Question Box and Mahatma Gandhi-VI

[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-VI 

Q. The local officials have been collecting money from the people in aid of the war fund. But the way in which they have been raising money, though it is supposed to be voluntary giving, seems to be practical coercion. They arranged for a drama, but under instructions from the officials the village teachers (some of whom get about 12 or 15 rupees per month), the village Munsiff, bazaar-keepers, all had to buy tickets varying in price from one to fifteen rupees each. A petty shop-keeper whose income is only about Rs. 15 had to pay Rs. 5 for a ticket though the man never attended the drama. He told me he paid the money because the local Sub-collector, Tahsildar, Circle Inspector of Police was all there in person to collect the money. I am told Rs. 3,500 was raised in one night in my village. Will you advise what to do.

 A. If what you say is true, it is naked coercion. There is nothing voluntary in the people’s action. I can only hope that the higher authorities do not know anything about such high-handed procedure. Your duty is clear. You must tell the people that they ought not to submit to coercion. They are as free to refuse to buy tickets as they are free to buy them. You and they should run the risk involved; you in instructing the people, and they in refusing to pay.

Q. I am a young man of 22 years. Is it legitimate for me to refuse to oblige my father in the matter of marriage if I do not wish to marry?

 

 A. According to the Shastras and also reason, children when they reach the age of discretion, which the former prescribe as 16, become their parents friends, i.e., are free from parental dictation. They are still bound to consult them and defer to their wishes wherever they can. You are full-grown, and in a matter so vital as marriage you should respectfully refuse to marry if the match is not to your liking or for any other valid reason.

Q. I am a young man of 23 years. For the last two years, I have been using pure khadi only. For the last 28 days I have been spinning regularly in my leisure time. But my wife refuses to wear khadi. She says it is too coarse. Should I compel her to use khadi? I may also mention that I find our temperaments are incompatible.

 A. This is the common lot of life in India. I have often said that the husband, being the stronger and more educated party, has to act as tutor to his wife and put up with her defects, if any. In your case you have to bear the incompatibility and conquer your wife by love, never by compulsion. It follows that you cannot compel your wife to use khadi. But you should trust your love and example to make her do the right thing. Remember your wife is not your property any more than you are hers. She is your better half. Treat her as such. You will not regret the experiment.

 Q. I am married. My wife is a good woman. We have children. We have lived together in peace hitherto. Unfortunately she came across someone whom she has adopted as her guru. She has received guru mantra from her and her life has become a closed book for me. This has given rise to coolness between us. I do not know what I should do. Rama, as portrayed by Tulsidas, is my ideal hero. Should I not do what Rama did, and cut off all connection with my wife?

A. Tulsidas has taught us that we may not indiscriminately imitate the great. What they may do with impunity we may not. Think of Rama’s love for Sita. Tulsidas tells us that before the appearance of the golden deer the real Sita at the behest of Rama disappeared in the clouds and the mere shadow remained. This fact was a close secret even from Lakshmana. The poet further tells us that Rama had a purpose which was divine. It was with this shadow of Sita that Rama dealt, after the appearance of the golden deer on the scene. Even so Sita never resented any single act of Rama. All such data would be lacking in any mundane case, as they are lacking in yours. Therefore my advice to you would be to bear with your wife and not interfere with her so long as you have no cause of complaint against her conduct. If you adopted someone as your guru and had your guru mantra and if you did not impart the secret to your wife, I am sure you would not relish her resenting your refusal to disclose the secret. I admit that between husband and wife there should be no secrets from one another. I have a very high opinion of the marriage tie. I hold that husband and wife merge in each other. They are one in two or two in one. But these things cannot b regulated mechanically. All things considered, therefore, since you are a liberal-minded husband, you should have no difficulty in respecting your wife’s reluctance to share the secret with you.

Q. By insisting on the use of certified khadi only, you have delivered a very severe blow to the Muslim weavers on the one hand who are mostly using mill yarn, and on the other to the consumer who is thus induced to purchase certified khadi which is notoriously dear. I am a Muslim working for the uplift of the weaver class. I appeal to you to remove this double hardship by sanctioning the use of hand-woven mill yarn khadi.

A. There is no communalism in khadi. The A.I.S.A. has thousands of Muslim spinners and hundreds of Muslim weavers on its books. Khadi has as yet made little impression upon mill yarn weavers. What it has done is to provide occupation to those Hindu and Muslim weavers who were thrown out of employment by mill competition. Those weavers who do not take to weaving hand-spun are cutting their own throats because the natural consequence of the spread of mills will be the destruction of weavers as it has been that of hand-spinners. The handloom weavers who have held their own are pattern weavers. If khadi became universal, Muslim and other weavers who are today weaving mill yarn would, as a matter of course, take to weaving hand-spun. Thus there is no case of khadi ever hitting a single weaver. In fact it is his sole protection.

Q. I am a Hindu student. I have been great friends with a Muslim, but we have fallen out over the question of idol worship. I find solace in idol worship, but I cannot give an answer to my Muslim friend in terms of what may be called convincing. Will you say something on idol worship in Harijan?

A. My sympathies are both with you and your Muslim friend. I suggest you’re reading my writings on the question in Young India and, if you feel at all satisfied, let your Muslim friend read them, too. If your friend has real love for you, he will conquer his prejudice against idol worship. A friendship which exacts oneness of opinion and conduct is not worth much. Friends have to tolerate one another’s ways of life and thought even though they may be different, except where the difference is fundamental. Maybe your friend has come to think that it is sinful to associate with you as you are an idolater. Idolatry is bad, not so idol worship. An idolater makes a fetish of his idol. An idol worshipper sees God even in a stone and therefore takes the help of an idol to establish his union with God. Every Hindu child knows that the stone in the famous temple in Benares is not Kashi Vishwanath. But he believes that the Lord of the Universe does reside specially in that stone. This play of the imagination is permissible and healthy. Every edition of the Gita on a book-stall has not that sanctity which I ascribe to my own copy. Logic tells me there is no more sanctity in my copy than in any other. The sanctity is in my imagination. But that imagination brings about marvellous concrete results. It changes men’s lives. I am of opinion that, whether we admit it or not, we are all idol worshippers or idolaters, if the distinction I have drawn is not allowed. A book, a building, a picture, a carving are surely all images in which God does reside, but they are not God. He who says they are errs.

Q. The problem of unemployment among the educated is assuming alarming proportions. You of course condemn higher education, but those of us who have been to the University realize that we do develop mentally there. Why should you discourage anyone from learning? Would not a better solution be for unemployed graduates to go in for mass education and let the villagers give them food in return? And could not Provincial Governments come to their aid and help them with some money and clothing?

A. I am not against higher education. But I am against only a few lakhs of boys and girls receiving it at the expense of the poor taxpayer. Moreover I am against the type of higher education that is given. It is much cry and little wool. The whole system of higher education and for that matter all education needs radical overhauling. But your difficulty is about unemployment. In this you have my sympathy and co-operation. On the principle that every labourer is worthy of his hire, every graduate who goes to a village to serve it is entitled to be housed, fed and clothed by the villagers. And they do it too. But they will not when the graduate lives like saheb log and costs them ten times as much as they can afford. His life must accord as nearly as possible with that of the villagers and his mission must find appreciation among them.

Reference:

 Harijan, 9-3-1940