Question Box and Mahatma Gandhi-XV

[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-XV

 

 

 Q. Why do you say, “Democracy can only be saved through non-violence”?

A. Because democracy, as long as it is sustained by violence, cannot provide for or protect the weak. My notion of democracy is that under it the weakest should have the same opportunity as the strongest. That can never happen except through non-violence. No country in the world today shows any but patronizing regard for the weak. The weakest, you say, go to the wall. Take your own case. Your land is owned by a few capitalist owners. The same is true of South Africa. These large holdings cannot be sustained except by violence, veiled if not open. Western democracy, as it functions today, is diluted Nazism or Fascism. At best it is merely a cloak to hide the Nazi and the Fascist tendencies of imperialism, Why is there the war today, if it is not for the satisfaction of the desire to share the spoils? It was not through democratic methods that Britain bagged India. What is the meaning of South African democracy? Its very constitution has been drawn to protect the white man against the coloured man, the natural occupant. Your own history is perhaps blacker still, in spite of what the Northern States did for the abolition of slavery. The way you have treated the Negro presents a discreditable record. And it is to save such democracies that the war is being fought!. There is something very hypocritical about it. I am thinking just now in terms of nonviolence and trying to expose violence in its nakedness. India is trying to evolve true democracy, i.e., without violence. Our weapons are those of Satyagraha expressed through the charkha, the village industries, primary education through handicrafts, removal of untouchability, communal harmony, prohibition, and non-violent organization of labour as in Ahmadabad. These mean mass effort and mass education. We have big agencies for conducting these activities. They are purely voluntary, and their only sanction is service of the lowliest. This is the permanent part of the non-violent effort. From this effort is created the capacity to offer non-violent resistance called non-co-operation and civil disobedience which may culminate in mass refusal to pay rent and taxes. As you know, we have tried non-cooperation and civil disobedience on a fairly large scale and fairly successfully. The experiment has in it promise of a brilliant future. As yet our resistance has been that of the weak. The aim is to develop the resistance of the strong. Your wars will never ensure safety for democracy. India’s experiment can and will, if the people come up to the mark or, to put it another way, if God gives me the necessary wisdom and strength to bring the experiment to fruition.

Q. I agree with you that those who do not believe in the tests laid down by you for enrolment as satyagrahis should not hold office in the Congress organization. What is however, happening is that, while embargo upon disbelief has been effective, hypocrisy is enjoying a premium. People who have nothing in common with your programme are coming forward with the Satyagraha pledge in order to capture power, their only qualification being lack of scruples. Can you as general of the Satyagraha army shut your eyes to this? If not, what remedy do you propose? A I suppose Cowper not knowing how to deal with the hypocrite paid him a compliment by saying that ‘hypocrisy was an ode to virtue’ And so it is. But the gentlemen whom you refer to will soon discover their error either by my sensing the hypocrisy and not starting the struggle, or by their being tired of a role which requires labour from them. Meanwhile I must take everyone at his or her word, and believe that those who have taken the pledge have done so in good faith. I have no right to question anybody’s motive unless I have proof positive to the contrary.

 Q. The resolution passed at Ramgarh says that “Congressmen and those under the Congress influence cannot help in the prosecution of the War with men, money or material”. Every resolution of the Congress has to be explained to the people by Congressmen and Congress committees. If we do that, we are sure to offend the provisions of the Defence of India Act, i. e., we will be committing an act of civil disobedience before you as general have given the word. What are we to do under the circumstances?

A. I am not quite sure that you will commit an offence against the Defence of India Act merely by explaining the resolution to the people. But you can easily put yourself under it by adding ‘ginger’ to your explanation and delivering a first-class harangue against British rule. In your place I would not do it. Sufficient education has been given to the people as to what British rule is. But you should lay stress on what the people have to do to get out of foreign rule. Therefore everything depends upon how you say it. You will offend against my instructions when you disobey explicit orders served upon you.

Q. Are you right in conceding the right of self-determination to Muslims in a matter so vitally affecting others also, viz., Hindus, Sikhs, etc.? Supposing the majority of the Muslims decide in favour of partition in terms of the Muslim League resolution, what happens to the self-determination of Hindus, Sikhs, etc., who will be minorities in the Muslim States? If you go on like this, where will be the end to it?

A. Of course Hindus and Sikhs will have the same right. I have simply said that there is no other no-violent method of dealing with the problem. If every component part of the nation claims the right of self-determination for itself, there is no one nation and there is no independence. I have already said that Pakistan is such an untruth that it cannot stand. As soon as the authors begin to work it out, they will find that it is not practicable. In any case mine is a personal opinion. What the vast Hindu masses and the others will say or do I do not know. My mission is to work for the unity of all, for the sake of the equal good of all.

Q. In the last meeting of the Working Committee the Committee has resolved that all Congress committees should either be transformed into Satyagraha committees of the office-bearers, who for any reason cannot sign the pledge, should resign and make room for others who have signed the pledge. Now, if any Congressman has no faith in your technique but has accepted it only to carry out the Working Committee’s resolution and is spinning only because he wants to remain in office, is he entitled to become a satyagrahi and remain in office?

A. Surely the office-bearers should resign. The pledge taken merely to remain in office is of no value. Such a person should not hold office.

Q. If anyone signing the Satyagraha pledge does not observe the rules laid down in it, what action will be taken against such a satyagrahi?

A. He is liable to be removed from the position he may hold.

Q. If a Congress committee refuses to transform itself into a Satyagraha committee, what is the position of that committee?

A. That area will be unrepresented unless there are other Congressmen to take the place of the defunct committee?

Q. Can the following persons take the Satyagraha pledge? (a) A pleader who has given an undertaking to court that he will not join any civil disobedience movement. (b) A person who though he wears khadi himself buys mill-cloth for others and uses mil-cloth for his bed-sheets, etc. (C) A person who though a khadi-wearer himself trades in foreign cloth.

A. These persons cannot take the pledge.

 

 

Reference:

 

Harijan, 18-5-1940