Answers by Mahatma Gandhi at Gandhi Seva Sangh meeting

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Senior Gandhian Scholar

Gandhi Research Foundation, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09404955338, 09415777229

E-mail- [e-mail];

[e-mail]

Mailing Address- C- 29, Swaraj Nagar, Panki, Kanpur- 208020, Uttar Pradesh, India

 

 

Answers by Mahatma Gandhi at Gandhi Seva Sangh meeting

 

 

 

 Here are some questions received from Annada Babu. He says he is asking the questions not for himself but for others.

 QUESTION: Your statement after Subhas Babu’s election has somewhat changed the situation. Why did you not issue any statement at the time of the election? Some people are of the view that the present situation would not have arisen if you had issued a statement at the time of the election.

ANSWER: It is true that I did not issue any statement. According to Annada Babu that has changed the situation. What he means is that the situation would not have taken the turn it did if I had issued a statement earlier. But the statement issued by Sardar Vallabhbhai and others contained a small sentence which suggested that I too was connected with it. Moreover, there was no particular occasion then. I saw no need to issue a statement at the time. It became necessary subsequently. It is a long story. I shall not go into it. It was not a question of my having been sluggish. Nor was there any mistake in explaining the situation to the country. I had conveyed to Subhas Babu what I felt. That is the way I work. In the end all that remains is for me to put up with any misunderstanding that may have arisen. If there are any more questions from anyone on the point they will be welcome. Some people are under the impression that you were not in favour of the Pant resolution. What was your reaction when you first knew about the resolution? Why did you write to Subhas Babu that the more you thought of it the more you disliked it? Kindly explain. First of all, you are all aware that I was confined to bed at the time.

It is not my way to interfere in something with which I am not concerned. That is why I remained indifferent to the developments at Tripuri. So much so that I even avoided reading the newspapers in those days. My mind was preoccupied with Rajkot. Someone reported to me that Pantji intended to move some such resolution. I understood at the time that the resolution would express confidence in the old Working Committee. I stated that while expression of confidence was all right I would have done something more if I was there. I had said even at Wardha that if they had the courage they should bring a motion of no-confidence against Subhas Babu. It would have been a straightforward thing to do. If the delegates to the Congress felt that they had made a mistake in electing Subhas Babu, this was the only civilized way open to them. But probably the atmosphere was not quite favourable then. I had a feeling that Subhas Babu would form his own Working Committee. But that did not happen. Then it was that the Pant resolution came up. All I heard was that the resolution expressed confidence in the people who had gone out. I said if that was all there was in the resolution it was all right. But I had nothing to do with it. I saw the resolution later then followed an exchange of letters with Subhas Babu. The letter to which Annada Babu has referred is not before you. When I read the Pant resolution, I found that it contained a suggestion that Subhas Babu should be guided by me.

I thoroughly disapproved of the idea so much so that I refused to do anything of the kind. I stuck to my refusal to the end. It is possible that this may lead to some misunderstanding. I shall have to put up with it. How can I do a thing which I consider wrong? I told him that he should form a Working Committee of his choice, formulate a programme and implement it. I would clear the atmosphere if I could. If not, the work would go on and gradually we would be able to change the atmosphere. That is why when at Calcutta I was asked to name the Working Committee I found the idea repugnant. There I had some material, in view of which I felt it would be wrong to do so. Nobody had such material at Tripuri. Subsequent exchange of letters further confirmed me in my opinion. Later on I also came to know about the ill-feeling generated. How could I announce any names under those conditions? It would be subjecting Subhas Babu to coercion. Can the ship of the nation sail smoothly if I subject Subhas Babu to coercion? It would be like sinking it. I said I would not do it. I also said that if they wanted to have the old members of the Working Committee back, they should consult among themselves and if they were agreeable both sides could work together. But I would not be party to imposing any names on Subhas Babu. The more I think about that resolution, the more I dislike it. I cannot serve the nation according to the terms of that resolution. However much anyone may insist, I just cannot choose names for the Working Committee. My doing so would be coercion against Subhas Babu. And coercion is violence. How can I resort to it? I have told you of my feelings as to the Pant resolution. Even if people think that I have served the country well it surely does not give me the right to use coercion against anybody!

What was the difficulty in giving the names when Subhas Babu himself had agreed to accept any names you suggested? What the question means is that through the Pant resolution Tripuri ordered me to do a certain thing and ordered Subhas Babu to do a certain thing. Subhas Babu was willing to do as ordered, then why did I defy it? Where was the question of coercion in giving the names for the Working Committee in pursuance of that order? Seemingly the argument is attractive. But it is fallacious. Supposing somebody was to come to me tomorrow and say that I had been ordered to abuse him and hit him as I please? When there was such a gulf between me and Subhas Babu, would it have been civilized behaviour to inflict some names on him merely by virtue of that right? Having a right surely does not mean that I should exercise that right in utter disregard of my sense of proportion. If someone were to behave with me thus I would not like it. Supposing tomorrow I am given the right to abuse everybody, would it then become my duty to exercise that right? There is a distinction between right and duty. The exercise of right depends on one’s sense of duty. It is my duty to follow dharma. I do not think only of my own importance. It is of no consequence to me.

