For Global Peace with Social Justice in a Sustainable Environment

Love and Mahatma Gandhi- VIII

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- dr.yadav.yogendra@gandhifoundation.net;

dr.yogendragandhi@gmail.com

Mailing Address- C- 29, Swaraj Nagar, Panki, Kanpur- 208020, Uttar Pradesh, India

Love and Mahatma Gandhi- VIII

My task would be much simpler if I could identify myself with it. It can be no pleasure to me to oppose even in thought the most valued and respected leaders, some of whom have made great sacrifices in the cause of the country and who yield to no one in their love of freedom of the motherland, but, in spite of my effort and willingness, I have failed to be convinced by their argument. 1 I have referred above to a body being lean but healthy. No one should take me to mean that one need not develop physical strength. I have merely expressed, in my imperfect language, my idea about brahmacharya in its finest aspect. What I have said may possibly be misunderstood. Anyone who wishes to acquire complete control over all the senses has no choice, ultimately, but to welcome his body becoming lean. When blind love of the body and attachment for it decline, no desire for physical strength will be left. 2

Satyagrahi abuses are without number. As love has no limit, so these terms have none. If I want to reproach Vallabhbhai in satyagrahi fashion, I would say: “That rogue of a Patel has shed everything of his and has now started looting others. That is why he does not think much of ten lakhs of rupees.” If we wish to heap satyagrahi abuses on Abbas Saheb, we would say: “Why should the old man care? He has abandoned his family and wanders about, minding neither cold nor heat, and is ever bothering people! Since he is an old man, who can discourage him?” If a similar reproach is to be hurled at Pattani Saheb, we may say: “He makes the rulers of Kathiawar dance; he sends up the stock of Bhavnagar by flattering Governors and now he has started fooling the Kathiawar is! But, if we are true Kathiawar is, and especially true citizens of Bhavnagar, we shall teach him a lesson. We certainly are not gullible like the rulers and the white sahebs! We believe in ‘tit for tat’!” I have here illustrated harmless uses of satyagrahi reproach. Even I do not know all possible uses of such terms. I am only an aspirant towards love; were I completely filled with love; I could even give a list of reproaches such as were used by the gopis. Only they could apply to Lord Krishna epithets like “butter-thief “, “robber”, etc. A man like Narasinh Mehta called a life-long celibate like Krishna “adulterous” and the latter bore this reproach and helped him to give ceremonial presents to his daughters-in-law when the occasion required. 3

Another potent cause of the tension is the growing distrust even among the best of us. I have been warned against Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviyaji. He is suspected of secret motives. It is said that he is no friend of the Mussalmans. He is even credited with being jealous of my influence. I have the privilege of knowing him intimately ever since my return to India in 1915. I have had the privilege of closest communion with him. I regard him as one of the best among Hindus who, though orthodox, holds most liberal views. He is no enemy of Mussalmans. He is incapable of jealousy of anyone. He has a heart large enough to accommodate even his enemies. He has never aimed at power. And what he has is due to a long period of unbroken service of the motherland, such as very few of us can boast. He and I are temperamentally different, but-love each other like brothers. There never has been even so much as a jar between us. Our ways being different, there can be no question of rivalry, therefore, of jealousy either. I love the Samajists, for I have many co-workers from among them. And I learnt to love the Swamiji, even while I was in South Africa. And though I know him better now, I love him no less. It is my love that has spoken. 4

“God holds me with a slender thread and I turn in whichever direction He pulls me.” Mira knew this thread because she was filled with love. If she had not been a skilled spinner, how could she have given the beautiful simile of a thread to the bond of love uniting her with Lord Krishna! The Goddess, Mother India, wishes to tie us with that same thread and free us from slavery. A friend does not observe as many shortcomings in us as an enemy does. To be able to see the defects of a friend and yet love him with one’s whole heart is a particular virtue in Satyagraha and one which is extremely difficult to acquire. We can, therefore, say in a general way that we cannot learn about our shortcomings through our friends to the same extent that we can through our enemies. Hope that the politicians in Kathiawar will hold their love of facile talking in complete check, give up scheming and start working silently and so prove my criticism to be unfounded. I am not interested in criticizing people; by doing so, I hope merely to get the utmost work out of Kathiawar. 5

A Vaishnava gentleman has lovingly chided me for having used the singular number while referring to Rama, Shankar, Bharat and other incarnations of God. He has been grieved that I have not referred to Rama as “Shri Ramachandra Prabhu” and to Bharat as “Shri Bharatsuri”, and has mildly suggested my treating these sacred names with due respect. I could have replied to that friend in a private letter but, in case some other Vaishnavas have been similarly pained, I discuss the matter here for all readers. Perhaps, the friend who has written to me does not know that I myself am a Vaishnava and that Shri Ramachandra Prabhu is the ishtadevata worshipped in my family. Still, to me the name Rama is dearer, though I have written “Shri Ramachandra Prabhu” for once here to satisfy this friend. “Shri Ramachandra Prabhu” gives me the feeling that He is far away from me, whereas Rama is enthroned in my heart. Wherever I have made use of the sacred names, Rama, Bharat and so on, it seems to me that they express my overflowing love. If this Vaishnava friend claims that his love for Rama is greater than mine, I would contest his claim in Rama’s court and I am sure to win. I would be pleased to have my love tested in the same way as Hanuman had wanted his to be. The dearest is ever closest to one’s heart. Such a one must needs be addressed as “thou”. The use of “you” implies distance. I never addressed my mother as “you”; if I had, by chance, spoken to her any time as “you” she would have broken into tears, for she would have felt that her child was no longer close to her. There was a time in my life when I knew Rama as Shri Ramachandra.

