I consider your last fast to have been coercion of the worst type. I do not want to conceal from you my feeling about Yeravda Pact. I know any view is shared by public men who, because of their respect for your personality and because of your detention in the Yeravda Prison, did not like to say anything in public against your action in bringing about the Pact. I consider the Pact to be a public misfortune which would never have been brought about but for your unfortunate fast. I know of a very esteemed friend of yours who said that if the refusal had not meant your certain death he would never have given his consent to the Pact. There is a large number of thinking Hindus who regret having had to accept the Pact, as they think that there would have been no necessity for it if you had only accepted in London what you have done now.
In a statement you have said, "It was against these millions that my fast was undertaken."I take it that was your intention but in actual result it was not these millions but others who had no course left open but to suspend their judgment and feeling in the matter and agree to terms to which nothing in the world would have made them agree, if their refusal had not meant losing your valued life. It was their spontaneous love that brought about the transformation inside of five days and brought into being the Yeravda Pact. If this is a correct statement of facts, will it not be more correct to say that it was only the fear of your death by starvation which brought about the Pact ? Remembering the circumstances under which it was brought about I think you will recognize that much need not be made of it; if the Pact is not carried out in its fullness, much less would there be any justification for you to embark on a second fast.
It gives me no pleasure to have to criticize a public man of your eminence, but the occasion is such that to keep quiet will not be quite honest. Your assumption that the masses whom you have addressed on the question of untouchability have accepted your views on that question, simply because they did not publicly oppose your views, is not correct. Because of their respect for your great personality and because of your political leadership they would hear in silence and, however much they may be opposed to your views, as I know many of them are, at least in Northern India, they would still consider it their duty to give you a respectful hearing. As you are aware, these people are not very vocal and they do not go out of their way to oppose the views of those who differ from them, and specially if the views are expressed by one of your eminence.
I have removed from the letter unnecessary paragraphs and names of public men referred to by the correspondent. It would be a matter of great grief to me if public men whom the correspondent mentions really suppressed their own opinions and accepted proposals which but for the threat of my death they would never have endorsed. If they acted as the correspondent suggests, they rendered a great disservice to the country and failed to appreciate the purely religious character of the fast. In public life one has often to perform the painful duty of sacrificing friends for the sake of truth or public weal.
And what was there in the Pact that these friends considered it to be highly objectionable ? Surely not reservation of seats; not joint electorate, nor the method of nomination of candidates by primary election, as it has been called. They could not object to the resolution restoring to Harijans social and religious rights,of which they have cruelly remained dispossessed for ages. The only thing remaining is the number of seats allotted to them, but more than that was given to them by the Rajah-Moonje Pact, and as I have already said in a previous statement, caste Hindus could never give Harijans too many seats, if they really believed them to be their own kith and kin, whom they had hitherto kept under their heels. Sorry indeed is the outlook for them of what the Pact has given them is regarded as an undeserved concession wrung from reluctant caste Hindus by my fast.
Therefore, if the information given by my correspondent turns but to be true, I would hold my fast to be doubly justified. I should not care to live as a member of a society which is chary even of doing a small and tardy measure of justice to its outcastes, who are so through no fault of their own, and my fast was trebly justified if the further statement made by my correspondent is true that millions of whom I have been writing as a matter of fact never endorsed my vehement condemnation of untouchability and that they remained silent or even signified approval purely out of their respect for my "great personality"or my "political leadershipΓÇ¥. Life in the midst of such falsity would be a burden to me. The sooner public men and people realize the necessity of resisting and asserting themselves even against so called Mahatmas like myself, the better it would be for themselves, the country and for men like me. I should gladly fast even to have such a cleaning of the atmosphere.
My correspondentΓÇÖs is a timely contribution to the movement. Those who are in it should know the implications both of the movement and the prospective fast. I can only repeat with all the emphasis at my command that my fast is not intended to coerce anyone to act against what he may consider to be the best interests of society or country. My fast is not against persons whom I can name or number. It is intended imperceptibly and unconsciously to affect and agitate the millions whom I have in mind and between whom and me, I believe, an indissoluble bond exists. How such fasts work I do know from personal experience gained more than once.
My correspondent suggests that "there would have been no necessity for the Pact if I had only accepted in London what I have done nowΓÇ¥. I must not rake up the past beyond saying that I could not have done in London what it was possible to do in India. The correspondent although he was in London at the time simply does not know all the facts that are in my possession.
Let not the public, however, run away with the idea that I have many letters protesting against the Pact. So far as I can remember, this is the only letter of its kind. There are two or three letters complaining of coercion but none suggesting that, therefore, anything was given to Harijans that was not their due, and against this one letter I have hundreds of letters and telegrams warmly approving of the fast itself and the Pact. My closest associates both here and in the West with one or two exceptions have endorsed it and themselves felt its spiritual effect. But according to my wont and in order to keep the cause I espouse free from any harm, I publish letters containing hostile criticism, especially when it comes from men whom I know to be guided by friendly motives, as my correpondent undoubtedly is.
As I was handing in this statement, I received a wire from the ever-vigilant secretary of the All-India Anti-Untouchability League, pointing out that the total population of untouchables in India is not sixty millions but under forty. I am sorry for having given an incorrect figure, although Sjt. Thakkar corrected me even during the fast.
