Harilal Desai and Mahatma Gandhi

[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

 

 

Harilal Desai and Mahatma Gandhi

 

 

Harilal Desai was a freedom fighter and one of the close associate of Mahatma Gandhi. He was from Ahmadabad. Mahatma Gandhi a article and many letters to him. Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “I remember our meeting. You can stay here with me if you wish to. I shall be in this province for some months. If you wish to stay in Ahmadabad in my absence, it could be arranged. Do whatever is convenient to you. You can come here via Kanpur or Patna.” 1 Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “The questions, regarding the posting of an additional police force, tabled by the Hon’ble Rao Bahadur Harilal Desai in the Bombay Legislative Assembly and the Government’s reply to them are worth nothing. We can see from them how subordinate officers can mislead the Government. We can also see how one wrong leads to another. The first step of the Government was wrong. Misled by the Collector’s report, the Government stationed additional police at Nadiad and Barejadi. It realized that this was a mistake, but was not prepared to admit as much. The Government thus found itself in a position in which it had no choice but to defend the mistake anyhow. Let us examine whether, in the process, the Government has had to do another wrong. Among the questions asked by the Rao Bahadur, one was whether there were any disturbances in Nadiad on the 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th of April. This was a significant question and in asking it the Rao Bahadur’s point was that there had been no disturbances in Nadiad on those dates and that, therefore, the Government had no justification for stationing additional police.

How could the Government make such an admission? Hence it adopted a wrong line in its reply and said that a large crowd had assembled on the morning of the 11th with the object of compelling the Head Master of the English School, by show of criminal force, to close the school. There is no reason to believe the Government story simply because it is so positive about it. The Government has not come to this conclusion after a public inquiry of any nature. It gave this information in the Legislative Assembly on the basis of the one-sided police report it had received. Had it exercised its judgment, it would have used some kind of a qualifying expression and presented the information less positively. The Government is all too ready with its criticism if a one-sided case is presented on behalf of the people; what right has it, then, to come to any conclusion on the basis of a one-sided report? There are courts in existence to adjudicate between the Government and the people, and the principle of setting up an independent Commission of Inquiry is also an accepted policy at present. I have made inquiries and have an altogether different account from prominent citizens of Nadiad. They say, on their side, that no crowd had collected on purpose to force the school to close. Other schools being closed on that day, the boys of the English School, too, were engaged in an argument with their Head Master and a few persons from the town had joined them, but no undue pressure was used. Let us take the second reply of the Government.

The latter asserts that one of the ring-leaders in the crowd was found, when arrested, to be in possession of a violently inflammatory pamphlet inciting to murder for which he has since been convicted. This information is likely to mislead the reader. The reader gets the impression that this ring-leader had that leaflet with him on the 11th itself and that he was arrested on that date. The fact as established and accepted by both sides is that this ring-leader was arrested not on the 11th but on the 17th and that the leaflet came into his possession on the latter date. So this second statement of the Government also turns out to be a misleading one. Now let us examine the third statement. It has been said on behalf of the Government that a party had assembled on the 12th of April with the intention of attacking the Dairy in Nadiad, but that it was dispersed by the police. The report which I have received goes to show that a party did go there with a view to persuading the manager to close the Dairy. The crowd had dispersed at the mere request of prominent citizens of Nadiad. The police did not have to make the least effort to disperse it, nor was there any need for them to make any. The fourth statement, to the effect that the railway track near Nadiad was removed on the 12th, is correct. This was a terrible and shameful act and it is all the more shameful that the guilty have not been discovered and arrested. We now take the fifth statement that the railway track was damaged on the 13th and the telegraph wires were cut. This statement, being ambiguous, creates a false impression and, therefore, reflects on the integrity of the Government. That on the 13th rails were damaged and wires were cut at some place is a fact. The Rao Bahadur’s question was about Nadiad and so the reader may gather the impression that the incident on the 13th also took place within the limits of Nadiad. As a matter of fact, the track was damaged and wires were cut at a considerable distance from Nadiad. It has not even been hinted that any resident of Nadiad had a hand in this misdeed, and it is a painful thing that, nevertheless, the Government mentions the incident of the 13th in reply to a question about Nadiad. The Government commands great power. In answer to yet another of the questions asked by the Rao Bahadur, the Government gave him and the people a complete idea of what this power is. To show with what great sleekness the Government has replied to an innocent question, I give her a literal translation of the question and the reply:

Q: Whether the employment of additional police in Nadiad is not in fact a punitive rather than a preventive measure?

