Unity V. Justice- 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

 

Unity V. Justice- Mahatma Gandhi

 

A visitor came the other day and said, “You have done an irreparable injury to India by saying that there is no swaraj without communal unity. You should say instead that there is no swaraj without justice between and to the different communities.” I reasoned with my visitor but he would not be consoled. He said, “You have offered to sell your soul to win the favour of your Muslim friends.” I protested and said, “Surely you know, the world knows, that I would not sell my soul to buy India’s freedom. And if I want Muslim friendship, it is not for personal gratification but for India’s sake. You are unjust to me.” My visitor retorted with some passion, “I know your love for the country. If I had not known it, I would not have come to you specially. But your love has blinded you to the mistake you have made and are making. You do not know what Hindus say and do. For fear of offending Muslims, they suffer because they believe in you. I do beseech you to replace ‘unity’ with ‘justice’.” It was no using my arguing with my friend. And I had no time. I promised to deal with the question in these columns.

The promise soothed him. I do not know that my answer will. My belief is unshaken that without communal unity swaraj cannot be attained through non-violence. But unity cannot be reached without justice between communities. Muslim or any other friendship cannot be bought with bribery. Bribery would itself mean cowardice and therefore violence. But if I give more than his due to my brother, I do not bribe him nor do I do any injustice. I can disarm suspicion only by being generous. Justice without generosity may easily become Shylock’s justice. I must, however, take care that the generosity is not done at the expense of the very cause for which it is sought to be done. I cannot, therefore, drop the idea of unity or the effort for it. But what is wanted is not so much justice as right action. Quaid-e- Azam Jinnah’s reply to me, as published in the Press, however, dashes to the ground all hope of unity if he represents the Muslim mind. His repudiation of the natural meaning I put upon his action in making common cause with the different political groups has created a unique situation.

His picture of India as a continent containing nations counted according to their religions, if it is realized, would undo the effort the Congress had been making for over half a century. But I hope that Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah’s opinion is a temporary phase in the history of the Muslim League. Muslims of the different provinces can never cut themselves away from their Hindu or Christian brethren. Both Muslims and Christians are converts from Hinduism or are descendants of converts. They do not cease to belong to their provinces because of change of faith. Englishmen who become converts to Islam do not change their nationality. I hope Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah does not represent the considered opinion even of his colleagues.

 

Reference:

Harijan, 27-1-1940