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
|