For Global Peace with Social Justice in a Sustainable Environment

Provincialism and Mahatma Gandhi

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

Provincialism and Mahatma Gandhi

My provincialism, if I have any in me, was flattered by the fact of the Rishi being of the same little Kathiawar as myself. But I could not help myself. The conclusion I came to was in spite of me, and I published it only when its publication became relevant. Its suppression would have been a cowardly omission on my part. Instead of becoming enraged against me for an honest expression of opinion, I appeal to them to take my criticism in good part, examine it, try to convince me and pray for me if I cannot be convinced. Two letters have challenged me to substantiate my conclusion. It is a fair challenge and I hope before long to produce from the Satyarth Prakash passages in its support. My friends will not engage me in a religious discussion with them. I shall content myself with giving them the grounds of my opinion, So far as Swami Shraddhanandji is concerned, there is no question Of substantiating my opinion. My critics will oblige me by leaving him and me to ourselves. In spite of my opinion, I shall not quarrel with the Swamiji. Mine is the criticism of a friend. As for shuddhi, the critics in their blind fury have forgotten the qualification ‘as it is understood in Christianity or to a lesser extent in Islam’. This is quite different from saying that there is no proselytism in Hinduism. Hinduism has a way all its own of shuddhi. But if the Arya Samajists differ from me, they may still allow me to retain my opinion. If they will re-read the statement, they will discover that I have said that they have a perfect right to carry on their movement if they like. Toleration is not a coinciding of views. There should be toleration of one another’s views though they may be as poles asunder. Lastly I have not said that Arya Samajists or Mussalmans do kidnap women. I have said ‘I am told’. By repeating what I was told, I have given both the parties an opportunity of repudiating the charge. Was it not better that I should publish what was being said, so that the atmosphere might be cleared? 1

We have our provincialism. Bengal thinks that she must rule the whole of India and that the whole of India is to be merged in that little province called Bengal (Laughter), and Gujarat probably thinks likewise. Gujarat, which is merely a drop in the ocean compared to Bengal, thinks it must rule the whole of India and India should be merged in Gujarat. Then take the brave Mahrattas with their recent traditions. Why should they not think that they must shape the destiny and policy of India? The Muslim with his still later traditions thinks that he must establish or reestablish a Muslim empire. From these diverse elements and provincialism there is no escape for us except through non-violent and truthful means because, otherwise, we are sitting on a mine which is likely to explode at any moment. The slightest trace of dirt in us is likely to make us perish and that is why I have insisted in season and out of season upon a policy not of religion but a policy of nonviolence and truthfulness. You may do anything you like with your country after you have attained your goal. 2

In my humble opinion hatred is not essential for nationalism. Race hatred will kill the real national spirit. Let us understand what nationalism is. We want freedom for our country. We do not want sufferings for other countries: we do not want the exploitation of other countries; we do not want the degradation of other countries. For my part I don’t want the freedom of India if it means the disappearance of Englishmen, if it means the extinction of Englishmen. I want the freedom of my country so that other countries may learn something from this free country of mine. I want freedom of my country so that the resources of my country might be utilized for the benefit of mankind just as the cult of patriotism teaches us today that the individual has to die for the family, the family has to die for the village, the village for the district, the district for the Province and the Provinces for the whole nation, and when we indulge in provincialism I as a Gujarati say, Gujarat first, Bengal and the rest of Provinces next. There is no nationalism in it. On the contrary if I live in Gujarat and prepare Gujarat, I should prepare Gujarat so that the vast resources of Gujarat might be placed at the disposal of Bengal, nay, of the whole of India that Gujarat may die for the whole of India. My love, therefore, of nationalism, or my idea of nationalism is that my country may become free—free that if need be the whole of the country may die so that the human race may live. There is no room here for race hatred. 3

We are striving; we are groping in the dark; we are trying to suppress provincialism; we are trying to suppress racialism; we are trying to suppress religionism, if I may coin a word; we are trying to express nationalism in its fullest form, but I am ashamed to confess to you that we are still far from it. But it is given to you to outstrip us and set us an example. It is easy for you, much easier for you than for us, but a condition indispensable for that is that some of you at least will have to give your whole time to this and not only your whole time but your whole selves and you will have to suppress yourselves. 4

But swaraj is not such a cheap commodity. To attain swaraj implies the cultivation of a spirit of self-sacrifice, including the sacrifice of provincialism. Provincialism is a bar not only to the realization of national swaraj, but also the achievement of provincial autonomy. Women perhaps are more responsible than men for keeping up this narrow spirit. Variety is worth cherishing up to a certain limit, but if the limit is exceeded, amenities and customs masquerading under the name of variety are subversive of nationalism. The Deccani sari is a thing of beauty, but the beauty must be let go if it can be secured only by sacrificing the nation. We should consider the Kachchhi style of short sari or the Punjabi odhani to be really artistic if the wearing of khadi can be cheapened and facilitated by their means. The Deccani, Gujarati, Kachchhi and Bengali styles of wearing sari are all of them various national styles, and each of them is as national as the rest. Such being the case, preference should be accorded to that style which requires the smallest amount of cloth consistently with the demands of decency. Such is the Kachchhi style, which takes up only 3 yards of cloth, that is, about half the length of the Gujarati sari, not to mention the saving of trouble in having to carry a smaller weight. If the pachhedo and the petticoat are of the same colour one cannot at once make out whether it is only a pachhedo or full sari. The mutual exchange and imitation of such national styles is eminently desirable. 5

Such girls should go out of their little communities or even Provinces in search of suitable deserving companions. The sooner we get through the spirit of provincialism and exclusive caste, the better would it be for us. I cannot understand why an educated Amil should be in search of an Amil companion and why he or she should not take a deserving companion from any part of India, the condition being, not selfish gratification of base animal passions, but search after spiritual growth and national advancement. 6 Here it is a question of just shedding our provincialism and narrowness; there are no difficulties at all. Not that I do not like Tamil or Urdu scripts. I know both. But service of the motherland, to which all my life is being given and without which life would be insupportable for me, has taught me that we should try to lift unnecessary burdens off our people. The burden of knowing many scripts is unnecessary and easily avoidable. I would appeal to men of letters of all provinces to resolve their differences on this point and be agreed on this matter of prime importance. Then and then only can the Bharatiya Sahitya Parishad be a success. 7

Kishorelal has also given some instances in his speech. But I have omitted them. What use has we for names? I was afraid that the mention of names and personalities might even have an adverse effect. Hence I have left these out. Now understand this. We should also put an end to provincialism. If the Andhras claimed that Andhra is for them alone, if the people of Orissa claimed that Orissa is only theirs, it will give rise to provincialism. The right thing for both Andhra and Orissa is to be prepared to sacrifice themselves for the country and the world. And India must offer herself at the altar of the world. That will be her true test. I am not advancing a new idea; I am only reminding you of it on a suitable occasion. The recent incidents in Kanpur and Allahabad have deeply affected me. Such incidents are not going to bring us swaraj. I have discussed the matter with Subhas Babu, Maulana Azad and others. The conclusion I have arrived at after Haripura is that if matters are as we saw them there, despite all our failings we may be able to see purna swaraj within my lifetime.

If we can accomplish our task intelligently, the British will have to admit defeat at our hands. There will be only one power in India with whom they can discuss matters, and that power will be the Congress. There will be nothing left for them to do. They will be prepared to help if the people so desire. They will ask us what we expect from them. This strength can be generated within us through truth and non-violence alone. If we can develop this strength within us in a year, the Viceroy will have to invite Subhas Babu and ask him what the latter wanted from him. Even the British Government may send for Subhas Babu because the British are losing in power and prestige in Europe. But that is not what I have in mind. A non-violent person has no enemies. But if one who calls himself an enemy loses his strength, a non-violent person feels compassion for him. He does not wish to take advantage of the former’s predicament to mount on his back. He resumes his fight only when the former is out of his troubles. This is how I worked in South Africa. I found that it happened not only in the U. P. and in Allahabad, but in the Central Provinces and in other places also. Police and even military assistance had to be sought to put down the riots. I do not wish to say that the Ministers were to blame. What could poor Govind Ballabh Pant do? I am not criticizing him.

He had to act in his capacity as a Minister. Whatever he did was correct. The fault lies with me. The conclusion which I drew from what I saw in Haripura was erroneous. I felt that we could accomplish whatever we wanted within a year and that we had developed the strength for it. But I now realize that I had made a mistake. I believe that if today the Viceroy sent for Subhas Babu, or Jawaharlal or me and asked us what we wanted, I would reply that I was not equal to the task. Today, we do not have the strength to respond. If we tell the Viceroy that we do not need the police or the army and that we can defend ourselves, that we have the weapon of non-violence, that the Muslims are our friends and so are the Pathans, that we shall ourselves tackle the Princes, that we shall bear with the Sikhs, he would conclude that I was out of my wits. This was not the state of affairs in 1920. When we are ready, we shall have within us the strength to come to a reasonable understanding with the Muslims, the Princes and the zamindars. Today, we have power neither over the Princes nor over the zamindars, neither over the Muslims nor over the Sikhs. Leaving aside others, do we have control even over those who are within the Congress? I have seen that there were internal fights to acquire control over the Congress office. I find in the Congress names of persons who were not in the organization at all. But let it be. 8

Provincialism of a healthy type there is, and always will be. There is no meaning in having separate provinces, if there were no differences, though healthy, between them. But our provincialism must never be narrow or exclusive. It should be conducive to the interest of the whole country of which the provinces are but parts. They may be likened to tributaries of a mighty river. The tributaries promote its mightiness. Their strength and purity will be reflected in the majestic stream. It must be thus with the provinces. Everything that the provinces do must be for the glory of the whole. If the great contribution of Rabindranath glorifies Bengal, it glorifies also India. Does not his influence pervade the whole of India? Dadabhai lived not merely for the Parsis, not merely for Bombay, but for the whole of India. There is no room for exclusiveness or jealousy between province and province, unless India is to be dismembered into warring countries each living for it and if possible at the expense of the rest. The Congress will have lived in vain if such a calamity descends upon the country. Every attempt at dividing India into watertight compartments must be resisted. India’s destiny is to become a strong, independent nation making her unique contribution to the world’s progress. Our patriotism is at no stage exclusive. We do not desire prosperity at the expense of the other nations of the earth. A time must come when we will be able to say, ‘We are no less citizens of the world than we are citizens of India’. But the time will never come unless we know the art of being citizens of an independent India. We cannot learn the art if we develop poisonous provincialisms. The right national life has to begin with the individual. I wish to be strong and free so that not only I but my neighbour also may benefit by my strength and freedom. We as individuals or provinces must bring our best fruit to the altar of the motherland. 9

This question has come to me in various forms. It comes from Bengal and Assam. Merchants from other provinces have settled there for generations. Though they went to the respective provinces for their own sakes, they supplied a want, often useful. There is no doubt that their sudden withdrawal must hit hard those who have been hitherto used to make their daily purchases from these merchants. They cannot be easily and suddenly replaced, especially at a critical time like this. There for these merchants to wind up their businesses would certainly amount to desertion of duty, if they do not before leaving, ensure the continuance of shops by proper substitute. It would be a different thing if the customers themselves evacuated and the merchants had to follow. The situation that faces the country is so novel that no opinion or solution can claim infallibility, nor can judgment be pronounced without carefully weighing all the facts. But it seems to me to be the duty of mercantile organizations to examine the situation and give guidance to the merchants affected. 10

Travancore can grow rice, not wheat. So far as the cereals are concerned the inhabitants of Travancore are rice-eaters. They take to wheat with difficulty and under stress. Would that the present distress could make us shed our provincialism and induce all India habits so as to make us feel fully at home, no matter which part of India we happened to find ourselves in. For the moment, however, my object would be fully served if all responsible men in India would definitely tell the people in their respective provinces, districts and States, not to look beyond India for supply of food but to grow what they can themselves and learn to eke out a living from their own produce. And, if the numerous authentic letters I receive are an indication of things as they are or should be, we need fear no starvation for want of life-giving vegetables plus a little milk for vegetarians and fish, flesh or fowl for non-vegetarians. 11

Hitherto I have dealt with the question of new arrivals. What of those who were on the 15th of August in Bihar—some in Government employment and some otherwise employed? So far as I can see, they should be on the same footing as the Biharis unless they make another choice. Naturally they should not form a separate colony as if they were foreigners. “Live in Rome as the Romans do,” is a sound commonsense maxim so long as it does not apply to Roman vices. The process of progressive blending must be one of rejecting the bad and absorbing the good. As a Gujarati in Bengal, I must quickly absorb all that is good in Bengal and never touch that which is bad; I must ever serve Bengal, never selfishly exploit it. The bane of our life is our excusing provincialism, whereas my province must be so extensive with the Indian boundary so that ultimately it extends to the boundary of the earth. Else, it perishes. 12

References: