Question Box and Mahatma Gandhi- II

[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

 

 

Question Box and Mahatma Gandhi- II

 

Q. In your autobiography you have said that you cannot think of politics apart from religion. Do you still hold that view? If so, how is it that in a country of many diverse religions likes India you expect a common political policy to be adopted?

A. Yes, I still hold the view that I cannot conceive politics as divorced from religion. Indeed, religion should pervade every one of our actions. Here religion does not mean sectarianism. It means a belief in ordered moral government of the universe. It is out less real because it is unseen. This religion transcends Hinduism, Islam. Christianity, etc. It does not supersede them. It harmonizes them and gives them reality.

 Q. Is it true that you advised some Sikhs, who came to seek your advice on certain matters, that Guru Govind Singh taught the use of the sword while you stood for non-violence, and therefore the Sikhs must be ready to choose the one or the other?

A. The question is badly, if not mischievously, put. What I did say was that, if they thought the teaching of Guru Govind Singh excluded implicit belief in non-violence, they could not be consistent Congressmen so long as the Congress creed remained what it was. I added that they would be compromising themselves if they joined or remained in the Congress and might even damage their own cause.

 Q. By teaching respect for all religions you want to undermine the power of Islam. You want to emasculate the Pathans by taking away the rifle from them. There can be no meeting ground between us and you.

 A. I do not know what you thought during the Khilafat days. Let me give you a bit of the history of our own times. The foundation of the Khilafat struggle was laid by me. I had a hand in the agitation for the release of the Ali Brothers. So when they came out, they, together with Khwaja Abdul Majid, Shuaib Qureshi and Moazzam Ali, and I met together and devised the plan of action which the world knows. I discussed with them the implications of non-violence and told them that, if they could not accept non-violence as true Muslims, I should be out of the picture. Their reason was satisfied, but they said they could not act without endorsement from Muslim divines, and so there was a conference of the ulemas at the late Principal Rudra’s house where I used to stay, when in Delhi, during his lifetime. This learned company included, among several others, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and the late Maulana Abdul Bari. Led by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad they held that belief in non-violence was not only not inconsistent with Islam, but it was obligatory in the sense that Islam had always preferred it to violence. It is noteworthy that this took place before the acceptance of non-violence by the Congress in 1920. Many were the discourses given by learned Muslims on nonviolence before crowded Muslim meetings. The Sikhs too came in later without any scruples and they listened with rapt attention to my exposition of non-violence. Those were great and glorious days. Nonviolence proved infectious. Under its spell there was a mass awakening such as had never been seen before in this land? All communities felt as one, and they thought that non-violence had clothed them with an irresistible power. Those halcyon days are gone and now I am obliged seriously to answer questions like the above. I cannot give you the faith in non-violence you do not possess. God alone can give it to you. Mine remains unshaken. I do maintain, in spite of you and others like you suspecting my motives, that mutual respect for one another’s religions is inherent in a peaceful society. Free impact of ideas is impossible on any other condition. Religions are meant to tame our savage nature, not to let it loose. God is only one though He has countless names. Don’t you expect me to respect your faith? If you do, may I not expect the same respect from you for mine? You say Muslims have nothing in common with Hindus. In spite of your separatism, the world is moving towards universal brotherhood when mankind will be one nation. Neither you nor I can stop the march towards our common destiny. As for the emasculation of Pathans, let Badshah Khan answer. He had accepted non-violence before we met. He believes that the Pathan has no future save through non-violence. Without it, if nothing else, his blood-feuds will keep him from going forward. And he thinks that the Pathan found his feet in the Frontier Province after he accepted non-violence and became servant of God Khudai Khidmatgars.

 Q. You did not hesitate to join the Ali Brothers in their intrigue to invite Amanulla Khan to invade India and set up Muslim Raj. You drafted a wire for Maulana Mahomed Ali advising the then Amir not to enter into a treaty with the British. The late Swami Shraddhanandji is reported to have seen the draft. And now you want the Hindus of Sindh to make a present of their hearths and homes to their Mussalman oppressors instead of demanding the re-amalgamation of Sindh with the Bombay Province, which alone can restore the reign of law to Sindh. Why won’t you realize that in this age of enlightenment and progress what the minorities expect is effective protection of their due rights, not mere pious counsels of perfection?

A. I have several such letters. Hitherto I have ignored them. But now I see that the news has gone through a revised and enlarged edition in the Hindu Mahasabha. An angry correspondent threatens that persons like him will begin to believe what has been stated so authoritatively. For the sake of my reputation, therefore, I must answer the question. But my correspondents should know that life for me would be a burden if I were to make it a point of controverting every false report about me or distortion of my writing. A reputation that requires such a mud wall of protection is not worth keeping. So far as the charge of my intriguing with the Amir is concerned, I can say that there is no truth whatsoever in it. Further, I know that the Brothers stoutly denied the charge when it was brought to their notice. And I believed them implicitly. I do not remember having drafted any telegram on behalf of Maulana Mahomed Ali to the then Amir. The alleged telegram is harmless in it and does not warrant the deduction drawn from it. The late Swamiji never referred the matter to me for confirmation. It is wrong to say anything against dead men unless one has positive proof and stating it is relevant. The romance has been woven round my writings in Young India. Deductions drawn from them are wholly unjustified. I would not be guilty of inviting any power to invade India for the purpose of expelling the English. For one thing, it would be contrary to my creed of non-violence. For another, I have too great a respect for English bravery and arms to think that an invasion of India can be successful without a strong combination of different powers. In any case, I have no desire to substitute British Rule with any other foreign rule. I want unadulterated Home Rule, however inferior in quality it may be. My position remains today what it was when I wrote the Young India paragraphs now sought to be used against me. Let me further remind the readers that I do not believe in secret methods. As for Sindh my advice stands. Reincorporation of Sindh in the Bombay Province may or may not be a good proposition on other grounds, but certainly it is not for the purpose of greater protection of life and property. Every Indian, be the Hindu or any other, must learn the art of protecting himself. It is the condition of real democracy. The State has a duty. But no State can protect those who will not share with it the duty of protecting themselves.

Reference:

Harijan, 10-2-1940