GANDHI OLD AND NEW

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Gandhian Scholar

Gandhi Research Foundation, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09415777229, 094055338

E-mail- [e-mail];[e-mail]

 

 

 

GANDHI OLD AND NEW

 

 

The Times of India has returned to the charge of insincerity which was to be inferred from its previous article which I dealt with recently in these columns. It is a sober article to which no exception could be taken. I am certainly anxious to retain the reputation for sincerity which has been credited to me and which I certainly claim. My article, “The Mists” should generally be regarded as my last word to my critics. I must rely upon my actions for final explanation. No man can be called just, sincere, or good before his death. But I would like to correct some of the misstatements of The Times of India writer. Even when I declared Satyagraha, I was charged with having fallen from my original non-political state and the state of isolation. Even in South Africa, I was referred by my critics to my past. Every campaign that I have been connected with had its critics who praised my past at the expense of the then present. I state this fact not to disprove the present charge, but to steel my heart against believing in the charge of unconscious insincerity and self-deception. I never suspended Satyagraha; I certainly never retired into private life.

I suspended civil disobedience, and it remains still suspended, because I believed, as I still believe, the country not to be ripe for it. My Himalayan mistake was my miscalculation of the preparedness of the country. Non-co-operation of the type undertaken is not attended with any danger such as is attendant on civil disobedience. The latter is not always a duty as non-co-operation is. Hence it is that I have said that I must continue to advise non-co-operation even though it may result in anarchy. Am I to recall my medals, or advise friends to recall theirs, or advise lawyers to resume practice because, supposing, anarchists have gained the upper hand? Am I to associate myself for fear of anarchy with a dishonest Government which believes in Dyerism as a faith? I know that anarchy as a creed is devilish, but Dyerism is still more so for it is anarchy wearing the mask of constituted authority. Ordered anarchy is infinitely worse than avowed anarchy. Only, in the latter event, I should dissociate myself from the anarchy of the mob as I have dissociated myself from the anarchy of the Government. For me both are evils to be shunned. I have not asked for reprisals against the author of the Jallianwala Massacre. I have asked for nothing more than the stopping of the pensions to the culprits and the dismissal of those who are yet holding office.

I have not advised the Sikhs to give any pension to Mahant Naraindas or to keep him in office. I have ventured to advise the Sikhs to waive the prosecution of the murderers as I have advised the nation to waive the prosecution of the official murderers in the Punjab. I claim consistency of conduct about Amritsar and Nankana. I have said repeatedly that I am acting towards the Government as I have acted towards my own dearest relatives. Non-co-operation on the political field is an extension of the doctrine as it is practiced on the domestic field. The reference to my association with lawyers, etc., is hardly becoming. As a matter of fact, there are very few practicing lawyers now holding office in Congress organizations. I adhere to my opinion that where non-co-operators are in a majority, none who has not fully non-co-operated should hold office. The Congress Committee has not rejected the proposal. I do not know that practicing lawyers presented me with any address in Surat. But I would not hesitate to receive one even from them so long as I was free to wean them from the error of their ways. So far as my association with the Ali Brothers is concerned, I consider it a proud privilege. But in South Africa, I had as my associates murderers and thieves, men who had certainly suffered imprisonment for attempts to murder or steal. Only they carried out their compact as to non-violence as honorably as any other satyagrahi. I see no difference between the old Gandhi and the new, except that the new has a clearer conception of Satyagraha and prizes the doctrine of ahimsa more than ever. Nor, I promise The Times of India writer, is there any self-deception in this belief. But time must show who is right. Precedent is on my side.