Hindu-Muslim unity was the core mantra of Gandhi’s life, and contemporary politics is causing immense harm to the cherished mission of the great humanist
AS we remember Mahatma Gandhi on his martyrdom day today (January 30), we are also aware that sustained efforts are afoot to weaken the values and legacy of the Father of the Nation. The propaganda of communal forces is becoming sharper with each passing day, and the divisions within our society are deepening.
Hindu–Muslim unity was the core mantra of Gandhiji’s life, and contemporary politics is causing immense harm to the mission of the great humanist. We cannot forget that the person who riddled Gandhiji’s chest with three bullets was a staunch supporter of the ideology of Hindu nationalism (Hindutva). The ideology of the assassin was completely opposed to that of the national movement.
The national movement was infused with the values of liberty, equality, and fraternity. The forces which advocated a Muslim nation weakened after the creation of Pakistan, but Hindu communal forces gradually began to strengthen themselves. Until they joined the movement led by Jayaprakash Narayan in the aftermath of the dark days of Emergency, these forces were not viewed with respect in society. After becoming part of that movement, they emerged powerful on the country’s socio-political landscape.
Because Gandhiji enjoyed a luminous and unblemished image across the world, even the BJP–RSS had to display reverence towards him. But this was merely a façade, an eyewash. Through their shakhas and other platforms, they continued to blame Gandhiji for allegedly rendering the Hindu community helpless, promoting Muslims at the cost of Hindu interests, failing to save Bhagat Singh’s life, ignoring the great freedom fighter Subhas Chandra Bose, and nominating Jawaharlal Nehru as his successor and prime minister instead of the “comparatively more capable” Sardar Patel.
Initially, through oral propaganda and later via other media, these forces have, to a great extent, succeeded in entrenching false notions about Gandhiji in society, while simultaneously glorifying his assassin, Nathuram Godse. Public re-enactments of the macabre act of assassination have even been organised. This makes clear the extent of hatred that the Hindutva forces have cultivated against Gandhi. Plays and films that demean Gandhiji and eulogise Godse are being produced and screened on a large scale.
Most of the misinformation being dished out against Gandhiji is a construct of Hindutva forces to give themselves legitimacy and to oppose the values of our freedom movement, which are also reflected in the Indian Constitution.
The worldwide Muslim movement, launched in 1919 to restore the Caliphate in Turkey, offered a good opportunity to link Indian Muslims with the struggle against the colonial government. Gandhiji seized this opportunity and, to a large extent, succeeded in giving the freedom struggle a broader character. Running parallel to this was the Non-Cooperation Movement, the first mass struggle against the British that saw large-scale participation by ordinary people. Earlier, there had already been a widespread mass movement against the partition of Bengal. The Non-Cooperation Movement gathered tremendous response, but unfortunately had to be withdrawn due to the Chauri Chaura incident.
The Salt Satyagraha (Dandi March) began on 12 March 1930, marking the start of the Civil Disobedience Movement. While the Dandi March concluded in April that year, the Civil Disobedience Movement continued until 1934. During this period, Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, and Rajguru faced death sentences. A falsehood is spread that Gandhiji could have stopped their execution had he wished to. Interestingly, those who spread this lie did not utter a single word in their support. Gandhiji wrote twice to Viceroy Lord Irwin, requesting commutation of their capital punishment. He also discussed the issue during his meetings with Irwin.
Irwin considered the appeal, but the British government rejected it because British officers posted in Punjab threatened to resign if the revolutionaries’ death sentences were revoked or stayed. Distinguished historian V N Datta, based on the correspondence between Gandhi and Irwin and contemporary evidence, reached the same conclusion: “Gandhi was extremely keen to save Bhagat Singh’s life and was therefore appealing to Lord Irwin that Bhagat Singh not be hanged.” According to Datta, to understand Gandhiji’s role, we must view “his discussions with the Viceroy in the context of the political climate of the time, public pressure, the Viceroy’s role, the functioning of the British bureaucracy, and the imperial apparatus in India and Britain.”
Another white lie against Gandhiji is that he ignored and belittled Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and his contributions. The truth is that Netaji left the Congress with dignity and respect due to differences over the methods of anti-British struggle. While most Congress leaders favoured mass movements against the British government, Netaji wanted to seek assistance from the Axis powers (Japan and Germany) to take on Britain. At that time, Hindutva forces were engaged in campaigns to recruit as many Indians as possible into the British army. It was this very British army that fought against Netaji’s Azad Hind Fauj.
Despite their differences, Netaji and Gandhiji held each other in great respect. While Bose called Gandhiji the Father of the Nation, Gandhiji referred to him as the “Prince among Patriots.” During a meeting, Gandhiji told Subhas Chandra Bose that he was strongly opposed to the path Netaji advocated, but if that path led India to freedom, he would be the first to congratulate him. Netaji named the first battalion of the Azad Hind Fauj after Gandhiji. The Congress formed a committee to defend the prisoners of the Azad Hind Fauj, with prominent members including Bhulabhai Desai, Kailash Nath Katju, and Nehru. This committee fought the legal battle for the INA prisoners.
As for the selection of his successor and India’s first prime minister, Mahatma Gandhi made it clear as early as the early 1940s that it would neither be Rajaji nor Patel, but Nehru. Practically speaking, in the 1937 and 1946 elections, it was Nehru who led the Congress. Even Sardar Patel had acknowledged that Nehru had put in unimaginable effort to ensure the Congress’s victory in both elections.
In 1946, after Maulana Azad’s term ended and a new Congress president was to be chosen, Mahatma Gandhi asked Patel to withdraw from the race. As a follower of Gandhiji and a long-time associate of Nehru, Patel had no grievance about this and obliged. The Iron Man continued to work with Nehru throughout his life. They did have differences, but resolved them in personal meetings or cabinet discussions. Patel had even described Nehru as his younger brother and a leader.
Gandhiji, definitely, had his finger on the pulse of the nation and he knew that after him, Nehru was the most popular leader in the country. He also knew that Nehru was immensely popular among the youth.
Gandhiji was the greatest leader of the 20th-century India. He understood every nook and corner of the country very well. Today, communal forces are blaming Nehru for every failure and every shortcoming of our country. By blaming Nehru, the pseudo nationalists are indirectly undermining Gandhiji’s legacy.
————–
Ram Puniyani is an eminent author, activist and a former professor at IIT Mumbai. The views expressed here are the author’s personal and Clarion India does not necessarily share or subscribe to them.
