Internationalism 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

 

 

Internationalism and Mahatma Gandhi

 

Mahatma Gandhi was thinking on the international issues also. A gentleman met me in Darjeeling and related to me the story of a nurse who preferred not to serve her nation to the injury of others. The story was, I could see at once, related for my edification. I gently explained to the friend that evidently he had not followed my writings of doings, though he claimed to have done so. I told him, too, that my patriotism was not narrow, and that, it included not merely the welfare of India but the whole world. I told him further, that being a humble man knowing my own limitations, I was satisfied with the service of my own country, taking care at the same time that I did nothing with the intention of injuring another country. In my opinion, it is impossible for one to be internationalist without being a nationalist. Internationalism is possible only when nationalism becomes a fact, i.e., when peoples belonging to different countries have organized themselves and are able to act as one man. It is not nationalism that is evil; it is the narrowness, selfishness, exclusiveness which is the bane of modern nations which is evil. Each wants to profit at the expense of and rises on the ruin of the other. Indian nationalism has, I hope, struck a different path. It wants to organize itself or to find full self-expression for the benefit and service of humanity at large. Anyway, there is no uncertainty about my patriotism or nationalism. God having cast my lot in the midst of the people of India, I should be untrue to my Maker if I failed to serve them. If I do not know how to serve them, I shall never know how to serve humanity and cannot possibly go wrong so long as I do not harm other nations in the act of serving my country. 1

The following is a condensation of a speech delivered by Mr. Malcolm Muggeridge of Union Christian College, Always, and sent to me for publication. The speech is useful as showing the growing national consciousness among Christian Indians. The wonder is that the process has been so long delayed. How any man of religion can help being in sympathy with the strivings of his nearest neighbours passes comprehension. Internationalism presupposes nationalism not the narrow, selfish, greedy spirit that often passes under the name of nationalism, but the nationalism that, whilst it insists upon its own freedom and growth, will disdain to attain them at the expense of other nations. 2 Mr. Pick halls ask me for an article or a message for your magazine. I have not a moment to spare for writing an article. What message shall I send you save to say that my nationalism is intense internationalism? I am sick of the strife between nations or religions. 3 

I need hardly tell you that I have read all your addresses, the translations of which were furnished to me. I value the assurance given in the address of the Indian Christian Association on behalf of their community that while formerly they might not have identified themselves with national movements, now they are identifying themselves more with these movements. Indeed, I have been watching with very great interest and pleasure this manifestation from Christian friends throughout the south. There is no doubt in my mind that it is as it should be. Acceptance of Christianity or any other faith should never mean denationalization. Nationalism need never be narrow or inconsistent with internationalism. That nationalism, which is based upon pure selfishness and the exploitation of other nations, is indeed an evil. But I cannot conceive of internationalism without a healthy and desirable national spirit. 4 

My narrow nationalism rebels against the hat; my secret internationalism regards the sola hat as one of the few boons from Europe. But for the tremendous national prejudice against the hat, I would undertake to become president of a league for popularizing sola hats. In my opinion, educated India has erred in taking to (in this climate) unnecessary, unhygienic, inelegant trousers and in betraying general hesitation to take up the sola hat. But I know that national likes and dislikes are not governed by reason. That Scotch Highlander will run the risk of being singled out by his kilt as an easy target for the enemy but will not abandon the awkward kilt. I do not expect India to take kindly to the sola hat. Nevertheless workers like Pandit Durgashankar need not be ruffled by criticism and may certainly wear khadi imitations of the sola hat. It is in reality an easily portable umbrella that covers the head without the necessity of one hand being occupied in carrying it. The Calcutta policeman who shades his head from the fierce sun by sustaining an umbrella in his belt puts himself under a double handicap when pitted against his European fellow-member. Those who have strong prejudice against sola hats should study the contrast I have described. I may here draw the reader’s attention to an indigenous and effective equivalent of the hat that is very generally worn by the poor farmers of Malabar. It is an umbrella without the handle, made of leaves with a bark hoop to fit the head. It is cheap, thoroughly effective and in no way akin to the hat and yet almost just as serviceable. 5

