Book review: Gandhi Reconsidered

Does a 'reconsideration' of Gandhi confirm the considerations or bring out new perspectives? Shubham Sharma reviews Gandhi Reconsidered. 

—

"I disbelieve history so far as details of acts of heroes are concerned. I accept broad facts from history and draw my own lessons for my conduct."

Mahatma Gandhi

THE Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust (SAHMAT) has brought out an excellent title on M.K. Gandhi with contributions from Irfan Habib, Sukumar Muralidharan, Kumkum Sangari, Bipan Chandra and Ravinder Kumar. The book covers the political life of Gandhi.

The beginning

Irfan Habib documents Gandhi's life from his days in South Africa. When Gandhi faced racial discrimination, he formed the Indian Natal Congress and became its first secretary.

Indian Natal Congress's first struggle was an agitation against the exorbitant poll tax of 25 pounds imposed upon indentured labourers. As a result of the agitation, the poll tax was reduced to three pounds.

The end of the Boer War led to the formation of a united white ruling class. The Boer-English merger was consummated in the Union of South Africa (1910). Racism was institutionalised as a State practice. Gandhi brought out a weekly journal Indian Opinion in both English and Gujarati against the new racial regime.

In 1907, Gandhi offered his first satyagraha (passive resistance) against Transvaal's Asiatic Act which required every Asian to register themselves with the authorities. It must be mentioned that it was Gandhiji's cousin Maganlal Gandhi who first suggested the word sadagraha (meaning 'firmness in good cause').

Gandhi later changed it to satyagraha. When the satyagrahis were detained, they "waived the privilege of their own clothing and wore the same dirty clothing as issued to the negro convicts … (it) was a first step towards inter-racial solidarity" (pg. 14).

Also read: Experiments with truth, Part 2: Truth and dare in Bhima Koregaon

Habib underscores that Black Africans remained outside of Gandhi's strategic vision, as they "were people to be sympathised with but not potential allies of the Indian settlers".

The reason for this was twofold: fear of a White onslaught and the possibility of losing support from many Indians who were themselves not free of racial bias. In 1896, Gandhi complained that the Europeans desired to ''degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir (a word used to describe the native Africans) whose occupation is hunting, collecting a certain number of cattle to buy a wife … and passing his life in indolence and nakedness''.

Later, in 1903, Gandhi was seen defending the rights of native Africans to travel in first-class train coaches. In 1910, Gandhi wrote, ''I shuddered to read the account of the hardships that the Kaffirs had to suffer in the third class carriages… I wanted to experience such hardships myself.''

Overall, Gandhi left behind a legacy of struggle against White rulers which was acknowledged by the African National Congress and its leaders, chiefly, Nelson Mandela.

Gandhi's twenty-one years spent in South Africa marked the formation of the principal elements of his thought. Habib writes, "The general belief that these derived from his roots in the Indian tradition of bhakti and ahimsa has no basis in Gandhi's own autobiographical writings."

Instead, the source was "modern humanitarian pacifist thought that reached Gandhiji through the close contact that he had established with European Christians … (that) stressed the message of peace and conscience which was conveyed most persuasively through a reading of (Leo) Tolstoy's Christian writings" (pg. 15).

However, Gandhi steadfastly held on to his Hinduism. After parting ways with the South Africa General Mission, he wrote, ''There was nothing extraordinary about Christian principles … from the point of view of sacrifice, it seemed to me that the Hindus greatly surpassed the Christians. It was impossible for me to regard Christianity as the perfect religion.''(Cited in Kathryn Tidrick's Gandhi: A Political and Spiritual Life, pg. 31).

Also read: Experiments with truth, Part 3: The moral and political dilemmas of housing rights

Reverend Joseph Doke, who wrote Gandhi's first biography, M.K. Gandhi: An Indian Patriot in South Africa saw Gandhi as "more Christian than most who professed Christianity as their religion".

The mass movement in India

Gandhi landed in India on January 9, 1915. He came to be known as the 'Mahatma' (great soul) at a Kathiawar reception. Rabindranath Tagore popularised the sobriquet through a letter in February 1915.

In India, Gandhi implemented his version of non-violence as a mode of political resistance to the British Empire. His book Hind Swaraj written on the way back from Britain was written "in answer to the Indian school of violence" after he had met "every known Indian anarchist in London" (pg. 33).

So confident was Gandhi about his method that he wrote if his methods were followed properly "India would establish swaraj in a day" (pg. 33). It must be kept in mind that swaraj here did not mean complete independence from the British. A resolution to that effect was passed by the Indian National Congress only in 1930.

Sukumar Muralidharan, in his chapter 'Gandhi and the Modernism of Politics' argues that although Gandhi was quick to realise the power of nationalism to mobilise against the British, "he remained sceptical about the moral and ethical legitimacy of an organised polity" (pg. 33).

He saw the power of the nation manifested in the people. State, the summit of political power, was dispensable for Gandhi. Or as Bipan Chandra writes, "(For Gandhi), nationalism does not precede the struggle for independence nor is the struggle dependent on the pre-existence of nation and nationalism."

The rosy picture of India that Gandhi had painted in Hind Swaraj was one where harmony was organically woven into the social fabric. As he noted in Hind Swaraj, ''We have no system of life-corroding competition … each followed his own occupation or trade and charged a regulation wage'' (pg. 37).

The biggest movement launched by Gandhi was the Non-Cooperation Movement in association with the Khilafat Movement. Here, we see the disjuncture between his vision in Hind Swaraj and practical action.

Also read: Experiments with truth, Part 5: How is Gandhi relevant today?

In the Non-Cooperation Movement, he moved to mobilise the Indian nation against the British whereas in the Khilafat Movement, he moved to support the fledgling Turkish Caliphate (Khilafat) which was a "State-form" of feudal-absolutist despotism against which Turk and Arab nationalists had raised the banner of protest.

Gandhi's philosophical disavowal of the State did not sit well with his support to the Caliphate especially in light of the fact that it too was a 'prison a house of nations.' In other words, in supporting the Caliphate, Gandhi denied the fruits of nationalism to the Turks and Arabs whilst he looked to harvest them on Indian soil.

The Non-Cooperation Movement implied an active withdrawal of consent from the State. Violence, both offensive and defensive, was strictly proscribed. The idea was to raise the moral strength of the masses to the extent that it would conquer the coercive power of the colonial State without replacing it with a new State form (pg. 39).

The movement was the first mass movement that covered almost all of India. It shook up the masses in a manner that was never seen before. Gandhi called the movement off when the beleaguered masses went progressively ahead of the limits prescribed by Gandhi, chiefly non-violence.

He wrote, ''We non-cooperators have not yet gained full control. A government to be worthy of the name has to get the people under control. There is only one way in which we can gain such control, and that is through non-violence'' (pg. 40).

The quotation is paradoxical. It is not clear whose government Gandhi is talking about. If it refers to the British colonial government, then the whole exercise becomes meaningless. Seeking control from a despotic foreign government over the masses was self-defeating for an anti-colonial crusader.

On the other hand, if the government meant an impending Indian government, then Gandhi's grand rejection of modern State form stands on shaky grounds. This sat uneasily with Gandhi's semi-anarchist tendencies.

Historian Sabyasachi Bhattacharya has written in his book The Colonial State: Theory and Practice, "Gandhi's attitude to mass action was derived from his central notion of volition as an essential element in the individual's association with or dissociation from collective action of any manner, ranging from obedience to the State to the smallest act of disobedience."

Also read: Experiments with truth, Part 6: Gandhi on how to read— and boycott— newspapers

This is the very reason Gandhi eschewed class struggle and organised forms of caste struggle aiming to abolish the caste system in toto. Muralidharan also confirms that during the mass demonstrations against the Simon Commission, Gandhi remained aloof and merely called for the formation of "a cadre of earnest able and honest young men and women to build on the momentum of successful agitation against the Simon Commission" (pg. 47).

Gandhi's route to mass struggle went through the individual. Abstract and concrete collectives counted little in his scheme of things. This was the most unique feature of Gandhi's politics. He was a mass leader who distrusted the masses!

Gandhi and Hindu-Muslim Unity

Perhaps the biggest lesson from Gandhi's life was his commitment to Hindu–Muslim unity. Gandhi's presence at the Karachi Session of the Congress in 1931 marked his commitment to the idea of a future Indian State that would "maintain neutrality between all religions". Speaking at the Karachi Congress, Gandhi described his notion of religious neutrality as follows: ''Swaraj will favour Hinduism no more than Islam, nor Islam more than Hinduism.''

The Khilafat Movement was Gandhi's attempt to bring Hindus and Muslims on a joint platform of mass action. Bipan Chandra in his chapter argues that despite Gandhi's good intentions the Khilafat Movement failed to cement Hindu–Muslim unity in the long run.

Chandra has argued that "the very term of the Khilafat Movement, religion, prevented Gandhi from imparting a modern, secular, democratic and anti-imperialist outlook".

However, some sturdy Muslim anti-colonial nationalists such as Maulana Azad, M.A. Ansari, Hakim Ajmal Khan and T.A.K Sherwani were forged from the crucible of the Khilafat Movement.

On the eve of the Civil Disobedience Movement, Gandhi was requested by Dr Ansari to postpone the launching of the movement, until Hindu–Muslim unity was achieved.

Also read: Experiments with truth, Part 1: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi— a truthful lawyer

Gandhi envisaged the movement to "take the attention off the communal problem and rivet it on things that are common to all Indians". He asked the people to join the movement not as Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Parsis and Christians but as "Indians first and Indians last".

Refuting the two-nation theory in the 1940s Gandhi wrote, "We must get out of the miasma of religious majorities and minorities … a Bengali Muslim speaks the same tongue that a Bengali Hindu does, eats the same food, has the amusements as his Hindu neighbour."

Kumkum Sangari in her chapter shows that from the early 1920s, Gandhi had recommended the use of both Urdu and Devnagari scripts in the interests of Hindu–Muslim unity.

When the Hindi–Urdu controversy reached its apogee, thanks to the efforts of the Hindu Mahasabha, Gandhi distanced himself from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan when it solely espoused the Devnagari script and stopped the use of the Urdu script.

He pioneered the Hindustani Prachar Sabha which advocated the usage of both scripts. In 1947, when the sale of the Urdu version of Harijan fell from 1800 to 250 and Gandhi was advised to close its publication, he refused. He said that if sales could not be increased, he would close down the Devnagari edition (pg.87).

When riots engulfed Noakhali, Bengal, Gandhi visited the site(s) to douse the flames of hate. Bangabandhu Shiekh Mujibur Rahman, who had seen Gandhi's efforts firsthand called him a "magician" who could spellbind and stop rioters. No other politician since Gandhi has dared to jump amid raging riots to stop them. On the contrary, we had/have many politicians ruling India who incited riots for political gain.

Till the end, Gandhi opposed the partition of India on religious lines. As late as April 1947, Gandhi was ready to hand over power to M.A. Jinnah at the Union with an all-Muslim administration if he gave up his demand of Partition.

If this provides grist to the Hindutva mill for attacking Gandhi as a Muslim appeaser, let it be known that right after the Muslim League's Lahore Declaration 1940, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose had also offered Jinnah the Prime Ministership of United India if he gave up his demand of Pakistan.

The book must be read by all those looking to understand the life and message of Mahatma Gandhi.