Anurupa – Page 11 – Anurupa Cinar

The Three Wise Monkeys

Posted on by Anurupa

Hi, Everyone! Perhaps because the last few days—since my Gandhi posts—I have been made extremely aware of just how much resistance there is in the minds of people to seeing, hearing, and speaking the truth, the three so-called wise monkeys have been popping in my mind.

· Why do we call them the “wise” monkeys?

· Why do we take the advice of monkeys as gospel?

I really don’t know. Especially since the advice of these particular monkeys “see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil” is a fast-track to La-La land—a world of illusion rather than reality.

· Is there any sense in being willfully blind?

· Is there any sense in being willfully deaf?

Not that I can see.

Yes, there is no reason to speak evil, but when speaking the truth is being looked upon as speaking “evil,” then that is necessary too.

What, I wonder, would the world have been like today, if these monkeys had been telling us “see the truth, hear the truth, speak the truth”?

Anurupa

Mahatma Gandhi: The Man of Truth?

Posted on by Anurupa

Hi, Everyone! With Gandhi, inevitably, one discovers there is one face for the Indians and another behind the scenes, whether it be in the Congress or before the Viceroy.

We have already seen a large sample of it in during the time of his Kheda Satyagraha. The sentiments he avowed publicly then were:

“Champaran and Kaira affairs are my direct, definite, and special contribution to the war. Ask me to suspend my activities in that direction, and you ask me to suspend my life.”[1]

What he said to the Viceroy in a secret letter sent in the same envelope:

“Further I desire relief regarding the Kaira trouble. Relief will entirely disengage me from that preoccupation which I may not entirely set aside. It will also enable me to fall back for war purposes upon my co-workers in Kaira and it may enable me to get recruits from the district.”

Not only did he express a desire to be relieved from the “Kaira trouble,” he suggested a bargain that would that would, he hoped, induce the British to do so!

And when questioned by people re the content of his secret letter, he said:

“My first letter to His Excellency the Viceroy was meant for him alone. I cannot give publicity to the views which I expressed to him as to a gentleman and a friend.”

[From Gujarati]

Mahadevbhaini Diary, Vol. IV

We have seen again in the time of the Noncooperation Movement how Gandhi fired up the Indians into fighting for what they thought was their freedom, signified in the term “Swaraj.”

But we have seen that the Swaraj that Gandhi was fighting was not freedom and certainly could not have led there.

He strenuously opposed any definition of the word “Swaraj” that could mean freedom or democracy. He even made a statement, while his Noncooperation Movement was actually in progress:

“It will be unlawful for us to insist on independence. For it will be vindictive and petulant. It will be a denial of God.”[2]

Things didn’t change much as time went by. Viceroy Lord Linlithgow’s biography, The Viceroy at Bay, by John Glendevon, has very revealing sidelights on Gandhi.

Page 116:

“Linlithgow admired the ability with which Gandhi succeeded in ousting Bose although his methods were ‘of the most questionable constitutional validity,’ and getting his own nominee, Rajendra Prasad, elected in Bose’s place.

Yes, the Man of Truth, the Mahatma, was certainly never above scheming and plotting to get his way. There was Truth and then there was Gandhi’s “Truth.”

Ibid, page 116

“Meanwhile the Viceroy had conveyed to Birla and Mahadeo Desai his surprise at the contrast in tone between Gandhi’s personal letters to him and the kind of statement which the Mahatma was making in public. On being assured that he need not take the latter remarks too seriously, as they were meant to appeal to the public, he suggested that Mr. Gandhi might reserve his sharper arrows for his private correspondence and appear in his more human and gentle guise in the statements he released for public consumption.”

At the time these events and others in the freedom movement were taking place, there was no way for the duped Indians to know of the two faces of their Mahatma: the public one they saw, and the private one for carrying on the actual politics.

But today, when so much documentation is available, and what was private is also now public, there is no reason for Indians, or anyone else, to still be burying their heads in the sand.

Anurupa

Mahatma Gandhi Facts: Gandhi Revealed

[1] In his letter to the Viceroy on April 29, 1918, which was to be published in the papers.

[2]January 5, 1922, Young India.

The Hoax of Gandhi’s “Swaraj” in the Noncoperation Movement of 1921

Posted on by Anurupa

Hi, Everyone! In 1921, in the year of the Noncooperation Movement, a new Congress creed was passed.

“The new creed declared: ‘That the object of the Congress is the attainment of Swaraj by the people of India by all legitimate and peaceful means.”[1]

But what exactly did the word “Swaraj” mean? Its literal meaning is “self-rule.” But many Congress members felt the need to clearly define what was meant by “attaining Swaraj.”

“There were amendments suggesting that the word Swaraj be qualified by the word ‘democratic’ or replaced by the words ‘full responsible Government within the British Commonwealth’ or by asking for a debate on the clause ‘all legitimate and peaceful means.’ But the new creed was passed.”[2]

“So Gandhi purposely kept Swaraj undefined. Whether the pressure from the Muslim leaders, who were expecting an invasion of India by the Afghan ruler Amanullah, prevailed, is a point worth considering.”[3]

By the end of the Noncooperation Movement (supposedly to gain “Swaraj,” which the Indians assumed meant self-rule), Swaraj was still not defined. Keer writes:

“Some more light must be shed on Gandhi’s opposition to the resolution of independence. He had been shelving the fact of defining the meaning of independence for the previous twelve months. . . . The Khilafatist Muslim leaders preferred to keep the word Swaraj undefined as they were awaiting the overrunning of India by Afghan forces. At the Nagpur Congress, Gandhi and Mohamed Ali had opposed B. C. Pal’s amendment to Gandhi’s draft, adding the word ‘democratic’ to the word Swaraj. Pal wrote later in Mahomed Ali’s Comrade: ‘I learned that Swaraj was left without any definition because the moment we tried to do so, the unity in Congress would break up.’ Now that the treaty was signed between Afghanistan and India, the Muslim leaders became desperate and so Hazarat Mohani struggled hard to force the Congress to declare independence.”[4]

But Gandhi still did not allow it. He prevented Hazrat Mohani’s resolution of complete independence from being passed through Congress.

“‘Let us not,” he [Gandhi] added, “get into waters whose depth we do not know.’ The proposal, if passed, would take them to unfathomable depths. Creeds were not simple things which they could change as they did their clothes.”[5]

Mohani had claimed that Jawarharlal Nehru supported his resolution. Nehru issued a complete denial to this. Mohani got no support from Nehru.

“Pandit Nehru, who was in Lucknow jail at the time, expressed his entire dissent from Maulana Hazarat Mohani’s resolution. If he had the good fortune, he added, to attend the Congress, he would certainly have opposed the Maulana,”[6]

On January 5, 1922—before the Noncooperation movement supposedly aiming for freedom was called off!—Gandhi said in his magazine Young India:

“It will be unlawful for us to insist on independence. For it will be vindictive and petulant. It will be a denial of God.”

Whyhad he deluded the Indians that they were sacrificing their lives for freedom of India in his Noncooperation Movement, then?!!

“About two months later, M. Paul Richard, a French Author, declared in an interview in the Lokmanya, that Gandhi had said to him:

‘I do not work for freedom of India. I work for non-violence in the world.’”[7]

He dared say this after the tremendous violence that had taken place during his Noncooperation Movement!

He dared say this after so many Indians had made tremendous sacrifices (being unaware of his true agenda) to participate in his Noncooperation Movement, believing in his promise of Swaraj—self-rule—in one year!

Anurupa

Mahatma Gandhi Facts: Gandhi Revealed

[1] Mahatma Gandhi, Political Saint and Unarmed Prophet, by Dhananjay Keer; page 365.

[2] Ibid, page 365.

[3]For proof of the part Gandhi played in this scheme of the Afghan invasion—an utter betrayal of the Indian freedom cause—read Swami Shraddhanand’s article of 1926 (from a seried of 26 articles exposing the Congress) written shortly before he was murdered. (Neo Maulana, page 124 @ http://www.anurupacinar.com/pdf/Inside%20Congress,%20twenty-six%20articles%20exposing%20the%20Congress,%20by%20Swami%20Shraddhananda.pdf)

[4] Mahatma Gandhi, by Keer, page 415.

[5] Ibid, page 414.

[6] Ibid, page 416.

[7] Ibid, page 416

The truth behind the myth (Part III)

Posted on by Anurupa

Hi, Everyone! Why then did Gandhi wait until the end of the year of Noncooperation to call off the Movement using Chauri Chaura incident as an excuse . . . ?

The answer lies here:

The Noncooperation Movement was carrying on without any serious reprisals from the Government; the British watched the antics indulgently. The crunch came with the scheduled visit of the Prince of Wales to India. It was a matter of pride for the Indian Government that the Prince of Wales be warmly welcomed and be graciously received in India. The Congress disagreed. His visit was boycotted by the Congress.

Now the Government unsheathed their swords and declared “open war against the noncooperators.” The Congress was not cowed. The movement grew from strength to strength. At this point (December 1921), the Viceroy Reading approached C. R. Das with a proposition. Netaji Subhas Bose’s account of it is recorded in R. C. Majumdar’s H of F M of I, V III, pages 143-45:

“Bose writes that Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya, who had kept away from the 1921 movement, ‘came to interview Deshabandhu Das in the Presidency jail with a message from the Viceroy’, thus clearly implying that it was the Viceroy who took the initiative. . . .

