Social Functions and Mahatma Gandhi

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Senior Gandhian Scholar, Professor, Editor and Linguist

Gandhi International Study and Research Institute, 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

 

Social Functions and Mahatma Gandhi 

We may not take part in his social functions such as marriage feasts; we may not receive gifts from him. But we dare not deny social service. The latter is a duty. Attendance at dinner parties and the like is a privilege which it is optional to withhold or extend. But it would be wisdom to err on the right side and to exercise the weapon even in the limited sense described by me on rare and well-defined occasions. And in every case the user of the weapons will use it at his risk. The use of it is not as yet in any form a duty. No one is entitled to its use if there is any danger of hurting the movement. 1 I cannot, therefore, help saying that it is a healthy rule to prohibit members of the Swaraj Party from meeting or seeing officials without the permission of the Party. Many things have been known to take place at so-called social functions, but as I have said, this is my personal opinion which the Swaraj Party may or may not endorse. 2

But the compromise is acceptable in spite of the dangers referred to by me, not so much for what has been actually achieved as for the almost sudden transformation of the atmosphere in South Africa from one of remorseless hostility towards Indians to that of a generous toleration and from complete social ostracism to that of admission of Indians to social functions. 3 After the picketer’s appeal, the seller or the consumer must be free to sell or buy, as the case may be. There should be no social boycott, such as, stopping barber’s services, cutting off the water or food supply. But we are not obliged to deal with or receive services from those whose conduct we may disapprove. Thus, we may refuse to attend the social functions of one who has turned a deaf ear to public opinion or to have dealings with him even in matters other than his business of a seller of foreign cloth or drink and drugs. The golden rule is to err on the safe side, i.e., not to do the thing about which there is the slightest doubt. It should be borne in mind that whenever there is a clash between the dealer and the pickets, picketing has to be suspended. This clash can be avoided if we are gentle in our dealings with the sellers or consumers. 4

The more dignified procedure would be to invite us to ordinary social functions without any fuss. Even temple-entry, good and necessary as it is, may wait. The crying need is the raising of the economic status and decent behaviour in the daily contact.” I must not repeat here some of the harrowing details given by him from his own bitter experiences. I felt the force of his remarks. I hope every one of my readers will do likewise. 5 If untouchability of Harijans is removed, there can be no objection to their sharing the family meal precisely on the same terms as other castes. There are again innumerable social functions and ceremonies to which Harijans are never invited by caste men. Their cattle and other domestic animals may share their joys and sorrows but not Harijans or, if they do, these are occasions when they are pointedly reminded that they are not the same sort of human beings as caste Hindus. 6 

The one thing that should force itself upon the attention of every thoughtful reader is that the State or the Law should have nothing to do with untouchability and that; therefore, the Abolition of Untouchability Bill is a peremptory necessity. A custom that is repugnant to the moral sense of mankind, that varies from place to place, from time to time, both in its incidence and in its application to individuals, cannot and ought not to have the sanction of the law of a secular State representing those who at the one end believe in untouchability, no matter how capricious, and, at the other, regard it as a negation of religion. Withdrawal of State recognition of such a custom in no way interferes with the personal belief of any single individual or his social practice. It will still be open to a person to regard his fellow as an untouchable at religious and social functions without any interference from law. That should satisfy the most orthodox of people, and the reformer would be crossing the limits of justice if he asks for more. 7 I see why your body wears itself out. You insist on doing everything thoroughly. Of course it is the right thing for any seeker. But there is no warrant for any seeker taking over more than he or she can well manage. I wonder whether I was right in letting you come into my movements. God will take care of you. You must cut down the social functions of Simla even though it may involve some seeming sacrifice of the good you might do to the movements you may be in. No movement designed for the multitude will suffer by your conserving your time and energy by cutting down many social functions. 8

 

References:

1. Young India, 16-2-1921
2. The Englishman, 22-8-1925
3. Young India, 24-2-1927
4. Young India, 12-3-1931
5. The Epic Fast, pp. 318
6. The Bombay Chronicle, 10-12-1932
7. Harijan, 6-5-1933
8. Letter to Amrit Kaur, June 7, 1935