Free Expression 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

 

 

Free Expression and Mahatma Gandhi 

 

 

I must dissent from the view that a loyalty revolution debars a free expression of one’s sentiments. That loyalty must indeed, be skin-deep which requires a wall of protection against criticism. I hold it to be perfectly consistent with my loyalty to the King to tell him that things are done in his name which ought not to be done. My declaration of loyalty will sound all the truer for the warning and I think that among the many services rendered by the Home Rule Leagues, special mention deserves to be made of their having emboldened the people to speak out their minds: and I doubt not that if they but do their duty to the fullest extent, they would place India’s loyalty above suspicion. For, with a true Home Ruler it must be an article of faith that the Empire must be saved; for, in its safety lays the fruition of his fondest hopes. Not to help the Empire is to commit national suicide. How can we wish harm to our would-be partner without hurting ourselves? 1

If hartals can be brought about by means such as the foregoing statement suggests, they can do no good whatsoever. They are no free expression of public opinion. But I am less concerned with the expedience of hartals than with the good name of Islam and non-co-operation. The law of non-co-operation demands perfect toleration and respect for the opposite opinion and action. The law of Islam, in so far as a non-Muslim can speak of it, requires equally strict toleration. Nothing could have so deeply hurt the Prophet as the in toleration of the people of Mecca during the early period of his ministry towards the new faith he was preaching. He could not possibly, therefore, at any time have been party to intolerance. “There shall be no compulsion in religion” must have descended to him when some of his new converts were more zealous than wise in the preaching of the new faith. Whether we are Hindus or Mussulmans or what, does not matter. The spirit of democracy which we want to spread throughout India cannot be spread by violence whether verbal or physical, whether direct, indirect, or threatened. 2 

Even during their fourteen years’ exile, he gave free expression to his hatred for the Kauravas before Dharmaraja; what is more, victory in the battle depends entirely on him. Bhima is physically strong and daring, but he lacks Arjuna’s power. In their preparations for the battle during the fourteen years’ exile, the other brothers always placed Arjuna at their head. When there was a battle outside Viratnagar, Arjuna, who had been living there in disguise wanted to be led to the place of fighting. Why does a man, who loves fighting to this extent, want his chariot to be stationed between the two armies and to see who the warriors are on the other side? He knows every one of them well enough. Why does he argue with Shri Krishna and tell him all that he does? He could have left the place immediately. Arjuna has a smaller army—an army of seven akshauhini as against the Kauravas’ of eleven. Let us suppose that Arjuna flees the battle-field. Though his enemies are wicked people, are sinners, they are his relations and he cannot bring himself to kill them. If he leaves the field, what would happen to those vast numbers on his side? If Arjuna went away, leaving them behind, would the Kauravas have mercy on them? If he left the battle, the Pandava army would be simply annihilated. What, then, would be the plight of their wives and children? I publish in Navajivan a narrative of the European War, and there is a reason for this. It reminds us of the battle of the Mahabharata. I give the narrative so that readers may know the ruin which such a war brings on a whole people. If Arjuna had left the battlefield, the very calamities which he feared would have befallen them. Their families would have been ruined, and the traditional dharma of these families and the race would have been destroyed. Arjuna, therefore, had no choice but to fight. This is the meaning of the battle in crude physical terms; I shall discuss later what it would be if the battlefield were taken to be the human being. 3 

I understand your deep sorrow. You are quite right in giving full and free expression to your feelings. But I am quite sure that from our common standpoint a closer study of the written word will show you that there is not enough reason for all the grief and disappointment you have felt. Let me assure you that you have not lost a comrade in me. I am the same as you knew me in 1917 and after. I have the same passion that you knew me to possess for the common goal. I want complete independence for the country in the full English sense of the term. And every resolution that has pained you had been framed with that end in view. I must take full responsibility for the resolutions and the whole conception surrounding them. 4

 Then there is the growing group of socialists. Jawaharlal is their undisputed leader. I know pretty well what he wants and stands for. He claims to examine everything in a scientific spirit. He is courage personified. He has many years of service in front of him. He has an indomitable faith in his mission. The socialist group represents his views more or less, though probably their mode of execution is not exactly his. That group is bound to grow in influence and importance. I have welcomed the group. Many of them are respected and self-sacrificing co-workers. With all this, I have fundamental differences with them on the programme published in their authorized pamphlets. But I would not, by reason of the moral pressure I may be able to exert, suppress the spread of the ideas propounded in their literature. My remaining in the Congress would amount to the exercise of such pressure. I may not interfere with free expression of those ideas, however distasteful some of them may be me. 5 I have welcomed the formation of the Socialist Group; many of them are respected and self-sacrificing co-workers. With all this, I have fundamental differences with them on the programme published in their authorized pamphlets. But I would not by reason of the moral pressure I may be able to exert suppress the spread of ideas propounded in their literature. I may not interfere with the free expression of those ideas however distasteful some of them may be to me. 6

I ask Sir C. P. Ramaswami to copy Sir Mirza Ismail and appoint an outsider of unimpeachable integrity to enquire into the whole affair. Let him declare a general amnesty and allow free expression of opinion. Instead of importing the military and a Special Officer to carry on repression, I invite the Travancore Government to request someone like the Rt. Hon’ble V. S. Srinivasa Sastri, if Congressmen are anathema, to go to Travancore and help them to re-establish peace there without further military action. 7 My distress is going deeper. Recent events disconcert me. My complaint about ‘exactions’ and inflated salaries is already before you. I fear that free expression of public opinion will presently be suppressed with a heavy hand. No discordant note will be allowed. Perhaps wars cannot be carried on otherwise. That is one of the many reasons for making them hateful. 8

In order to end the deadlock in India and to promote the national cause, in co-operation with the British people, the Working Committee, even at the sacrifice of Mahatma Gandhi’s co-operation, made a proposal to the British Government in their Delhi resolution of July 7, which was subsequently approved by the A. I. C. C. at Poona. This proposal was rejected by the British Government in a manner which left no doubt that they had no intention to recognize India’s independence, and would, if they could, continue to hold this country indefinitely in bondage for British exploitation. This decision of the British Government shows that they will impose their will upon India, and their recent policy has further shown that they will not even tolerate free expression of public opinion in condemnation of their associating India in the war against Germany, against the will of a vast body of the people of India, and of exploiting her national resources and manpower for this purpose.  The All-India Congress Committee cannot submit to a policy which is a denial of India’s natural right to freedom, which suppresses the free expression of public opinion and which could lead to the degradation of her people and their continued enslavement. By following this policy the British Government have created an intolerable situation, and are imposing upon the Congress a struggle for the preservation of the honour and the elementary rights of the people. The Congress is pledged under Gandhiji’s leadership to nonviolence for the vindication of India’s freedom. At this grave crisis in the movement for national freedom, the All-India Congress Committee, therefore, requests him to guide the Congress in the action that should be taken. The Delhi resolution, confirmed by the A.I.C.C. at Poona, which prevented him from so doing, no longer applies. It has lapsed. 9 

If India is wholly in favour of participation in the war, they could have easily disregarded any hostile propaganda. But the determination to gag free expression of opinion, provided it was not in the least tainted with violence, shatters Britain’s claim that India’s participation is voluntary. Had the Congress proposal been accepted, such aid as Britain would have got from India would have been an asset of inestimable value. The non-violent party would have played an effective part for honourable peace when the proper time for it was in sight, as it must be some day. I have been shown The Times comment on the breach. I accept the compliment about my resourcefulness. But great as I believe it to be, I own that it has its limitations. There must be willingness on the other side. I regret to have to say, I wholly missed it at the interview. The Viceroy was all courtesy, but he was unbending, and believed in the correctness of his judgment, and as usual had no faith in that of nationalist India. The Britishers is showing extraordinary bravery on the battle-field in a marvellous manner. But he lacks bravery to take risks in the moral domain. I often wonder whether the latter has any place in British politics. 10

 

References:

 

1. The Bombay Chronicle, 17-6-1918
2. Young India, 26-1-1922  
3. March 3, 1926
4. Letter to Jawaharlal Nehru, August 17, 1934
5. Letter to Vallabhbhai Patel, Before September 5, 1934
6. The Bombay Chronicle, 18-9-1934
7. Harijan, 10-9-1938  
8. Letter to Lord Linlithgow, August 29, 1940
9. Harijan, 22-9-1940
10. Harijan, 6-10-1940