For Global Peace with Social Justice in a Sustainable Environment

Horace Alexander and Mahatma Gandhi

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Gandhian Scholar

Gandhi Research Foundation, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09415777229, 094055338

E-mail- dr.yogendragandhi@gmail.com;dr.yadav.yogendra@gandhifoundation.net

Horace Alexander and Mahatma Gandhi

Horace Alexander was a one of the associate of Mahatma Gandhi. He was the member of the British Society of friends. He met to Mahatma Gandhi at Sabarmati Ashram, Ahmadabad in 1928. After it he had taken great interest in Indians problems and independent movement with Mahatma Gandhi. He wrote a famous book ‘Gandhi through Western eyes.’ Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “I have long delayed replying to your letter, as I have hoped to send you a fairly lengthy reply. But I see that I am not likely to get sufficient leisure for attempting a very full reply in the near future. What you say about silent prayer and congregational silence I understand and I appreciate also in theory. When I was in South Africa, I attended several such meetings. But I was not much struck with the performance. In India, it will fall flat. After all, there are many ways of worship and it is not necessary to graft new ways, if old ones will answer. I am myself not satisfied with what we are able to do in the Ashram. I cannot procure a devotional mood all of a sudden or in an artificial manner. If some of us in the Ashram really have that mood whilst at prayer, it is bound to have its effect in due course. It is because of the belief that there are some earnest souls in the Ashram who approach the prayer time in a proper devotional mood that I have persisted in retaining the congregational prayer meetings in spite of odds and sometimes even severe disappointments. I may be partial, but my own experience is that our prayer meetings are very slowly but surely growing in dignity and strength. But I am painfully aware of the fact that we are far away from what we want to achieve. Nevertheless, I shall bear your suggestions in mind. I have already discussed them with friends. You seem to think lightly of my having invited suggestions with reference to sanitary matters. In my own humble opinion we needlessly divide life into water-tight compartments, religious and other. If a man has true religion in him, it must show itself in the smallest detail of life. To me sanitation in a community such as ours is based upon common spiritual effort. The slightest irregularity in sanitary, social and political life is a sign of spiritual poverty. It is a sign of inattention, neglect of duty. Anyway, the Ashram life is based upon this conception of fundamental unity of life.”1

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “I expect nothing but hindrance generally from the India office to the crusade against opium and drink. The reply you have sent me therefore does not surprise me. When Mr. Silcock comes, he shall most surely receive a warm welcome. Of the young friend, I have already written to you. Of course he may come and stay here if it suits him.”2 Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “I gladly publish the foregoing circular letter. I have the privilege of knowing Mr. Horace Alexander personally, and I believe him to be a true friend. Common courtesy demands utmost frankness at this stage. I am as anxious as he and other English friends for honest co-operation as between equals. But the element of equality is wanting. The interview broke on the one single issue of Dominion Status, but not as Mr. Alexander puts it.”3

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “I was glad to hear from you. If the R.T.C. results in doing something worthy of the great sacrifice of the nation and therefore of acceptance, I should be delighted. But as I have told you, having been filled with distrust nothing but an accomplished result will reassure me. The question of debts is incredibly simple. The Lahore resolution has an explicit condition about reference to an impartial tribunal. But you have my assurance that no Congressman has ever enunciated the doctrine of total repudiation. What Congressmen, including myself, demand is that the nation’s representatives should have the right of having any portion of the so-called national debt, concessions and the like, being referred to an independent tribunal whose decision should be final and binding on both the parties. I feel I am quite safe in saying this even for Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. Not to adopt the course above indicated would be disloyal to the nation as total repudiation without just cause would undoubtedly be dishonorable. Whatever Maulana Mohamed Ali may think of me, I have nothing but kindly feelings about him. And I feel sure that time will remove misunderstandings. Having no feeling either against Islam or Mussalmans, I feel absolutely at ease.”4

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “I must not use the ordinary language to express my feelings towards you. Your silent affection and self-effacement grew on me as I watched you daily holding yourself in readiness for any service. And then the knowledge that you found time for coming so often to London though you had a cripple companion who so relied on you! Experiences such as these make life livable and enrich one’s faith in God. I often feel your presence with me. I hope you were able to publish that statement of mine. I had expected a copy at Villeneuve. We are all enjoying ourselves as deck passengers. I have experienced no discomfort whatsoever. The sea has been quite smooth. We reach Aden tomorrow.”5 Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “I must dictate this letter. It is a matter of such joy to me that our little circle has not misunderstood my latest venture, and that you can trace the finger of God in it. I have gone through your little pamphlet. I think that it is a fair presentation of the case about untouchability. Dr. Ansari has written to me at length about his meeting you, Andrews and other friends.”6

