Question Box and Mahatma Gandhi- XIII

[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- XIII

 

 Q. There is still a lot of confusion in the public mind about the Indian situation. How can one remove it?

 A. Confusion should have been removed as soon as the popular ministers resigned. They were the chosen representatives of the people. They had applied themselves to their work with amazing industry and efficiency which won the unstinted praise of the Governors. They took no rest themselves and allowed none to their subordinates. They had set a definite programme before themselves which would have improved the condition of the masses. It must have cost them a lot to give up office. But they found to their amazement that Provincial Autonomy, Which sir Samuel Hoare had declared from the house-tops to be real and complete, was reduced to a farce in the twinkling of an eye. The popular ministers were to be mere registering officers to carry out the will of the central executive so far as war measures were concerned. In this most vital matter they were not consulted formally or informally. So the ministers had to resign. This one act of theirs was complete in itself. Its importance is not felt as it should be because the Congress is wedded to non-violence.

 Q. Many people believe that the attitude of the congress has precipitated the Muslim League resolution about partitioning India.

 A. I do not think so. But if it has, it is a distinct gain. It is good that what was in should come out. It is easier now to deal with the problem. It will solve itself. One distinct gain is that nationalist Muslims have become awakened to a sense of their duty.

Q. Would you prefer Muslim rule to British rule?

 A. The question is badly put. You, being British, cannot get out of the habit of thinking that India is fit only to be ruled by someone. Muslim rule is equivalent to Indian rule. You might as well ask me whether I would prefer Bengali or Maratha to British rule Maratha, Bengali, Sikh, Dravidian, Parsi, Christian (Indian), Muslim-all will be Indian rule. It makes no difference to me that some Muslims regard themselves as a separate nation. It is enough for me that I do not consider them as such. They are sons of the soil. Muslims considered separately have eight crores of unarmed Muslims scattered over India to look to. But you have the whole British nation and your army of occupation to look to. You belong to the ruling race. You are less than one hundred thousand in the midst of 350 million over whom you rule. It is a matter of shame both for you and us. I need not weigh whose is the greater shame. The sooner we get out of it the better for both of us. You will now understand my answer when I say that I would any day prefer Muslim rule to British rule. I have no doubt that, if British rule which divides us by favouring one or the other as it suits the Britishers were withdrawn today, Hindus and Muslims would forget their quarrels and live like brothers which they are. But supposing the worst happened and we had a civil war, it would last for a few days or months and we would settle down to business. In status we are equal. With you, it is different. You have disarmed us. Those of us who have been trained by you really belong to you rather than to us. We are no match for you in military power. You do not know how the rule has stunned the nation. Immediately British rule is really ended, we shall grow as never before, in spite of all foreboding.

Q. Both Pro f. Ranga and Shri Jayaprakash Narayan have been punished under the law. But while you were moved by the latter’s sentence you have denounced Prof. Ranga, and this in spite of the fact that Prof. Ranga’s offence was, if anything, a technical one, whereas Shri Jayaprakash by obstructing the war effort invited the penalty of the law upon himself. I agree that Prof. Ranga should not have broken the law. But then does not your attitude betray partiality on your part towards the one and antipathy towards the other?

 A. You are hopelessly wrong. Your admission that Prof. Ranga was wrong in breaking the order shows that your cause is not just. Prof. Ranga is as good a friend to me as Shri Jayaprakash. I should have expressed the same opinion about the latter’s action if he had done what Prof. Ranga did. There is no room in public life for partial friendships. Indeed real friendship is in no need of partiality. I have none for Shri Jayaprakash. Nor have I any antipathy towards Prof. Ranga. I have perhaps less differences with Prof. Ranga than with Shri Jayaprakash, but that makes no difference to me. Shri Jayaprakash committed no breach of an order. He delivered a speech which was regarded as contrary to law. In Prof. Ranga’s case there was a deliberate breach of an order served on him. The two things are different. I have answered your question because I attach importance to the breach. I also want to warn those who accept Congress discipline against such breaches.

Q. My father is the Congress Municipal Chairman of a certain place. In a recent by-election for a ward the official Congress candidate was defeated. A local youth organization gave a tea party in honour of the successful non-Congress candidate. My father was invited and he attended. His view was that once a candidate is elected, no matter to what party he belongs, as Chairman it was his duty to welcome him and get the best of co-operation from him in the interests of civic welfare. Some people feel that attending a function given in honour of an opponent is harmful to the party’s cause.

A. Your father, I am sure, was quite right. He would have been wrong if he had not attended the function. An opponent is entitled to the same regard for his principles as we would expect others to have for ours. Non-violence demands that we should seek every opportunity to win over opponents. And what can be better than that we share their joys and sorrows? Moreover your father as Chairman was bound to be impartial. I was, therefore double his duty to attend the function.

Reference:

Harijan, 4-5-1940