But that time has now passed. Rama has now come into my home. I know that He would frown on me if I spoke to Him as “you”. To me, an orphan without mother-, father, brother, Rama is all in all. My mother, my father, my brother—He is everything to me. My life is His. In Him I live. I see Him in all women, and so regard every one of them as mother or sister. I see Him in all men and, therefore, look on everyone as father, brother or son according to his age. In the Bhangi and the Brahmin I see the same Rama and to them both I bow. Even now, although Rama is near, He is not near enough to me; hence the need to address Him at all. When He is with me all the twenty-four hours, there will be no need to address Him even in the singular. No one else addressed my mother as “thou”. Others spoke to her in the most respectful terms of address. So, too, if Rama were not my own, I would have maintained a respectful distance from Him. But, then, He is mine now and I His slave. Hence, I beg Vaishnavas not to force me to stay at some distance from Him. The love that must be supported by formal courtesy, does it deserve the name of love? In al] languages, in all religions, man speaks to God as “Thou”. In Tamil land, there lived a woman saint named Mother Avvai, filled, like Mirabai, with intense love of God. All day long she sat in the temple of Vishnu. Sometimes her back was turned towards the image, at other times she sat facing it, her legs stretched out.

Once a pious but youthful worshipper happened to go there, for darshan. He did not know of Mother Avvai’s closeness to God and, with blood-shot eyes, he rebuked her in words none too polite. Mother Avvai laughed out loud, filling the temple with her ringing laughter. Ignoring his rudeness, she spoke to him and said: “Come, my son, sit here. Where do you come from, my dear boy? You spoke harshly to me. But tell me one thing. In all my long life, I have not found a single spot whence God is absent. Wherever I stretch out my legs, there is He in front of me. If, now, you show me a place where He is not, I shall stretch out my legs in that direction.” The young worshipper was modest. It was because of his ignorance that he had not recognized Mother Avvai. He was scared and his eyes brimmed with tears as large as pearls and they fell on Mother Avvai’s toes. She tried to draw back her feet, but he held them in his hands and said: “Mother, I have done you wrong; forgive me, save me!” Avvai freed her legs and clasped him in her arms. She kissed him, laughed aloud, and said: “Tuttut, what is there to forgive? You are a son to me, and do you know, I have many more sons like you. You are a good son, for you spoke out your doubt as soon as you felt it. Go, Lord Shrirang will protect you. But, my son, think sometimes of this mother of yours.” 6

I am certain that, if my ideas are carried out, they will do only good to the world, and what benefits the world as a whole cannot possibly harm Jainism or any other religion. Non-violence is love. How can a method of bringing about reform through love do any harm? 7 This is what many elderly persons, looking at their grandsons, say to the latter’s father and this is their way of showing their love for the little ones. Writing in this strain, a gentleman asks what he should do in this predicament. I for one see no great difficulty here at all. By surrendering ourselves to such inordinate love of our elders, why should we compromise the future of our children or harm the great fight to banish starvation from India? How can we, succumbing to such sentiment, give up what we consider to be our duty? Moreover, it is merely a false notion that mill-cloth, whether foreign or Indian, is better than other cloth because it is fine! Today there are many children who will not touch fine cloth and will wear only khadi. Children form such habits as we let them form. It is difficult to understand what pleasure there is in wearing mill-cloth. After some years, when everyone will be wearing khadi and nothing else, we shall come to believe that there is pleasure in khadi. On the little bodies of innocent children dyed clothes which stick to the body and which are often dirty never look so well as milk-white khadi. Moreover, in the climatic conditions of our country, the fewest clothes are best for us. For our children, shoes, socks, and too many clothes are a source of disease. To make them wear these things is the surest way of making them delicate and is needless expenditure besides. How strange it is that we shower the wrong kind of love on our children and, right from the beginning, give them wrong education! 8

I do not love my wife the less because I know her limitations. My critics have made the mistake of thinking that, because I have criticized the founder, I have no affection or regard for him. Let me also assure Principal Ramdeva that I have read all the chapters of Satyarth Prakash. Will he forget that a man’s moral teaching may be of a high order and yet his vision may be narrow? I know that many of my-friends, who believe me to be a highly moral man and my moral teaching of a high order, consider that my outlook upon life is narrow and even fanatical. I do not take their criticism as an offence, though I consider myself to have a broad outlook upon life and also entitled to be classed among the most tolerant among mankind. I assure my Arya Samaj friends that I have only judged, if I have judged, as I should be judged by them. Let us therefore cry quits. Let them consider me to be the most intolerant and ignorant among their countrymen and leave me the liberty to retain the opinion I have expressed. 9

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 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. 10

The ruler who does this saves the thief from the risk of a prosecution, which is a further kindness done to him. Similarly, there is mere violence in a law that provides for the whipping of drunkards, but to close down every liquor booth by law and thereby to remove the temptation from the drunkard is a form of restraint and is nonviolence. There is in this nothing but pure love. Likewise, if I intimidate someone to give up foreign cloth, that is force. But passing a law to stop the import of foreign cloth is restraint. There is nothing but pure love in this. However, a law to punish anyone for wearing foreign cloth would be coercion. It signifies anger on the part of society. 11 Fortunately, there are already indications of reviving sanity. The Jats and the butchers are reported to have realized the folly of breaking one another’s heads and to have made peace. But the most hopeful news comes from correspondents who tell me that, if there were frenzied men bent on slaughter, there were also sane men and women bent on saving. These instances are not isolated but sufficiently numerous to show that love of peace was at least as keen between the two communities as the love of war. The latter is not natural. It is like a carbuncle. But peace persists. The two sections have simply to make up their minds to respect each others’ religious customs and the rest will be easy. So far as asking me to go to the Punjab is concerned, it is an open secret that I am pining to go there as well as the other places where tension exists. The spirit is willing, the flesh alone is weak. As soon as I can undertake travels with any degree of safety, I propose in the company of Maulana Shaukat Ali to visit Sand and the Punjab. 12

My philosophy does teach me to love a like friend and foe. But that does not do away with the distinction till the foe has become friend. The letter to Mr. Joseph was cryptic. It was not written for publication. Mr. Joseph could easily dot the i’s and cross the t’s. The fuller enunciation of the proposition put before Mr. Joseph would be: One may fast to reform a comrade in work and thought, but not one however friendly if he is hostile. Thus, I may not fast against Pandit Motilalji Nehru, although he is a dear friend, in order to convert him to my view on Councils, but I fasted against the Bombay rioters because they were, though not personal friends, comrades in the same mission. We have no right by fasts to convert people to our ideals. That would be a species of violence. But it is our duty to strengthen by our fasting those who hold the same ideals, but are likely to weaken under pressure. 13

Love Truth at all cost. This can be done only by loving all that lives, and feeling for them. 14 Akha Bhagat has expressed one’s whole duty in life. One should ply the spinning-wheel not to deceive oneself, not to deceive the country or other people, but for one’s own satisfaction. All work will shine out as long as we do not do it for show. The more we have of right knowledge, the less subject shall we be to attachment. Even so, if we do a good thing, whether out of attachment or love, it is bound to profit us. There is attachment in a son’s love for his father. Some credit for my having learnt to speak the truth goes to my father. I did not know at that time that truth is the highest thing. But I certainly had attachment enough for my father to feel that I should do a certain thing to please him. Restrained by my love for my mother, I stopped eating meat and saved myself from sin. Had this not happened, I would have been today among the most wicked men in the world. I was thus forced by my attachment to rise; though, indeed, who can say that I have risen? I merely escaped falling and this because I was ruled by my attachment to my father and mother, by keeping to my vow. Vows have been the support of my life. The point is that one may do a good thing from any one or more out of a variety of motives. The issue you have raised need not have been raised at all. It is true, of course, that the idea was that we should spin. But it would not be right that, having given me five toles of yarn, you should set aside the spinning-wheel. You will only fall by doing so. The spinning-wheel must simply go on working. Whether the idea will remain permanently or disappear depends only on the spirit in which you work. 15

Eat less but donate money. Reduce the amount of milk you take so that you can save money. If you have been spending any time doing nothing, spin and pay something. Pay money yourselves and go out collecting funds and collect as much as you can on your responsibility. Let us learn to die for the country. Let us cultivate burning love for the country, for that is the meaning of national education. We can offer shelter to people on dry ground if they have to sleep in the wet, and take their places ourselves; we can serve the country in this way only if we have in us the motherly love about which we learnt in our childhood from Dalpatram. There is no meaning in your giving anything from what you do not need. Give other things as well, putting yourselves to some positive inconvenience. There will be pure love in doing so, and you will not want to boast about it. 16 I have never preferred killing a dacoit to winning him over with love. But he who is not equal to that love, who cannot master all the love that the act demands, has the right to protect his proteges and his property even by killing the dacoit. It is a gross error to liken the Englishmen to dacoits. The dacoit’s loot you by sheer violence, the Englishmen do so chiefly by seducing us. There is thus a great difference of method in the two. A liquor vendor also robs me of my soul by selling his liquor. Should I suggest killing him or non-co-operating with him? But if an Englishman brutally assaults you, or liquor vendor forcibly tries to pour liquor down your throat, and if you will not win both over by love, then it is open to you to engage them in an armed combat. It would make no difference if the aggressors in the case were one or many, weak or strong. 17

References: