[Reader-list] Gandhi and Gujarat

[Shuddhabrata Sengupta]

Dear Tarun, and all on the Readers List.

This posting is in response to the Gujarat-Farzana Versey-Gandhi-Hey Ram- 
cluster of postings, forwards, and prefatory remarks (introducing postings) 
that the list has recently seen. I hope to think a few difficult points 
through here, so apologies for something that might end up being rambling.

Part of the problem about thinking about the events in Gujarat is the 
difficulty of finding the resources, the thoughts and the words with which to 
think about communal violence at the scale that we are witnessing. 

What disturbs me in particular is the meagre set of intellectual constructs 
that the mainstream of secularist (read secular nationlist) opinion has at 
it's disposal when it sets out to "combat" communalism.

One of these is the Hindu Muslim Sikh Isai Bhai Bhai trope - which clearly 
sets out the terms of who is the elder brother in the Bharatiya undivided 
family. No wonder the Parivar people use it as effortlessly as secularists. 
[No place for those of us who are Zindus, I might add, here : ) ]

My skepticism about the grammatical and linguistic solutions proposed by 
Gandhi - 'Samas' etc, stem from the terms of articulation, which clearly 
locate the Hindu Dvija (Twice Born) male at the top of a happy hindu muslim 
arrangement. Wait, I am not jumping to conclusions, I want to be able to 
substantiate this slightly later on in this posting.

A variation on this theme, which presumes, a bedrock of national identity is 
the "carnage in the land of Gandhi " theme, which I had obliquely sought to 
criticize by forwarding the Farzana Versey text. This assumes that the legacy 
of the 'father of the nation' would automatically be seen to be violated by 
the violence done to some of his children. The drawing room or NDTV 
secularist, well meaning and disturbed, is attracted to Gandhism as an 
antidote to communal madness, and it probably has its uses. But it is the 
underlying spirit of this very sentimental Gandhism (sentiment is such a 
volatile thing) that again, I am afraid, disturbs me.

This particular response which unites everybody from Anand Patwardhan to 
erstwhile Gandhian Socialist cum born again Integral Humanist poet whom some 
of us on this list have so eloquently been possessed by on occasion,  
presumes that Gandhism has some innately redemptive possibility, which can 
salvage the fabric of social life from the violence done to it by rampaging 
mobs.

I want to take this sentiment seriously and see where it comes from.

First, a slight detour into the interesting Gandhi-Communalism relationship, 
with special attention to the Sangh Parivar.

The crucial factor in the rise of M.K. Gandhi as a  leader, lay, one might 
argue in his undisputed ability to rally a section of mass public opinion by 
his side, through the skilful deployment of symbols of identity . In the 
first instance, we are told, that by advancing the slogans of the Khilafat 
movement, Gandhi was able to rally the hitherto 'a-political' Muslim masses 
to the streetsThis was something that no congress leader had been previously 
able to do. It is also true that no congress leader was able to undertake a 
successful all india movement with hindus either, but that is another 
matter.Gandhi made Hindus and Muslims alike realize how much it could mean to 
"become" Hindus and Muslims in a political sense.

At the heart of any nationalist formation, no matter how secuar it says it 
is, this call to "identify" oneself is perhaps invariably present. Even 
agnostic, republican french nationalism had to invent its own 'deist' cults, 
and latter day Soviet or Red Chinese nationalisms have of course have had to 
have their own. churches and prophets and chosen people. Indian nationalism 
cannot be an exception.

But to come back to Gandhi, and the 1920s, In effect, this was the first 
time, that a congress leader could be a 'man of the people'. I am referring 
here, obviously, to the non co-operation movement, (or, to refer to it by its 
own designation - to the non-co-operation khilafat movement)  which 
identified the goals of swaraj with the preservation of the Turkish 
caliphate. This, movement, which under the stewardship of M.K. Gandhi and the 
Ali brothers, was able to organize the most reactionary, the most 
conservative elements in Muslim society, and bring them out into public 
respectability for the first time, would set the tone for what was to come. 
The earlier flirtations between Bengali "shakti worshipping" terrorism in the 
'swadeshi andolan's  so called "extremist" phase was an adoloscent, 
aristocrats playing with an elite romantic political vocabulary. Tilak, with 
the Ganapati pujas, did go a long way towards making the populist Hindu 
nationalist rhetoric, that was later to mature into something far more 
lethal, but it took a Gandhi to swing religion, identiity and politics into a 
deadly  poplsit nationalist cocktail.

 Imagine a Delhi in the 1920s, which has militant arya samajist and communal 
congressman like Swami Shraddhanand, spewing hate speech against Muslims, 
through the "shuddhi" campaigns,  and the moribund  Khilafati maulanas, 
arguing for nizam-e-mustapha, and you have M.K. Gandhi, fliritng with both. 
Calling for Ram Rajya, and leading the Khilafatists, at the same time. This 
was the bridge he was building between Hindus and Muslims, in which the 
revivialists of both sides could determine the contours of what identities 
would have to be.Here was the father of the nation, busy in the act of 
conception

A certain M.A. Jinnah, goes into semi - retirement, troubled by the 
"spiritualism" let loose in the Indian political scene by Gandhi. By the time 
he re-surfaces, things have gone too far for him not to play the same game as 
well.

Of course, when the Khilafat movement collapses under its own weight, when 
the Turks get rid of the caliphate that was so dear to a section of the 
Indian Muslim leadership, things begin to slide. The sangh and the shuddhi 
andolankaris grow more strident, and the moplah uprising in what is now 
Keraka takes on a distinctly communalist edge. Riots break out as they never 
have before.

