[nukkad] In defense of Gandhiji

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tip of the day:  Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already 
tomorrow in Australia. -- Charles Schulz 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Akshayji's criticism of Gandhiji was supported by Rohitji. I have however
the following observations to make.
 
It is true that the weakening of British military and economic power was a
factor in India gaining independence in 1947. But that alone is not the
reason for the end of British rule in India. In the aftermath of WW2, the
French were economically and militarily weaker than the British; yet they
continued to hold on to their colonies in India for a good 6 years after the
British left. Portugal, which never was an economic or military power,
continued to occupy Goa until they were pushed out in 1961.  The vital
difference between British India and French / Portuguese colonies was that
the popular resistance to colonial rule was quite strong in British India
while it was extremely weak in French colonies and non-existent in
Portuguese colonies. Much of the credit for the popular movement against the
British must go to Gandhiji. I agree that but for WW2, the popular movement
might not have found success in 1947 but to ignore popular resistance as the
most important factor is an insult to the Indian people. Remember, Gandhiji
only provided leadership. The resistance was successful only because it was
popular. 

And the credit for making the resistance popular goes to Gandhiji and
Gandhiji alone. Congress was almost 30 years old when Gandhiji entered the
freedom movement in India. Though Tilak, Gokhale, Naoroji, Lajpat Rai were
popular leaders, Tilak's call for Poorna Swaraj did not assume the
dimensions of a popular movement. It was Gandhiji's leadership that
converted the freedom struggle into a mass movement. 

It is also not true to say that our non-cooperation and other movements were
not even a two-penny worth against their might. The British were
sufficiently rattled by the mass movement that they called Gandhiji for
round table conference in the early thirties. The mighty British empire did
invite the half-naked fakir into the Westminster twice. They did conduct
elections in 1935 to provincial assemblies delegating local administrative
control to the elected bodies. There was a gradual weakening of the British
hold on India. WW2 hastened the process. 

The question as to why other countries too gained freedom from British
without struggle was raised by Akshayji. I can suggest 3 reasons why it
could have happened as it did. First of course, is the weakening of British
power. Second reason is that when a huge edifice crumbles, it crumbles
completely. Witness the collapse of Soviet Union. Indian independence had a
similar cascading effect. Thirdly, we must consider that the British won the
WW2 claiming the moral high ground of liberating oppressed people and did
not have a moral leg to stand on for continued subjugation of other nations
by themselves. They were in a moral trap. 

The British are often credited with unifying India into one nation. In my
opinion it is wrong to give British that credit. The British India was
fragmented. More than half of the territory comprised of Princely states.
There was no concept of a unified nation. It was Gandhiji's non-co-operation
movement that emotionally united people of British India among themselves
and also with the people of the Princely States. It was the freedom movement
that forged India into one nation and not the British colonial rule. 

I agree that Gandhiji should have abided by Tilak's advice not to co-operate
with British war effort in WW1. He was a novice on the Indian political
scene and needed sane advice from leaders like Tilak. But his authoritarian
streak had shown as early as 1914. It is noteworthy that he did not repeat
the mistake during the WW2 though the British did try every trick -
including sending a senior cabinet minister to India - to woo the Congress
into its war effort. 

Gandhiji's moralistic attitude did become a fault and he tended to pass
moral judgment on others. He was authoritarian and imposed his will on
others. The man had serious personality faults but who doesn't have? Perhaps
it was his high moralistic posturing that made him the undisputed leader of
India's freedom movement. His galvanizing millions of people into offering
passive resistance demonstrates that he struck an emotional chord with the
people of India. He could turn them on and off at will. Witness the huge
success of non-co-operation movement when it was launched in 1920. In spite
of the success of the movement, it fizzled out the moment Gandhiji decided
to withdraw the movement in 1922. He relaunched the movement in 1930 and
again it was popular. 

Had Germany /Japan won the WW2 and INA liberated India from British rule
riding on Japanese military power, would India have remained free? Given the
German / Japan attitude towards freedom in territories occupied by them,
Gandhiji may have doubted it. No doubt, SC Bose was driven by patriotic
fervor but he was riding the tiger who would have devoured him. It is unfair
to brand Gandhiji's opposition to Bose as jealousy.

I am no great fan of Nehru and consider that Patel would have made a better
Statesman than Nehru had he been Prime Minister. But in the end, Gandhiji's
choice did not make much difference because Patel died soon after India
became a Republic. Nehru would have become PM then. Because of Gandhi, Nehru
became PM earlier. Even otherwise, Nehru would have presided over the
formative years of Indian Nation. 

Though Gandhism boosted popular movement against the British, adoption of
Gandhism into state-craft of independent India would have proved disastrous.
The episode of 55 crore payment to Pakistan demonstrates this. Gandhian
principles may appear to be non-sensical today; but to question their
relevance during pre-independence days is unfair. Disobedience of the State
was the requirement of pre-independence days and high moral principles were
the mascot of our freedom movement. Now obedience of laws and respect for
authority of state is the requirement. In changing times, what was relevant
yesterday may not be relevant today. Conversely, we cannot say that what is
irrelevant today was irrelevant yesterday too. 

V.K.Venugopal


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Subscribe [Unsubscribe] send a blank message to 
        nukkad-list-request@mumbai-central.com 
with the word 'subscribe' ['unsubscribe'] (without quotes) in the Subject 
of your message.
The list is archived at  http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/archive.html