I think in terms of the nation. I do what I consider my duty. Cannot your correspondence with Subhas Babu be published? If not, will you please explain why? At one stage it had been decided to publish the correspondence. Later on, after Jawaharlal’s arrival it was decided to withhold the publication. It was also decided that I should not issue any statement. It would not be in the interest of the nation. In this my attitude was that Subhas Babu should do only what suited him. This should be our only attitude if we are non-violent. It is none of our concern to publish any correspondence. We should withhold the publication as long as we can. It becomes our duty to publish the correspondence only when someone does something contrary to what he has written in a letter. There is no such question here. That is why I have left it to Subhas Babu. If any misunderstanding arises from the correspondence not being published, it will not bring any particular harm. The other person will publish it when he thinks it is necessary to do so. When it becomes ancient history, it will be abandoned. Let me now come to Shankar Rao’s two questions. I shall take up the second question first because it is related to the same topic. You have mentioned in one of the letters to Subhas Babu that there are fundamental differences between you and him. What are those differences? It would be better for me not to mention the correspondence between us. That would make the explanation too long.

I shall explain the thing briefly. I think he still holds the view he had expressed at Jalpaiguri. I saw that I could not associate myself with any part of it. It includes giving an ultimatum to the Government. He holds that we possess enough resources for a fight. I am totally opposed to his views. Today we possess no resources for a fight. Today the whole atmosphere is so steeped in violence that I cannot think of fighting. How did the violent incidents take place at Rampur in Orissa and Ramdurg in Karnataka? Pantji could not control things at Kanpur. We have no control at all over the Shias and Sunnis in Lucknow. There is no limit to communal strife. We cannot carry on by controlling just a handful of Congressmen.

It had ever been our boast that the whole country was with us. Today we are not able to control more than a handful of people. Workers and peasants too were supposed to be entirely with the Congress. We do not have the same hold among the peasants of Bihar as we used to. Is this a situation favourable for starting a struggle? There is a difference between the work of the congress and that of the people who believe in violence. If today I am asked to start the ‘Dandi March’, I have not the courage to do so. How can we do anything without the workers and peasants? The country belongs only to them. I am not equipped to issue an ultimatum to the Government. The country would only be exposed to ridicule. But Subhas Babu thinks that we are ready for the struggle. This is a great and fundamental difference of opinion. We differ in our ideas of the resources needed for the struggle. My conception of Satyagraha is not his. Is this difference of opinion not fundamental? I cannot give out all these things to the Press right now, because it would not do any good. I shall write about it when the time comes so much for the fundamental differences. It has been covered in our letters also. I have put the matter to you simply.

It has nothing to do with personal differences. The same is true of the corruption in the Congress. There the difference between me and him is one of degree. He also agrees that there is corruption. But he feels that it is not of such proportion as to cause worry. But in my view, we shall not be able to do anything so long as this corruption persists. For me there is no difference between civil disobedience and office-acceptance. Both are part of the Satyagraha movement. Thus my point of view and assessment of the situation are altogether different from his. He does not mean the same thing by Satyagraha as I do. Hence, sometimes even the difference of degree becomes a fundamental difference. I have become so impatient of the corruption prevailing in the Congress that I should not hesitate to bury the organization if the corruption cannot be removed. In a non-violent organization there can be no place for some of the things that pass in a violent organization. The example of a violent war cannot apply here. Now you will have understood what I mean by fundamental differences. Are not your differences with the socialists and Jawaharlal also fundamental? Would you take up a similar attitude with regard to them? No. My differences with the socialists are of a different kind. Do not confuse the two. They differ with Subhas Babu on the question of giving an ultimatum to the Government. I do not know who exactly supports him on the point.

That is why in spite of my having sharp and even fundamental differences with the socialists my attitude towards them is different. Moreover, we cannot put the socialists and Jawaharlal in the same category. Jawaharlal does not lend his name to any socialist group. He believes in socialism. He mixes with the socialists and consults them. But there is considerable difference between their methods of work. The differences between me and the socialists are widely known. I believe in change of heart and in working for it. They do not. They make fun of the spinning-wheel. But even so the socialists are coming nearer to me every day. Or, you may say that I am moving nearer to them. Or, that we are moving nearer to each other. I cannot say how long it will continue. It is quite likely that one day our ways will part. The same thing happened with Subhas Babu. The Jalpaiguri resolution brought our differences to the fore. There are certainly differences between Jawaharlal and me. But they are not significant. Without him I feel myself a cripple. He also feels more or less the same way. Our hearts are one. This intimate relationship between us has not started with politics. It is very much older and deeper.

We shall leave it at that. I shall come now to Gangadharrao’s question. The socialists say that while you are tolerant and liberal, we others are intolerant and narrow-minded. For instance you might be prepared to take them on the Working Committee but we would not agree to it. What is the reason for this? How can I say? How can I answer that? You should search your own hearts for the reason. I can only say that in this matter you must follow me. You must be as gentle of speech as I am. The socialists come to me frowning, but they leave smiling. This does not mean that I do not express to them my differences with them. I tell them frankly what is in my heart. I do not flatter them, but try to enter their hearts. I have faith in their honesty. I try to understand their point of view. I find time to talk to them. You should treat them with the same courtesy. I can go so far to help you. Now one more question remains. But it is very important. Other things are of only passing importance. You are all in Gandhi Seva Sangh.

I have read its constitution. It contains many things. You believe in certain principles. If the question Annada raised had been raised on the Congress platform it would have been a different matter. But when it is raised on the Sangh platform I feel a little grieved. Why should you entertain such doubts? The differences between me and Subhas Babu are of a passing nature. But if this leads to bad blood between us, the country will be ruined. Differences of opinion should never lead to bitterness. You are all believers in religious tolerance. I would suggest that you must broaden the definition of religious tolerance. We must also include in it the moderates and the radicals. We must see equality between the moderates and the radicals. We should have respect even for those who call themselves radicals. We must look at the views of the radicals from their angle and those of the moderates from theirs. We should see our dharma with our eyes and those of others with theirs. This is religious tolerance. This means that we must emphasize the points on which there is agreement between us. We should not stress the points of difference. Just because I respect Islam and Christianity I do not become a Muslim or a Christian. What I mean to say is that I respect these religions as much as I respect my own religion. But I would not be converted to either Islam or Christianity. What is the sense in my reading the Koran or the Bible, if I remain intolerant?

This is not the correct meaning of the expression ‘religious tolerance’. In politics too let us take our differences in the same light. Let us regard the socialists too in the same way. If we take this attitude our differences would be only temporary and we would try to end the quarrels as far as possible. If we do not do so, we shall become narrow minded. We shall get entangled in small quarrels. Many shapes himself after the dharma he follows. If we forget larger issues and remember only the small points which cause differences, the country will be completely ruined. Why is it so difficult to discover the points of agreement? The royal road of non-violence consists of mutual trust and willingness to understand another’s point of view with an unprejudiced mind. In this connection I take up once again the matter of that circular. I have read it again. The central point in it is the same. The central point is the Sardar. Many people have a feeling that the Sardar does not work properly. Deep down in their hearts they feel that he has been unfair in the cases of Nariman, Khare and Subhas. But they should frankly express themselves. This is the inviolable dharma of the votaries of ahimsa. This is our dharma in relation to the whole world.

If we feel distrust or anger for anybody, it is our duty to go straight to that person and understand his point of view. We should remember two statements from the Bible. In the matter of morality the word of the Bible or any other scripture should be considered as authentic as that of the Vedas. One of these statements is: “Agree with thine adversary quickly” and the other statement is: “Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath”. To me these utterances are as precious as anything in the Vedas. This is the very root of ahimsa. Indeed ahimsa has to rush into the mouth of himsa. If you feel that the Sardar has been unfair to Subhas Babu, unfair to Nariman and unfair to Khare, let me say that the blame for the Khare affair and the Nariman affair lies with me. I am not saying this to protect the Sardar. I am making a statement of fact. But it is now irrelevant. I call myself a seeker of truth, a speaker to truth and a satyagrahi. I will not therefore deliberately give support to those resorting to injustice. But if you have anything against the Sardar in your hearts, you should go and speak to him. If you are not satisfied with his explanation or if there is still something rankling in your heart, it becomes your duty to relieve the Sardar from the Sangh. Thereby he would not cease to belong to the Gandhi Seva Sangh. I freed myself from the Congress and continued to serve the Congress. Your relieving the Sardar from the Sangh would not mean that you have become his enemies or he has become your enemy.

What I say of the Sardar I say of everyone. We have Appa Patwardhan here. He is a great mathematician. With the help of mathematics he can explain the mechanism of the charkha in great detail. He has faith in the charkha, he believes in khadi and ahimsa. But supposing he begins to have doubts, he loses confidence in the honesty of the members, must he then continue in the Sangh? Must he necessarily cease to serve like other members of the Sangh simply because he is no longer a member? Or because he cannot be a member of the Sangh, does it mean that he is worse than the rest of us? But when there is mutual distrust there cannot be any Sangh. Only so long as we honestly believe that no one belonging to the Sangh can deliberately act improperly will our path be easy. As soon as a doubt arises in our heart we must seek mutual explanations. I do not wish to suggest that those who thus suspect the Sardar are bad while the Sardar is good. I would never utter such a thing. I have merely indicated the way. The Sardar himself has been saying that if there are any suspicions concerning him he would not like to remain in the Sangh. You may be aware that a few days ago there was a heated exchange of words between the Sardar and Jamnalalji. Jamnalalji said he would leave the Sangh. The Sardar said Jamnalalji had created the Sangh. Why should he leave? Rather, he himself would leave. Then both of them wanted to be relieved assuring they would continue to work for the Sangh. But neither of them left because at heart they had nothing against each other. Whatever misunderstanding was there, was cleared. There was no question of bad blood. Similarly the Sardar is seeking to be relieved today.

If there is even the slightest suspicion concerning him in our hearts we must drive it out. If a large number of people have suspicions about him he must go out. But there should not be a single person who has distrust about any member. These things do not seem very important so long as they are limited in extent. But if they become widespread the Sangh will be destroyed. Then the conclusion to be drawn will be that in the present age no organization of satyagrahis and votaries of ahimsa can be formed. But it is my claim that it is very easy to organize those who believe in truth. Im my life I have made special attempts to make a collective dharma of truth and non-violence. But if distrust becomes widespread in our organization, if, even at the end of fifty years, I have to confess that the believers in truth and non-violence cannot be brought together as an organization; then I shall declare it confess it shamelessly and say that after fifty years I have come to the conclusion that the unique idea I had developed in my life cannot be worked through an organization, that it is not capable of being organized. Then the Sangh will have to be discontinued. But today I have hope in my heart. I consider it my supreme dharma to see truth and non-violence organized. Now I come to Deo’s first question. It is the principal question. In what way are the constructive programme and non-violence closely related? Kindly explain. If the constructive programme is not closely related to nonviolence, what else can be? Hindu-Muslim unity, removal of untouchability, prohibition and the fourth is charkha. The relation of the first three items with non-violence is very clear. How can anyone who believes in non-violence regard anybody as untouchable even for a moment? How can he allow his mind to degenerate by taking alcohol? How can he have feelings of hostility against the Muslims or any other religious group? There cannot be any mass Satyagraha unless all this is taken for granted. This is true for me and for Subhas Babu. Even Subhas Babu cannot start a Satyagraha unless these conditions are fulfilled now for the charkha. To me the charkha is the symbol of nonviolence. As I have already said, its basis is dedication. The same is true of Ramanama. Ramanama has no independent power. It is not a quinine pill, which has a power of its own.

One may or may not trust that power. It is as effective when A has malaria as when B has it. It destroys malaria germs wherever they may be. Ramanama has no such independent power. A mantra acquires power through dedication. Gayatri is a mantra for me. I have willed moksha through it. For a Muslim his kalma is the mantra. There is a great difference in a Muslim reading kalma and my doing so. When a Muslim reads kalma he becomes a different man, because he has willed his moksha through it. The Charkha has no independent power that will give you swaraj. But if I am resolved that I shall learn the lessons of nonviolence through charkha and secure swaraj through it, it becomes for me a tangible means for attaining swaraj. The place that Gandhi Seva Sangh has given to the charkha is not merely to provide a little money to the poor. What is the economic necessity of having mass spinning for half an hour? And where is the need for silence? After all, how much are you going to spin in half an hour? The nation resolved in 1920 to attain swaraj through non-violent means.

We have filled the charkha with the power of that resolve. Since then this process has been continuing. Impelled by that resolve we ply the charkha here. The charkha is thus a symbol of the resolve of all of us Hindu and Muslim, rich and poor, young and old. What closer relation can I point out? So long as every house does not have a charkha, so long as there is not total prohibition, so long as there is no Hindu-Muslim unity and complete removal of untouchability we cannot have the mass Satyagraha which Subhas Babu wants and which I also want. Till then we cannot be fit for civil disobedience. The right of civil disobedience will come only when we have learnt willingly to obey the laws we ourselves have created. Today I do not feel like telling Deo to go and offer Satyagraha at Kolhapur, or telling Ramachandran and Radhakrishna to start Satyagraha in Travancore and Jaipur. Two months ago I was willing to give them the permission. Things which did not appear to me ugly two months ago appear ugly to me now. That was why I had given permission to Jamnalalji. But certain things to me have assumed today a greater importance and greater value. I discovered these things in the laboratory of Rajkot. The great strength I acquired through that experiment brought very happy consequences. I can make you laugh by describing things that happened at Rajkot. I am drinking deep the elixir of the strength I acquired at Rajkot. I am beginning to gain control over the atmosphere. My task is becoming easier. I cannot get work out of many people, because I have become stricter.

But what does it matter if I can only find five persons at Rajkot? I shall complete the work with their help. If there are five persons, I can start my campaign only with them. I had said in 1920 that we could start the work even if there was only one true satyagrahi available, and we would definitely be victorious. Probably Vallabhbhai will testify to this. It is my endeavour to become such satyagrahi. When the question of the Rowlett Act arose I said that there was a way out, but that I could not all by myself do anything for I was an imperfect satyagrahi. I might be able to do something if some people joined me. Then Shankerlal came, Horniman, Sarojini, Jamnadas Dwarkadas and Umar Sobhani the poor man is dead now all came. I got support from all these people. It was such a conglomeration but it awakened India and added to my strength. I want warmth and help from everyone. In trying to get co-operation from all and organizing them I increase my own strength. My power of introspection is increasing.

I am a very selfish person. I do not merely watch you when I give you time. I place much value on my time. If I feel that by giving you time I would not be bringing some benefit to myself I would not be doing any such suicidal thing. I give you time because I find that I stand to gain something by doing so. It is of no consequence to me whether you gain something or not. What I am concerned with is whether I gain anything. I see if I am not heading for a downfall. I do not give you time in order to entice you. I only increase my strength. And my strength has increased that way. I have reached the age of seventy years. But my powers have not dimmed. I realize my responsibility. I would keep my vow, whatever it may be. What does it matter if I am left alone? I did the same thing in the Transvaal. I had taken a vow that I would give a fight to the Transvaal Government even if I was the only one to do so and win. The concept of Satyagraha was not even born yet. Millions of people can thus be organized by a mere act of will. I have countless proofs of this. What happened when we decided to have the hartal on April 6?

We had not organized anything. But people fasted and responded to the call of hartal throughout the length and breadth of the country. That was the beginning of swaraj for the country. That task was accomplished by sheer determination. But because of lack of training in constructive work it could not be continued. So long as you do not value the constructive programme and are not convinced that civil disobedience cannot be carried on without it, you will ever be disappointed. The constructive programme may take time but there is no other way. We cannot make Satyagraha complete without the constructive programme. An atmosphere of non-violence cannot be created without it. This is the only way of my working. That is why when Surendra went to Gujarat I told him that if nobody wanted his services, if nobody came to him he should think of the charkha and spin for all the twenty-four hours. If we did it with a resolute mind that alone would be an act of service. I have absolutely no doubt about it. My conviction is becoming stronger and stronger day by day.

I have here some slips which the President has passed on to me. One of them is from Appasaheb Patwardhan. I shall first deal with his question. QUESTION: In what way can the members try to put into practice the principle of a living wage?

ANSWER: There is no harm in adopting any means which is morally proper. One individual may take to carpentry for a living. He can earn Rs. 15 from this work. Or, he can take to carding or tailoring. A member of the Gandhi Seva Sangh would choose only those occupations which are available to thousands of people earning their livelihood by doing manual work. But he will not work merely to earn his livelihood. He is aware of the hardships people have to undergo while earning their livelihood. But as far as he himself is concerned, as he earns his livelihood he also renders some service. Apart from these occupations, members can also supplement their income through teaching. Anyone who requires more and who also has Appa’s knowledge of mathematics can even become a professor. But these are exceptions as far as I am concerned. I would always prefer manual work for a livelihood. I am either unable to understand your theory of trusteeship or my reason cannot grasp it. Will you kindly explain it? It is the same thing whether you are unable to understand it or your reason does not accept it. How can I explain such an important principle in a few minutes? Still I shall try to explain it in brief. Just imagine that I have a crore of rupees in my possession.

I can either squander the amount in dissipation or take up the attitude that the money does not belong to me, that I do not own it, that it is a bequest, that it has been put in my possession by God and that only so much of it is mine as is enough for my requirements. My requirements also should be like those of the millions. My requirements cannot be greater because I happen to be the son of a rich man. I cannot spend the money on my pleasures. The man who takes for himself only enough to satisfy the needs customary in his society and spends the rest for social service becomes a trustee. Ever since the idea of socialism became popular in India, we have been confronted with the question as to what our attitude should be towards the Princes and millionaires. The socialists say that the Princes and the millionaires should be done away with, that all must become workers. They advocate confiscation of the properties of all these people and say that they should be given the same wages as everyone else from Rs. 5 to eight annas a day or Rs. 15 a month so much for what the socialists say. We too assert that the rich are not the owners of their wealth whereas the labourer is the owner of his labour. He is, therefore from our point of view, richer than the rich. A zamindar can be recognized as the owner of one, two or ten bighas of land. That is to say, of as much as may be necessary for his livelihood. We also want that his wages should not be higher than those of the labourer, that he should maintain himself on eight annas a day and use the rest of his wealth for the welfare of society. But we would not take away his property by force.

This is the most important point. We also wish that the Princes and the millionaires too should do manual work and maintain themselves on eight annas a day, considering the rest of their property as national trust. At this point it may be asked as to how many trustees of this type one can really find. As a matter of fact, such a question should not arise at all. It is not directly related to our theory. There may be just one such trustee or there may be none at all. Why should we worry about it? We should have the faith that we can, without violence or with so little violence that it can hardly be called violence, create such a feeling among the rich. We should act in that faith. That is sufficient for us. We should demonstrate through our endeavour that we can end economic disparity with the help of non-violence. Only those who have no faith in non-violence can ask how many trustees of this kind can be found. You may say that such a thing can never happen. You may consider it as something not in keeping with human nature. But I cannot believe that you are not able to understand it or that your reason cannot grasp it. I fully endorse your view about varnadharma. But putting it into practice is a really complicated matter. Will you please elucidate? Today castes have become mongrelized.

Varnas have disappeared. In such a situation how should those believing in the varnas proceed? This is what this question implies. Today there is only one Varna. Call it the Shudra Varna. We cannot say Atishudra since we do not believe in untouchability. We do not believe in a fifth Varna. Hence only the fourth Varna, that is, Shudra is left. Let all of us consider that we are Shudras. Then there will be no feeling of high or low left. Envy and discrimination will automatically disappear. This is the only thing that would be fitting in the prevailing atmosphere. Brahmins are a rarity these days. Who possesses learning which is unique and will make for the welfare of the world? And where is the man who will expect nothing for that learning? As for the Kshatriyas there are none left in India. If there had been any, the country would not have lost its freedom. India would not remain in her present condition if great learning and great valour could be found here. So far as the Vaishyas are concerned, Vaishyadharma is a varnadharma. It is not merely an occupation to earn money. It is a duty, not a right. They should use their wealth for the benefit of society. Many of the occupations which the Banias follow are immoral. Earning too much money is also immoral. Many of these occupations cannot be included in varnadharma. This means that today even the Vaishyas are not there. Only some money-grubbing professional people are left. Three varnas have thus passed out. That leaves us the Shudras. They possess no learning.

They consider themselves slaves. They do not serve with knowledge. That is to say, there are not really even Shudras left in India. In other words, we cannot say that even one of the four varnas is still extant. Even so, since we believe in varnadharma, let us accept the dharma of service. Let us adopt Shudradharma. This does not mean that we should discard learning. We should acquire as much learning as we should. We should acquire as much valour, that is, fearlessness as we can. We must develop commerce and industries to the greatest possible extent. If we do all these things out of a sense of service and devotion, true Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas may be born amongst us. Then there would be no feeling of high or low among them. If we do something like this something may happen in future. When such varnadharma prevails, all the bickering that go on in the name of communism, socialism, Congressism, Gandhism, casteism, etc., would be over. Now there are a few questions from Balubhai. When Shri Thakkar and I started village uplift work, Gandhiji had laid down an important condition, that the people of the area we want to serve should furnish us free accommodation as a proof of their desire for our service. Now, I would go further and lay down the condition that we should go only to those villages where people are eager for village reforms and, when the time comes, the village leaders are prepared to do physical work and spend money from their own pockets. Where the village leaders are not co-operative, no improvement is possible no matter how long the village workers stay there. I would like to know how far this opinion of mine is valid. There are many other social workers like Balubhai and Thakkar in Maharashtra. They were very optimistic when they first started work. But now they say that however much they work, so much poison has spread there that persons wearing Gandhi caps are looked upon with contempt. Even the services of the people wearing Gandhi caps are forsaken. It is possible to feel disheartened under these circumstances. Many years ago Balubhai and Thakkar had come to consult me before starting their work.

I had suggested to them that one test of whether or not the villagers were keen about their services would be that they should at least provide the material for building a hut. Now Balubhai feels that this condition is not enough. He suggests that some more conditions should be laid down. But I am not prepared to go beyond this. This condition does not lay down a limit. If the village people also give us food, why should there be any objection from my side? I have only suggested the minimum condition we should lay down. And we must consider it the maximum. There is no need to go beyond this. The same thing happened to me at Sevagaon. I asked the people in the village whether I should shift to their village. Land was provided by Jamnalalji. Our people are very courteous. They talked to me very respectfully. But they said whatever they had to say. An old man came to me and said: “You can come to Sevagaon. You will be doing us an honour. But we shall not allow the untouchables to enter the temples. You should not expect any such thing from us.” Despite this I went there and have stayed there. If the people fulfil our one condition and give us some place to stay we should not feel disheartened.

How long can poison last? The newspapers say all sorts of things about the Gandhian, about me and about the Sardar. If we are as they represent us, then they are right in saying what they do. We must then confess everything. Why should they accept our services if we are really that bad? They would not accept even medicine from our hands. They would be having a lurking fear that we might give them poison along with the medicine. If there is an unworthy motive in our giving them medicine, they can refuse to have it saying they would rather die. If someone comes to serve me but harbors a secret wish to kill me in the end I would not trust such a man and tell him so. If people really have such suspicions about us, we must remove them by dedicated service. We must create confidence among the people that our intention is only to serve, and we mean no harm to them. If we turn back in disappointment in the face of their protests, then we are not giving them even a chance to test our bona fide. The test for us would be only when we persist in our work. If we stick on even when they have burnt down our hut, then the wrong impression about us will be removed. They will relent when they see that we are not perturbed even when they burn our hut, beat us, abuse us or stop our water. The newspapers are publishing all sorts of things about us; but why should we feel ashamed? Yes, we should feel ashamed of whatever truth there may be in those reports, and should try to rid ourselves of the blemishes. If we are not as evil as they paint us, why should we be bothered? And, why should we be afraid of confessing to anything evil that may be in us? If the Vividhavritta reports that a particular person is a drunkard or this or that, whatever truth there may be in the report should be admitted. The person concerned should acknowledge that he does take a stealthy drink at night, and occasionally indulges in sensuous pleasures. If we admit our faults and know that they exist, there is a chance of our correcting ourselves. We must tell the people that we have certain faults in us, and would gradually overcome them. Escaping from a situation can never be part of our code of behaviour.

That is not the way a satyagrahi can follow his duty. If our faith is complete, there is no reason to despair. Now you may ask what you should do about a livelihood while you are staying in the villages. Appa had asked the same question. You should do manual work. You can sweep the approaches to the village or do some other things, and maintain yourself on the few pice you may earn. If you get food grains in lieu of money, you should manage with that. You may not always get money from the Gandhi Seva Sangh. What does it matter if your body is ruined? One who has determination will face any hardships that may come his way and this will bring him hope out of despair. The next question is from Achyut Deshpande. When a small clan in a Princely State claiming the right of conquest or kinship with the ruler not only opposes the people’s fight for justice but helps the ruler in crushing such a movement, even violently attacking those who participate in the movement, the people come to have the same attitude towards it as towards the ruler. Is this not natural? What can one do to heal the breach thus caused between two sections of the population? Would it not be practicable for a time to ignore this problem? Is it wrong to think that the problem would be more easily solved through being ignored? I have not been able to understand this question fully. But the answer to what little I have understood has been furnished in the discussion we have been having for the past two or three days. This precisely is the reason why I have suspended the campaign in the States and why I do not have the courage to start a countrywide movement. Where there is a danger of ill will or violence being generated it is our duty not to start any agitation. For it will not last. It will create misunderstandings. People will stray into erroneous paths.

It will not be enough for us ourselves to be non-violent. Take an example. I stay at Segaon. Suppose there is a snake there. I will have to remove that snake from there and confine it to a place where people will not feel endangered by it. Or, suppose there is an outbreak of the plague somewhere. I go there to help. For myself I depend on the protection of God. But should I, for that matter, go to the people without bathing or washing myself? There is the risk of people catching the contagion. My non-violent duty consists in my going to others only after washing myself. Then suppose smallpox breaks out in a village. A few among us do not believe in vaccination and so do not get themselves vaccinated. Still they want to serve the people. We are convinced that vaccination has failed. But it would not be proper to be carriers of the disease among the people whom we want to serve. Hence our non-violent duty lies in either getting ourselves vaccinated or quitting the place. The lesser dharma of not getting ourselves vaccinated disappears in front of this paramount dharma. I was asked to give my view about the legislation concerning vaccination in Bombay and Madras. I told Dr. Varki that those who did not believe in vaccination should either leave the area or get themselves vaccinated. This is ahimsa. In a way it is easy, in another way it is not so easy. Take another example. We have planted a small orchard at Sabarmati. Monkeys come and pillage it. People feed these monkeys. So they stay on there.

You go to Mathura and Brindaban. There are so many monkeys around that people cannot live in peace. But in the adjoining cantonment area there is not a single monkey. It is not ahimsa dharma thus to feed the monkeys. It is unjust to other people. The same is true of our campaigns. Not only our opponents, but also our supporters are full of violence. Other people want to destroy swaraj altogether. This means that there is no real co-operation from the people. If we launch a movement for swaraj they want to attack us. If we insist on continuing Satyagraha under such conditions we would be postponing swaraj. The answer to the question is clear. Our small groups of five or ten members should give up the idea of Satyagraha. We shall never be destroyed because we are ready to be destroyed. But their opposition will die out. Those who oppose swaraj want to destroy the poor. So they lose nothing if we continue our movement in an atmosphere of violence, whereas the poor would be completely ruined. We are prepared to be ruined ourselves but we do not wish the poor to be ruined. I am conducting the same experiment in Rajkot. That is why I say that Rajkot has become my laboratory. I have suspended the Satyagraha there or rather the civil disobedience. The word Satyagraha is not appropriate here. Today I have suspended civil disobedience everywhere and I am concentrating on constructive programme, because it does not involve this kind of risk. Bapu, part of my question still remains unanswered.

You have just explained that today, when there is so much violence in the air, there is a danger of communal and other disturbances. Those who are in the movement may very well face beatings and suffer hardships, but those who are not prepared for it should not be made to do so. Hence civil disobedience should be suspended and we should concentrate on constructive programme. All this is clear; but even while engaging ourselves in the constructive programme, it is necessary to increase our strength and teach nonviolence to the people who want to join the movement. Now, suppose we want to hold a meeting or take out a procession. Now this meeting or procession is harmless, and there is no question even of violent words. Even then a section of the people (such as Garasias in Rajkot, some Maharashtrians in Baroda, some Muslims in Hyderabad) under the impression that we are not loyal to the Government and want to harm that section loses its temper, abuses us and assaults us. Thus our movement arouses anger in them and a wall rises between them and the supporters of the movement. Under such circumstances, because there already is a lot of misunderstanding, our attempts to arrive at a compromise or establishing closer contacts with them will be like pouring oil over the flames. Under these circumstances, am I correct in saying that instead of forming Hindu-Muslim or Garasia and non-Garasia unity committees, and thus making vain efforts at unity, it would be better and more practicable for us to keep off the whole thing? Yes, that is correct. This question has been asked by Moolchand Agrawal.

He has been putting questions to me over a long period of time. There is no awakening among people on account of child-marriages, funeral feasts, purdah and untouchability. But some people believe that we must concentrate only on political work, for social-reform activities serve no purpose. They say that social reforms will automatically follow once political rights are realized. Will you kindly explain the place of social reforms in the work of nation-building? This is a much-delayed question. It should have been asked in 1920. In my view there is no special political field which is not related to social reform. They are both interrelated. If we do not earnestly go about the work of social reform, no political reforms are possible. I would, therefore, give the first place to the work of social reform and only the second place to purely political work, If there is such a thing. I took help from the sanatanists, whether for Gujarat Vidyapith or for the khadi work. But when they said that I should abandon my work for the removal of untouchability I told them that I would rather do without their help. The Mulji Jetha Market promised Rs. 35,000, but on some such condition. I told them that they could keep their money, I would do without it; but as for the removal of untouchability, I wanted it immediately. Till today I have not received the Rs. 35,000 from them. But the work for swaraj did not stop. It is dangerous to allow such things to find a place in our hearts. Let us not allow even such notions as ‘social’ and ‘political’ any place in our thinking. Let us not hinder national progress. It is true some sense of discretion will have to be shown. It would not be proper to go and resort to Satyagraha when someone in our community calls people for dinner. It is enough if we avoid going to that feast ourselves. There are so many areas of social-reform activity that can go on side by side with political work. There too we shall stick to non-violence.

But Satyagraha is a mighty weapon. It cannot be used everywhere. Its use has to be limited. Now, there is a question from Mahavir Prasad Poddar. Should a person who has not been able to convince his family or neighbours about sharing food with the Harijans be a member of the Gandhi Seva Sangh? So long as he has not set right the behaviour of his family members towards the Harijans or has not been able to do so he cannot be a member of Gandhi Seva Sangh. Till such time as he has not settled the quarrel at home, he should serve from outside. Must he then go on quarrelling with the members of his family and his wife? Should he beat his wife and turn her out of the house, certainly not. Let him not accept untouchability for himself. He should patiently put up with the protests of his family. He should win them over through non-violence. For him, his house itself becomes a laboratory. He cannot come to Gandhi Seva Sangh till he has won over his wife through love.

RADHAKRISHNA BAJAJ: Should the path of Satyagraha be considered closed to those who do not honestly believe that only persons with faith in God should join Satyagraha, or to those who are socialists or atheists? I am sorry, but I shall have to say, ‘Yes’. God alone is the strength for a satyagrahi. He wants to walk on his own legs. He does not want a stick for support. He does not depend on any strength from outside. Faith in God is an inner strength. Hence the path of Satyagraha is closed to those who do not accept this. They must take the path of unarmed protest. They can even be non-co-operators. But they can never be satyagrahis because anyone who does not believe in God will be defeated in the end. Should I then admit that there can be no victory through non-violence? On the contrary, I would say that with non-violence there never can be any defeat. Faith in God is itself the power behind non-violence. Hence we must put up with it even if somebody feels hurt. But it should be made absolutely clear that this path is not meant for the people who do not believe in God. There is no other way. The socialists who do not understand my point of view would say that I have worked out a trick for getting rid of them. I cannot help it. I shall face even that charge. You may say that this will keep out many gallant co-workers while hypocrites professing faith in God but without any evidence of it in their practical life will get in. But I am not talking about hypocrites. I am rather talking of those people who are ready to sacrifice their all in the name of God. Instead of asking me such a question you should have asked me why I had been sleeping for the last twenty years. You should have asked me why I have taken so long to wake up. I would plead guilty to such a charge. I would only say that after all I am not a perfect satyagrahi descended from heaven. I have not come with a readymade technique of Satyagraha. Nor have I brought any book from heaven to which I can refer and tell everything in advance. I am with you in the midst of society. I place before you any new thing which I may happen to discover through my experiments with and my experience of Satyagraha.

KRIPALANI: Does this mean that the non-believers like the Jains and Buddhists cannot join the Satyagraha movement? If there are some Jains or Buddhists who do not believe in the atman they cannot join Satyagraha. But these people do believe in the atman. And those who believe in the atman believe in God. Their quarrel is only with a particular idea of God. I do not want any disputation over it. A certain Jain even asked me at Rajkot. I gave the same reply. He then remembered that the Jains too believed in Divine Power. Anyone who accepts the existence of a Power that helps us in all situations is not a non-believer. He is a believer in God. What does it matter if he is a Jain or a Buddhist? But if some Jains and Buddhists themselves say that they cannot join Satyagraha because they do not believe in God I shall not argue with them. I shall say that they are right.

KRISHNAN NAIR: What is the criterion for judging whether a person does or does not believe in God? If an individual accepts God as a metaphysical probability but not as a mysterious Power, will he be called an atheist? This is a subtle question. It is not even necessary to go so deep into it. I do not insist that everybody should have the same idea of God as I have and describe Him in the same vocabulary that I use. There is no ready-made test to determine whether somebody does or does not believe in God. Still, it is possible to test it.

 

Reference:

 

Gandhi Seva Sangh ke Panchama Varshik Adhiveshan (Brindaban, Bihar) ka Vivaran, pp. 30-90