Nankana Tragedy and Mahatma Gandhi

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Senior Gandhian Scholar, Professor, Editor and Linguist

Gandhi International Study and Research Institute, 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

 

 

Nankana Tragedy and Mahatma Gandhi

 

Having made my pilgrimage to Nankana Saheb yesterday I would like to say a word to my Sikh friends. The traces that I saw of the massacre at one of the greatest of your temples and the stories related to me have left an indelible impression on my mind. There seems little doubt that nearly one hundred and fifty men of the Akalis party were foully murdered and their bodies mutilated on that fateful Sunday, the 20th February, whilst not a single one of the murderers was apparently hurt by the Akali party. There is no doubt that at least one Akali was tied to a tree in the temple ground and probably burnt alive. There is still less doubt that many of the corpses were soaked in paraffin, and, in order probably to hide the fact that only men of one party were killed, they were burnt. No one of the Akalis that gained entrance to the temple seems to have escaped to tell the tale of the butchery.

The temple presents the appearance of a fort. The walls of the rooms that surround the shrine are pierced to admit of shooting through them. The partition walls have connecting holes. The main door has massive steel plates evidently of recent make. The Granth Saheb bears bullet marks. The walls of the sanctuary and the pillars tell the same tale. The Akali party seems to have been treacherously admitted and the gates closed on them. Everything I saw and heard points to a second edition of Dyerism more barbarous, more calculated and more fiendish than the Dyerism at Jallianwala. Man in Nankana, where once a snake is reported to have innocently spread its hood to shade the lamb-like Guru, turned Satan on that black Sunday. India weeps today over the awful tragedy. I am ashamed to find that there are men today who are capable of the crime committed by sons of India in that holy temple. Information is lacking to show why the Akali party went to the temple and whether they offered resistance to the murderers. They had all their kirpans and mostly their hatchets. There are three possibilities that could have happened:

1. The party went by a show of force to take possession of the temple but were overwhelmed by superior force and died fighting bravely.

2. The party went merely as worshippers, had no intention of taking possession and was treacherously murdered without being able to defend themselves.

3. The party went as worshippers, as in the second case, and was mercilessly attacked; but though able to defend themselves would not retaliate and willingly died being under a vow not to use violence in connection with the gurudwara movement. The contention of my informants, who can only speak from hearsay, is that the party went and died as supposed in the third alternative.

If it is so, the martyrs have showed courage and resignation of the highest order of which the Sikhs, India, and the whole world have every reason to be proud. It is a matter of the greatest satisfaction that the Sikhs with whom I have discussed the possibilities persist in believing the last. In the second instance, the bravery of the defenders was as unquestioned as in the last. In the case I mentioned first, the bravery was great, but the morality of the act, i.e., the taking possession by a show of force must remain open to question and ordinarily speaking, made the Akalis a party of trespassers whom the party in possession was entitled in law to use sufficient force to repel. The Akalis are a great party of purists. They are impatient to rid the gurudwaras of abuses that have crept in. They insist upon uniformity of worship in the gurudwaras. The movement has been going on for some years. Both co-operating and non-cooperating Sikhs have, since the movement of non-co-operation, been acting in concert so far as the gurudwara movement is concerned. And even if it is discovered ultimately that the Akali party went to Nankana Saheb by show of force to dispossess a Mahant who had abused his trust, History will still call the immolation an act of martyrdom worthy of high praise.

Judged by the highest standard and that of non-violent non-co-operation, if the first supposition turns out to be true, the act of entering to take possession must bear the taint of violence and as such is worthy of censure. But the original taint can never be held as in any way justifying or excusing the fiendish barbarity of the crime committed by the murderers. The law courts were open to them—no man using violence can plead non-co-operation for not seeking the assistance of the law courts. Time, however, for adjudging the exact value of the martyrdom is not yet. It is more to the point to consider the immediate steps that should be taken. I can only think of the tragedy in terms of Indian nationality. The merit of the brave deed must belong not merely to the Sikh but to the whole nation. And my advice, therefore, must be to ask the Sikh friends to shape their future conduct in accordance with the need of the nation. The purest way of seeking justice against the murderers is not to seek it.

The perpetrators, whether they are Sikhs, Pathans or Hindus, are our countrymen. Their punishment cannot recall the dead to life. I would ask those whose hearts are lacerated to forgive them, not out of their weakness for they are able in every way to have them punished but out of their immeasurable strength. Only the strong can forgive. You will add to the glory of the martyrdom of the dear ones by refusing to take revenge. Moreover those who are non-co-operationists may not have recourse to British law courts even for getting murderers punished. If we will be free within one year we must have the courage to suffer even the murderers to go scot-free till we have established a government in accordance with our will and which can vindicate justice. Let the Sikhs beware. The Government will no doubt try to win them over to them by showing that they alone can punish the guilty. Law courts of a civil government are traps into which the unwary run unwittingly. But if we have not yet visualized the wickedness of the system under which we are governed, and therefore at a crucial moment will not avoid the existing law courts, let us not thoughtlessly blunder into having our own Committee side by side with the Government Committee of Inquiry. Let us frankly admit our imperfection or weakness and avail ourselves of the law courts or boldly face the possibility of murderers being let loose upon us.

It is dangerous to conceal our weakness; it is still more dangerous to make pretence of courage. It was common knowledge that the Mahant had been preparing for a long time, and practically openly, to give battle. He had arms. He had collected ammunition; he was surrounding himself with ruffians. Government officials could not but have known of the preparations. You, therefore, naturally suspect that high offlcials contemplated with equanimity, if they did not encourage, the perpetration of a heinous deed. You are anxious to find out the exact truth. A moment’s reflection must convince you that even if it is found that some Government officials were guilty of such complicity, the discovery takes you and India no further than where we stand today. You, and practically the whole of India, want to sweep the whole of the Government out of existence unless the system under which it is being carried on is radically altered.

It would be wrong to divert the attention of any section of the nation from the main or the only issue which is before the country. So much for the tragedy. The whole of the gurudwara movement requires overhauling. There is no doubt that a large party proceeding to a gurudwara to take possession does constitute a show of force even though no violence is contemplated or intended. And in a well-ordered society, no individual, except under a process of law is permitted to dispossess by a show of force or any undue pressure, even a wicked man who has been ostensibly in possession of public property such as temples. If such individual action were permitted there would be an end to all good government and the weak would be left without the right of protection.

Such attempt therefore, on your part will be a negation of the Khalsa Dharm whose basis is protection of the weak. No one can be more eager for real reform in our temples and removal of all abuse than I. But let us not be party to measures that may be worse than the reform sought to be brought about. There are two ways open to you: either establishing arbitration boards for settlement of possession of all gurudwaras or temples claimed to be gurudwaras or postponement of the question till the attainment of swaraj. If you would let the martyrdom at Nankana bear fruit, exemplary self-restraint and suspension of the movement to take possession of gurudwaras by means of Akali parties are absolutely necessary.  

 

Reference:

 

Young India, 16-3-l921