When Mohandas Gandhi’s death shattered the long-term dreams of two-nation theorists

The  previous episode  of this series concluded with a call to take Mohandas Gandhi’s words at face value in examining the validity of this equation: Gandhi = India’s freedom from British rule. The first theme in this examination is the overall climate and mood in the country slightly before and after Gandhi’s advent. The pre-Gandhian Congress — as we’ve seen in the previous part — was teeming with titans drawn from every field. Lokmanya Tilak for example, was a first-rate scholar who authored an erudite and insightful commentary on the Bhagavad Gita. The eminence and prowess of Sri Aurobindo need not be stated explicitly. The same thing can be said about the brilliance of Bankim. The renown and prestige of these stalwarts were not limited only to India. Surendra Nath Banerjee for example, was feared, admired, and respected by the British even in England. While the British government hated their guts, it did not hold these stalwarts in the kind of naked contempt that Winston Churchill reserved especially for the “half-naked fakir,” Gandhi. We can approach this theme from the Indian perspective as well. There is a reason why Gandhi’s contemporaries like Lala Lajpat Rai, Bipin Chandra Pal, Sri Aurobindo, Sankaran Nair, et al., repeatedly and accurately criticized Gandhi’s serial follies. Let’s look at a sample early in Gandhi’s career. In early 1920, Gandhi appointed himself the supreme leader at a public meeting in Bengal in so many words: …so long as you choose to keep me as your leader…you must accept my conditions, you must accept dictatorship and the discipline of martial law The dumbfounded audience comprising top nationalist leaders and freedom fighters and public-spirited men who had been moulded by the likes of Tilak couldn’t believe what they had just heard. Bipin Chandra Pal fired the first salvo against Gandhi’s leadership in a letter to Motilal Nehru: Blind reverence for Gandhiji’s leadership would kill people’s freedom of thought and would paralyse by the deadweight of unreasoning reverence their individual conscience. Little did Pal know that Motilal, the shrewd lawyer from Allahabad had already thrown his full weight behind Gandhi. Sri Aurobindo was more direct and stinging, especially about Gandhi’s repeated and failed attempts at wooing Muslims.

***

Also Read other articles in the series: How death of Lokmanya Tilak was a watershed moment in pre-independence history of Congress Frankenstein’s monster to British: How Surendranath Banerjee transformed Congress into a nationalist organisation A party of Europeans: How Congress was formed to halt a repeat of 1857 How Congress dominated all three stages of ‘official’ history of Indian freedom struggle Congress vandalism and India’s nightmare after Independence Seven decades of agitations and Sanatana way of conflict resolution

***

You can live amicably with a religion whose principle is toleration. But how is it possible to live peacefully with a religion whose principle is “I will not tolerate you”? How are you going to have unity with these people? Certainly Hindu-Muslim unity cannot be arrived at on the basis that the Muslims will go on converting Hindus… [Gandhi] has criticized the Arya Samaj but why not criticize Mahomedanism? His statement is adulatory of the Koran and of Christianity which is idolatry of the Bible, Christ and the Cross… The Congress at the present stage—what is it but a fascist organization? Gandhi is the dictator like Stalin… I must mention that in 1920-21 Gandhi started the Khilafat agitation without consulting the Congress Working Committee, a decision that most of us will realize was a blunder and sowed the seeds for Pakistan. This is the central difference between the second and third phases of the pre-independence history of the Congress party. Not one leader in the second phase claimed for himself the combined role of political leader, social reformer, philosopher, scholar, intellectual, and saint. On the contrary, these leaders were aware of and honestly admitted their limitations of being polymaths. It was this atmosphere of candour, honesty, and integrity that fostered a lively culture of debate, dissent, and difference. On its own merit, this culture had installed a well-oiled system of checks and balances and made possible meaningful, practical decision-making. DV Gundappa, an eyewitness, participant and commentator of that era describes this culture in a vivid fashion. Before Gandhi’s advent, there was an open atmosphere in public discourse… debates, discussions and arguments on various subjects…went on unhindered. Every point of debate had two, three, even four differing perspectives. The public… had accepted this as healthy, and welcomed and examined such differing perspectives without any prejudice… After Gandhiji took the stage, this culture of free and open disagreement and debates vanished. It was said that the political stand of the entire country should be one, and that Gandhiji’s frontal leadership should be unhindered. It was said that if Gandhiji spoke, the nation spoke. The reasoning offered was as follows: unless the nation adopted this unquestioning mentality, we would not get freedom from the British. Therefore, from then onwards, no public meeting would begin without the chant of “Gandhiji ki jai!” People were prohibited from taking his name without the mandatory honorific of “Mahatma.” It was declared that Gandhiji’s thought was the nation’s thought. Clearly, Mohandas Gandhi had created his own cult where he was all things to all people at all times. The fact that someone like Gandhi (whom Sri Aurobindo memorably described as “a Russian orthodox Christian”) could even think he was qualified enough to write a “commentary” on the Bhagavad Gita simply boggles the mind. The second theme has all but been erased from our historical memory. This is the chequered relationship and the cleavage that existed between British-ruled India and the Princely States. Much mud can be hurled at the conduct of the Princely States most of whom didn’t exactly paint themselves in glory. However, they also served a useful purpose. Their follies apart, they were pragmatic in the sense that they knew the value of maintaining their political power than mindlessly participating in dangerous Gandhian experiments and consequently losing both political power and their lives. For example, the Maharajas of Mysore, Baroda, Bikaner, and Travancore understood this truth well. However, there is a more profound dimension to this. These Princely States firmly preserved the unbroken inheritance of Hindu culture, customs and traditions in their domains. If the Mysore Dussehra is still being celebrated in a pristine fashion, it is because the Wodeyar dynasty creatively resisted the non-violent Gandhian raids into their territory. In a deeply introspective essay, D.V. Gundappa confesses how there was nothing that the citizens of the Mysore state could really complain about under the Wodeyar rule. However, the Gandhian saintly charm was so overwhelming and sweeping that it blinded everyone including himself. A deeper and more detailed examination of this theme awaits the talents of a diligent scholar. The third theme is quite familiar. This is the making of and the propagandization of the Great Gandhian myths of non-violence, satyagraha and secularism (in the Gandhian lexicon, this was Sarvadharmasamabhava). Mohandas Gandhi’s ahimsa was the ahimsa of a goat that lectures a wolf to become an herbivore. In reality, Gandhi was a martyrdom-seeker who finally found it. Nathuram Godse’s tragic action on 30 January 1948 carries an intrinsic strand that deserves deeper analysis. But here is a reasonable place to begin it: as history shows, Gandhi’s life was more useful to the two-nation theorists and practitioners. In a way, his death shattered their long-term dreams. As we observed in the first part of this series, the Congress party has indeed come a full circle: from its origins as an organization founded by a White colonial oppressor back into the hands of another White lady. Concluded The author is the founder and chief editor, The Dharma Dispatch. Views expressed are personal Read all the  Latest News ,  Trending News ,  Cricket News ,  Bollywood News , India News  and  Entertainment News  here. Follow us on  Facebook ,  Twitter  and  Instagram .