Surendraji and Mahatma Gandhi

[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

 

 

Surendraji and Mahatma Gandhi

 

 

Surendraji was a close associate of Mahatma Gandhi. He lived in Sabarmati Ashram. He taught Hindi and Hindustani to Ashram inmates. He taught Hindi to Mirabehn. He wrote him letters and gave advice for it. Basically, He was belonging to Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh. He was a very loving personality. He was busy in study and teaching. He knew very little English. Mahatma Gandhi had taken a difficult examination. He passed it. Then he admitted to Ashram. He always ate fat bread. I thank you for your prompt response to my request. Yes, Surendraji is one of the oldest inmates of the Ashram and among the most trusted. He tells me in his letter that you were all kindness; but he adds that he will not be bound to keep the secret he had evidently in mind. The fact is that the Ashram must not possess any secret of any trade. But the Ashram will naturally respect all the confidence that might be given to it. Anyway, perhaps there are so many other things that you will teach Surendraji before he is ready to receive your secret. Meanwhile, I shall correspond with him and provide you with his own undertaking. And when he gives it to you, you may depend upon the undertaking being scrupulously observed. It would be such a joy to me when you are able to certify that Surendraji can handle the tannery of the kind, you know, I want. 1

Your letter did not require immediate reply, and I also thought that as a prisoner I should keep myself within proper limits. Hence I delayed replying to you. I have completely forgotten what you had said in your previous letter (written to me when I was in England). You should never hesitate to write to me anything you think about me. It would be a weakness in you to feel such hesitation. If friends and co-workers put before me their criticism whenever they think that I am committing an error, I would learn much from it, because there would be no malice in their criticism. Moreover, if we are displeased with anything which a friend may have done, it is a test of our friendship and love for him to tell him immediately what has displeased us. Love is not love if it hesitates to speak out through consideration for the feelings of the person loved. In the statement, “true brahmacharya is that which remains inviolate in any condition”, the word ‘condition’ should be understood comprehensively. That is true brahmacharya which does not succumb to any temptation or allurement. If a beautiful young woman makes advances to the stone image of a man, there will be no effect on the latter. A man is a true brahmachari if, in similar circumstances, he remains like a stone. And that image neither hears with its ears nor sees with its eyes. Similarly, a man also should not go seeking temptations. Anybody who does that is not a brahmachari. A brahmachari should not knowingly do anything which may be regarded as a sign of lust. But your chief contention is this, that the sight and company of women are found in experience to be inimical to self-control and must, therefore, be avoided. This reasoning seems wrong to me.

That is not true self-control or brahmacharya which can be preserved only by avoiding even such association with women as may occur in the ordinary course and is necessitated by our work of service. It is only outward renunciation uninspired by genuine desirelessness. The suppressed craving is bound to break through when it gets a suitable opportunity. Scripture tells us that our pleasure in sense-objects does not disappear completely till we have had a vision of the Supreme. But the converse is equally true. Till our pleasure in sense-objects has disappeared completely, we cannot see the Supreme. In other words, our progress in regard to both is simultaneous. The meaning of the last statement should be carefully understood. Our pleasure in sense-objects does indeed disappear only after we have had a vision of the Supreme. That is, though our cravings may have subsided, our instinctive pleasure in sense-objects will have survived somewhere deep in us and, therefore, till we have seen the Supreme there will always be a possibility of the cravings being aroused again.

After the vision of the Supreme, there can be no cravings whatsoever. That means that such a man loses the consciousness of sex and becomes sexless. That is to say, he ceases to be a figure and becomes a cipher, in other words, loses his self in God. When craving has ceased altogether, there can be no pleasure in sense-objects. I think this is easy enough to understand. If in this discussion we substitute the word ‘Truth’ wherever the words ‘Supreme’, ‘God’, ‘Brahman’, ‘Parabrahman’, etc., occur, the argument will be clear and it will also be easy to understand the meaning of realization. Self-deception will not avail anybody here. Those in the Ashram who, under the pretext of living according to the ideal of the Ashram being one family, gratify their lustful fancies mentally are the hypocrites of Chapter III [of the Gita]. Here we are talking about persons who scrupulously follow Truth and are considering how they should behave. Hence, even if ninety-nine per cent of the inmates of the Ashram act as above, so long as the remaining one percent sincerely try to live according to our ideal of the Ashram being one family, the aim of the Ashram will have been fulfilled and the manner of life which we have deliberately adopted in it will be justified. We need not; therefore, think what others do, but consider only what is possible for ourselves. But, at the same time, we should also take care not to imitate others without regard to our own limitations. Others may claim that they can live freely according to the ideal of our being one family, but we ourselves, if we feel that we do not have such strength, should avoid physical contact with women inmates without disputing the claim of those others. We are carrying on a new and dangerous experiment in the Ashram.

