Question Box and Mahatma Gandhi- XI

[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- XI

 

Q. You say you will not launch civil disobedience till Congressmen are fully trained in non-violence and disciplined. That is right. But in the mean-time the country is being bled white. Increased railway fares, duty on sugar, the reduction of sugarcane prices are only a few instances in point. Is it right to delay the struggle till our best workers are picked off one by one, and thus lose the fight without ‘striking a blow’?

A. I can cite far more telling instances than you have given for justifying civil disobedience. But civil disobedience is not being delayed for want of justification. It is being delayed for want of preparation. I should be a stupid General if I began the fight in spite of my knowledge that my resources are poor. If the leaders are picked off by the Government without just cause, it would mean an invitation to the Congress to fight. I would not answer the invitation if I were not ready. The leaders being picked off can do the country no harm. For we know that disciplined jail-going is itself a part of the struggle. Moreover, the imprisonment of leaders will test our strength as an organization. A non-violent organization implies the equal education and therefore equal fitness of all units. That we have not arrived at that stage shows our ignorance of the working of non-violence.

 Q. In your leading article of March 30, you have hoped that passive satyagrahis will not interfere with the course of the struggle by “precipitating strikes of labourers”. There is just this cryptic word “precipitating” and nothing more. When I read it first, I did not particularly notice it. But I had to do a lot of explaining later. Unless a very careful reader or trained to understand your way of thought and expression, one is likely to go astray. One may miss the force of the word “precipitating” and understand it as if you frowned upon all strikes of labourers. With the recent Ahmadabad fight for a war bonus, no one would be entitled to regard you as an opponent of labourers’ strikes as such. The strike in Ahmadabad was indeed averted, but you had approved of it and the workers realized their demands. The work in Ahmadabad was done methodically. There was proper presentation and working out of labourers’ demands, completing of arbitration, full notice and balloting of the over hundred thousand votes on the question of the strike. I believe that, if after such methodical work a strike cannot be averted, you will approve of it and only assure yourself that there is no violence.

A. You are right. I consider myself to be an expert in organized strikes. My first successful attempt was made in South Africa under most adverse circumstances. I improved the technique in Ahmadabad. I do not claim to have reached perfection. I know that strikes can be made irresistible. I have discountenanced only unauthorized strikes. The Congress has not gained control over labour. Some Congressmen have. Almost all the strike leaders have their own methods. All of them are not non-violent. Some are ruled by selfish considerations. Some others are unscrupulous. What I, therefore, ask for is at least passive, if not active, co-operation. I shall not need strikes for the purpose of the struggle. What shape mass civil disobedience will take, if it ever comes, I cannot say. But I can say what it will never do if I have anything to do with it. I know that, if the Congress had non-violent control over all labour in India, the Congress could become far more powerful than it is today. That control will come when the congress has one policy about labour and has enough workers to give effect to it.

Q. If the object of the Congress in the liquidation of untouchability is to give Harijans a status of equality with the rest, is this not achieved by their conversion to Islam? Why does the Independence Pledge allocate the programme of the removal of untouchability to the Hindus only? Does this not show that Congress is anxious to maintain a Hindu majority and therefore denies to the Mussalmans their right of conversion?

A. Liquidation of untouchability cannot be attained by the conversion of untouchables to Islam or any other religion for it is the so-called caste Hindu who has to rid himself of the sin of untouchability. He can wash away the stain only by doing justice, however tardy, to the outcaste. You will thus see why Muslims are not invited by the Congress to share the burden with the Hindus. They have committed no sin against the untouchables. I cannot prevent you from looking at a simple but necessary social reform as a political dodge to maintain a majority. Tens of thousands of Hindus who are doing penance have no thought of majority. All they want is to do justice to those whom, under the guise of religion, caste Hindus have reduced to a state worse than slavery. Lastly, you are hopelessly wrong in suggesting that the Congress denies the right to Muslims to convert ‘untouchables’. The Congress cannot prevent anybody from doing conversion work. Whether you will exercise the right in the right manner or wrong is for you to consider.

Reference:

Harijan, 20-4-1940