For Global Peace with Social Justice in a Sustainable Environment

Sovereignty and Mahatma Gandhi

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- dr.yadav.yogendra@gandhifoundation.net;

dr.yogendragandhi@gmail.com

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

Sovereignty and Mahatma Gandhi

In Champaran, by resisting an age-long tyranny, I have shown the ultimate sovereignty of British justice. In Kaira, a population that was cursing the Government now feels that it, and not the Government, is the power when it is prepared to suffer for the truth it represents. It is, therefore, losing its bitterness and is saying to itself that the Government must be a Government for the people, for it tolerates orderly and respectful disobedience where injustice is felt. Thus, Champaran and Kaira affairs are my direct, definite, and special contribution to the war. Ask me to suspend my activities in that direction and you ask me to suspend my life. If I could popularize the use of soul-force, which is but another name for love-force, in the place of brute force, I know that I could present you with an India that could defy the whole world to do its worst. In season and out of season, therefore, I shall discipline myself to express in my life this eternal law of suffering and present it for acceptance to those who care. And if I take part in any other activity, the motive is to show the matchless superiority of that law. 1

It derives its sanction directly from the injunction of the Prophet. Until, therefore, Indian Mussulmans are placated, there can be no peace, and the sine qua non of Mussulman conciliation is that what is termed the Island of Arabia must remain under the exclusive Mussulman control and under the spiritual sovereignty of the Khalifa, whoever he may be for the time being. The prestige of Islam demands rendition of Smyrna and Thrace to Turkey, and evacuation by the Allied Powers of Constantinople, but the existence of Islam demands the total abrogation of mandates taken by Britain and France. No influence, direct or indirect, over the Holy Places of Islam will ever be tolerated by Indian Mussulmans. It follows, therefore, that even Palestine must be under Mussulman control. So far as I am aware, there never has been any difficulty put in the way of Jews and Christians visiting Palestine and performing all their religious rites. No canon, however, of ethics or war can possibly justify the gift by the Allies of Palestine to Jews. It would be a breach of implied faith with Indian Mussulmans in particular and the whole of India in general. Not an Indian soldier would have gone, if Britain on the eve of war had declared even the possibility of any such usurpation, and it is becoming clearer every day that if India is to remain a free partner in a future British Commonwealth, as distinguished from the Empire, the terms of the Khilafat have to be settled more in consultation with the spiritual leaders of Mussulmans than with the political leaders of Turkey. 2

Whilst every good Muslim must strive to retain the temporal power of Turkey, it is obligatory on him to see that unequivocal Muslim control is retained over the ‘Island of Arabia’ which includes Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine as well, and the spiritual sovereignty over them of the Caliph, whoever he may be for the time being. No other terms, however good otherwise they may be, can possibly satisfy Muslim opinion. They will not tolerate any non-Muslim influence, direct or indirect, over the holy places of Islam. By no canon of ethics or war, therefore, can Palestine be given to the Jews as a result of the War. Either Zionists must revise their ideal about Palestine, or, if Judaism permits the arbitrament of war, engage in a ‘holy war’ with the Muslims of the world with the Christians throwing in their influence on their side. But one may hope that the trend of world opinion will make ‘holy wars’ impossible and religious questions or differences will tend more and more towards a peaceful adjustment based upon the strictest moral considerations. But, whether such a happy time ever comes or not, it is clear as daylight that the Khilafat terms to be just must mean the restitution of Jazirut-ul-Arab to complete Muslim control under the spiritual sovereignty of the Caliph. 3

We shall succeed in the task if we work in patience; the sannyasis will understand the truth only through experience, thatis, when the spinning-wheel comes to enjoy sovereignty in the country the sannyasis will submit to its rule. Sovereignty of the spinning-wheel means the sovereignty of love, and that means an awakening of the religious spirit. When such an awakening takes place, this small group of sannyasis will not fail to recognize it. 4 Subduing the atman by the atman” means overcoming the baser, the demoniac impulses in the mind through the atman, that is, through the Godward impulses; in other words, Arjuna should, Shri Krishna tells him, master his egotistic instincts by striving for spiritual welfare and, assured that his real self was more potent than the intellect, he should storm the fort and seize it. The senses are the gatekeepers and the mind is the minister. What the senses tell the mind is reported by the latter to the intellect, and the intellect decides and issues its order. If, however, we regain the sovereignty which is rightfully ours, then we would be able to subdue the mind, the intellect and the senses that at present we have accepted as our masters, as in our country we have accepted foreigners as our masters and believe that we get the food we eat because of them. 5

For life persists in spite of death. We have an ocular demonstration, positive proof of the unquestioned sovereignty of ahimsa, and this triumph of ahimsa is possible through sacrifice. There is thus no higher law than the law of yajna, the law of service, which is the law for the volunteer. Even for those whom you love most, even for me, you may not hate anyone else. If you do, it will not be love or service, but infatuation. If you have served me out of infatuation, this service will not be of avail. But I know you have not done so. You did not know me except by hearsay. You had never seen me, and you have during these four months never even come near me to receive a word of thanks from me. 6 I know your enthusiasm. I need not say anything from here whether or not picketing would be proper. It will be enough, so far as I am concerned, if people do not swerve from the path of truth and non-violence even for the sovereignty of the three worlds. 7

To do this would possibly be somewhat of derogation from the sovereignty which the princes enjoy. But if they would be part of the Federation in which the larger part is to be governed by a spirit of absolute democracy, it is up to them to part with some of their power and that of their own accord and free will. I am hoping that some such thing would happen and that is why you find no mention made of Federation in this resolution. 8 The sceptic then argues: “You cannot teach non-violence to the weak and you dare not take it to the powerful. Why not admit that it is a futile creed?” The answer is, non-violence can be effectively taught only by living it. When there is an unmistakable demonstration of its power and efficacy the weak will shed their weakness and the mighty will quickly realize the valuelessness of might and becoming meek acknowledges the sovereignty of non-violence. It is my humble effort to show that this is no unattainable goal even in mass action. With critics like the English friend, I plead for patience. 9

But the sex education that I stand for must have for its object the conquest and sublimation of the sex passion. Such education should automatically serve to bring home to children the essential distinction between man and brute, to make them realize that it is man’s special privilege and pride to be gifted with the faculties of head and heart both; that he is a thinking, no less than a feeling, animal, as the very derivation of the word manushya shows, and to renounce the sovereignty of reason over the blind instincts is therefore to renounce a man’s estate. In main reason quickens and guides the feeling, in brute the soul lies over dormant to awaken the heart is to awaken the dormant soul, to awaken reason, and to inculcate discrimination between good and evil. 10 By political independence I do not mean an imitation of the British House of Commons, or the Soviet rule of Russia or the Fascist rule of Italy or the Nazi rule of Germany. They have systems suited to their genius. We must have ours suited to ours. What that can be is more than I can tell. I have described it as Ramarajya i.e., sovereignty of the people based on pure moral authority. The Congress constitutions of Nagpur and Bombay for which I am mainly responsible are an attempt to achieve this type of swaraj.

It satisfies one’s highest aspirations on this earth and hereafter. No doubt it will not satisfy the aspirations of him who does not believe in God and His undisputed sovereignty. It is no idle thing that the Maharaja of Travancore is called Padmanabhadas. It is a great thought. We know that God Himself has taken the title of Dasanudas servant of servants. If all the princes would call themselves servants of God, they would be correctly describing themselves, but they cannot be servants of God unless they are servants of the people. And if zamindars and monied men and all who have possessions would treat themselves as trustees and perform the act of renunciation that I have described, this world would indeed be a blessed world to live in. 11 If India, the geographical unit, gets independence, as it must some day, it means that every component part has its independence. If independence is won non-violently, the entire component parts will be voluntarily interdependent, working in perfect harmony under a representative central authority which will derive its sanction from the confidence reposed in it by the component parts. If independence is taken by force of arms, then the strongest power will hold sway over all India. And this may be Hyderabad for ought I know. All the big and the petty States will be free willy-nilly from the British yoke. They will each fight for their existence and succumb to the strongest who will be the emperor of India. This presupposes unarmed millions lying prostrate at the feet of the combination of armed States. Many other things are, however, conceivable. The Indian part of the British army will probably have consciousness of strength and an independent existence. There may be Muslim arms, Sikh arms, Gurkha arms, Rajputs arms and what not. They may fight among themselves or, having allied themselves to some nationalist party, may present a united front to the Princes. There may also be the descent upon India of the warring tribes from the Frontier to share the spoils or the sovereignty itself. 12

We are not inhabiting a country full of deserts and wastelands. We are a densely populated country and I do not see the slightest chance for such redistribution. In that respect the Lahore Resolution is quite sound—where there is an obvious Muslim majority they should be allowed to constitute a separate State by themselves and that has been fully conceded in the Rajaji Formula or my formula. There is not much distinction between them. That right is conceded without the slightest reservation. But if it means utterly independent sovereignty so that there is to be nothing in common between the two, I hold it is an impossible proposition. That means war to the knife. It is not a proposition that resolves itself into a voluntary or friendly solution. 13 I want to make it clear that I believe Mr. Jinnah is sincere, but I think he is suffering from hallucination when he imagines that an unnatural division of India could bring either happiness or prosperity to the people concerned. It was my suggestion that provided there was the safeguard of a plebiscite there could he sovereignty for the predominantly Muslim areas, but it should be accompanied by bonds of alliance between Hindustan and Pakistan. There should be common policy and working arrangement on foreign affairs, defence, communications and similar matters. This is manifestly vital to the welfare of both parts of India. 14

I think I am explicit enough. I meant that apart from conceding the two-nation theory, I accepted the concrete suggestion of division of India as between members of the same family and therefore reserving for partnership things of common interest. But Quaid-e-Azam would have nothing short of the two-nation theory and therefore complete dissolution amounting to full sovereignty in the first instance. It was just here that we split as I have said herein before. 15 The question of paramountcy is unsolved. It is not enough to say that paramountcy will end with the end of British rule in India. If it persists without check during the interim period, it will leave behind a difficult legacy for the independent Government. If it cannot be ended with the establishment of the Interim Government, it should be exercised in co-operation with it and purely for the benefit of the people of the States. It is the people who want and are fighting for independence, not the Princes who are sustained by the alien power even when they claim not to be its creation for the suppression of the liberties of the people. The Princes, if they are true to their professions, should welcome this popular use of paramountcy so as to accommodate themselves to the sovereignty of the people envisaged under the new scheme. 16

The Congress belongs to the people, the Muslim League belongs to our Muslim brothers and sisters. If Congressmen fail to protect the Mussalmans where the Congress is in power, then what is the use of a Congress Premier? Similarly, if in a League province the League Premier cannot afford protection to the Hindus, then why is the League Premier there at all? If either of them has to take the aid of the military in order to protect the Muslim or Hindu minorities in their respective provinces, then it only means that none of them actually exercises any control over the general population when a momentous crisis comes. If that is so, it only means that both of us are inviting the British to retain their sovereignty over India. This is a matter over which each of them should ponder deeply. 17

It hurts me to talk about the partition of the country. What will be the plight of a body if it is dismembered? Similarly, dismemberment of a prosperous country like India will utterly ruin the people. Today it is the country which is being divided, tomorrow it may be Kashmir and the day after it may be the State of Junagadh in the remote corner of Kathiawar. How is it all possible? Let the whole of India be handed over to the League. I would not mind it. That is why I believe that if, after the exit of the British power, the people of India are not awakened, India will become the battle-ground for the Princes to fight among themselves and the big ones among them will try to gain sovereignty by swallowing up the smaller ones. 18 The British would be betraying us if they thought that they would find a place for themselves in Hyderabad, Bhopal, Rajkot or some other place after they quit India. But I have not gathered any such impression. I believe that the British intentions of leaving India are perfectly honest. Now that they are leaving India, their sovereignty also ends. How are some footholds here and there going to be of any help? And, when the British are gone, the Princes are going to have their place in the midst of their subjects. 19

The Congress wants to establish democratic rule. It will not act against the interests of the Princes either. But the Princes will be able to retain their position only when they become the trustees of their subjects like the Raja of Oundh. A small principality like Oundh will be long remembered only because it bowed to the sovereignty of the people. As against this, the State of Kashmir, although it is worth millions, will be wiped out if it does not listen to the voice of its people. Hitherto these rulers may have behaved arrogantly with the support of the British authorities; but now they must realize that their authority issues from the people. I made a special mention of Kashmir because at the moment our eyes are fixed on it. But this applies to all the native State. 20 The reward will be the regaining of India’s dwindling prestige and her fast-fading sovereignty over the heart of Asia and there through the world. I flatter myself with the belief that the loss of her soul by India will mean the loss of the hope of the aching, storm-tossed and hungry world. Let no friend or foe, if there be one, be angry with me. There are friends who do not believe in the method of the fast for reclamation of the human mind. They will bear with me and extend to me the same liberty of action that they claim for themselves. 21

References: