Frontline
April 1998
Debate

Demystify the Mahatma

To understand Gandhi’s stand on non-violence by subtracting the political aspects of Gandhi narrows not only the man but also his philosophy of non-violence

D ilip Simeon’s attempt to relocate and research Gandhi (‘He Ram’, February issue of Communalism Combat), has given every one an opportunity to look-back on of the most turbulent times of Indian history. Commenting on non-violence he concludes, "Non-violence is not merely a matter of tactics; rather, it is connected to fundamental issues of the nature of power and the kind of liberation we may seek."

As far as the question of establishing a ‘society without violence’ is concerned, Dilip is right: non-violence is not a matter of tactics but is related to principle and philosophy. In fact, violence is a matter of tactics. Marx had dreamt of peaceful revolution by the proletariat in many nations. His understanding about force was clear. He believed that when a new society begins to emerge within the old one, force is the midwife. Bhagat Singh and his comrades have discussed violence and the status quo at length in his Philosophy of the Bomb and Deaf ears need a Bang.

When we use only personal experience to arrive at an understanding about society, it is not necessary that we arrive at the correct understanding. After the Alipore bomb case, Arvind Ghosh understood the limitation of the bomb and the movement and took refuge in meditation and renunciation. Perhaps for him this was a new understanding but society was not helped much by it. A similar limitation is reflected in Dilip’s article too. He seems to have a guilty conscience because at some time in his life he was anti–Gandhi. Otherwise, after reading his introductory and lengthy, descriptive, narration on the growing violence in society, the logical question that arises is, "How can we establish a non–violent society?" Instead to giving an answer to this question Dilip goes on to mystify Gandhi.

In November 1984 in Calcutta, when anti–social elements and Congress goons tried to kill Sikhs, the CPM cadres stopped them by force. At that time the Chhattisgarh Miners Shramik Sangathan which was fighting against the liquor lobby withdrew the agitation because many liquor barons were Sikhs. They maintained peace at Dalli Rajhara even while anti–Sikh riots spread in neighbouring Bhilai. The credit for containing violence in UP after December 6,1992 goes to the vigilance and social intervention by the Dalits and backwards.

I can quote innumerable incidents from UP and Bihar where Dalits protected mosques by force. Had this not happened, it is frightening to imagine the consequences. Perhaps it would have been worse than Bosnia. If today peace reigns in South–Africa, Laos, Vietnam, it is because of a long struggle waged by their people..

The misfortune of Gandhi is that there is no attempt to realistically assess and evaluate his work. Either he is rejected with contempt or followed with blind devotion.

There is no doubt that Gandhi activated a mute and inactive people and turned them into a social force. I met Kamala Mukherjee, renowned revolutionary from Bengal, during the shooting of a documentary of another revolutionary from Bengal — Ms Kalpana Dutta. Ms Mukherjee told me that Gandhi’s domain. She said, "For us the issue of violence or non–violence was not important. What was important was the need to protest and struggle." Daulat Ram, an old weaver once told me, "Gandhi Baba used to speak at three-four different places at the same time."

The question, however, remains as to why despite being such a popular leader, Ambedkar and Jinnah, or for that matter Sikhs, could not trust Gandhi or the Congress? These are complicated historical phases that need elaboration, analysis and evaluation and which, perhaps, will help to us to understand Gandhi better.

There is also the need to understand the changing Gandhi. Gandhi withdrew the first non-co-operation movement after the incidents at Chauri Chaura. However, despite far more extensive violence during the Quit India Movement he did not withdraw it. One of the main differences between Ambedkar and Gandhi was about varnashram or the caste system. Gandhi believed that the caste system was scientific and wanted to reform the distortions. However, Ambedkar believed that the caste system was inhuman and wanted to uproot it.

Madhu Limaye proved that during his last days Gandhi had changed his belief. We neither try to recognise the changing Gandhi nor do we evaluate his inner conflicts. What were the forces which divided India and pushed her towards an inhuman tragedy in which nearly 15-20 lakh people lost their lives and one crore people displaced. This happened despite the fact the initially both Jinnah and the Congress had agreed to the Cabinet Mission and accepted the formula for freedom in which there was no mention of Partition. The day the Congress accepted Partition, Gandhi was on a maun vrat, leaving the Frontier Gandhi, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, moaning: "Bapu you have thrown us to the wolves." So, did Gandhi realise that he was alone? Had he identified the status quoist forces? Why did he suggest that the Congress be dissolved? To understand Gandhi completely, these questions must be addressed.

As a political leader, Gandhi was also not aware of the reactionary Hindu forces. The other misfortune of Gandhi is that the elites have hijacked him from the ordinary masses and turned his image into that of a status quoist. This is clearly visible, for example, in the novel Maila Anchal by Renu. The elites have muddled the issue of non-violence. The popular Hindi poet Dushyant wrote:

Jab lahu luhan, nazaron ka zikr aya to sharif log uthke door jakar baith gaye.

It is important to note that those people who were Gandhians till yesterday, today condone the demolition of the Babri Masjid and vote for the B.J.P.

To understand Gandhi and for that matter to also understand non-violence, it is necessary to understand Gandhi as a political activist. His philosophy is not an inactive, spiritual mumbo-jumbo but is a concise, evolved philosophy to change society. In that sense he is one of the best illustrations of Marx’s saying: "Philosophers have interpreted the world, the point, however, is to change it." Gandhi’s philosophy does not merely interpret the world; it actually shows the way to change it. Throughout his life, he not only changed himself but also tried to change people and the environment around him. Hence, to understand or expand on Gandhi’s stand on non-violence by subtracting the political aspects of Gandhi narrows not only Gandhi but also the philosophy of non-violence.

The late Shankar Guha Niyogi of Chhattisgarh Miners’ Shramik Sangathan expanded the philosophy of Gandhi and incorporated many of its aspects in his struggle. The CMSS campaigns on self-reliance, self-respect, decentralisation and against alcohol took Gandhi’s message to the masses. During a conversation he told me how although he began his political life as a naxalite, he was immensely influenced by Gandhi.

It is worth noting that since the inception of their struggle in 1976, the police have carried out massive repression. On quite a few occasions, they have opened fire on protesters in which many were killed. Niyogi himself was assassinated. However, despite such brutal repression, the people of CMSS are peacefully continuing their struggle against inequality and injustice.

My disappointment with Dilip’s article lies at many levels. However the most disappointing aspect is that Dilip, who claims in his article to be influenced by Gandhi, shows us no way to take Gandhi to the people. Dilip was one of the leading personalities of the Sampradyikta Virodhi Andolan (Movement Against Communalism) in Delhi. For many years he was involved in the activities and campaigns of the SVA. I would be very interested to know how and to what extent was Dilip successful or otherwise in using the Gandhian method in mobilising people.

For I believe that the Gandhian philosophy is not an abstract concept for analysis but that the strength of the Gandhian philosophy lies in the fact that it can help us resolve our-day-to-day problems and conflict with issues like communalism, hatred, inequality and oppression.

Gandhi is one of the most complex personalities of this century. He was also the product of the complex situation of the country. Today, when imperialist forces are trying to encircle the Third World through cultural attacks and by spreading consumerist philosophy, Gandhi can be a true symbol of protest and struggle. However, that can happen only when a correct and realistic assessment is made. n

Sujit Ghosh

 

 


[ Subscribe | Contact Us | Archives | Khoj | Aman ]
[ Letter to editor  ]
Copyrights © 2001, Sabrang Communications & Publishing Pvt. Ltd.