 A: The Hon’ble member is referred to section 25(1) of the Bombay District Police Act, 1890, which specifies the grounds on which additional police may be employed. If it is possible to be plain without being rude, this reply of the Government can be described as insolent. It betrays the arrogance of power. The reply is evasive and in the language of the rustic it means: “We did as we pleased; do your worst.” What can a poor Rao Bahadur do when faced with the potent might of the Government?

It was the duty of the Government to give a plain reply to a plain question and, if it could not justify its action in a straightforward manner, it ought to have rectified its error. I submit that the power and dignity which lie in honestly rectifying an error are not to be found in irresponsible insolence and in evasion. The people cannot leave the matter there. It is not merely that Nadiad or Barejadi has been fined. The issue here is one of justice and of Government policy. It is incumbent upon the Government to dispense pure justice and to follow irreproachable policies, and on the public to see that the Government does so. If it is Nadiad today, it may be Gujarat tomorrow and India the day after. A policy of this kind is like a disease and, as a disease, ought to be checked before it has progressed far; people should take steps to see that an immoral policy is immediately given up. A great responsibility rests on the citizens of Nadiad and on the landowners in Barejadi. They should spare no effort to have this question discussed with the Government and in the public. Wherever they find inaccuracies in statements by the Government, they should point them out. I am convinced that, if the people go to work patiently, with due courtesy and never over-stepping the limits but firmly and fearlessly all the same, the Government will admit its error. It is not a question of 20 or 25 thousand rupees, but of the blot that is cast on Nadiad and Barejadi. It is the duty of the citizens of Nadiad and of the landowners of Barejadi to remove that blot, and it is our duty to help them to do so.” 2

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “I understand what you say regarding the marriage. Has the man any children? Is his mother alive? Has Hari-ichchha gone to her husband’s house? It was certainly wrong of you to have given up the tannery work. I see in your action a weakness common in our society. The reasons to which you yielded while leaving the work were before you when you took it up. Only yesterday, while I was translating Prayer No. 127, I read the following verse in it; Revolve the thing in your mind carefully before you act, Never go to fight in a battle in blind rivalry of others, If you go, fight till you are hewn to pieces. If you break your vow once, you will not know where to end. You have also not properly understood your duty to your mother. Suppose a mother belongs to a society in which drinking is common. Her son gives it up as an evil, but the mother tries to dissuade him from doing so, and threatens to commit suicide if the son gives up drinking. In these circumstances, is it the duty of the son to give up what he regards as his duty? To honour the word given by Dasharatha, Rama left for the forest and let Dasharatha die. Though Kaikeyi entreated Bharata with piteous tears, Bharata clung to his decision not to accept the throne. Judging by common standards, had Kaikeyi done anything wrong? She was one of the many queens, and in any case she had her husband’s word. What sin had she committed in demanding the throne for her son? But Bharata saw sin in her action and disregarded her entreaties. I have not written this to reproach you. I cannot feel angry with you. I have written what I have done because I thought it my duty to explain to you what your duty was.” 3

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “I am hard pressed for time just now and will not, therefore, write a long letter. You did well in giving me all the details. I do not wish Valji to know my opinion for the present. He may be told about it after he is released. I am confirmed in my opinion after reading Hariichchha’s letter. But what happened has happened. I have written to Hari-ichchha and explained to her how she can now make the best of an unfortunate event. She will probably show you that letter if you have not seen it already. Ask her to show it to you. Your duty now is to cling to the job which you have accepted. You may think of something else to do only when circumstances arise in which you on your own leave it for I have already observed your unsettled state of mind. I have faith in you despite that, for you belong to Valji’s family and are sincere at heart. Such persons often become steady all at once. What has Dudhibehn decided to do?” 4 Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “I have certainly tried to do tapascharya. It can be said to have borne fruit when we get rid of what Akha Bhagat has described as the “excess growth” and when Hindus and Muslims live as one. Will the Doctor undertake this surgery?” 5

 

References:

 

1. LETTER TO HARILAL DESAI, May 11, 1917
2.   Navajivan, 28-9-1919
3.   LETTER TO HARILAL DESAI, November 24, 1930
4. LETTER TO HARILAL DESAI, December 30, 1930
5. LETTER TO MRS. HARILAL DESAI, September 9, 1946