‘The offer that he [Malaviya] brought was that if the Congress agreed to call off the civil disobedience movement immediately, so that the Prince’s visit would not be boycotted by the public, the Government would simultaneously withdraw the notification declaring Congress volunteers illegal and release all those who had been incarcerated thereunder. They would further summon a Round Table Conference of the Government to settle the future constitution of India. . . .

Rightly or wrongly, he [Deshbandhu Das] said, the Mahatma had promised Swarajwithin one year. That year was drawing to a close. Barely a fortnight was left and within this short period something had to be achieved in order to save the face of the Congress and fulfill the Mahatma’s promise regarding Swaraj. The offer of the Viceroy had come to him as a godsend. . . .

The above logic was irrefutable and I felt convinced. . . . a telegram was sent to Mahatma Gandhi recommending his acceptance of the proposed terms of settlement. A reply came to the effect that he insisted on the release of the Ali brothers and their associates as a part of the terms of settlement and also on an announcement regarding the date and composition of the Round Table Conference. Unfortunately, the Viceroy was not in a mood for any further parleying . . . Ultimately, the Mahatma did come round, but by then it was too late. The Government of India, tired of waiting, had changed their mind. The Deshabandhu was beside himself with anger and disgust. The chance of a lifetime, he said, had been lost. The feeling . . . was that the Mahatma had committed a serious blunder.’”

Through 1921, Gandhi had been reiterating his promise to the Indians of Swaraj in one year. He had even gone as far as to say “I should not like to remain alive next year if we have not won Swaraj by then. I am, in that event, likely to be pained so deeply that the body may perish—I would desire that it should.”[1]

It would be a disaster for the Congress and Gandhi, to say the least, to have nothing in hand—never mind Swaraj—to show the Indians at the end of the year.

· The Congress was clearly looking for an excuse to end the Noncooperation Movement.

In the backdrop of this atmosphere in 1922:

· February 1:Gandhi wrote a challenging letter to the Viceroy.

· February 5:The Chauri Chaura incident took place.

· February 6:The Viceroy came out with a press release—which was practically a Declaration of War—in reply to Gandhi’s letter.

· February 6:Gandhi wrote a letter which indicates the Congress displeasure re his actions. “I observe that my action in writing to the Viceroy has not pleased the Committee.” CWMG, V 22 page 343.

· February 9:Gandhi is strongly urged by prominent Congress members who had been endeavoring to bring about a Round Table Conference to suspend the Noncooperation Movement.^{^[2]}

· February 10: Gandhi, in a speech to Congress workers in Bardoli, now declares re the Chauri Chaura incident that the “country at large has not at all accepted the teaching of non-violence. I must, therefore, immediately stop the movement for civil disobedience.”^{^[3]}The Congress rank and file objected to this “Mahatma’s retreat.” They thought it would disgrace India in the eyes of the world.

· February 12:The Working Committee meets at Bardoli and passes the resolution to call off the Noncooperation Movement.

· February 25:The resolution was adopted by the A.I.C.C.

And the myth was born!

The Congress and Gandhi had extricated themselves very cleverly from their promise of swaraj in one year to the Indians.

What was the consequence of this?

· The Indian Independence Movement was brought to a screeching halt for many, many years to come.

· And the British Raj reigned supreme, unthreatened.

Anurupa

Mahatma Gandhi Facts: Gandhi Revealed

[1] Mahatma Gandhi, Keer, page 405.

[2] R. C. Majumdar’s H of F M, V III, page 156.

[3] CWMG, V 22, page 377

The truth behind the myth (Part II)

Posted on by Anurupa

Hi, Everyone! The Moplahs of the Malabar area rose in revolt, on August 20, 1921, and not only indiscriminately raped, killed, and converted the Hindus but also killed Europeans and damaged Government property. Their very worst act was ripping open the womb of pregnant Hindu women and pulling the unborn baby out, then killing both.

· Gandhi remained unmoved by these horrors . . . !

Here are some of his comments on the riots themselves as well as the Moplahs:

Gandhi-quote from his magazine, Young India, September 8, 1921: “The Moplahs are among the bravest in the land. They are god-fearing. Their bravery must be transformed into purest gold.”

Another Gandhi-quote: “Forcible conversions are horrible things but Moplah bravery must commend admiration.” Mahatma Gandhi: Political Saint and Unarmed Prophet, Dhananjay Keer; page 401.

“Gandhi did not feel much for the rapes and murders and forcible conversions. He had declared that he would sacrifice a million men for his principles! Three months earlier he had said: ‘I think that only god-fearing people can become true noncooperators.’ And now he hailed the murderous Moplahs as god-fearing men!” ibid; page 403.

Gandhi’s calm acceptance of the violent Moplah riots:“Hindus must find the causes of Moplah fanaticism. They will find that they are not without blame. They have hitherto not cared for the Moplah. It is no use now becoming angry with the Moplahs or Mussalmans in general.” The collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol. 22, page 269; Navjivan Trust, Ahmedabad, 1966.

