Patiala State 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

 

Patiala State and Mahatma Gandhi 

 

I received some weeks ago an important letter from Patiala. It contained such grave statements attributed to the Maharaja Saheb of Patiala that I referred them to him for confirmation or otherwise. It is now more than three weeks since I wrote to him. But I have no reply. I therefore presume that the statements reported by my correspondent are substantially true. Here is the main part of the letter: The Patiala State Praja Mandal launched Satyagraha against the Hidayat of 19882, a lawless law curtailing the civil liberties of the people. On our advice the Satyagraha was suspended unconditionally. The Publicity Officer, Patiala, on behalf of H.H.’s Government, stated in a Press communiqué dated 15th April that the Government would repeal or withdraw the aforesaid Hidayat within three to four weeks, and further stated that the Government had constituted a Committee to go into its provisions and submit an early report. But the announcement has remained up till now a dead letter. And instead, H.H. has by Ijlas khas orders dated 25th May ordered the strict enforcement of the Hidayat for a period of another six months. In view of this, no propaganda of any kind can be carried on by the Praja Mandal workers, the provisions of the Hidayat being very wide and sweeping. The workers arrested in connection with this agitation are still in jail and others are being tried. Apart from this there is at present another movement going on within the State, i.e., between landlords and tenants. Some of the Praja Mandal workers were allowed an interview with H. H. on the 18th instant. During the interview H. H. addressed them as follows: “My ancestors have won the State by the sword and I mean to keep it by the sword. I do not recognize any organization to represent my people or to speak on their behalf. I am their sole and only representative. No such organization such as Praja Mandal can be allowed to exist within the State. If you want to do Congress work, get out of the State. The Congress can terrify the British Government, but if it ever tries to interfere in my State it will find me a terrible resister. I cannot tolerate any flag other than my own to be flown within my boundaries. You stop your Praja Mandal activities, otherwise I shall resort to such repression that your generations to come will not forget it. When I see some of my dear subjects drifting away into another fold, it touches the very core of my heart. I advise you to get out of the Mandal and stop all kind of agitation; or else remember I am a military man; my talk is blunt and my bullet straight.” It may be that my letter never reached the Maharaja Saheb and that if it had, he would have disputed the correctness of my correspondent’s letter. If any repudiation is received by me, I shall gladly publish it. But I must say that my correspondent is a responsible person. Assuming then that the Maharaja did make the remarks quoted, it is a serious thing for any Prince, no matter how powerful he is, to use the threats the Maharaja is reported to have done. With due respect to him, I suggest that there is too much awakening among the people throughout India to be suppressed by threats and even corresponding action. The days of unadulterated autocracy are gone forever. It is possible perhaps by intense frightfulness to suppress the rising spirit of the people for some time. But I am quite sure that it cannot be suppressed for all time. I have no desire to eliminate the Princes. Friends have complained to me that Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru has, however, made such a statement although the Congress has enunciated no such policy. I have not had the opportunity of asking him about the alleged remark. But assuming that he did make the statement, it can only mean that some Princes are so acting as to bring about their own elimination. It is wrong to judge him by newspaper reports. His considered opinion is to be gathered from his statement on behalf of the Standing Committee of the All-India States People’s Conference. Therein he has even warned people against hasty action. He is much too loyal a Congressman to contemplate any action in advance of known Congress policy. Therefore the fear and hatred of the Congress on the part of some Princes are misplaced and are calculated to injure rather than help them. The Congress is not seeking to interfere directly in the affairs of any State. But the Congress does guide the States people. They are part of the Congress organization. They derive strength and inspiration from their connection with the Congress. I do not know how this organic relationship can be avoided. To wish its termination is like an attempt to make children disown their parents. For better or for worse it is well to recognize the fact that just as the vast mass of people of British India look up more to the Congress than to the Government for the removal of their woes, even so do the people of the States look to the Congress for their deliverance. It is under the Congress advice and inspiration that the people of the States say that they want to grow to their full height under the aegis of their respective Princes. I hope, therefore, that the Maharaja Saheb of Patiala and those Princes who hold the opinion attributed to him will revise their views and welcome the movement of their people for liberty to grow to their full height and not regard the reformers in their States as their enemies. It will be well if they will seek Congress aid in the settlement of their people’s demands. But they need not do so, if they distrust Congress friendship. It is enough if they will placate the advanced section of their people by granting substantial reforms. What is worse in my opinion, however, than the alleged threat of the Maharaja is the breach of the promise referred to in my correspondent’s letter. There is no doubt so far as I can see that the promise of withdrawal of the Hidayat of 1988 was made; there is equally no doubt that the promise has been broken. It is a dangerous thing even for a rich and powerful Prince to break his plighted word. Breach of a promise is no less an act of insolvency than a refusal to pay one’s debt. I plead with the Maharaja Saheb to redeem the promise and hope that his counsellors will advise him to do so.

 

Reference:

 

Harijan, 16-9-1939