We may be nationalists, we may be ardent patriots, but immediately we apply these means of truth and non-violence, our patriotism becomes internationalism. Our patriotism is so conceived that we want our freedom not to injure the freedom of any other country or of any single individual. We believe not in the law that might is right, or the greatest good of the greatest number, but we believe in the greatest good of all, including the meanest of creatures amongst all God’s creation. And if India could vindicate her freedom, attain it through these means, do you not think that it would be well, not only with India, but with the whole world? 6 I can corroborate from first-hand experience much of what you say about the Round Table Conference. Nor have I the slightest difficulty in agreeing with you that in these days of rapid intercommunication and a growing consciousness of the oneness of all mankind, we must recognize that our nationalism must not be inconsistent with progressive internationalism. India cannot stand in isolation and unaffected by what is going on in other parts of the world. I can, therefore, go the whole length with you and say that ‘we should range ourselves with the progressive forces of the world’. But I know that though there is such an agreement between you and me in the enunciation of ideals, there are temperamental differences between us. Thus you have emphasized the necessity of a clear statement of the goal, but having once determined it, I have never attached importance to the repetition. The clearest possible definition of the goal and its appreciation would fail to take us there if we do not know and utilize the means of achieving it. I have, therefore, concerned myself principally with the conservation of the means and their progressive use. I know that if we can take care of them, attainment of the goal is assured. I feel too that our progress towards the goal will be in exact proportion to the purity of our means. If we can give an ocular demonstration of our uttermost truthfulness and non-violence, I am convinced that our statement of the national goal cannot long offend the interests which your letter would appear to attack. We know that the princes, the zamindars, and those who depend for their existence upon the exploitation of the masses, would cease to fear and distrust us, if we could but ensure the innocence of our methods. We do not seek to coerce any. We seek to convert them. This method may appear to be long, perhaps too long, but I am convinced that it is the shortest. 7

The author of the statement is an artist. Though he cannot be surpassed in his implacable opposition to imperialism in any shape or form, he is a friend of the English people. Indeed he is more English than Indian in his thoughts and make-up. He is often more at home with Englishmen than with his own countrymen. And he is a humanitarian in the sense that he reacts to every wrong, no matter where perpetrated. Though, therefore, he is an ardent nationalist his nationalism is enriched by his fine internationalism. Hence the statement is a manifesto addressed not only to his own countrymen, not only to the British Government and the British people, but it is addressed also to the nations of the world including those that are exploited like India. He has compelled India, through the Working Committee, to think not merely of her own freedom, but of the freedom of all the exploited nations of the world. 8

The following from the Congress resolution of August 8, 1942, shows clearly what free India stands for: While the A.I.C.C. must primarily be concerned with the independence and defence of India in this hour of danger, the Committee is of opinion that the future peace, security and ordered progress of the world demand a world federation of free nations, and on no other basis can the problems of the modern world be solved. Such a world federation would ensure the freedom of its constituent nations, the prevention of aggression and exploitation by one nation over another, the protection of national minorities, the advancement of all backward areas and peoples, and the pooling of the world’s resources for the common good of all. On the establishment of such a world federation, disarmament would be practicable in all countries, national armies, navies and air forces would no longer be necessary, and a world federal defence force would keep the world peace and prevent aggression. An independent India would gladly join such a world federation and co-operate on an equal basis with other countries in the solution of international problems. Thus the demand for Indian independence is in no way selfish. Its nationalism spells internationalism. 9

This is an effective collection made by Shri P. D. Tandon out of numerous writings of numerous admirers of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. It gives at a glance a good picture of the patriot as seen by various eyes. He shines easily as father, brother, writer, traveler, patriot or internationalist. Nevertheless it is as an ardent devotee of his country and its freedom on whose altar he would sacrifice all his other loves that the leader will specially single him out from the essays. Be it said to his credit, however, that he will consider it beneath his dignity to purchase that freedom at the price of any other country. His nationalism is equal to internationalism. 10

 

References:

 

1. Young India, 18-6-1925
2. Young India, 22-7-1926  
3. Letter to Felix Valye, November 15, 1926
4. The Hindu, 10-10-1927
5. Young India, 6-6-1929 
6. The Indian News, 22-9-1931
7. Letter to Jawaharlal Nehru, September 14, 1933
8. Harijan, 23-9-1939
9. The Bombay Chronicle, 18-4-1945 
10. Foreword to Nehru your neighbour, September 30, 1945