Author’s Views: The author after detailing Gandhi’s return to India in January 1915, compares Jinnah’s and Gandhi’s political standings. He compares Gandhi’s imperial leanings during First World War and Boer Wars and contrasts his stand during Second World War. He concludes Gandhi’s leadership was oriented religiously and provincially whereas Jinnah was filled with nationalistic non-sectarian passion.
(As I cannot quote the author verbatim, due to Copyright constraints, the reader is urged to read the original content to appreciate the true import of the Author)
Comments: The author implies that while Gandhi helped the British in their war efforts Jinnah was there in England to lobby with the Secretary of State and other members of parliament for opening up of the Council of India to at least three non-official Indians who would be elected by the Imperial and Provincial Legislative Councils.
To the extent that Jinnah went as a member of the Congress delegation and put up the above proposal of the Congress it is correct. But it was the proposal of the Congress party and not his own. As far as Gandhi, his entry into active and involved mainstream Indian politics was only after his return from South Africa in 1915 that too at the bidding of Gokhale.
It is therefore absurd to compare what Gandhi did in England to organise an Ambulance Corps to help the British during First World War and what Jinnah did as a member of the Congress delegation and arrive at the conclusions as the author has done. Gandhi’s earlier work in South Africa was neither religious nor provincial.
Any one who has gone through the life of Gandhi would have noted that it was not his wont to take advantage of the unfavorable situation of the adversary. We can read the excerpts from his biography. “At the conclusion of the Satyagraha struggle in 1914 (South Africa), I received Gokhale's instruction to return home via London. So in July Kasturba, Kallenbach and I sailed for England. War was declared on the 4th of August. We reached London on the 6th. I felt that Indians residing in England ought to do their bit in the war. English students had volunteered to serve in the army, and Indians might do no less. A number of objections were taken to this line of argument. The opposing friends felt that was the hour for making a bold declaration of Indian demands and for improving the status of Indians. I thought that England's need should not be turned into our opportunity, and that it was more becoming and far-sighted not to press our demands while the war lasted.”
His efforts in South Africa are well documented and are verifiable. This is what Gandhi writes in his biography. “When the Boer war was declared, my personal sympathies were all with the Boers, but I believed then that I had yet no right, in such cases, to enforce my individual convictions. Suffice it to say that my loyalty to the British rule drove me to participation with the British in that war. I felt that, if I demanded rights as a British citizen, it was also my duty, as such, to participate in the defence of the British Empire. The Indian community became better organized. I got into closer touch with the indentured Indians. There came a greater awakening amongst them, and the feeling that Hindus, Musalmans, Christians, Tamilians, Gujaratis and Sindhis were all Indians and children of the same motherland took deep root amongst them. Everyone believed that the Indians' grievances were now sure to be redressed. At the moment the white man's attitude seemed to be distinctly changed. The relations formed with the whites during the war were of the sweetest.” This moral standing helped Gandhi in later years when he fought the South Africans and the British on moral grounds.
The policy he vowed to follow during the Second World War was that he would not embarrass the British Government when they were fighting the war. Why he chose the cry of ‘Quit India’ when the Japanese were on the eastern gates of India is fully and substantially elucidated by Gandhi himself, which to a great extent highly logical even in hindsight. He did not want the British to leave India at the mercy of Japan as they did in Singapore, Malaya and later on in Burma or for them to conclude a treaty with Japan as they did in Munich in 1938 with Germany. He was painfully aware of the infamous “Western Betrayal.”
In the Harijan dated August 2, 1942 Gandhi pleaded for reason: “The justice of the demand for ending the British power has never been questioned, the moment chosen for enforcing it, is the target of attack. … India is not playing any effective part in the war. Some of us feel ashamed that it is so, .. if we were free from the foreign yoke we should play a worthy, nay, decisive part in the World war, which is yet to reach its climax. …”. On August 3, in a moving appeal to “ American friends” he wrote “ Singapore, Malaya and Burma taught me that the disaster must not be repeated in India. I make bold to say that it cannot be averted unless Great Britain trusts the people of India to use their liberty in favour of the allied cause”.
During 1942 no one was sure when the allied forces would drive out Japan. Atom bomb was unknown. Gandhi, though he prayed and hoped for the British victory, was also painfully aware of the atrocities Japanese forces could commit if the British withdrew. It was thanks to the Atom bombs that brought the end of war. But did any one else in the world excepting a handful few in America even had an iota of idea that such a bomb was in the making and the War in the East would end the way it did?
Sir Frederick Puckle, Secretary to the Government of India by his circular dated Jul17, 1942 gave instructions for government actions. Excerpts: “ We have to encourage those on whose support we depend, win over the waverers and avoid stiffening the determination of Congressmen…. Please intensify your publicity through all available channels with the aim of openly securing openly expressed and reasoned opposition to the scheme of the resolution (of the Congress party), from individuals of influence and important non-congress organizations”. References are obvious! Gandhi said, referring to such similar circulars of the past which came to his light, “ Heaven knows how many such secret instruction have been issued that may not see the light of the day. Meanwhile let the public know that these circulars are an additional reason for the cry of ‘Quit India.’"
Is it not ridiculous to compare and comment Gandhi’s stand during Second World War, (that the Indian masses would give voluntary and un-stinted support to the allied war effort if the British would only grant her immediate freedom), to his stand in the Boer War or First World War? How absurd still it is to compare Jinnah who was then a leading member of the Congress Party with Gandhi who was yet to set sail to India from England? Any one who had read the deeds of Gandhi in South Africa, about his Tolstoy Farm and the Phoenix Settlement will realise that Gandhi's leadership transcended national, religious, language and social barriers. The author's description of Gandhi's leadership as "religious and provincial oriented at that time" is not substantiated by the author anywhere in the book and it appears to be a wanton and motivated projection of Gandhi's image by the author.
No comments:
Post a Comment