What does M.K. Gandhi begin to say in the wake of the Moplah uprising - 
These are all quotes from "Young India" - Gandhi's paper, and can be verified 
with the collected works of Gandhi's writings

On June 19, 1924, he writes :

"The Mussalman, being generally in a minority, has as a class developed into 
a bully... the thirteen hundred years of imperialistic expansion has made the 
Mussalmans fighters as a body. They are, therefore, aggressive. Bullying is 
the natural execrescence of an aggressive spirit.

"The Hindu has an age-old civilisation. He is essentially non-violent... 
Predominance of the non-violent spirit has restricted the use of arms to a 
small minority... The Hindus, as a body are, therefore not equipped for 
fighting... not knowing their use (use of arms) nor having the aptitude for 
them, they have become docile to the point of timidity or cowardice. The vice 
is, therefore, a natural exerescence of gentleness. (19 June, 1924, Pp. 
131-132)

In the wake of Arya Samaji Congress Leader Swami Shraddhanand's assasination 
Gandhi writes - in Decmber 1926

"There can be no doubt that they (the Muslims) are too free with the knife 
and the pistol. The sword is no emblem of Islam. But Islam was born in an 
environment where the sword was and still remains the supreme law. The 
message of Jesus had proved ineffective because the environment was unready 
to receive it. So with the message of the Prophet. The sword is yet too much 
in evidence among Mussalmans. It must be sheathed if Islam is to be what it 
means-peace." (30 December, 1926, P. 234)

Moving the resolution on Swami Shraddhanand's assassination, Gandhi tells the 
Guwahati session of the Congress in December 1926 :

"This is ... an occasion that should burn on our hearts the lesson of 
bravery. Bravery is not the exclusive quality of the Kshatriyas. It may be 
their special privilege. But in our battle for Swaraj, bravery is essential 
as much for the Brahmins and the Vaishya and the Shudra as for the Kshatriya. 
Let us not, therefore, shed tears of sorrow, but chasten our hearts and steel 
them with the fire and faith that were Shraddhanandji's." (13 January, 1927, 
Pp. 242-43)

Having worked hard to get the Muslim conservative leadership organised, 
Gandhi now turns his attention to the Hindus, he says , every community,  "is 
entitled, indeed bound to organise itself if it is to live as a separate 
entity." This is at the time when the RSS is founded, in 1925, in Napur by 
K.B. Hedgewar.  He also lends his support to Hindu Mahasabha's appeal for Rs 
one million for carrying on the work for which Swami Shraddhanand had 
dedicated himself namely - "Shuddhi" (re-conversion of non hindus to 
hinduism)  and "Sangathan".

By this time, the political consolidation along secterian lines is a reality, 
the sangh is born in 1925. 

Gandhi meets Mussolini in December 1931 in Rome on the way back from the 
second Round Table Conference in London. This is the second time an Indian 
nationalist leader visits  Mussolini. The first time, is when Dr. Moonje, 
Hedgewar's mentor met with Mussolini, earlier the same year, when on his way 
back - this time from the first Round Table Conference. Mussolini, is an 
important influence on a great deal of nationalist thinking in India at that 
time, right across the spectrum.

On December 25, 1934, Gandhi visits the RSS camp at Wardha, and commends the 
inter-caste amity that he is shown there. He comes back again the next day to 
have a long discussion with K.B.Hedgewar, in which he commends the work done 
by the RSS. 

A few years later, Gandhi expresses himself on the then almost un-known 
dispute about the so-called "Ram Janmabhoomi" at Ayodhya in Faizabad.

On 15 May 1937, Ramgopal Pandey "Shaarad" writes a letter to Gandhi about the 
Ram Janmabhoomi question, expressing a desire to know his opinion. Gandhi 
replies to this in the Navjeevan of 27-7-1937. This letter and the reply are 
given in entirety below -- 

 "Shaarad"'s letter to Gandhi :

"Shri Ayodhyaji 15-5-1937 

Param Samaadarniya Pujyavaad Shri Bapuji, Saadar charan sparsh 

In Ayodhya, the Hindus have a supremely holy site which was blessed by being 
the birthplace of Shri Ram. On this hallowed ground, nine lakh years ago a 
great light descended that Hindus venerate as their most cherished deity. 
About 400 years ago the Mughal Emperor Babar tore it down and built a mosque 
in its place. Is it reasonable or just that the ancient temple be destroyed 
by a particular community ? If today the grave of the Prophet Muhammad in 
Medina, which is holy ground to countless Muslims or the samadhi of Mahatma 
Jesus in Jerusalem which is the symbol and focus of the worship of the 
Christians should be destroyed, what would the reaction of the world ? What 
would be said about such behavior ? Will not duty demand that believing 
Muslims, Christians reclaim the above mentioned sites ? In such a situation, 
if the 35 crore Hindus of India should ask for the return of Shri Ram Janma 
Bhoomi, the symbol of their devotion and prayers, then where is the injustice 
? My belief is that if the Muslims return this site to Hindus ungrudgingly, 
then it will be a unique and glowing example of Hindu-Muslim unity. 

Will you please express your thoughts on how proper this Hindu demand is ? 

Aapka hi Ramgopal Pandey "Shaarad" "

 Gandhi's 'reply' is as follows - 

"A brother had written a letter to me, asking me about Shri Ram Janma Bhoomi 
in Ayodhya, and I am writing my opinion about that. 

To take possession of any religious site by force is a great sin. In Mughal 
times because of religious intolerance the Mughal rulers took over many sites 
that were holy to the Hindus, and plundered and destroyed many of these or 
converted them to mosques. Though temples and mosques are both places of 
worship to God, and there is no difference between them, Hindu and Muslim 
prayers and traditions are different.