism. #herefore" he tended to make Hinduism
more of a monotheistic religion than even the Arya Sama&ists with whom he
did not agree. He also ascribed to Hinduism a degree of tolerance which
perhaps in its history it had not possessed" and" therefore" tried to make it a
more tolerant religion. In this sense he was perhaps working on the same
lines as his precursors like +am Mohun +oy and <eshavchandra Sen and
.ustice +anade. ,erhaps he was the last of these men) he is greatest of
them undoubtedly. 3y attributing all his statements to roots in the Indian
civili4ation" and particularly in Hinduism" he created a picture of Hinduism
which made it possible for its followers to accept modem values. It is a
religion which has nothing in common with the Hindutva cult. andhis +am
was od" and his +am +a&ya did not relate to something that was remotely
sectarian. ods +ule would be a better translation of it. It bore the same
sense in which <abir referred to ram. :learly then even andhis religiosity is
based on an e$tension of humanitarian values and their application to
perhaps the most ancient of all surviving religions" resulting in a vast
transformation of its beliefs. #hose who in the 5??;s thought that the caste
system was basic to Hinduism" by the year of andhis death would have
been ashamed if anyone were to refer to it as an essential part of Hinduism.
#his was the e$tent of andhis achievement in relation to the theological
tenets of Hinduism.
My main point here is to assert that andhi is a modern thinker. #hose of
you" who would like to designate thought in class terms" are welcome to call
him a bourgeois thinker. 3ut I would like to remind you of a peculiar
idiosyncrasy of <arl Mar$" which ,rof. ,atnaik may have noticed. 'hen he
encounters an economist who has not thought properly" who is a vulgariser"
he always calls him a bourgeois economist. 3ut as far as" the two principal
bourgeois economists Adam Smith and +icardo are concerned" it is always of
their classical political economy that he speaks. I would" therefore" rather
think of andhi as a classical modem figure. If still bourgeois" then not in
the sense of a personal classification" but defined by the end to which his
social and political strategy" despite his own sub&ective intentions was bound
to lead. 3ourgeois in any case" even as a designation represents no single
body of thought0 and I think we are beginning to recognise that socialist
proletarian thought cannot be a single body of consistent thought either.
#here could be" and were different strands of classical bourgeois thought -
his was one strand. Although andhis thought-content was anti-imperialist"
and sub&ectively anti-capitalist =because anti-industrial>" nevertheless since
he did not e$tend his aims to socialism" he essentially remained within the
bourgeois framework.
'ith regard to the !ational Movement I think" again" some points need to be
stressed. #he !ational Movement had already begun" already established
itself" when andhi entered the political field in South Africa. #he founding
fathers of the !ational Movement had a level of criti%ue of imperialism which
one can only admire today. -adabhai !aoro&i and +.:. -utt wrote criti%ues
of imperialism" which later Mar$ist writing largely followed without any ma&or
improvement during the 3ritish rule. #hey underscored the modem
imperialist e$ploitation of India. 3ut they underscored one other important
point - that the !ational Movement can only create a modern India.
#here cannot be any going back to Ancient India and" therefore" India did
not only need education" it needed a new ideology. #his ideology they sought
to create through various kinds of movements like the 3rahma Sama&0 and I
would like to recall here that in 5?7; +am Mohun +oy said that India cannot
be a nation because it is divided up among many castes. If India had to be a
nation then the caste system had to be re&ected. I think <eshavchandra Sen
must be particularly respected because he e$tended this view also to the
repression of women" and in 5?8; propounded the idea that as India
reformed itself it would become a nation. So India was not historically a
nation. It was making itself into a nation by re&ecting its past as a divided
society" a society divided according to castes and religions. It was making
itself into a nation by re&ecting the traditional oppression of women" by
absorbing modem thought and trying to develop a modem capitalist
economy. #he swadeshi or the development of the internal Indian economy
in their minds was directed towards an industrial capitalist economy" the only
kind of advanced economy they saw functioning around them. -adabhai
!aoro&i may have been drawn towards the socialists because the socialists
were anti-imperialists" and he might also have been drawn to labour
legislation" but essentially his notion of the future of India" and of +.:. -utt"
was what can be called capitalism with a human face - in Mr. !arsimha
+aos terminology" but with more substance.
#he second important thing about andhi was his desire to unite the
!ational Movement with economic struggles. #he earlier thinkers among the
Moderates had provided intellectual material. #hey had shown how India was
being e$ploited by (ngland" but in their actual politics they acted merely as
spokesmen. #hey made demands on behalf of the Indian people but they
were unable to spread these very ideas among the masses whose cause
they espoused. #hey spoke of banning e$ports of Indian food grains" but
there were no demonstrations of hungry famine-stricken people supporting
their demands. #here was practically no popular mobilisation. 'ith andhi
one enters an important phase in the !ational Movement where mobilisation
for economic demands became a part of the !ational Movement. It seems to
me that this is an e$tremely important achievement which is not actually
diminished by the fact that the earlier demands behind such mobilisations
were e$tremely limited.
!owhere in the world does a trade union start with the most radical
demands. 'e always start with the demand" say" that temporary employees
be made regular employees0 it is only later that we gain in confidence and
begin to make further demands about pay and promotion. :ertainly any
trade union which" according to the wishes of the subalterns and other such
radicals" has a strike everyday would have a very short life in the working
class movement. :learly" the necessarily limited nature of day-to-day
demands and the ability to compromise are an inalienable part of any
serious peasant and working class movement. 'hen we say that andhi in
the :hamparan Satyagraha in 5658 was merely leading rich peasants" this is
an important point to consider. :ertainly it should be found out who were
mainly affected0 but first of all we ought to recall that andhi did not lead
them because he thought they were rich peasants. Second" it was clear that
the demands had to be narrow because without any partial success the
Satyagraha would have had a totally demoralising effect. So also in the
<heda Satyagraha and the Ahmedabad working class strike. :riticisms that
the demands were limited" that compromises were entered into are not very
serious criticisms. (ven the greatest Mar$ists would have done the same.
#hey may perhaps have not gone on hunger strike" but at some stage they
must have compromised. Dou cannot in one agitation overthrow the landlord
system in India" or the capitalist system in Ahmedabad or the 3ritish rule in
:hamparan or in <heda district.
Another important achievement" as I see" in andhi is his immediate
identification with the peasantry. He might use religious language for it"
which one may deplore" but the essential point remains that to him peasants
were those with whom he identified himself most. I have been amused to
read in Subaltern Studies" Eolume I" an analysis of a document in which
andhi is supposed to have abandoned the peasants and made a
compromise with the 4amindars. Although the subalterns did not %uote +.,.
-utt" the approach here is identical) andhi had made a compromise with
4amindars" he had surrendered to 4amindars in 56FF" forced the peasant to
retreat and so on. 3ut in interpreting this discourse - and these are
interpreters who look very closely at each word" the subalterns forget that
when andhi used the word we in this document he meant peasants and
when he used they he meant the 4amindars" thus indicating essentially an
element of differentiation from the 4amindars and solidarity with the peasant
masses of the country. !ow you can argue that this was false identification"
that he was not in fact representing the peasants long term interests. =2et
us forget about the temporary compromise" because as far as compromises
are concerned" I have argued that they are essential in any movement.>
:ompromises will always be sub&ect to criticism" but in the long term even
when andhi was talking about 4amindars as trustees" as custodians of
peasants who should be paid rent so that they open schools and hospitals"
he was still raising a fresh issue. *irst of all" rent could be reduced" a matter
about which +am Mohun +oy had also written" but very cautiously. *or
andhi rents could be reduced by peaceful methods" by negotiation" but he
was to be &ustified only if it was spent on health and education. 'hy should
a 4amindar collect rent if he was not able to en&oy it1 #his meant that even
the idea of trusteeship brought into %uestion rights of the 4amindars in an
indirect manner. And one should also remember that in the 56F;s while
peasants might rise here and there" the general situation was not of
unrestrained revolt. /ne cannot" read into the peasant movement of 5656-
FF what was the creation of the 2eft in the 567;s. It would be absurd and it
would be belittling the contribution of the 2eft and of andhis own
constructive programme in the 56F;s and 567;s to consider peasant
consciousness in the 56F;s at level with peasant consciousness in the
567;s. iven that position" obviously a totally hostile attitude to the
4amindars would have made the situation for the !ational Movement even
more comple$ in the early 56F;s. 3ut peasants did come into the :ivil
-isobedience Movement in 567;. #hey came to the :ivil -isobedience
Movement" in far larger numbers than during non-cooperation where their
participation was relatively scattered and fragmentary. ,erhaps class
analysis would show that most of them were rich peasants and small
4amindars. 3ut one of the important facts doesnt come out well even in
Sumit Sarkar. #his is that when we are talking of imprisonment in the civil
disobedience of 567; and are sneering about the fact that the number of
prisoners did not e$ceed 5;;";;; even by :ongress estimates" we are again
reading into 567; what is the position in 566B. Imprisonment in 567; was
not like political imprisonment today when going to prison hardly matters.
It is a kind of good certificate for a political career. In fact I know of political
parties who say a local leader is &udged by the number of people he can
bring in his trucks to court arrest for one day. I remember an agitation when
we had brought peasants promising them that they would be kept in prison
for only one week" and unfortunately the government kept them in prison for
a month. #hey were not angry with the government. #hey were angry with
us. 3ut in 567; prison meant one could never get employment and could
well lose ones property in the bargain0 and therefore" I am surprised that
even 5;;";;; went into civil disobedience under such circumstances.
:onsider losing your land" being thrown out of your family" and if you look at
this" certainly" the peasant participation in the civil disobedience movement
all over India and even in the !'* ,rovince" is an important fact.
#his was soon followed by the <arachi +esolution which povided a blueprint
for industrial development of India - which was totally opposed to andhis
views - the public sector" the government ownership of key industries"
working class rights" and" in rather cautious terms" land to the tiller with
some compensation to the 4amindars" universal adult suffrage already
promised in the Motilal :ommittee +eport" e%ual rights to women" separation
of religion from state - every modem political idea of a bourgeois welfare
state is there in the <arachi +esolution. #he basic idea of bourgeois welfare
state happens to coincide fairly e$tensively with the concept that the
communist movement developed of peoples democracy as a first stage after
revolution. #herefore" clearly the <arachi +esolution is an important platform
for the 2eft also. It united andhi with centrist radicals like !ehru and with
the 2eft. And andhis acceptance of it" and his position that although the
<arachi +esolution didnt represent his views"
represented the :ongress views and therefore he would not have any
%uarrel with - the :ongress governments which implemented it" must
certainly be recognised. #his was an important concession" the work of a
person who could lay aside his own views" and accept contrary views"
because the peasants had served the civil disobedience movement and had
to have their reward. #he working class had largely kept away and so
workers had to be attracted back to the !ational Movement. 'omen had
come out to participate" and they too had to have their share in the future of
India. #he <arachi +esolution was a kind of recognition of the re%uirements
of a situation that andhi himself had helped to bring about. And so far as
andhi allowed this to stand as part of the :ongress programme he must be
credited with a very important share in giving to the :ongress" a leftward
direction. andhis subse%uent life" in which it became clear that free India
would not be as he saw it" moved ine$orably towards tragedy. He had
unleashed forces the direction of whose movement was so different from
what he wanted it to be. I think in this tragedy one also recognises his
greatness" because andhi accepted" as I have said" in the <arachi
+esolution and later" the promises that the :ongress had made to the <isans
and to the #rade @nions. andhi recognised the direction" while he criticised
it. In one particular respect" in the communal divide which tended to
intensify again from the late 567;s" andhi was constantly on the side of
moderation. andhi had not taken the view which the 2eft adopted in the
567;s that if the !ational Movement was to be secular then Hindu or Muslim
communalism could have no place within it. It was an important position" a
bold position. 3ut it was not andhis position. #ilak before andhi had
brought the :ongress and Muslim 2eague together" on that classic
compromise" the communal electrorate for Muslims in e$change for Muslim
2eagues acceptance of Home +ule. My friend ,rofessor 3ipan :handra
decries it. Det" I think it was one of the notable landmarks in the
development of the !ational Movement. andhi himself invoked <hilafat
:ommittee - Abbas #yab&i was one of andhis very close followers. 3ut
andhi felt the <hilafat Movement would e$tend the scope of the !ational
Movement. /n this there could always be discussion. andhi felt that he
could ally with Muslim communalism or indeed with Hindu communalism also
on particular issues to enlarge the !ational Movement. iven this argument"
the <hilafat Movement was a logical development of andhian strategy.