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “This will be presented to you by young Kamalnayan Bajaj, the eldest son of Jamnalalji. I have advised him to join the London School of Economics. But if you think of anything better, please guide him likewise. In any case, I have asked him to put himself in touch with the Woodbrooke school of thought. The rest I leave to you.”7 Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “You will get a note from me through Kamalnayan Bajaj. But that is a mere introduction. Only it was written before the receipt of your letter. I anticipated you about Agatha. I cabled approval of her plan. Her expenses in India can certainly be found but, on principle, her passage to India and back should be found from your end. That is what I have generally followed. I quite agree with you that such visits are helpful. Therefore if the Heaths can come it would be a good thing. Jawaharlal is tirelessly preaching his message. He has an unconquerable faith in his mission.”8

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “I have wanted to write to you and Agatha all this time but my preoccupations have come in the way. But more than that, the reluctance to send you a cheerless letter has been the cause. It is still there greater than ever. Nevertheless I must write what I feel. I hope you had my wire about Olive. How well I remember her radiant face in spite of her permanent disability. God gave and He has taken her away. I know it is well with her, for she walked in His light. Sir Stafford has come and gone. How nice it would have been if he had not come with that dismal mission. He of all people should never have without having at least ascertained Jawaharlal’s wishes. How could the British Government, at this critical hour, have behaved as they did? Why should they have sent proposals without discussing them with the principal parties? Not one single party was satisfied. In trying to please all the proposals pleased none. I talked to him frankly but as a friend, if for nothing else, for Andrews’s sake. I told him that I was speaking to him with Andrews’s spirit as my witness. I made suggestions but all to no avail. As usual they were not practical. I had not wanted to go. I had nothing to say being anti-all-wars. I went because he was anxious to see me. All this I mention in order to give you the background. I was not present throughout the negotiations with the W.C. I had come away. You know the result. It was inevitable. The whole thing has left a bad taste in the mouth. My firm opinion is that the British should leave India now in an orderly manner and not run the risk that they did in Singapore and Malaya and Burma. That act would mean courage of a high order, confession of human limitations and right-doing by India. Britain cannot defend India, much less herself on Indian soil with any strength. The best thing she can do is to leave India to her fate. I feel somehow that India will not do badly then. I must not argue this point if it is not obvious to you. I am sending a copy of this to Agatha. Of course you are at liberty to share this with anybody else.”9

“HORACE ALEXANDER: We were wondering if it was auspicious for an English party to arrive in India, when you were asking the British to withdraw. Agatha suggested that we might have a party from India to work with us, and make of our party a mixed party.

GANDHIJI: My first writing did, I am afraid, give rise to that kind of fear. That was because I had not given expression to the whole idea in my mind. It is not my nature to work out and produce a finished thing all at once. The moment a question was asked me, I made clear that no physical withdrawal of every Englishman was meant; I meant the withdrawal of the British domination. And so every Englishman in India can convert himself into a friend as you have come as Friends and remain here. The condition is that every Englishman has to dismount from the horse he is riding and cease to be monarch of all he surveys and identify himself with the humblest of us. The moment he does it, he will be recognized as a member of the family. His role as a member of the ruling caste must end forever. And so when I said ‘withdraw’, I meant ‘withdraw as masters’. The demand for withdrawal had another implication. You have to withdraw, irrespective of the wishes of anybody here. You do not need the consent of a slave to give him freedom. The slave often hugs the chains of slavery. They become part of his flesh. You have to tear them asunder and throw them away. You must withdraw because it is your duty to do so, and not wait for the unanimous consent of all the sections or groups in India. There is thus no question of the moment being inauspicious for you. On the contrary, if you can assimilate my proposal, it is the most auspicious moment for you to arrive in India. You will meet many Englishmen here. They may have entirely misunderstood what I have said, and you have to explain to them what exactly I want them to do. Really speaking, therefore, this should become the major part of your mission, and even the India Office who facilitated your coming here cannot possibly misunderstand you. You have, therefore, not only the humanitarian mission—there may not be any bombing here, and in this vast country even if there is bombing you may not be able to reach everywhere but you have also this peculiar mission of interpretation and reconciliation. And it is well perhaps that your mission begins with me. Begin it with finding out what exactly is at the back of my mind by putting to me all the questions that may be agitating you. You will see that I have used the words ‘orderly withdrawal’. I had, when I used the phrase, Burma and Singapore in mind. It was a disorderly withdrawal from there. For their left Burma and Malaya neither to God, nor to anarchy, but to the Japanese. Here I say: ‘Don’t repeat that story here. Don’t leave India to Japan, but leave India to Indians in an orderly manner. So you have now to do what Andrews did understand me, pitilessly cross-examined me, and then if you are convinced be my messenger.”10

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “Of course you will do as the spirit moves you. You will come when you like and so will Symonds. But when you find anything to criticize you will do so as frankly and fearlessly as Charlie used to do. Of course your primary mission is ambulance work and if you found avoiding of me or Sevagram necessary, you will unhesitatingly avoid me. I shall not misunderstand you in any way whatever.”11 Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “I decided to print it without giving your name and without the prefatory part. If possible I shall enclose a copy of my note on it. I wrote it then and there in the train. I could not do better than that. Often I have found that silence is more eloquent than speech and action the best of all. But as I have been writing and explaining, I thought I must not make an exception in this case. Moreover your letter has invited an answer. If there is anything more you think I should do, I am ever ready. Do tell me fully and frankly; no stone should be left unturned to remove misunderstandings. My grave misgiving is that those who are in authority do not want to part with India. With them it seems that to lose India is to lose the battle. It is terrible if it is true. In my opinion to keep India as a possession is to lose the battle. Help me to solve my doubt which I have expressed in the columns of Harijan.”12

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “Sudhir is unnecessarily nervous. As I know Jawaharlal he won’t like this indirect approach. My speaking would be on a different plan. Then too I am not going to thrust myself on his attention. Such is my reaction. You may show this to Sudhir and act as you think best.”13 Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “Gladys has given me your letter and I had a fairly long discussion with her as a result of which she has written to you a letter which I enclose herewith. She has gone to see the Friends’ Unit and she is expected to return tonight. I think her presentation of my position is fairly correct. But let me put it in my own language. What I feel is that however much detached we may want to be from our surroundings and the unseen atmosphere about us, we cannot but be affected by it. Hence I am not sure whether, whilst the British military forces are in India, we can possibly be in real Indian atmosphere of peace and tranquility, if these are ever to be her lot during our generation. The present distemper may continue beyond January next and if it does not I am afraid it won’t be because of sanity regained by the communities but because of the fear of the military. What is the use of our meeting under the protection of the bayonet, whether it is British or Indian? May it not be wise therefore for sincere peace-lovers to pray in their own homes, every day if you like, even for five minutes at the same time throughout the world? It will be easy enough for everyone to find out the hour which should correspond with the time, say, in Calcutta or any place in India. We can even make the calculations and publish the different times for the different centers. The value would lie in finding the exact time. If you still think that a meeting should take place here, I suggest postponement till after the withdrawal of British arms. These are my random thoughts, not for you to act upon unless they fully appeal to you, because in this matter I have yielded to your judgment. If you propose to go on with your idea and want to have the meeting at the time you have conceived, send me the thirty names and I shall send you my suggestions as to whether I want to add to the list. With reference to milk distribution in Madras you have another Ministry there now. I wonder if it will make any difference. I hold on to my suggestion. About my own private affair I have done and am doing all I can. I suppose you already know that Manu no longer sleeps in the same bed with me. This departure was made by her with my full approval in order to please Bapa who, though he saw absolutely nothing wrong, would appeal to her not to continue it whilst I was in Bihar and whilst I was engaged in this important work. I do not agree with the conclusion. But I did not wish to argue and therefore I promptly agreed. Whilst I am dictating this letter I see that you could not know this because the decision was made on the last day of my stay in Haimchar. What, however, is the subject of examination is my mental attitude, whether it is correct or whether, as Kishorelal and some other Indian friends consider, it is a remnant of my sexuality however unconscious it might be. My whole mental outlook will be changed immediately I saw this defect in me. Only then, the weakness was coeval with the time when I took the vow of brahmacharya which was probably in 1902 .It may be that their definition of brahmacharya is different from mine. I return the draft with very slight corrections if it is to go at all.”14

References: