Question Box and Mahatma Gandhi-VII

[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-VII

 

 

Q. Does not your identifying yourself with the Patna resolution of the Working Committee betray distrust in Lord Linlithgow, although you have professed to believe in his sincerity?

A. You have read into the resolution what is wholly unwarranted by the text. I do not doubt the Viceroy’s sincerity. I have not known a Viceroy who has weighed his word as Lord Linlithgow does. It is a pleasure to have a talk with him for he speaks with the greatest deliberation. His speech is, therefore, always brief and to the point. I adhere to the remark I made about our last meeting that, although we could not agree, we had come nearer each other. We might have gone on talking for a few days, but we would only have talked round the subject and repeatedly come to the same point of disagreement. I was under no handicap for I was speaking for myself. He was under a severe handicap. He was speaking under orders. He had no authority to go outside his instructions. And so we parted the best of friends. But so far as I am concerned, I expect many more meetings. The resolution makes the Congress position clear beyond doubt. It represents also my own position. If the British Government really means full-hearted Dominion Status with the right to secede, then they can have no difficulty in accepting the Congress position. Unfortunately Lord Zetlands’ interview shows that it is not India which is to determine her future but Britain will do so for her. This is not even Dominion Status of any known variety. Once the British Government are sure that they can no longer hold India, all the difficulties that are now being put forth on their behalf will vanish like darkness before dawn for they are all of their creation. They are inherent in exploitation. I hope you now see that there is no question of distrust of the Viceroy. Events had to move to where they are.

Q. You say that no such thing as Gandhism exists, and that what you stand for is nothing new. I am a Muslim. I see flashes of Islamic glory in Gandhism. As a student of theology I see the grandeur of Hinduism and the vigour of Christianity amply expounded in Gandhism. It includes also to a considerable extent the chaste philosophy of the entire East. I search the pages of India’s past history, but your creed I do not find. Why, therefore, is it not new, and why may it not be termed Gandhism for those of us who believe in you and therefore it?

 A. I have a horror of ‘isms’, especially when they are attached to proper names. Even if all that you say of me is true, it does not make a new sect. My effort is to avoid not only new sects but even to do away with old and superfluous ones. Ahimsa abhors sects. Ahimsa is a unifying force. It discovers unity in diversity. All that you say is derivable from ahimsa. To bring into being a new cult is repugnant to ahimsa, to the very experiment I am making. Thus you will, I hope, see that there is no room for ‘Gandhism’.

Q. You say, “It is degrading both for man and woman that woman should be called upon or induced to forsake the hearth and shoulder the rifle for the protection of that hearth. It is a reversion to barbarity and the beginning of the end but what about the millions of female labourers in fields, factories, etc.? They are forced to forsake the hearth and become “bread-winners”. Would you abolish the industrial system and revert to the Stone Age? Would that not be a reversion to barbarity and the beginning of the end? What is the new order that you envisage where the sin of making women work will be absent?

A. If millions of women are forced to forsake their hearth and become bread-winners, it is wrong, but not as wrong as shouldering the rifle. There is nothing inherently barbarous in labour. I see no barbarity in women voluntarily working on their fields whilst they are looking after their homes. In the new order of my imagination all will work according to their capacity for an adequate return for their labour. Women in the new order will be part-time workers, their primary function being to look after the home. Since I do not regard the rifle as a permanent feature in the new order, its use will be progressively restricted even so far as men are concerned. It will be tolerated as a necessary evil while it lasts. But I would not deliberately contaminate women with the evil.

Q. Why may not the illiterate masses be taught the Roman script? This would eliminate the existing controversy between Urdu and Hindi.

 A. To teach the Roman script in the place of Hindi and Urdu would be like putting the cart before the horse. Our children have first to learn both Hindi and Urdu scripts. Difficult questions cannot be solved by ignoring them or suggesting apparently easy substitutes. So long as hearts are divided the Roman scripts will not cement them. It would be an additional burden. The learning of the two scripts is the best and the easiest way of at least solving the national language riddle. It opens Hindi and Urdu thought to both Hindu and Muslim boys and girls who will be the men and women of the future generation. The Roman script will be learnt at its proper time, i.e., when our boys and girls are taught the English language, as some undoubtedly will be.

Q. Congress clamors for unity, but the principles which must be followed to attain that unity, viz., Hindu-Muslim fellow-feeling, no caste distinctions, no hatred towards each other and towards foreigners, co-operative endeavour, all these are presented to audiences through the microphone but not acted upon. Tell me, what are the duties of a Congress member? I would love to join and will put forth all my energy to do my bit for the country.

A. You need not mind what others do or ought to do. Charity begins at home. Let yours begin with yourself. Abolish all caste and religious or race distinctions from your heart. Be true to everyone— Hindu, Muslim Harijan, English, etc., as you are, I hope, to yourself, and you will find that so far as you are concerned your difficulty will be solved and your example will be copied by others. Be sure that you have banished all hate from your heart, and that you have no political or other objective in loving and serving your neighbour as if he was your own self.

 

Reference:

 

 Harijan, 16-3-1940