#he criticism of separate electorates" and so on" came more vocally from the
2eft than from andhi who while standing up for a general electorate was
willing to give concessions. Indeed" in 5675 on all the ma&or points" .innahs
demands had been conceded" but unfortunately .innah and the Muslim
2eague now looked to 3ritish imperialism to give them these concessions
than to the !ational Movement. #his is a very important point which some
historians miss while they tend to blame the :ongress and the 2eague
e%ually for the course that led ultimately to the partition. It seems to me
again that in the @, :abinet issue of 5678 it was !ehru and the 2eft who
took a more rigid position" than andhi and Abul <alam A4ad" who were
willing to induct the Muslim 2eague ministers" perhaps in order to modify the
anti-4amindar edge of !ehrus supporters. :ertainly the people who
mismanaged the @, cabinet formation were not andhis supporters who
were indeed urging a compromise. Subse%uently in 56BB" :. +a&agopalachari
entered into negotiations with .innah and the -esai-2ia%at formula of 56B9
conceded parity" that is the very unfair position that Muslim 2eague which
was in a minority should have a parity in the central cabinet with the
:ongress. andhi went to e$tremes in giving these and other concessions" in
order to preserve the unity of the country.
Det the %uestion remains whether andhi" in identifying himself with Hindu
social reform and with Hindus generally" antagonised Muslims. #his is a
%uestion that is very difficult to answer because clearly if the !ational
Movement was to be allied with social reform which was so deeply wedded to
religion" it could not be separated entirely from religion. /ne" to speak within
the religious framework for social reform as andhi did" and the other" to
re&ect religion altogether" which is what the 2eft did.
/ne would not know which device would have been more successful given
the Indian situation. 3ut certainly andhi adopted the first one) he sincerely
adopted it - he was himself religious. It became clear that one position he
had was that of a Hindu social reformer. andhi found it very difficult to
speak of social reform to Muslims" to condemn bigamy" to demand share in
inheritance for daughters among Muslims and so on. If he had emphasised
such reform the alienation of the Muslims from him would have been still
greater. And therefore it is not easy to condemn him on this score. He did all
that could be e$pected of him to do to assert that all religions were true" but
that all religions had some errors. #hey should e$ist together. Moving away
from his controversial terminology of the late 567;s" he argued by 56B8 that
Hindustani was the national language of India in both -evnagri and @rdu
scripts. He was a promoter of e%uality of Hindi and @rdu as separate forms
of that language. I dont know how many know that he wrote @rdu also and
that his spelling was fairly correct. He didnt make mistakes in @rdu words"
and to my aunt his letters always ended with 3apu ki dua. He promoted
Hindustani" a language to which Hindus and Muslims could both respond. 3y
this" and by emphasising monotheism" he was trying to bring together
people of various faiths. He had recitations from different scriptures" in his
prayer meetings. !evertheless it was clear that he was a Hindu) but if
Muslims were not to accept a devout Hindu as their leader" then does it not
mean that they had already in their minds become separatists1 'hy should
a devout Hindu leader be re&ected by Muslims - a Hindu who is saying that
they are like brothers to him" who is. saying that the Muslims religion is the
Muslims business" who is saying that in the national wealth of India they
would have an e%ual share1 #he real %uestion is" why should Muslims feel
that way1 I am not ready to accept +.,. -utts position that because andhi
said that he was a devout Hindu it alienated the Muslims. 'hen 3adshah
<han said he was a devout Muslim" it did not alienate the Hindus of the
!orth 'est *rontier. Muslim separatism did not arise" nor Hindu
communalism" for the reason that andhi said that he was a devout Hindu.
#here are other reasons. #here could be two paths to social reform" the
Hindu language framework of andhi and the totally secular framework of
the 2eft" but the point is we cant &udge between them today because it is
the andhian language which succeeded0 the 2eft was only marginally in
competition in this area.
!ow I would take up two last %uestions. /ne is that of Auit India. I feel
certain in my mind that andhis decision to give the call of Auit India then
was a mistake. #he communist party was %uite right in opposing this
resolution. It was clear that andhis perception of the world at that time
was not as clear as his perception of India. It seems to me that he thought
the Allies were having a very hard time"in the war" and therefore this was
the time to get concessions. #he 2eft also thought that the Allies were going
to have a very bad time" and therefore if Soviet +ussia was to be saved" this
was the time to come to its assistance. Same perception of the world" but
opposite inferences. #he whole %uestion is whether a temporary advantage
for India was to guide the !ational Movement or the future of the world as a
whole. #hese two opposite strategies were in conflict. #oday we know that
the Allies position" although bad" was not so bad as it appeared to andhi
and his colleagues in the AI:: and to the communist leadership. However" if
you read Stalins letters" Stalin was writing to :hurchill and +oosevelt that
+ussia has lost so much territory that it could be defeated or be so
weakened that it could no longer be of any assistance to the Allies. #his was
an e$tremely difficult time" between the offensive on Moscow and the battle
of Stalingrad. #here are times when national interest comes into conflict with
larger interests of world peoples" and if the larger interest weighed with the
communist dissenters" I would" even at this time" when it is fashionable to
regret it" hold it to be the right decision. I would also not condemn andhi
for his position. #he Indians had waited too long and had been patient.
andhi had described the ($tremists and the Moderates as the patient and
the impatient lot" and patience had now run out for all. 3ut it was clear that
andhis perception of the world situation" as of the communists" were
wrong. #he +ussian people and the Soviet system was strong enough to
defeat Hitler and this being so the Auit India e$ercise became meaningless.
Accordingly it is obvious that andhi never e$pected that there would be a
rebellion or a violent agitation) he wanted to tell the 3ritish that if you really
want to make peace with Indians" when faced with such continuing A$is
Successes" then you must offer substantive concessions to the Indian
:ongress leaders. 3ut the +ed Army changed the situation by defeating
Hitler at Stalingrad. #he result was that 3ritish imperialism did not need to
talk with the imprisoned leaders. I do not think andhi was so ignorant of
the Indian situation as to have thought that there would be a rebellion of the
Indian people and the situation for the 3ritish in the war would worsen and
there would be a compromise.
My last point0 I think andhis finest hours were his last months-that when
massacres broke out" andhi stood by his principles0 and here he could
forget the narrow national interests for the larger cause. If you remember he
said in so many words) # am not for the moment concerned with the
massacres in ,akistan. I am basically concerned with the massacres in -elhi
and its neighbourhood therefore" I am going on hunger strike here. 'hen I
succeed here" I would go on hunger strike there in ,akistan" which is also
my country. #he second demand he made was that India must pay +s.99
crore to ,akistan. *or the *ather of a !ation to take a direct position against
his own nation" and in support of another country whose goverment was
showering abuse on him and the entire Indian people" I think that was
andhis finest act. It was an action for which he ultimately gave his life at
the hands of one of the heroes and precursors of the present Sangh ,arivar.
It seems to me that there is a message in this particular action for all serious
political movements - a message that there is a point at which to
compromise with principle is fatal. andhis own success in stopping the
massacres in India was achieved by frontally opposing the GmainstreamG
communal perceptions. /ne must take a position which is right even if it is
opposed to the national GconsensusG. How many of us could remember it in
56CF or 56C91
'hen we had a small war with ,akistan in 56C9" our @niversity had a
meeting and our :hancellor said that if he had been young he would have
gone to war with the Indian &awans. #hen we had a compromise at #ashkent
and the same :hancellor at a meeting held thereafter told us it had been a
very Gfoolish warG and in effect %uoted (MS !amboodiripad. /ne realises
that in these national enthusiasms of the moment" particularly of the kind
that we have been through &ust now over 3abri Mas&id" and perhaps we will
be going through such moments again and again" it is e$tremely important
to stick to a principled position and to keep to it. I particularly wish to say
that when SAHMA# adopted a certain position in respect of Ayodhya and
when the Speaker defied all rules of the book" to direct that the SAHMA#
e$hibition must be removed from the premises of a public institution" then I
think it was a mark of honour for SAHMA# to be so favoured. 'hat SAHMA#
did was precisely in accordance with what andhi had done0 and therefore it
is fitting today that while commemorating Safdar Hashmi" we also celebrate
andhi.
One of the greatest men in the history of India is unarguably Mahatma Gandhi. The way
he gave shape and character to India's freedom struggle is worthy of a standing ovation.
He sacrificed his own life for the sake of his country. The respect that he earned for
himself despite leading a simple lifestyle is much appreciable. Mahatma Gandhi played
a pivotal role in the freedom struggle of India. His non violent ways and peaceful
methods were the foundation for gaining independence from the ritish. !ead about
Mahatma Gandhi's role in freedom struggle of India.
Mahatma Gandhi was born Mohandas "aramchand Gandhi on #nd October at
$orbandar located in Gu%arat. He went off to &outh 'frica after marriage and worked as
barrister there for twenty years. In &outh 'frica( he had his first brush with apartheid.
Once while he was traveling in a train( he was thrown out of the first class compartment
despite having a ticket. This made him swear that he would do his best to erase
apartheid from the face of his world. He went back to India only to find that his own
country was being ruled by the ritish and his fellow citi)ens were being treated harshly
by the ritish.
*ike other great men in history( Gandhi took his time to
grow and develop his techni+ues to ensure that his actions
made an impact. His faith in different religions was
commendable. His listened to the teachings of ,hristianity
with the same belief and faith he read the Hindu scriptures
with. He was brutally honest and truthful and this helped
him throughout his life. &ome of the ma%or movements and freedom struggles led by
him are discussed below.
Non Co-operation Movement
One of the first series of non violent protests nationwide was the non cooperation
movement started by Mahatma Gandhi. This movement officially started the Gandhian
era in India. In this freedom struggle( the non cooperation movement was basically
aimed at making the Indians aware of the fact that the ritish government can be
opposed and if done actively( it will keep a check on them. Thus( educational institutions
were boycotted( foreign goods were boycotted( and people let go off their nominated
seats in government institutions. Though the movement failed( Indians awakened to the
concept of going against the ritish.

Civil Disobedience Movement
Gandhi again took off with another non violent movement known as the civil
disobedience movement. This movement was more active than the non cooperation
movement and brought about a revolution of sorts. This movement aimed at bringing
the ritish administration to a stop by withdrawing support from everything. There was
agitation against land revenue( abolition of salt ta-( cutting down military e-penditure(
levying duty on foreign cloth( etc. ' very important movement was that of &alt
&atyagraha where Gandhi undertook the .andi march as a protest against the &alt ta-.
Quit India Movement
The /uit India Movement was launched under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi in
'ugust 012#. The main aim for launching this movement was to bring the ritish to
negotiate with the Indian leaders. It was a call for immediate independence of India and
the slogan of 3.o or .ie3 was adopted for the same. However the leaders were arrested
soon after Gandhi's speech and were put in %ail by ritish officials. Gandhi went on a
fast for #0 days demanding the release of the leaders despite his failing health. The
ritish had to secure the release of the leaders.
India Independence
'fter the /uit India Movement the freedom struggle got even more intense and
passionate. 4ntire India was united together in the movement for freedom. 4veryone
contributed what they could in the freedom struggle. The cry of $urna &wara% or
complete independence was raised. 'fter much sacrifices and efforts( India gained its
independence on the 05th 'ugust( 0126.