Gandhi-quote in his Young India of September 29, 1921: “The ending of the Moplah revolt is a matter not only of urgency, but of simple humanity. The Hindus must have the courage and the faith to feel that they can protect their religion in spite of such fanatical eruptions. … Be the Moplahs be ever so bad, they deserve to be treated as human beings.”

Here is how Keer records it in his biography of Gandhi:

“It was not only the Muslims in the Khilafat Conference and the Muslim League who ignored the criminality of the barbaric Moplah action in Malabar, but the Congress under the truth-seeker did so by declaring there were only three cases of forcible-conversions! It showed to what level the Gandhi-dominated Congress had fallen in placating the Muslims, Shraddhanand observes in his Liberator of August 26, 1926, that ‘that the original resolution condemned the Moplah’s wholesale for killing of Hindus and burning of Hindu homes and the forcible conversions to Islam.’ But in passing such a resolution the Gandhian Hindu leaders trained in the art of surrendering and placating the Muslims had done their job to the satisfaction of their master [Gandhi].”[1]

There was some attempt made by the Congress to deny the Khilafat roots of the Moplah riots. Among the 450 plus pages of the Government communications of The Mapilla Rebellion,^{^[2]}I found the banner of the Moplah riots, which clearly gives this the lie!

Khilafat. Allah is Great.

Old and weak, young and strong,

Those who walk, who are rich, poor,

Armed and unarmed, hale and hearty, halt^{^[3]} and infirm,

Let everyone, in godlike guise set forthwith to battle.

There were a spate of riots, especially in Mumbai and Bengal, during the visit of the Prince of Wales. Police were killed then too.

“When the Prince of Wales (Edward VIII) visited Bombay in November 1921, protests degenerated into mob violence with looting. Some policemen were beaten to death; in three days of riots 58 Bombay citizens were killed, and four hundred were injured.” World Peace Efforts since Gandhi, Sanderson Beck; World Peace Communications.

Any one of these (and more) should have shocked the nonviolent soul of the Mahatma, and moved him into putting an end to his Noncooperation Movement.

· Whythen did Gandhi wait until the end of the year of Noncooperation to call off the Movement using Chauri Chaura incident as an excuse . . . ?

Anurupa

Mahatma Gandhi Facts: Gandhi Revealed

[1] Mahatma Gandhi, by Dhananjay Keer; page 414-415

[2]The Mapilla Rebellion: http://archive.org/details/cu31924023929700

[3] Those having difficulty in walking.

The truth behind the myth of Chauri Chaura (Part I)

Posted on by Anurupa

Hi, Everyone! It is common knowledge that Gandhi was so pained by the Chauri Chaura incident^{^[1]}—this one single incident of violence—that he called off the Noncooperation movement.

This myth has been so much touted that almost no one doubts its veracity. Gandhi is firmly established as the Man of Principles.

This, naturally, would lead one to believe that the Noncooperation Movement was unassociated with any violence until the Chauri Chaura incident.

One would be very wrong!

· In justification of his stance on the Chauri Chaura incident Gandhi has said:

“I personally can never be party to a movement half violent and half non-violent, even though it may result in the attainment of so-called swaraj, for it will not be swaraj as I have conceived it.”^{^[2]}

(I shall be writing a special post on what Gandhi conceived by swaraj exactly—though the Gandhi quotes in my Kheda posts should have given readers an idea already! All through the year of the Noncooperation Movement, Gandhi had kept the Congress hanging by not defining this.)

· And yet, as is shown below, Gandhi swallowed many instances of violence throughout the Noncooperation Movement.

Some instances of violence of the Noncooperation Movement:

Gandhi could hardly have failed to know of the true character of the National Volunteers organization of the Noncooperation Movement. R. C. Majumdar records in his History of the Freedom movement of India (to be referred to as H of F M of I henceforth), Volume III:

Page 106:

“Though pledged to non-violence their [the National Volunteers] activities were described by the Government as subversive of order and discipline. ‘Attempts to usurp functions of police, intimidation and use violence to enforce hartalsand social and commercial boycott, or under guise of swadeshi or temperance movements in order to impair authority of Government and terrorize political opponents, have been prominent features of their recent activities’.”

The overall tone of the noncooperation movement was not nonviolent, either.

Ibid; page 121:

“The activity of the non-cooperation party redoubled. . . . Hostility to Government increased, encouraging the tendency towards general lawlessness. The volunteer movement became more formidable: intimidation was freely practiced and the police were molested in the exercise of their duty.”

However, the most horrendous case of violence in the Noncooperation Movement is the Moplah riots.

Follow tomorrow’s post.

Anurupa

Mahatma Gandhi Facts: Gandhi Revealed

[1] A sub-inspector in Chauri Chaura had assaulted protesters of the Nonviolent Movement at Mundera Bazar. On February 5, 1922, protesters assembled before the police station in Chauri Chaura demanding an explanation from the guilty official. The police opened fire on them …! When they had exhausted all their ammunition they locked themselves up inside the police station and refused to come out. The maddened protesters then set fire to the police station. The police remained inside the burning building and were burned to death.

[2] The collected works of Mahatma Gandhi, Volume 22; page 351.

Gandhi: The Noncooperation Movement Hocus-Pocus

Posted on by Anurupa

Hi, Everyone! Gandhi’s famous year-long Noncooperation Movement was scheduled to begin from August 1, 1920. Contrary to popular misconception, the agenda for this movement was not Swaraj (self-rule). The main agenda was the Khilafat Movement and the Punjab Atrocities was tacked on as a subsidiary clause.

“On August 18, 1920, he [Gandhi] made a daring speech in Calicut: ‘I am here to declare for the tenth time that by shaping and by becoming a predominant partner in the peace terms imposed on the helpless Turkey, the Imperial Government have intentionally flouted the cherished sentiments of the Muslim subjects of the Empire. What the Government did in the Punjab mercilessly was its double wrong. The people of India must, therefore, have a remedy to redress the double wrongs—the remedy of non-cooperation which I consider it perfectly harmless, absolutely constitutional and yet perfectly efficacious.’”^{^[1]}

Absolutely nomention of Swaraj. In fact, as yet, the Congress had not passed a resolution in favor of the Noncooperation Movement.

August 1, 1920, India was in mourning; her beloved national leader Bal Gangadhar Tilak had passed away that morning. Did Gandhi give Tilak his due on this day of his passing? No.

“Then came the first of August, 1920, and also the news of the sudden death of Tilak, the Hercules of Indian Nationalism. The nation bowed in mourning. ‘Never before in the history of India was such nation-wide grief witnessed.’ Gandhi felt a great personal loss; however, he did not postpone the programme of noncooperation. The movement was formally inaugurated on the 1^st of August, 1920, by Gandhi with the return of the Kaiser-e-Hind gold medal and the Zulu war medal granted by the British Government to him for his humanitarian works in South Africa,”^{^[2]}

(On an aside, I wish to mention that the author Sinha is putting a misleading euphemism upon Gandhi’s medals. These medal were actually bestowed upon “Sergeant” Gandhi and are specially given to people who rendered distinguished service in the advancement of the interests of the British Raj. It is more proof of Gandhi’s loyalty to the British Raj.)

To continue, there is something so shabby about inaugurating a national movement—especially one which only purported to be for the cause of India’s freedom—on the very day of the death of India’s great and beloved national leader, Bal Gangadhar Tilak.

On September 4, 1920, a special session of the Congress met to pass a resolution on the Noncooperation Movement.

“The session started hot with discussions. In Gandhi’s opinion non-cooperation was postulated only with a view to obtaining redressal of the wrongs done to the Turkish and Punjab. He did not like to include any more items in his programme of agitation. It, however, did not appeal to Sjt. Vijaya Raghavachari, supported by many others, who argued that if non-cooperation was to be declared, why should it be with reference to particular wrongs? The absence of Swaraj was the biggest wrong that the country was laboring under non-cooperation. How could an unfree India help a wronged Turkey?”^{^[3]}

This was the Congress position. But when the resolution for the Noncooperation Movement was passed it was unchanged in its essence and the word Swaraj tacked on as a sop to the conscience.

“The Congress is of the opinion that there can be no contentment in India without redress of the two aforementioned [Khilafat cause and Punjab atrocities] wrongs and that the only effectual means to vindicate national honor and to prevent repetition of similar wrongs in future is the establishment of Swarjya. This Congress is further of opinion that there is no course left open for the people of India but to approve of and adopt the policy of progressive non-violent Non-cooperation inaugurated by Mr. Gandhi until the said wrongs are righted and Swarajya is established ;”^{^[4]}

It is utterlyshameful that Swaraj should be added in this dismal way as an adjunct to the Khilafat cause in the Noncooperation Movement.

· Were the Indians aware what their Mahatma’s real agenda was?

· Are they aware even today?

· No.

The Indians threw up their jobs, students gave up their schools, heart and soul they participated in the Noncooperation Movement with the one thought held close: their Mahatma will get them freedom in one year.

· How did the Mahatma—who couldn’t bring himself to make an outright demand for Swaraj in his agenda—make an outright demand for freedom to the Viceroy?

He didn’t!

One needs to look deeper into the nitty-gritty of the Noncooperation Movement to learn the truth behind the myth.
More on it tomorrow . . .

Anurupa

Mahatma Gandhi Facts: Gandhi Revealed

[1] The Turkish Question: Mustafa Kemal and Mahatma Gandhi, by R. K. Sinha; Adam publishers & Distributors, Delhi, 1994. The speech is in the Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol XVIII, pp 177-79.

[2] Ibid, page 91.

[3] Ibid, page 95

[4] History of Freedom movement in India, Volume III, by R. C. Majumdar, Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay, 1963; page 86.

“Non”Violent Gandhi: Recruiting Agent-in-Chief in WWI . . . ! Part II

Posted on by Anurupa

Hi, Everyone! The Government did not give Gandhi much in the way of concessions, but Gandhi was obliged—to uphold his oft-declared loyalty to the British Empire—to indeed begin the job of recruiting Indians for the WWI!

First, I shall give a sample of Gandhi’s many declarations of loyalty:

“If I could make my countrymen retrace their steps, I would make them withdraw all the Congress resolutions, and not whisper ‘Home Rule’ or ‘Responsible Government’ during the pendency of the war. I would make India offer all her able-bodied sons as a sacrifice to the Empire at its critical moment . . .

I write this, because I love the English Nation, and I wish to evoke in every Indian the loyalty of the Englishman.

I remain,

Your Excellency’s faithful servant,

M. K. GANDHI”

(Viceroy’s April 29, 1918, letter)

“Another matter that he wished to speak to them about was the idea that self-government meant the dismissal of the British from India—this was impossible. All they wanted was to become a great partner in the British Empire.”

(speech at Patna, May 25, 1918)”

Here are some of Gandhi’s “recruitment” speeches:

“‘The time had arrived for Indians to make their choice. . . . India had been called on for another army; already some seven or eight lakhs were serving outside India and another five lakhs were to be recruited this year. . . . The self-government that the people were clamouring for was not the self-government that he had in mind. They must have a self-government army, and for this it was incumbent on them to supply the five lakhs that Government wanted without waiting for Government to recruit them.’

The advise he gave them was to raise a republican army, and he called on the people ‘to go along with him and go wherever the Government directed’. (At this stage a fairly large number of people quietly slipped away from the meeting).

Two essentials are necessary in self-government—power over the army and power over the purse, and that is why he repeatedly said that India’s ambition to obtain self-government would be blasted if they missed this opportunity of obtaining military training and assisting the Empire, and thereby obtaining self-government. This opportunity would never come again.

Bombay Secret Abstracts, 1918”

“‘Recruits whom we would raise would be Home Rulers. They would go to fight for the Empire; but they would so fight because they aspire to become partners in it.’

The Bombay Chronicle, 17-6-1918”

“67. APPEAL FOR ENLISTMENT

NADIAD,

June 22, 1918

LEAFLET NO. 11

SISTERS AND BROTHERS OF KHEDA DISTRICT:

You have just emerged successful from a glorious satyagraha campaign. You have, in the course of this struggle, given such evidence of fearlessness, tact and other virtues that I venture to advise

and urge you to undertake a still greater campaign. . . .

One meaning of Home Rule is that we should become partners in the Empire. . . .

To bring about such a state of things we should have the ability to defend ourselves, that is, the ability to bear arms and to use them. As long as we have to look to Englishmen for our defence, as long as we are not free from the fear of the military, so long we cannot be regarded as equal partners with Englishmen. It behoves us, therefore, to learn the use of arms and to acquire the ability to defend ourselves. If we want to learn the use of arms with the greatest possible despatch, it is our duty to enlist ourselves in the army. . . .

Partnership in the Empire is our definite goal. We should suffer to the utmost of our ability and even lay down our lives to defend the Empire. If the Empire perishes, with it perish our cherished aspirations. Hence the easiest and the straightest way to win swaraj is to participate in the defence of the Empire.”

There are several more where these came from! Keer sums it up like this:

“On August 1 Gandhi declared that ‘Indians were not entitled to Swaraj till they came forward to enlist in the Army!’

Gandhi made strenuous efforts to supply the Government with military recruits and spent his energy, time and goodwill in the propagation of army recruitment.”[1]

To those who questioned his about-face, Gandhi had this answer:

“‘My aim is not to be consistent with my previous statement but to be consistent with the truth as it may present itself to me at a given moment.’”[2]

Such were the “staunch” principles of the Apostle of Nonviolence . . . !

Anurupa

Mahatma Gandhi Facts: Gandhi Revealed

[1] Mahatma Gandhi, Political Saint and Unarmed Prophet, by Dhananjay Keer; page 277

[2] Ibid, page 275

Gandhi: The Kheda Debacle

Posted on by Anurupa

Hi, Everyone! Gandhi reconfirmed his offer to be a recruiter in a follow up letter (written before he announced any of the concessions given by the British Government, as will be seen below.)

“LETTER T0 J. L. MAFFEY

ON THE TRAIN,

May 18, 1918

In full confidence that the request contained in my letter of the 29th will be accepted, I am busy making recruiting preparations. But I shall not commence work before I have your reply.

(From the manuscript of Mahadev Desai’s Diary. Courtesy: Narayan Desai)”

The follow-up letter of Gandhi’s given below is written after he announced the Government concessions.

“SABARMATI,

May 30, 1918

DEAR MR. CRERAR,

I have just received Mr. Maffey’s letter in which he refers me to His Excellency the Governor regarding the offer of my services which I made immediately after the Conference at Delhi. . . . Will you kindly let me know His Excellency’s wishes regarding my offer and the suggestions made in my letter to Mr. Maffey in so far as they refer to Kaira?

Yours sincerely,

M. K. GANDHI

(India Office Judicial and Public Records: 3412/18)

What was the Government answer to Gandhi’s oh-so-generous offer to be a “recruiting-agent-in-chief” and persistence in getting a reply?

James Crerar, Secretary to the Governor of Bombay, has this to say in his June 1 letter in acknowledgment of Gandhi’s letter:

“His Excellency will cordially welcome your co-operation, which he hopes will be directed more particularly to the encouragement of recruiting in the Northern Division . . . As suggested in your letter of April 30th to Mr. Maffey, he will be glad, when the organizations which will, it is hoped, result from the Conference, have been set on foot, to indicate in more detail the directions in which you services can be most profitably utilized.

As regards the revenue situation in Kaira, His Excellency considers that this, like all other questions of internal administration, must be dealt with separately on its merits, and that there should be no confusion of issues in regard to the great and urgent purposes of the Conference, but a whole-hearted and united effort without distinction of race, class or creed. He feels sure that you will concur in this view and by your example and influence support his endeavour to secure the most complete unanimity and co-operation which the present grave crisis requires.”

So the Government happily accepted Gandhi’s recruiting services, while declining to make any concessions for his Kheda satyagraha . . . !

This might have left Gandhi in a fix, but fortunately for him, he was able to resurrect the meager concessions the Government had granted on April 20, 1918—just days before his proposed bargain with the Viceroy!

That Gandhi was unaware of these concessions until many days later is clear from his speech below. This is what he says, on June 6, 1918, addressing the people of Kheda (after getting the Government response to his “recruitment” offer and their stand on Kheda):

“Orders were issued to all Mamlatdars on the 25th April that no pressure should be put on those unable to pay. Their attention was again drawn to these orders in a proper circular issued by me on the 22nd of May and to ensure that proper effect was given to them, the Mamlatdars were advised to divide the defaulters in each village into two classes, those who could pay and those who were unable to pay on account of poverty.

If this was so, why were these orders not published to the people? Had they known them on the 25th April what sufferings would they not have been saved from!”

There is a distinct note of aggrievement in these words!

How pathetic these concessions were is obvious in the “catch” therein. Who was to decide which defaulters were to be classified as “poor”—the Government! Also,

“The Mamlatdar’s order, to the effect that the rich agriculturists of the village should pay up their dues and the poor khatedars would be given a suspension of the assessment till the next year, was read out by the talati.”

There was a time limit to the relief granted to the “poor”!

But Gandhi grabbed avidly at the concessions and declared a successful satyagraha. As Keer says in his biography (page 270):

“On April 20 the Collector had given orders granting total remission to those who were poor. But it was left to the Government officers to determine who were poor, and the terms were repeated on May 22 to Mamlatdars in the district. Gandhi avidly clung to the offer and agreed to it.”

What was the actual result of this “successful” satyagraha?

“Only 8 percent of the land revenue was in arrears and most of it was subsequently recovered. Yet Gandhi thought he had won a victory! . . .

Which satyagraha by Gandhi fulfilled the essentials of a complete triumph? His much-trumpeted victory did not bring any material remission of land revenue.”

Read excerpts from Gandhi’s letter to see what was actually taking place there:

“51. LETTER TO J. KER

NADIAD,

June 8, 1918

DEAR MR. KER,

I addressed a big meeting in Nadiad and explained the settlement. The speakers got up one after another and then said that executions and forfeiture orders still continued. . . . In Wadthal three writs have been recently issued for the collection of chothai to all intents and purposes. It is claimed that the first proceeds of a sale were credited in the chothai column. Surely this was wrong. If you restore this to the revenue column there is nothing due. Should these executions not be withdrawn? In three cases in Wadthal forfeiture notices have been issued.

Two men are ready to pay the assessment. Should not these orders be cancelled against payment? In the third case the holder is dead. The holder was in strained circumstances. The heir is still less able to pay. I trust that in this case forfeiture will be cancelled and suspension granted on the ground of poverty. I have approached the Mamlatdar regarding these cases. He says he cannot grant relief without your orders.

In Nadiad a holder owed only two annas on account of principal. He tendered the amount and asked for return of his pots which were distrained. The Mamlatdar refused to restore the pots unless chothai was paid. The holder has paid the chothai under protest and prevented the threatened sale of his pots. Should not chothai be refunded in this case?

Orders of forfeiture have been issued in Sinnaj also and payments offered after the date of settlement have not been accepted.

Yours sincerely,

M. K. GANDHI

From a copy: C.W. 10698. Courtesy: Chhaganlal Gandhi”

There are more of such letters written by Gandhi in the following days.

Follow my blog tomorrow to see how Gandhi starts a furious campaign of recruiting Indians for the WWI.

Anurupa

Mahatma Gandhi Facts: Gandhi Revealed.

“Non”Violent Gandhi: recruiting agent-in-chief in WWI Part I

Posted on by Anurupa

Hi, Everyone! By beating the drum of nonviolence Gandhi had stripped the Hindus of their virility, but even in that he had done a volte face!

On April 28, 1918, Gandhi gave Viceroy Chelmsford’s War Conference resolution his full support.

“DELHI,

April 28, 19I8

I consider myself honoured to find my name among the supporters of the resolution. I realize fully its meaning and I tender my support to it with all my heart.

(From a photostat of the original in Gandhiji’s hand: G. N. 2225)”

Gandhi further writes in his An Autobiography:

“Gandhiji has referred to his speech in the Man-Power Committee in his autobiography as follows: “So I attended the Conference. The Viceroy was very keen on my supporting the resolution about recruiting. . . . I had no speech to make. I spoke but one sentence to this effect, “With a full sense of my responsibility, I beg to support the resolution.” Vide An Autobiography, Part V; Ch. XXVII.”

On April 29, 1918, he goes much further and offers to become a recruiting-agent-in-chief himself . . . !

I shall give you a quote from my own novel Burning for Freedom, page 100—I have put the whole situation of Gandhi as a recruiting agent for the WWI in a nutshell:

“In early 1918, Gandhi had the people of the Kheda district stage a satyagraha^{^[1]}protesting the increase in their tax. The Government promptly began to confiscate and sell their property in lieu of the taxes. This made the peasants of Kheda very restive—the Satyagraha was in danger of coming apart at the seams …! Something needed to be done—and fast. On April 29, Gandhi, in a letter to the Viceroy Lord Chelmsford, suggested a bargain that if the Government were to relieve him of his Kheda trouble, he would “as a recruiting agent-in-chief, rain men on them” in the war. The Viceroy willingly accepted Gandhi’s recruiting services and granted just enough relief to the peasants for Gandhi to make a tall claim of a successful satyagraha and save face …! Then, swiftly discarding his principle of nonviolence, Gandhi began desperately recruiting Indians for the British army.”

Reference to an offer submitted to Viceroy Chelmsford in Gandhi’s letter of April 29, 1919:

“I hope to translate the spoken word into action as early as the Government can see its way to accept my offer, which I am submitting simultaneously herewith in a separate letter.”

The offer is not mentioned in the letter itself, which is intended to be published (as so many of Gandhi’s letters were.) It is mentioned in the cover letter addressed to J. L. Smalley that accompanied the letter to the Viceroy. The actual letter is not available.

“Further I desire relief regarding the Kaira trouble. Relief will entirely disengage me from that preoccupation which I may not entirely set aside. It will also enable me to fall back for war purposes upon my co-workers in Kaira and it may enable me to get recruits from the district.”

What the offer is about is in Gandhi’s letter to J. L. Smaffey re his April 29 letter to the Viceroy:

“The other enclosure 3 contains my offer. You will do with it what you like. I would like to do something which Lord Chelmsford would consider to be real war work. I have an idea that, if I became your recruiting agent-in-chief, I might rain men on you. Pardon me for the impertinence.”

This offer was kept secret and hidden from the Indians. When questioned about his two letters to the Viceroy, he said:

“‘I do not admit that, as a representative of the people, I am in duty bound to place before the public all the letters that I write to the Viceroy.

All through my life, there have been a good many, and to my mind important, actions of mine in my representative capacity which have remained, and will ever remain, unknown. My first letter to His Excellency the Viceroy was meant for him alone. I cannot give publicity to the views which I expressed to him as to a gentleman and a friend. . . . I have given publicity to such part of my conversation with him as would bear being made public.’

[From Gujarati] Mahadevbhaini Diary, Vol. IV”

Gandhi’s relevant letters (for the posts on this topic) are to be found on pages 1-54 on the link:

http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL017.PDF

Anurupa

Mahatma Gandhi Facts: Gandhi Revealed

[1] Term coined by Gandhi; he gave it the misnomer “soul-force.” Literally the word means “insistence on truth.” By implication it has come to mean nonviolent civil disobedience.