Those who can join it without violating Truth may do so, and those who cannot may keep away from it. We do not regard it as everybody’s duty to mix freely with the women inmates. All that we do is to permit such freedom. Those members who can take it without violating dharma may do so, but those who are afraid of violating dharma by such freedom may, even though they live in the Ashram, keep themselves miles away from the company of women. One inmate of the Ashram may be able to treat . . .1 as his daughter. But another inmate may not be able to cultivate such a feeling towards her, though he wishes that he could. It would then be his duty not to be free with her. In this connection I have given the illustration of a corpse. If you feel that it is wrong to imagine such a case even as an illustration, you may suppose ‘A’ and ‘B’ instead. If ‘C’ cannot feel towards ‘B’ as ‘A’ does, it is the moral duty of ‘C’, so long as he lives in the Ashram, never to touch ‘B’. I have tried to enforce this rule in all cases in which I came to know the truth. You should forget what happened about the chair. No importance need be attached to it. You are a sincere seeker, and, therefore, the ultimate result will assuredly be good. So long as one has got reason, one is bound to use it. It is not at all necessary to smother it. You may commit errors, but you will learn through them and some day you will make experiments which will prove beneficial. And it is not as if all your experiments suggested by your reason fail. What does it matter if five such experiments in a hundred fail? All of us have a right to make mistakes. Whenever we realize that we have made a mistake, we shall start afresh and go forward. I do not remember on what occasion I made it but the statement that a person who observes the vow [of brahmacharya] can render greater service to women is perfectly true. And there can be no question that I must have served them better in the measure in which I have succeeded in my effort to observe it. 2

Ramdas told me that you had tears in your eyes when he conveyed my message to you. I am sure that in your eyes there cannot be any tears but of joy. There was no way out of this fast and this was the auspicious occasion. It seems to me impossible to destroy a hydra-headed demon like the untouchability by any other means. Ravana had ten heads only but this demon has a thousand. It is not necessary to explain to you what these thousand heads are. It is impossible to bring about its permanent destruction by ordinary, time-honoured means. We must, therefore, perforce, resort to ancient, valuable weapons. This is as clear to me as a mathematical axiom. Is it possible to change the heart of sanatanists by collecting a crore of rupees? Only a true votary can bring about this reform and not hundreds of so-called ones. The Ashram through which I am hoping to overcome this evil must not stand divided on this question. Harijans are in mortal dread at present. Those who have given up fear have become shameless. If these latter run into a fury, it would be no surprise. To destroy all these evils we cannot too often and too determinedly draw on our spiritual possessions.

If it is God’s pleasure that I alone can bring about this desired end, I shall only be too pleased for such a sacrifice. But I am not sure that I have so much of purity in me. If hundreds and thousands of persons like me can undertake as many fasts, then alone we can bury the sin that has accumulated through centuries. I expect a lot from you and people like you. But I must make one thing clear that no one must follow me during my fast. Your duty is to remain peaceful and try to be as pure as possible in mind, deed and word. This letter has been written by Mahadev and he will continue to do so every day. I shall sign it as long as it is possible for me to do so. I have obtained Government’s permission that I can write to you every day and so also you can. 3

 

References:

 

 

1. LETTER TO PRATAP S. PANDIT, November 5, 1928
2. LETTER TO SURENDRAJI, April 19, 1932
3. LETTER TO SURENDRAJI, May 6, 1933