Fables of Morality

Fables of Morality

Mr Arun Sourie, through his long winded article, `A goal they cannot corrupt’ in the Indian Express 17 to 19 September, posits himself as `high priest’ and installs Mahatma Gandhi as the ruling deity of morality in public life. It is no doubt that both the Mr Shourie and Mahatma Gandhi have a track record of sorts. Mr Shourie will always be remembered for his incisive reporting from burning hell, that was Assam in 1984 and Mahatma Gandhi, without doubt, captured imagination of the people and continues to do so to a great extent even today. But can they fit the bill in so far as morality in public life is concerned?

Mr Shourie first. He chides the political parties for fielding Lawyers as spokespersons. Why! Because he feels that they speak the language of convenience. Fair enough. May be many others hold similar views. But then Mr Shourie goes and uses the language of convenience to argue his case. He cites any one and every one to make a particular point. Consequently his arguemnt looses the sheen of morality, which is supposedly his USP. In the article he cites both Mr Churchill and Mr Gandhi. Now, every one knows that these two personalities were as different as chalk and cheese. They practiced two different kinds of politics. Mr Churchill was a realist, who had no qualms in saying that sometimes it is necessary to speak falsehood for greater common good. On the other hand, Mahatma Gandhi claimed to follow the truth – whatever the cost. He professed to shun expediency for the truth, always and every time. Whether he did so or not we shall see in a moment. The bigger point here is that Mr Shourie has behaved just like a `lawyer-spokesperson’.

Now coming to the status of deity for Mahatma Gandhi. As the honourific suggests, most of the people, including this writer accept that Mr. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was a Great Soul (Mahatma). That is to say that despite his personal flaws, which were many, he was better than most of us. But can he be the icon of morality? Answer is resounding No!

Khilafat Movement. Take the case of Khilafat movement. He (Gandhi) justified his support for this movement in the name of `Hindu-Muslim unity’. His support for a foreign cause was based totally on grounds of expediency, as would be clear from his following utterance: “The test of friendship is true assistance in adversity, and whatever we are, Hindu, Parsees, Christians or Jews, if we wish to live as one nation (Please mark the central impulse – one nation), surely, the interest of any of us must be the interest of all…We talk of the Hindu-Mahommedan unity. It would be an empty phrase if the Hindus hold aloof from the Mahommedans when their vital (italics mine) are at stake.” That is Pradhan, pp 151-2 quoted by RC Majumdar in Annus Mirabilis – 1919, Struggle for Freedom, Vol XI, Third Edition, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai,pp 319.

Champaran and Kheda Satyagraha. In Kheda, a terrible famine had struck the district and a large part of Gujarat, and virtually destroyed the agrarian economy. During the years of 1918 and 1919 poor peasants had barely enough to feed themselves, but the British government of the Bombay Presidency increased taxes by 23%. Gandhi proposed satyagraha - non-violence, mass civil disobedience Gandhi also insisted that neither the protestors in Bihar nor in Gujarat allude to or try to propagate the concept of Swaraj, or Independence. In Gujarat, Gandhi was only the spiritual head of the struggle.Actual mobilisation of the masses was undertaken under the leadership of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and a close coterie of devoted Gandhians, namely Narhari Parikh Mohan Lal and Ravi Shankar Vyas who organized the villagers and gave them leadership and direction. The revolt was astounding in terms of discipline and unity.

Non-cooperation Movement 1920. In June 1920, during its session at Allahabad, Gandhi tried to bring Congress around to launching of non-cooperation movement against the British to support ongoing Khilafat Movement. But moderates like Motlal and others like CR Das oppsed it. However by December they had also joined with Gandhi to launch for the first time a movement for Sawaraj (freedom). Besides Gandhi, the strikes by industrial workers also played a significant role in making the Congress veer towards demand for freedom. The movement caiught people’s imagination and culminated in a wide spread Hartal on 17 November 1921 to protest against the visit by the Prince of Wales. British Government seemed to be on verge of capitulation when Gandhi abruptly withdrew the agitation on 11 febuary 1922, on hearing that a peasant mob had set on fire a police station at Chauri-Chaur (in UP) leading to burning of 22 policemen. While the movement failed to achieve its main objective of sawaraj, it did spread the influence of Congress to newer areas, especially in the South.

Civil-disobedience Movement 1932-1934. The Second Round Table held at London in the year 1931 failed because the British, the Muslims, the Princes as well as Hindu Mahasabha refused to change their respective positions. Mahatma Gandhi returned to Indiaa disappointed man and launched Non-cooperation Movement. The movement was effective mainly in the provinces of Bombay and Bengal. However, the British, who were prepared for the confrontation managed to gain upper hand with in two months of the launch of the agitation. A large number of arrests were made, but many of these were `repeaters in Bombay and Calcutta. By mid-1932 Gandhi was looking for a way out, which was provided by the British in form of Communal Award in August 1932, which created separate constituencies for the untouchables among Hindus. Gandhi went on to launch a fast unto-death while in prison. This led to Poona Pact between Dr Ambedkar and Gandhi, with both demanding scrapping fo separate constituencies for the untouchables. This was accepted by the British and Gandhi withdrew Civil Disobedience Movement in May 1933 (except for himself).

Quit India Movement 1942. By May 1940, France had fallen to the Nazies and the British Empire seemd doomed to similar fate. It was at this juncture that Mahatma Gandhi returned to centre stage to launch a tightly controlled Satayagraha, wherein he would personally detail the volunteers to court arrests. All through 1941, te Congress leadership seemed divided with C Rajagopalachari recommending a compromise with Jinha led Muslim League and Nehru-Patel adopting a policy of wait-and-watch. But Gandhi was adamant that the party go ahead with a limited movement. Subsequent events showed that as usual he had miscalculated the British resolve and capacity. Cripps Mission which visited India in March 1942 was doomed to failure due to non-cooperation of the Congress and intransigence of Churchill who was not very keen to grant concessions to Gandhi. On 08 August 1942 the Congress Working Committee adopted Quit India resolution. The British responded the next day by imprisoning Gandhi. All the members Party's Working Committee (national leadership) were also arrested. Despite lack of direct leadership, large scale protests and demonstrations were held all over the country. Workers remained absent en masse and strikes were called. However, not all the demonstrations were peaceful. At some places bombs exploded, government buildings were set on fire, electricity was cut, and transport and communication lines were severed. A minor uprising took place in Ballia (eastern Uttar Pradesh). People overthrew the district administration, broke open the jail, released the arrested Congress leaders, and established their own independent rule. The British in a swift and strong response used military including air force to suppress the uprising. A total over 100,000 arrests were made nationwide, mass fines were levied, and demonstrators were subjected to public flogging. By early 1944, India was mostly peaceful again, while the entire Congress leadership was incarcerated. A sense that the movement had failed depressed many nationalists, while Jinnah and the Muslim League, as well as Congress opponents like the Communists sought to gain political mileage.


Just like Mr RC Majumdar, I am also a realist and have no quarrel with the view that one must stand in solidarity with his neighbours. But what about Mahatma Gandhi, he always claimed to give precedence to the truth over expediency! Remember his withdrawal of non-cooperation movement after Chauri-Chaura incident. Why was he giving precedence to expediency in the case of Khilafat movement. A movement which was instigated by `trans-national’ identity and hence in no way supported `concept of One India’. So what was Mahatma Gandhi up to? Nothing more or less than real politics. He wanted to establish himself as supreme leader of Indian Struggle for Freedom. This act of his actually laid the first stone for the foundation of Two Nation Theory. Should he be the `Deity of Morality’? Let the reader decide. Most charitable view of Mahatma Gandhi is that while he did possess a great capacity for self denial and strong will, he was most erratic in his decision-making. He also suffered from rigidity and time and again used emotional blackmail in place of logic and reason to make his supporters fall in line with his esoteric ideas. In so far as his relationship with his wife and one of the sons is concerned - less said the better. So, was he worthy of being moral icon, well the record speaks for itself.

Indian history is replete with examples of Great Souls (Mahan Atmas). They have done their best for the people within the limits imposed by the time and circumstances they lived in. We revere them, even when they are from two warring sides. Example Akbar the great and Maharana Pratap. But we do not make them deities. This deitification is a recent phenomenon, and is rooted in the `Fables of Nationalism’ which have been woven and continue to be woven to claim a monopoly of sorts over `Indian Struggle for Freedom’ and to pass of expediency as search for truth.