Question Boxes and Mahatma Gandhi-XXVIII

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Senior Gandhian Scholar

Gandhi Research Foundation, 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

 

Question Boxes and Mahatma Gandhi-XXVIII

 

 Q. I quite agree that as society advances marriages between the different communities will increase and should be welcomed. You rightly advocate no change of religion for the parties con corned But what do you advocate for the children? In which religion should they be brought up, the father’s or the mother’s?

 A. Presumption in such marriages is that the parents respect each other’s religions. If they are religiously minded, the children will unconsciously imbibe what they think is best for them and choose their own faith without let or hindrance from the parents. If the latter are indifferent, the children will also be probably indifferent and label themselves anyhow. This is what I have observed in such marriages. The difficulty crops up when there is a serious difference arising between the parents as to the upbringing of the children.

Q. You oppose all conversion without conviction. But are you not inconsistent? You profess equal respect for all religions. Why then worry about how the conversion is brought about?

 A. I have extracted the question from your long and plausible letter, cleverly written. Conversion without conviction is a mere change and not conversion which is a revolution in one’s life. You seem too to forget that equal respect implies respect for my own faith as much as for yours or any other neighbour’s. My respect for my own faith forbids my being indifferent to my children abandoning their parents’ faith without conviction. And I should have little respect for you, if you led my children astray by making all kinds of worldly promises in which matters of the spirit had no play.

 Harijan, 29-3-1942

Q. I quite agree that as society advances marriages between the different communities will increase and should be welcomed. You rightly advocate no change of religion for the parties con corned but what do you advocate for the children? In which religion should they be brought up, the father’s or the mother’s?

A. Presumption in such marriages is that the parents respect each other’s religions. If they are religiously minded, the children will unconsciously imbibe what they think is best for them and choose their own faith without let or hindrance from the parents. If the latter are indifferent, the children will also be probably indifferent and label themselves anyhow. This is what I have observed in such marriages. The difficulty crops up when there is a serious difference arising between the parents as to the upbringing of the children.

Q. You oppose all conversion without conviction. But are you not inconsistent? You profess equal respect for all religions. Why then worry about how the conversion is brought about?

A. I have extracted the question from your long and plausible letter, cleverly written. Conversion without conviction is a mere change and not conversion which is a revolution in one’s life. You seem too to forget that equal respect implies respect for my own faith as much as for yours or any other neighbour’s. My respect for my own faith forbids my being indifferent to my children abandoning their parents’ faith without conviction. And I should have little respect for you, if you led my children astray by making all kinds of worldly promises in which matters of the spirit had no play.

Harijan, 29-3-1942  

Q. From your writings one gathers the notion that your ‘trustee’ is not anything more than a very benevolent philanthropist and donor, such as the first Parsi Baronet, the Tatas, the Wadias, the Birlas, Shri Bajaj and the like. Is that so? Will you please explain whom you regard as the primary or rightful beneficiaries of the possessions of a rich man? Is there to be a limit to the amount or part of the income and capital which he can spend upon himself, his kith and kin and for non-public purposes? Can one who exceeds such limit be prevented from doing so? If he is incompetent or otherwise fails to discharge his obligations as a trustee, can he be removed and called upon to render accounts by a beneficiary or the State? Do the same principles apply to Princes and zamindars, or is their trusteeship of a different nature?

A. If the trusteeship idea catches, philanthropy, as we know it, will disappear. Of those you have named only Jamnalalji came near, but only near it. A trustee has no heir but the public. In a State built on the basis of non-violence, the commission of trustees will be regulated. Princes and zamindars will be on a par with the other men of wealth.

Harijan, 12-4-1942

Q. Several years ago I once had the temerity to ask whether the fact that you had allowed non-violence to come into the Congress as an expedient rather than as a creed would not be conducive to its breakdown at the critical time: You said you did not think so. But do you still feel the same? Would you not today have had an organized band of believers in non-violence whom you could have sent in groups all over the country? It almost seems as if we had lost time and are found unprepared, as it were, to shoulder responsibility?

A. Yes, I adhere to my opinion that I did well to present to the Congress non-violence as an expedient. I could not have done otherwise if I was to introduce it into politics. In South Africa too I introduced it as an expedient. It was successful there because resisters were a small number in a compact area and therefore easily controlled. Here we had numberless persons scattered over a huge country. The result was that they could not be easily controlled or trained. And yet it is a marvel the way they have responded. They might have responded much better and shown far better results. But I have no sense of disappointment in me over the results obtained. If I had started with men who accepted non-violence as a creed, I might have ended with myself. Imperfect as I am, I started with imperfect men and women and sailed on an uncharted ocean. Thank God that, though the boat has not reached its haven, it has proved fairly storm-proof.

Q. You are prejudiced against the Roman script because you are prejudiced against the English. Otherwise you would unhesitatingly advocate it in the place of Devanagari and Persian.

A. You are wrong. I am prejudiced against neither. But I am against anything or anybody usurping a place not belonging to it for him. The Roman script has come to stay in India. But it cannot take the place of the Indian scripts. If I had my way, there would be only the Devanagari script, for all the provincial languages, and Devanagari and Persian for the all-India speech. The Arabic script, from which the Persian is derived, is a necessity for Muslims as Sanskrit is for Hindus. Roman has been suggested as a compromise and not for its merits. It has none except that it is almost universal in the West. But it must not displace either Devanagari, which is the parent of most provincial languages and is the most perfect of all the known scripts, or Persian, because it is written by millions of Hindus and Muslims in the North. So far as the scripts are keeping them apart, Hindus and Muslims will not come together by adopting a neutral and imperfect script. But they will, if both take the trouble, for the love of one another, to learn both scripts. The Roman script has its own great and unique place. It need not aspire after greater.

Harijan, 12-4-1942

 Q. You have expressed yourself against communalism in cricket. Are not communal universities also to be deplored? In colleges and hostels that are open to all, deep friendships spring up and religious tolerance becomes a natural thing, would not well-endowed chairs in common centres of learning serve the purpose of advancing different cultures?

A. You are right. If we can do without communal institutions, it would be good. But I am unable to say that there should be no Muslim or Hindu Universities as I am able to say positively that there should be no communal cricket. The communal universities, if their origin is not tainted, may conceivably serve a national purpose. Thus the Hindu University and the Muslim University may, as they ought to, be seats of communal concord. But communal sports seem to be a contradiction in terms. I wholly agree with you that there should be, as there are, non-communal colleges and hostels. Unfortunately the virus has entered even these. Let us hope that it is a passing phase.

Q. You say people in the cities should evacuate under certain circumstances. Panditji and Rajaji say they should not on any account. What are we to do?

A. I appreciate your difficulty. I can only advise you to use your judgment and choose that advice which appeals to your reason. We are living in hard times such as we have never experienced before. I am quite sure of my ground. People who are not wanted should evacuate from cities which are within the danger zone. There is no cowardice in orderly withdrawal. Women and children and aged people and all those who are not wanted should evacuate so as to enable the defenders the better to regulate defence of cities under their control. The evacuees will show real courage if they will settle down in villages and tackle problems that face villagers. Differences of opinion between leaders ought not to worry people. Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress. And the differences you refer to are honest.

Harijan, 19-4-1942 

Q. If the Japanese really mean what they say and are willing to help to free India from the British yoke, why should we not willingly accept their help?

A. It is folly to suppose that aggressors can ever be benefactors. The Japanese may free India from the British yoke, but only to put in their own instead. I have always maintained that we should not seek any other Power’s help to free India from the British yoke. That would not be a non-violent approach. We should have to pay a heavy price if we ever consented to take foreign aid against the British. By our non-violent action we were within an ace of reaching our goal. I cling to my faith in non-violence. I have no enmity against the Japanese, but I cannot contemplate with equanimity their designs upon India. Why do they not realize that we as free men have no quarrel with them? Let them leave India alone. And if they are well-intentioned, what has China done to deserve the devastation they have wrought there?

Q. You declared the other day at Wardha that Jawaharlal Nehru was your ‘legal heir’. How do you like the idea of your legal heir advocating guerrilla warfare against the Japanese? What will happen to your ahimsa when Jawaharlal openly advocates violence and Rajaji wants arms and military training for the whole nation?

A. As you have put it the situation does appear awful. But it really is not as awful as it appears to you. In the first instance ‘legal heir’ is not my phrase. I had spoken in Hindi. I had said that he was not my ‘legal heir’ but that he was virtually my heir. That means that he will take my place when I am gone. He has never accepted my method in its entirety. He has frankly criticized it, and yet he has faithfully carried out the Congress policy largely influenced, when it was not solely directed, by me. Those like Sardar Vallabhbhai who have followed me without question cannot be called heirs. And everybody admits that Jawaharlal has the drive that no one else has in the same measure. And have I not said also that when I am gone he will shed the differences he often declares he has with me? I am sorry he has developed a fancy for guerrilla warfare. But I have no doubt that it will be a nine days’ wonder. It will take no effect. It is foreign to the Indian soil. Twenty-two years’ incessant preaching and practice of non-violence, however imperfect it has been, could not be suddenly obliterated by the mere wish of Jawaharlal and Rajaji, powerful though their influence is. I am, therefore, not perturbed by the ‘apostasy’ either of Jawaharlal or Rajaji. They will return to non-violence with renewed zest, strengthened by the failure of their effort. Neither goes to violence for his belief in it. They do so because they think probably that India must have a course of violence before coming to non-violence. No one can say beyond doubt how events will shape themselves. It may be that their instinct is correct and mine, backed though it is by experience, is not. I know this, however, that my line is cut out for me. Even though I may be alone in my faith, I must follow it unfalteringly, believing that the masses will never take to the violent method. They will either remain inert or take to non-violent action. Guerrilla warfare can take us nowhere. If it is practiced on any large scale, it must lead to disastrous consequences. Non-violent non-co-operation is the most effective substitute for every kind of violent warfare. If the whole nation takes to non-violent action, it can be wholly successful. It could not be quite so against the British because their roots have gone deep into the soil. The Japanese have not even got a foothold. I hope that the forthcoming A. I. C. C. will revert to the non-violent method and give the clearest possible instructions about non-violent non-co-operation. To aid the British effort in the violent way without any official connection and after the failure of the recent negotiations appears to me to court national disgrace.

Harijan, 26-4-1942

 

Q. It is all very well for you to invite bravery, but are you not inviting the Japanese to attack India by asking the British rulers to withdraw?

A. I am not. I feel convinced that the British presence is the incentive for the Japanese attack. If the British wisely decided to withdraw and leave India to manage her own affairs in the best way she could, the Japanese would be bound to reconsider their plans. The very novelty of the British stroke will confound the Japanese, dissolve the subdued hatred against the British, and the atmosphere will be set up for the ending of an unnatural state of things that has dominated and choked Indian life. As far as I can see the Japanese seem to have made their plans independently of Indian opinion. They are not to be affected by any writing of mine. But they will be confounded by the action I have advised the British to take.

Q. You have advised evacuation from the cities of those who are not wanted for service or other reasons. But what are those poor people to do who have no homes to go to and who would be unwelcome wherever they go?

A. This is a real difficulty. They must be provided for by the people of the provinces to which they belong. If we are one nation, we should have no difficulty in providing for every contingency that may arise. If we are to establish a new order of society, we can act from now. I can only speak from the non-violent angle and no other. If the national mind is working in that direction, consciously or unconsciously individuals and institutions will, without fuss, be absorbing all such persons as you mention. I know that the process is going on, but not on a scale large enough to be impressive. No able-bodied person should be put on charity; he should be given work enough to feed him properly. This shifting of the population, if it is wisely done, must result in a silent re-organization of villages.

Harijan, 3-5-1942 

Q. There are, in certain places, some people who have come from other provinces but who have practically settled in those places. There is already a feeling in certain provinces that when time were good these people came from outside, earned, and enjoyed themselves, but that when danger is drawing near and when their help and assistance would be needed by the residents of the province, they are thinking of fleeing to their ‘homes’ Should you not advise such people to stay where they are and not to give vent any narrow provincialism?

A. 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.

Q. You have written: “If the vast majority of Muslims regard themselves as a separate nation . . . no power on earth can compel them to think otherwise. And if they want to partition India on that basis, they must have the partition, unless Hindus want to fight against such a division. So far as I can see such a preparation is silently going on behalf of both parties.” As far as the Muslims are concerned I can say with better knowledge than you that there is no such preparation. It would be foolish in the midst of the present Armageddon. But since you are apparently aware of the preparation to fight on the part of Hindus, is it not criminal for you not to prevent your co-religionists from this suicidal activity? Your article is both cowardly and mischievous; indeed it is an incitement to the Hindus.

A. This is the mildest indictment I have picked up from many I have received. Even from this much poison has been removed. It is perhaps wise to notice some of the criticism to which I am exposed. I must not mind it. It has been my lot throughout my public career. I suppose it is that of every public servant. But when the criticism is ignorant, as this is, it harms the critic and the cause he espouses. I take notice of it in the hope that sober men will use their influence to restrain ignorant criticism. I have no special knowledge of the preparation on behalf of the Hindus. All the knowledge I have is derived from the speeches of the leaders of both the parties and from the cuttings I receive from correspondents. They are proof positive of the preparations to which I have referred. But if what you say is right, in spite of the writings in the Muslim Press, no preparation on one side alone can possibly provoke strife. It takes two to make a quarrel. You would be right, if I did not do so, in saying that it would be criminal on my part not to prevent my ‘‘co-religionists from this suicidal activity”. You write about my co-religionists. I recognize none in such matters. Nor do they recognize me. For I claim Indians of all religions as my equal brothers, whether they believe me or not. I would, therefore, love to prevent everyone from quarrelling. All I write in these columns is designed to make reason rather than the sword the arbiter between rival parties. Hence the sentence you quote from my writing. I invite you to help me in my mission of peace. You can begin by understanding me and my writings.

Harijan, 3-5-1942 

Q. Why may not work such as ploughing or grinding corn be taken from barren cows? Would that not be one way of preventing their going to the slaughter-house?

A. This question used to be much discussed at one time owing to the enthusiasm of a Punjabi who used to advocate the use even of milch cows for draft purposes. He used to claim that they would yield more and richer milk for the exercise given to them. Anyway my devotion to the cow does not preclude me from taking such labour as she can perform without the slightest detriment to her body. The fact is that our treatment of draft animals leaves much to be desired. I would welcome the use of barren cows for gentle labour, if only it would make people more considerate than they are towards the other animals.

Q. You advise evacuation of cities likely to be bombed and migration to the villages. Do you imagine the villages to be safe? As a matter of fact the villagers are more panic-stricken than the city-dwellers. There is inadequate police protection, and villagers live in hourly terror of dacoits and robbers. Is it not a matter of jumping from the frying-pan into the fire?

A. I have not suggested migration to the villages for the soft life they will provide. Fright was no ingredient of my plan. It was and still is good even from a military point of view as has now been made abundantly clear. All the danger you present is undoubtedly bound up with the migration to the villages. But that to my mind is an additional reason for it. Who will put heart into the villagers and dispel panic, if it is not the right type of experienced city people? They will cover not only the aged and the infirm that may migrate to the villages, but they will also help and serve the villagers in the many ways I have pointed out in these columns. Courage is indispensable in these times for every true act.

Q. In order to solve the communal tangle, why not divide India into two sections as far as population goes, e.g., Mussalmans, Christians and Parsis in one, and Hindus, Sikhs and Depressed Classes in the other. Let the first section rule for a period of five years by means of elected representatives and the second section come in similarly later. Would this not allay the present mistrust? As for Princes’ India, could a Committee of elected Princes be entrusted with the work of governing all the States?

A. Your question reads well on paper; but your suggestion, if acted upon, must break down in practice. The act of government is not the simple thing you seem to imagine. What you suggest may work as a toy when the strings are pulled by armed authority. It won’t be our government. The puller of the strings will govern. That is the old way. I have presented the better way—the non-violent method. In either case the first condition is that every trace of foreign authority should be removed from the land. Then and then only shall we know our real selves our strength as well as our weaknesses. When we are untrammeled by foreign or other authority and free, we shall know how to deal with the day-to-day problems. We won’t then be governed in the neat way mentioned by you. The arbiter then will be either the sword or reason.

Harijan, 10-5-1942

Q. Maulana Saheb has made what I consider a very wise and patriotic suggestion that the Congress Working Committee will nominate five representatives to meet the representatives of the Muslim League when the latter so desire to do. I trust it will commend itself to you if it does, I should like you publicly to support it. It will go a long way to bring the Hindus and the Muslims together.

A. I have no hesitation in endorsing Maulana Saheb’s suggestion. No one would be gladder than I if, with or without my endorsement, the two can come together. I have always felt that there is something radically wrong with both that the most obvious thing, viz., the coming together of the wise men of both with a will to find a solution of the deadlock, has not happened.

Q. Your advocacy of the learning of Urdu as part of the national language which you have called Hindustani is all very well. What do you say to the propaganda that is being carried on in the Nizam’s Dominions on behalf of Urdu? Here is the first question in a Telugu examination paper: “If for the purposes of Federation a common language for India is indispensable and the case of Hindustani is strong enough, then it seems to me that as far as this University is concerned it should immediately make Urdu its medium of instruction especially when it happens to be the mother tongue of this province. Those who would wait till it grows richer are sadly mistaken and argue in a circle. It will remain poor as long as the universities make no use of it in teaching all branches of knowledge.” Remember that Telugu and not Urdu is the mother tongue of the majority of the people in this part of the country. What do you say to the ingenious method adopted of carrying on pro-Urdu propaganda through examination papers?

A. I admit that the method adopted is both ingenious and strange. An examination paper is hardly a vehicle for propaganda on a question on which sharp division of opinion prevails. I agree that Urdu is not the mother tongue of the people of H. E. H. the Nizam’s Dominions. What proportion of the population knows Telugu I do not know? My notion of an all-India speech does not involve the displacement of the great provincial languages, but its knowledge is meant to be an addition to that of the provincial speech. Nor do I expect that the millions will ever learn the all-India speech. It will be learnt by the politically and those who have inter-provincial connections. Indeed a correspondent suggests that in the place of an all-India speech I should advocate the learning of the languages of neighbouring provinces. Thus he says: It is far more useful for the Assamese to know Bengali than Hindi or Urdu and now according to you Hindi and Urdu. If we had not the intolerable burden of learning English not merely as a second language but as a language through which all higher instruction is imparted to us, we should find it child’s play to learn our neighbors’ speech and certainly learn the all-India speech for all-India contacts. In my opinion a boy or girl lacks culture and accomplishment, if he or she does not know half a dozen languages of India. It is a sure sign of brain fag on the part of English-knowing Indians when they tremble at the very thought of learning a language other than English, not excluding even their mother’s speech. For the majority of objectors are English-knowing Indians. I have found no difficulty about the Ashram inmates learning Urdu in addition to Hindi. And I know that in South Africa the Tamil labourers could speak Telugu and vice versa, and they had a working knowledge of Hindi. No one had told them that they should learn Hindi. Somehow or other they knew intuitively that they should know Hindi. Of course they were no scholars, but for mutual intercourse they picked up what was necessary. They picked up also the speech of their neighbours, the Zulus. They could not carry on their business, if they did not. Thus most Indians knew besides their mother tongues two more Indian languages, Zulu, and a smattering of even English. Needless to say many of them wrote no language, and most could write only ungrammatically their own mother tongues. The moral of this is obvious. If you dispense with the script, you pick up your neighbour’s language without effort and without difficulty, and if you are fresh and the brain is not wearied, you can learn as many scripts as you wish without any difficulty. The study is any day interesting and stimulating. The study of languages is an art and valuable at that.

Harijan, 17-5-1942 

Q. Intellectually I am convinced that non-violence is the only solution of quarrels between man and man. But by nature I cannot but react violently to acts of hostility to my country or myself. So I am unable to be content with non-violent resistance only against the Japanese. I feel that, in addition to whatever I may be able to do by way of non-violent resistance, I should also do my utmost to help the war effort against them. They have no right to invade my country even though it is in British hands and not ours. But when I think of helping the war effort, my intellectual conviction of non-violence does not allow me to do so with peace of mind.

A. Your difficulty is a common difficulty. But if you have real intellectual conviction, it will overcome your nature which is nothing but habit. Your conviction should tell you that non-violence is a force infinitely superior to violence. Hence you do not need to rely upon violent assistance. Moreover you are labouring under a fallacy. Why do you say that the Japanese have no right to invade your country although it is in foreigners’ hands? In the first place, the country is not yours while it is in others’ hands. You cannot do what you like with it. The foreigners can and do. Secondly, if the Japanese have enmity against your master, they have every right to attack what your master possesses. We are not examining here the correctness of Japan’s conduct in going to war against Great Britain. I am simply pointing out what seems to me to be your mental confusion. The proper course for you is to ask the wrongful possessor to vacate your country. When he has done it you will have the choice between violence and non-violence against the Japanese attack, if it comes. But the thing is not as simple as I have put it. Your difficulty is real. You feel that you cannot defend your country. You have lost it. The English can, if you help them. If the English vacate the country, the Japanese are much more likely to attack undefended India if only for strategic purposes, and you will be utterly helpless against the invading host. Therefore, seeing that the English are in India and they can defend, why not make common cause with them and answer the impending attack? After victory, have they not said, they would go away if they are not wanted? This, I expect, is your argument. In my opinion it is only plausible. The British do not want your help on your terms, as witness the failure of the Cripps mission. They want it on their terms. If, therefore, victory is achieved, the British hold will be ever so much stronger than before. If they will not trust you now, there is no warrant for supposing that they will after victory. They will then ask you with greater force than now to produce the unity which cannot be produced whilst they are here. You get out of this entire tangle, if you adopt my method. If you have intellectual conviction, you can approach the problem with the utmost confidence. You are friend to all. You say to the British with the greatest goodwill that, if they leave India, she will take care of herself and will probably escape Japanese attention, and if she cannot, she will answer it with non-violence. Then by that simple act of justice they gain your eternal friendship. It may stand them in good stead even during the present war. For India will then of her own free will help China, Russia and others. If India sets her own house in order, as I have no doubt she will, India can work wonders.

 

Harijan, 17-5-1942

Q. You are going strong. You should know that if the people follow you it must hinder the present war effort. The Government cannot allow it. If they do, you will admit that only the British Government can show such generosity. And what will you do if they suppress it?

A. No Government can afford to be generous. A man is generous when he does something at his own expense. Governments can do nothing at their own expense. But they always succeed in making people believe that they are generous even when they are barely or less than just. Justice is like a debt which has to be discharged. Therefore, if the Government permits Harijan to continue its even course, they will do so because it is proper from their point of view. They will not hesitate to suppress it when they think it is improper not to do so. I stated at the time of the resumption of publication that it was no part of my plan to persist in publication in spite of prohibition. I will, therefore, again suspend publication when the Government desires it. If they do, it will be a loss to the public. For, apart from the three weeklies, its articles appear by special permission in Urdu Hindustan Lucknow, Urdu Harijan Lahore, and Marathi Harijan Wardha. It is also published in Telugu and Oriya. Articles are sent to them in advance. Numerous other newspapers copy or translate articles from it week by week. There is no generosity in tolerating the publication of such a popular weekly. And my writings will not hinder war effort, if it is voluntary. If they influence the people, surely there is something wrong somewhere. It is not Harijan that should be stopped, but the wrong it exposes should be undone. I look upon my writings as a solid contribution to war effort, for he serves a cause best who exposes its weaknesses or those of its representatives. You ask what I would do if they suppress Harijan. I must frankly confess I do not know. I have cultivated the habit of not anticipating evil. I am able to know the remedy instinctively when I am face to face with an evil. That is how a god-fearing man acts. The fear of God disposes of every other fear. But I can give you this assurance that suppression of Harijan can never mean suppression of me.

Harijan, 17-5-1942 

Q. You have repeated in your interview to the Press in Bombay what you have said often that nothing can prevent the Muslims from having what they want unless the objectors would fight over the issue. What is the difference between you and Shri Rajagopalachari’s attitude?

A. Though he has quoted me in his support I see the same difference between him and me that there is between chalk and cheese. He yields the right of secession now to buy unity in the hope of keeping away the Japanese. I consider the vivisection of India to be a sin. My statement amounts to the enunciation of the proposition that I cannot prevent my neighbour from committing a sin. Shri Rajagopalachari would be party in the sin, if the neighbour chooses to commit it. I cannot be party. What is more, I am firmly of opinion that there is no unity whilst the third party is there to prevent it. It created the artificial division and it keeps it up. In its presence both Hindus and Muslims and for that matter all seemingly conflicting or disgruntled interests and elements will look to it for support and will get it. Their interest is greater than the independence of their country. No one need throw my other statement in my face, viz., that there is no independence without unity. I do not withdraw a word of it. It is an obvious truth. From its contemplation I have discovered the formula of inviting the British power to withdraw. Their withdrawal does not by itself bring independence. It may induce unity or it may lead to chaos. There is also the risk of another power filling in the vacancy if it is there. If, however, the withdrawal is orderly and voluntary the British not only gain a moral height but secure the ungrudging friendship of a great nation. I wish all conflicting elements and interests will make a combined effort to rid India of foreign domination. If they do not, any understanding with them will be like a house built on sand. Fear of the Japanese occupation of India has blinded C. R. to the obvious truth. Independence sheds all fear—fear of the Japanese, of anarchy, and of the wrath of the British lion.

 Harijan, 24-5-1942

 The six questions that follow are from workers who endorse my plan for the withdrawal of the British Power. The answers have to be read in the light of the plan. The workers should know that no plan, however wise it may be, can produce the intended effect if it does not commend itself to those for whose benefit it is presented, or if they are too weak to follow it out. Now for my answers:

Q. Are we right in believing that you wish the Congress and the people to become capable as soon as possible of taking over the administration and to do so on the first opportunity?

A. You are not right. I cannot speak for the Congress. But I want no organization or individual to become capable of taking over the administration. In non-violent technique, it is unthinkable. You do not take over power. It may descend to you being given by the people. In an anarchical state, all turbulent elements will make a bid for power. Those who will serve the people and will evolve order out of chaos will spend themselves in removing chaos. If they survive, the popular will may put them in as administrators. This is wholly different from what you have imagined. People who make a bid for power generally fail to achieve it.

Q. In resisting unjust military or civil orders, is the primary motive (a) protest against the Government action, (b) alleviation of the peoples’ sufferings, or (c) a preliminary step towards the capture of power?

A. The central point of my conception is non-violence. In trying to educate the people to be without the British or any power, the chief thing is to resist all injustice, no matter how or by whom it is perpetrated. Here resistance is not by way of protest, certainly not a preliminary step towards gaining power. I want thousands of people to resist injustice. If they all were to do so to seize power, they will never succeed. It is surely enough for them to resist the injustice they feel. It is in itself a duty.

Q. Do you expect individual Congressmen to offer resistance in cases where the villagers or general public are not prepared to come forward?

A. If I can speak for Congressmen I would say most emphatically “yes”. People who are terror-struck have no gumption. Those who have, have to intercede even at the cost of their lives.

Q. Shall we go to reason with the officials who refuse to allow the organization of self-protective units and if they do not listen. Shall we still go on?

A. People have to protect themselves against officials, against dacoits and possibly Japanese. If they do not, they are doomed. Therefore they may not brook any interference with their preparation. But they may not bear arms without licence. What I have in mind is gymnastics, drill, lathi play and the like. The authorities are not likely to interfere with these practices. But if they do, the people affected may disregard prohibition and take the consequences.

Q. Villagers here are much troubled for want of salt which they used to get largely from Calcutta. If they defy the Salt Laws they can easily make sufficient stocks for the needs of the Province. Cattle in these parts are given no salt. If salt became free this serious defect could also be removed. May we advise the people to make all the salt they need for the Province? After the rains begin they will not be able to make salt.

A. Manufacture of salt for home consumption is covered by the Irwin-Gandhi Pact. The ten-mile radius at present is unworkable. I do think that in these hard times the restriction should be relaxed and as far as possible the people should be left to help themselves. The main revenue from salt is not likely to be affected by the laxity of administration in favour of the poor people. I would advise local adjustment with the authorities. The idea underlying my plan, however visionary or even mischievous it may appear to be, is that if the setting given is non-violent and the workers understand and carry it out, the withdrawal of British authority can take place without much disturbance and certainly without the Japanese replacing that authority unless, as has been suggested, the popular mind is in favour of the Japanese. While I was preparing this note, I received a letter from Rajen Babu who writes as follows about salt: During my tour I have made it a point to meet representatives of merchants and traders at every place I visit, with a view to ascertaining the position of stock of food-stuffs, kerosene oil and salt and other necessary articles of daily consumption. At every place it has been impressed on me, both by merchants and members of public that a most serious situation is developing with regard to supply of salt. A big shortage in salt is apprehended at almost every place that I have visited and unless immediate steps are taken it may cause great hardships and sufferings to the people, particularly to the poor who very often have to depend only on salt to enable them to gulp the coarse food they can somehow manage to get. The steps to control the price of salt are ineffective. It is worse than useless to control the price of an article of vital necessity, without ensuring a regular supply of it. The price fixed remains only on paper and cannot be enforced unless there is arrangement to ensure a supply of the commodity. Despite the price fixed by the Government, salt sells at higher prices at many places particularly in mofussil. But what is feared is much more serious than mere high prices, viz., more or less total disappearance of salt from the market and grocers’ shops. I am told that orders placed by the merchants are not executed by the people at the centres like Khewra and Shambhar. There is nothing like price control there and a lot more than the apparent price has to be paid by the merchants if they want to get a supply. It is said that this extra cost comes to something like Rs. 300 to Rs. 400 or even more per wagon in addition to the standard price of Rs. 1,075 for 550 maunds. At Calcutta although the price control has fixed Rs. 170 for 100 maunds the actual price paid by the buyers is Rs. 270. This is the state of price control. The difficulty in securing a wagon is not the least of the difficulties that has to be encountered. With increasing difficulty in supply of wagons the prospect is dismal. The Government should take immediate steps to ensure a regular supply of salt: (a) by securing a regular supply of wagons, (b) by ensuring a just and fair distribution of the available stock among dealers, (c) by opening new sources of supply of salt, and (d) by removing all restrictions on the manufacture of salt from sea-water at seacoast and from earth in the interior. It must be realized that dislocation of transport may make it impossible for salt to be carried from long distances and efforts should be made to make it available within manageable distances so that ordinary means of country transport like bullock-carts, boats, pack bullocks, horses and mules may be employed for transporting it. With the monsoon already in sight it is already very late and any further delay in taking effective steps may mean untold sufferings. I wish the authorities will listen to Rajen Babu and relax the restrictions before it is too late and people suffer before actual war overtakes the land.

Q. Land is being requisitioned for military aerodromes and villagers are being ordered to vacate. If no reasonable arrangements are being made for the villagers should the orders be resisted? Or should we resist in any case as we do not want the aerodromes which are in themselves a danger, not a protection, and no arrangements can ever adequately compensate a peasant for his house and fields?

A. No resistance on the ground of all war resistance is contemplated in the present plan. Resistance is permissible only if villagers do not get equal facilities elsewhere in the shape of land and cottages. No monetary compensation can give evacuated people the land they will need. High-handedness should be resisted.

Harijan, 31-5-1942

Q. Do you know, being confined in Sevagram, how much you are out of touch with the public? If you were not you would not talk of resisting the Japanese as you do. For the dislike of the British is so great that the man in the street is ready to welcome the Japanese.

A. I cannot endorse your proposition that I am out of touch with the public. Though I am confined in Sevagram I see all sorts of people and receive correspondence from every nook and corner of India. Probably, therefore, I am more in touch with the people than you can be though living in a big town. You have not the opportunity that I have of gauging the public mind. But let us grant that what you say is right I believe you are partially right, my suppressing the true remedy will not alter the public mind. On the contrary, I am showing the futility of hatred. I am showing that hatred injures the hater never the hated. An Imperial power cannot act otherwise than it has been doing. If we are strong the British becomes powerless. I am therefore trying to wean the people from their hatred by asking them to develop the strength of mind to invite the British to withdraw and at the same time to resist the Japanese. With the British withdrawal the incentive to welcome the Japanese goes and the strength felt in securing British withdrawal will be used for stemming the Japanese inroad. I endorse C. R. ’s proposition that the millions of India can resist the Japanese even without the possession of arms, modern and ancient, if they are properly organized. I differ from him when he says that this can be done even when the British arms are operating without co-ordination when you force yourself on the British power. Experience teaches us that hearty co-ordination and co-operation is impossible where mutual trust and respect are wanting. British presence invites the Japanese, it promotes communal disunion and other discords, and what is perhaps the worst of all, deepens the hatred born of impotence. Orderly British withdrawal will turn the hatred into affection and will automatically remove communal distemper. So far as I can see the two communities are unable to think or see things in their proper perspective as long as they are under the influence of the third power.

 Harijan, 31-5-1942

Q. Is it a fact that your present attitude towards England and Japan is influenced by the belief that you think the British and the allies are going to be defeated in this War? It is necessary that you clear the position in this respect. A very important leader in the Congress thinks like that and he says that he is sure because he had this knowledge from his personal talks with you.

A. I wish you could have given the name of the leader. Whoever he is, I have no hesitation in saying that it is not true. On the contrary I said only the other day in Harijan that the Britishers were hard to beat. He has not known what it is to be defeated. Of the Americans in this very issue you will see my answer to The Sunday Despatch. It contradicts the “leader’s” statements. He has therefore either misunderstood me or you have misunderstood him. But I have said in my talk for the past twelve months and more that this war is not likely to end in a decisive victory for any party. There will be peace when the exhaustion point is reached. This is mere speculation. Britain may be favoured by nature. She has nothing to lose by waiting. And with America as her ally she has inexhaustible material resources and scientific skill. This advantage is not available to any of the Axis powers. Thus I have no decisive opinion about the result of the War. But what is decisive with me is that I am made by nature to side with weak parties. My policy of non-embarrassment is based upon that nature and it persists. My proposal for British withdrawal is as much in Britain’s interest as India’s. Your difficulty arises from your disinclination to believe that Britain can ever do justice voluntarily. My belief in the capacity of non-violence rejects the theory of permanent inelasticity of human nature.

Harijan, 7-6-1942 

Q. (1) If the Japs come, how are we to resist them non-violently?

(2) What are we to do if we fall into their hands?

 A. (1) These questions come from Andhradesh where the people rightly or wrongly feel that the attack is imminent. My answer has already been given in these columns. Neither food nor shelter is to be given nor are any dealings to be established with them. They should be made to feel that they are not wanted. But of course things are not going to happen quite so smoothly as the question implies. It is a superstition to think that they will come as friends. No attacking party has ever done so. It spreads fire and brimstone among the populace. It forces things from people. If the people cannot resist fierce attack and are afraid of death, they should evacuate the infested place in order to deny compulsory service to the enemy.

(2) If unfortunately some people are captured or fall into the enemy’s hands, they are likely to be shot if they do not obey orders, e.g., render forced labour. If the captives face death cheerfully, their task is done. They have saved their own and their country’s honour. They could have done nothing more if they had offered violent resistance, save perhaps taking a few Japanese lives and inviting terrible reprisals. The thing becomes complicated when you are captured alive and subjected to unthinkable tortures to compel submission. You will neither submit to torture nor to the orders of the enemy. In the act of resistance you will probably die and escape humiliation. But it is said that death is prevented to let the victim go through the agony of tortures and to serve as an example to others. I however think that a person who would die rather than go through inhuman tortures would find honourable means of dying.

Harijan, 14-6-1942 

Q. The Princes seem to be determined to maintain their privileges even after the departure of the British. Therefore there is need for a plain declaration that they would have no place in a free India. My feeling is that you have so far shown them more consideration than they deserve.

A. If you are right in your judgment, the privileges themselves will destroy the Princes. Privileges that service of the people bestows will always persist. But most of the paraphernalia that ‘pomp and circumstance’ account for will most certainly go. But I cannot make the declaration you will have me to make. It is contrary to the spirit of non-violence which seeks not to destroy but to purify. That which is beyond purification dies without any outside effort even as a body which has become wholly diseased dies. If after the total withdrawal of the British power, there is found to be no awakening among the masses India will be split up into so many feudal strongholds each striving to swallow the small fry and some bidding for over lordship. What I am hoping and striving for is an irresistible mass urge on the part of the people and an intelligent response on the part of all privileged classes to the popular demand. But because I know that this picture is for the time being imaginary, I am quite prepared for the worst hence my statement that I would end the present state of things even at the risk of anarchy reigning supreme in the land.

 

Harijan, 14-6-1942