For Global Peace with Social Justice in a Sustainable Environment

Sampurnanand and Mahatma Gandhi

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Senior Gandhian Scholar

Gandhi Research Foundation, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09404955338, 09415777229

E-mail- dr.yadav.yogendra@gandhifoundation.net;

dr.yogendragandhi@gmail.com

Mailing Address- C- 29, Swaraj Nagar, Panki, Kanpur- 208020, Uttar Pradesh, India

Sampurnanand and Mahatma Gandhi

Sampurnanand was a freedom fighter and literary person. He had written a lot of books. He was an associate of Mahatma Gandhi also. Mahatma Gandhi and he communicated each others. Sampurnanand, in his statement, had said: “only a short time back Mr. Gandhi destroyed all vestige of organized Congress life in the country but advocated a truncated variety of Satyagraha. Next he extended his blessings to the rejuvenated Swaraj Party, notwithstanding the Lahore Congress resolution. When he seeks to inject into us the virus of inferiority complex by saying that we as a people, with all our sufferings, have proved ourselves unworthy of Satyagraha, we cannot let this statement go unchallenged. We are neither prepared to appoint Mr. Gandhi our sole champion nor promise not to resume the fight without his bidding. If this particular weapon is unfit for us, we shall simply have to find out another.” “Asked what he thought about Mr. Sampurnanand remarks appearing in The Statesman of April 14, Mr. Gandhi said: I fully sympathize with Mr. Sampurnanand in his anger, but when he has read my statement in calmness, I have no doubt he will see I have cast no reflection upon any of my co-workers. I have no regret for all past steps taken in Satyagraha. But I have no doubt whatsoever that, in the extraordinary situation the country is facing, it was the wisest thing for me to advise Congressmen to suspend Satyagraha, confining it only to me.” 1 “Mr. Sampurnanand asked Gandhiji if the members of the sub-committee had freedom to vote on the question of Article I, at the open session, and Gandhiji informed him that they had.” 2

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “My memory has become weak, but I do seem to recollect that each of the provinces was given its rightful share. If not, the matter should be looked into. Has this happened in every case? If injustice has been done and if I can do something about it, I shall certainly do so.” 3

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “How is it that the majority of you Socialists keep such bad health? Narendra Dev is a chronic sufferer from asthma, Meherally is down with heart trouble, Jayaprakash is ill and now you, who seemed to be the healthiest of the lot, are also confined to bed. Evidently none of you can look after him. Come to Wardha for some time and stay with me. I promise to send you back fully cured.” 4 Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “I had taken your book to Tithal, and had started reading it there. I finished it last Saturday, i.e., on July 24. I used to read it whenever I had a few minutes to spare. I have read it carefully from cover to cover. I liked the book, the language is sweet but it might also be regarded a bit difficult for those totally unacquainted with Sanskrit. The glossary of English-Hindi and Hindi-English equivalents given at the end is useful for the student. It is laudable that arguments in favour of socialism have been put forward without any disparagement of others.

I have no difficulty in accepting almost all the principles of socialism propounded in the book. I have also read with care the book by Jayaprakash. Can there possibly be any difference between his interpretation and yours? Neither in your book nor in his do I find a clear idea how wills the ultimate revolution in India be brought about. This I could not understand even after discussing it with many others. Only the day before yesterday a report of Meherally’s Madras speech came into my hands and I went through it. It explains fully what the socialists are doing. The object is to start a revolt in every sphere. But a revolt has never been possible without violence. In your book, however, I find nothing of the kind. Have we or have not we acquired strength through peaceful ways such as the civil disobedience or non-violent non-co-operation carried on since 1920? You say that the principles of socialism cannot be fully implemented until we have State power. Supposing, you ask, a powerful land-owner turned a complete socialist, could he well and truly act upon his principles? Assuming that he had no punitive power, could an Indian raja who was a socialist be able to implement socialism? I recollect your having written that socialism cannot be practiced in its entirety until the whole world turns socialist. Does this imply that even if we gain complete independence socialism will not be fully or almost fully implemented? I hope you have understood my point. The purpose behind this question is only to ascertain how far it would be possible for me to accept the socialist principles and the means of their implementation.” 5

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “I had assumed that you were always in good health and physically robust. Narendra Dev is very ill, Jayaprakash is so-so and you are suffering from jaundice and palpitation. In Gujarat, Dinkar is perpetually ill. Meherally has of course always been weak. I do not know about Masani’s condition. I really feel that I should open a nature-cure clinic for persons like you, and give up all other work. You surely know that I am a nature-cure fiend. Hence you should get well if only to avoid provoking the madness in me. Your letter throws ample light on my question. Nothing further remains to be asked. But the letter raises many other questions, which we shall talk over when we meet. However, let me say one thing. It does not seem correct to say that we can never approach our objective by means of compromise. Of course, the reason for compromise should not be our weakness. Do write the other book you have in mind. I for one like your style.” 6 Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “What is this news item about a Congress platoon of 10,000 to be formed in Farrukhabad? If an armed platoon is envisaged, is it compatible with the Congress creed of non-violence?” 7

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “I agree with everything that you have said. The Congress has merely given a new name to the language. It has not made any other difference. No honest person would reject a word because of its Hindu or Muslim origin. What can we say of others? And it has become fashionable these days to oppose anything done by the Congress or Congressmen. Do you want to know my views on the subject or something else?” 8 Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “Dr. Zakir Husain was here with me for a few days. He has prepared a memorandum on the Hindu-Muslim question. I send you the portion concerned with U. P. I like the suggestions he makes. Please go through it and implement what it is possible to implement. If you wish, you may write direct to Dr. Zakir Husain. I have known him for many years. He is a good man.” 9

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “Your letter regarding the flag and Bande Mataram was received at a time when I was travelling. What you have said in it is correct. I am working on the same lines. The problem of those who have entered Councils is becoming difficult day by day. But after all it is nothing but a symptom of the malaise. I see clearly that the Congress is going downward each day. Selfishness, infighting, untruth and violence have crept into the Congress and are on the increase. I fear we are destroying ourselves because of our inner failures. Let us see what God wills.” 10 Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “The decision to open 2,000 schools for basic education is indeed glorious. I feel that your effort will be crowned with success. I congratulate you on this enterprise.” 11

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “There has been no change in the pledge of 1930. All that has happened is an addition to the original. And the addition is also relevant. It can also be amended, sometimes such amendment becomes imperative. The Committee is not entitled to make changes in the original. Surely you will not say that suggestions may not be offered even in support of the original. There can be a difference of opinion regarding the usefulness of a suggestion. All I want to say is that it was necessary to offer the suggestion.” 12 Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “Shri Sampurnanand has raised a spiritual issue. He thinks that the original pledge should not have been tampered with though as he says, and rightly, it was discursive. I was its author. I wanted the people not merely to repeat the mantra of independence but to educate the people as to its why and wherefore. It was later amended when certain portions of the original had become meaningless. I admit the sacredness of the mantra of independence. That was given to us when the Lokamanya first uttered: “Swaraj is my birthright.” It was caught by thousands and is gaining strength from day to day. It is now enshrined in the hearts of millions. I hold that the addendum this year was necessary. It adds to the sacredness of the original and tells the people how everyone can contribute to the realization of national freedom.” 13

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “You have been very close to me for so long. I understand what you say. I write with an open heart as far as possible, yet the soldiers’ burden must continue. What you write regarding the charkha is enough. The work of adult literacy has been well accomplished. I could not deal with an earlier letter for want of time.” 14 Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “I have a fear that if there is disorder I may prove ineffective because no one will listen to me. I tell those who ask me that everyone should be at his post-using the lathi if they must but with non-violence if they have the faith. I do not worry, whatever may happen. We can but make the effort and say: “God’s will be done.” You cannot take office like that. If there is disorder, of what good will the office is? Still, if I can find a way I shall. There is no sign from Simla.” 15

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “I have in view only Hindi or Hindustani. But that does not imply boycott of Urdu. The root of all the three languages is the same and when we establish unity among us we would laugh at our own stupidity, and wonder why we ever quarreled over the language problem. You should read the article in the Harijan Sevak from this point of view. I praised Pyarelal’s Urdu for the simple reason that I have no other person who knows Urdu, and knowledge of Urdu is essential for evolving the Hindustani language. I have made a distinction between Pyarelal’s Urdu and Hindi merely in order to explain the situation. I never thought of the interpretation you have given to it. We who belong to the Congress can use no other name but Hindustani. For the Congress Hindustani is the national language. In fact there is no language called Hindustani which is different from Hindi and Urdu. That language has still to evolve itself. People will understand the meaning when we use Urdu words as well as Hindi words. But which language is to be known as Hindustani? Has it not to be a fusion of Hindi and Urdu? My endeavour is to create such a fusion. Let it be your endeavour too.” 16

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “I like your line of thinking, so I shall certainly try and read the book. Prabhavati will read it first. She asked for the books as soon as she saw it. At the moment she is on her way to Jayaprakash from where she will proceed to Bihar. I shall get the book only at Benares. I hope you were all right in the jail.” 17 Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “Even before your letter arrived I had, in the course of a letter to a friend, stated that you were fully entitled to offer criticism. It has had no adverse effect on me, although I maintain that there is absolutely no ground whatsoever for your criticism. At the back of the struggle for freedom of speech there is the claim for independence as it was at the back of the Salt Satyagraha. But then this is a controversial subject. Time will reveal everything. That leaves the question of Hindi. This controversy is meaningless and stems from ignorance. No one in the Congress is antagonistic towards Hindi. And no one will suspect me of such antagonism. But I may differ in my policy regarding Hindi. And if this happens to be the case, what would be my position in the Sammelan? I have been dragged into the Sammelan and I can quit this moment. I regard Urdu and the Persian script as included in Hindi. I have been maintaining this view since the Indore [session]. The man responsible for giving to the national language the name Hindustani [and getting it] accepted by the Congress is Tandonji. Now what can be done? I think the resolution was all right. And if it was so we should regard Hindustani as a synonym for Hindi. Now tell me if there is anything wrong in it. Rajendra Babu is not in a condition to go to Kashi. And he is certainly not going to Abohar. Kakasaheb and Shrimanji are on their way to meet Dr. Amarnathji. Maybe, now Tandonji himself will come out. Whatever he says will be done.” 18 Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “You have not given enough thought to the matter. If khadi workers are pure, khadi work will not become static. Today we have very little khadi. Make a thorough study of the theory and practice of khadi.” 19

“SAMPURNANAND: This is not feasible. The Congress Ministries are keen to take up such tasks; you should get the work done by them. But you cannot accomplish this work through the Congress Committees. Today, the Congress Committees want to boss over the Government and this cannot be.

GANDHIJI: It might be suggested that the Government should define their area of jurisdiction. Today, we cannot raise funds from the people. They would refuse to pay as they would have already made their contributions to the Government. We should tell the Ministers that so many funds are required for such and such constructive activity. If they refuse, we should protest to them and put before the people the correct position. But we cannot ask the public to donate for the work which the Government is capable of undertaking.” 20

References: