Dacoity 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

 

 

Dacoity and Mahatma Gandhi

 

When incidents of dacoity in Ghatkopar increased, the inhabitants of the place got frightened. In such an atmosphere people everywhere get frightened. Now the Municipality has taken necessary steps and, with the beginning of the rainy season, escape has become less easy for the dacoits, and so the fear of dacoity has also lessened. Hence there is no need to consider what immediate steps the people of Ghatkopar should devise. But an increase in the police force is not the right remedy. Such measures have always been taken in the past and yet dacoities have not ceased. In America, which is considered very advanced, robbery is committed on running trains and daring thieves manage sometimes to waylay and rob people on the highway in broad daylight. Thefts, of course, are a common occurrence. Many expert observers believe that crime has increased along with the advance of civilization. All that has happened is that the nature of crimes has changed. Along with the people, crimes too become more refined. Along with greater skill in the detection of crimes, the capacity to conceal them also grows. In the result, therefore, we remain where we were. Let us see where and how people become dacoits. No one robs sadhus who live in forests and have no possessions. And what would anyone rob them of? Robbers look for money. If people set a limit to their love of money, the number of robberies will also decrease.

If all people possess more or less equal wealth, robberies will cease. But we may take it that we shall see no such happy consummation in this age. Nevertheless, it is necessary to bear this principle in mind. We may not set a limit to our love of money, but we must make an effort to understand the condition of dacoits. If they are without means of living, we should offer them work; if they have made dacoity their profession, we should explain its immorality to them. This is the work of reformers and, therefore, the sadhus should be the fittest to undertake it. I do not mean sadhus who wear ochre robes and go about begging, but those whose hearts are dyed in ochre and who have dedicated themselves to service of others. The work of reform cannot be taken up when dacoits visit us. It must commence from today. Such work requires little money, or rather none at all and few men. Once the movement has started, it will go on. There are instances of reformers in modern time shaving effected secure forms. Sahajanand, Chaitanya, Ramakrishna, and others have done so on a big scale. Let no one ridicule the reform they brought about by thinking or saying that it did not endure or that the reformers did not succeed in putting an end to dacoities. Such reforms are not extensive because they are for the most part limited in scope.

We think that there is no need to introduce such reforms among the wealthy. Really speaking, the depredations of dacoits are a reflection of the theft committed by the rich. The subtle theft of the latter becomes, with the dacoits, physical robbery. The reformer, therefore, will have to take in hand the rich and the poor, the subtle dacoit and the one who commits physical robbery. Only then can the desired results be achieved. This is the work of acharyas, fakirs, sannyasis and the like. They have it in them to become the true protectors and guardians of the morality of society, and it is their Job, therefore, to end the evil of dacoity. While such reforms are going on, dacoities will of course continue. In trying to affect such reforms, one should not expect quick results. They come about slowly. Meanwhile, what should the rich do to protect their property? With police help, they do succeed in getting a measure of protection. It has become a practice to hold the Government responsible for all shortcomings and evils. It is a laudable attitude and on the whole right. Since we are under foreign rule today, we find it easy to blame the Government. When there is swaraj tomorrow, even then we shall be imperfect and we shall abuse the swaraj Government. But we ourselves shall be the swaraj Government and, therefore, to cultivate the habit of not blaming the present-day Government should be regarded as training for swaraj. To blame the Government alone for the dacoities which take place is a confession of our weakness. How many policemen can the Government maintain to protect people living in forests? How can a people who can never protect themselves ever enjoy swaraj? A weak people will always be doomed to slavery. Hence people everywhere must make their own arrangements for their protection. From this point of view, people of suburbs like Ghatkopar, in fact people all over the country, should train them for self-defence.

It is necessary for young people from every house to take training in self-defence. We can have protection through hired men, but that method is extremely dangerous. If middle-class people, instead of protecting themselves, engage others for the job, they will only be spending money to create masters. Those who work for wealth and possessions must be ready to defend themselves. My criticism so far applies both to Hindus and to Muslims. The Hindus have difficulties on account of the caste system, but their attitude is mistaken. Every man must have all the four qualities knowledge, valour, the commercial instinct and readiness for service. Varnashrama can only mean that each caste should have in outstanding measure its special quality and that it should earn its livelihood through that quality. That is to say, a Brahmin earns his right to a handful of bajra by imparting knowledge, a Kshatriya by defending, a Vaisya by engaging in trade, etc., and a Sudra by rendering service.

But a man who is unable to protect himself at a time of crisis is an incomplete man. He is a burden to society. One can defend oneself by soul-force or physical force. Anyone who has not cultivated soul-force is in duty bound to defend himself and his people by means of physical force. Both those who rely on soul-force and those who rely on physical force will have to learn to face death. The man of soul-force will treat his body as of no worth and lay down his life without using force against the dacoits, whereas the other will die killing. Everyone may not be ready to cultivate soul-force. Moreover, “seeker of wealth” and “seeker of the atman” mean quite opposite things. The former can never become a seeker of the atman till he has given up his love of money. But either of them will be a coward if he runs away in the face of danger. Hence, one should cultivate the strength for self-defence to the best of one’s ability. It is the clear duty of those living in suburbs like Ghatkopar that they themselves, that is, some members of their families, take training in personally fighting the dacoits.   

 

Reference:

 

Navajivan, 29-6-1924