Here are some questions received from Annada Babu. He says he is asking the questions not for himself but for others.
QUESTIONS : Your statement after Subhas Babu's election has somewhat changed the situation. Why did you not issue any statement at the time of the election? Some people are of the view that the present situation would not have arisen if you had issued a statement at the time of the election.
ANSWER : It is true that I did not issue any statement. According to Annada Babu that has changed the situation. What he means is that the situation would not have taken the turn it did if I had issued a statement earlier. But the statement issued by Sardar Vallabhbhai and others contained a small sentence which suggested that I too was connected with it. Moreover, there was no particular occasion then. I saw no need to issue a statement at the time. It became necessary subsequently. It is a long story. I shall not go into it. It was not a question of my having been sluggish. Nor was there any mistake in explaining the situation to the country. I had conveyed to Subhas Babu what I felt. That is the way I work. In the end all that remains is for me to put up with any misunderstanding that may have arisen. If there are any more questions from anyone on the point they will be welcome.
Some people are under the impression that you were not in favour of the Pant resolution. What was your reaction when you first knew about the resolution? Why did you write to Subhas Babu that the more you thought of it the more you disliked it? Kindly explain.
First of all, you are all aware that I was confined to bed at the time. It is not my way to interfere in something with which I am not concerned . That is why I remained indifferent to the developments at Tripuri. So much so that I even avoided reading the newspapers in those days. My mind was preoccupied with Rajkot. Someone reported to me that Pantji intended to move some such resolution. I understood at the time that the resolution would express confidence in the old Working Committee. I stated that while expression of confidence was all right I would have done something more if I was there. I had said even at Wardha that if they had the courage they should bring a motion of no-confidence against Subhas Babu. It would have been a straightforward thing to do. If the delegates to the Congress felt that they had made a mistake in electing Subhas Babu, this was the only civilized way open to them. But probably the atmosphere was not quite favourable then. I had a feeling that Subhas Babu would form his own Working Committee. But that did not happen. Then it was that the Pant resolution came up. All I heard was that the resolution expressed confidence in the people who had gone out. I said if that was all there was in the resolution it was all right. But I had nothing to do with it. I saw the resolution later. Then followed an exchange of letters with Subhas Babu. The letter to which Annada Babu has referred is not before you. When I read the Pant resolution, I found that it contained a suggestion that Subhas Babu should be guided by me. I thoroughly disapproved of the idea. So much so that I refused to do anything of the kind. I stuck to my refusal to the end. It is possible that this may lead to some misunderstanding. I shall have to put up with it. How can I do a thing which I consider wrong? I told him that he should form a Working Committee of his choice, formulate a programme and implement it. I would clear the atmosphere if I could. If not, the work would go on and gradually we would be able to change the atmosphere. That is why when at Calcutta I was asked to name the Working Committee I found the idea repugnant. There I had some material, in view of which I felt it would be wrong to do so. Nobody had such material at Tripuri. Subsequent exchange of letters further confirmed me in my opinion. Later on I also came to know about the ill-feeling generated. How could I announce any names under those conditions? It would be subjecting Subhas Babu to coercion. Can theship of the nation sail smoothly if I subject Subhas Babu to coercion? It would be like sinking it. I said I would not do it. I also said that if they wanted to have the old members of the Working Committee back, they should consult among themselves and if they were agreeable both sides could work together. But I would not be party to imposing any names on Subhas Babu. The more I think about that resolution, the more I dislike it. I cannot serve the nation according to the terms of that resolution. However much anyone may insist, I just cannot choose names for the Working Committee. My doing so would be coercion against Subhas Babu. And coercion is violence. How can I resort to it? I have told you of my feelings as to the Pant resolution. Even if people think that I have served the country well it surely does not give me the right to use coercion against anybody !
What was the difficulty in giving the names when Subhas Babu himself had agreed to accept any names you suggested?
What the question means is that through the Pant resolution Tripuri ordered me to do a certain thing and ordered Subhas Babu to do a certain thing. Subhas Babu was willing to do as ordered, then why did I defy it? Where was the question of coercion in giving the names for the Working Committee in pursuance of that order? Seemingly the argument is attractive. But it is fallacious. Supposing somebody were to come to me tomorrow and say that I had been ordered to abuse him and hit him as I please? When there was such a gulf between me and Subhas Babu, would it have been civilized behaviour to inflict some names on him merely by virtue of that right? Having a right surely does not mean that I should exercise that right in utter disregard of my sense of proportion. If someone were to behave with me thus I would not like it. Supposing tomorrow I am given the right to abuse everybody, would it then become my duty to exercise that right? There is a distincion between right and duty. The exercise of right depends on one's sense of duty. It is my duty to follow dharma. I do not think only of my own importance. It is of no consequence to me. I think in terms of the nation. I do what I consider my duty.
Cannot your correspondence with Subhas Babu be published? If not, will you please explain why?
At one stage it had been decided to publish the correspondence. Later on, after Jawaharlal's arrival it was decided to withhold the publication. It was also decided that I should not issue any statement. It would not be in the interest of the nation. In this my attitude was that Subhas Babu should do only what suited him. This should be our only attitude if we are non-violent. It is none of our concern to publish any correspondence. We should withhold the publication as long as we can. It becomes our duty to publish the correspondence only when someone does something contrary to what he has written in a letter. There is no such question here. That is why I have left it to Subhas Babu. If any misunderstanding arises from the correspondence not being published, it will not bring any particular harm. The other person will publish it when he thinks it is necessary to do so. When it becomes ancient history, it will be abandoned.
Let me now come to Shankar Rao's two questions. I shall take up the second question first because it is related to the same topic.
You have mentioned in one of the letters to Subhas Babu that there are fundamental differences between you and him. What are those diferences?
It would be better for me not to mention the correspondence between us. That would make the explanation too long. I shall explain the thing briefly. I think he still holds the view he had expressed at Jalpaiguri. I saw that I could not associate myself with any part of it. It includes giving an ultimatum to the Government. He holds that we possess enough resources for a fight. I am totally opposed to his views. Today we possess no resources for a fight. Today the whole atmosphere is so steeped in violence that I cannot think of fighting. How did the violent incidents take place at Ranpur in Orissa and Ramdurg in Karnataka? Pantji could not control things at Kanpur. We have no control at all over the Shias and Sunnis in Lucknow. There is no limit to communal strife. We cannot carry on by controlling just a handful of Congressmen. It had ever been our boast that the whole country was with us. Today we are not able to control more than a handful of people. Workers and peasants too were supposed to be entirely with the Congress. We do not have the same hold among the peasants of Bihar as we used to. Is this a situation favourable for starting a struggle? There isa difference between the work of the congress and that of the people who believe in violence. If today I am asked to start the 'Dandi March', I have not the courage to do so. How can we do anything without the workers and peasants? The country belongs only to them . I am not equipped to issue an ultimatum to the Government. The country would only be exposed to ridicule. But Subhas Babu thinks that we are ready for the struggle. This is a great and fundamental difference of opinion . We differ in our ideas of the resources needed for the struggle. My conception of satyagraha is not his. Is this difference of opinion not fundamental? I cannot give out all these things to the Press right now, because it would not do any good. I shall write about it when the time comes. So much for the fundamental differences. It has been covered in our letters also. I have put the matter to you simply. It has nothing to do with personal differences.
The same is true of the corruption in the Congress. There the difference between me and him is one of degree. He also agrees that there is corruption. But he feels that it is not of such proportion as to cause worry. But in my view, we shall not be able to do anything so long as this corruption persists. For me there is no difference between civil disobedience and office-acceptance. Both are part of the satyagraha movement. Thus my point of view and assessment of the situation are altogether different from his. He does not mean the same thing by satyagraha as I do. Hence, sometimes even the difference of degree becomes a fundamental difference. I have become so impatient of the corruption prevailing in the Congress that I should not hesitate to bury the organization if the corruption, cannot be removed. In a non-violent organization there can be no place for some of the things that pass in a violent organization. The example of a violent war cannot apply here. Now you will have understood want I mean by fundamental differences. Are not your differences with the socialists and Jawaharlalji also fundamental? Would you take up a similar attitude with regard to them?
No. My differences with the socialists are a different kind. Do not confuse the two. They differ with Subhas Babu on the question of giving an ultimatum to the Government. I do not know who exactly supports him on the point. That is why in spite of my having sharp and even fundamental differences with the socialists my attitude towards them is different. Moreover, we cannot put the socialists and Jawaharlal in thesame category. Jawaharlal does not lend his name to any socialist group. He believes in socialism. He mixes with the socialists and consults them. But there is considerable difference between their methods of work. The differences between me and the socialists are widely known. I believe in change of heart and in working for it. They do not. They make fun of the spinning-wheel. But even so the socialists are coming nearer to me every day. Or, you may say that I am moving nearer to them. Or, that we are moving nearer to each other. I cannot say how long it will continue. It is quite likely that one day our ways will part. The same thing happened with Subhas Babu. The Jalpaiguri resolution brought our differences to the fore. There are certainly differences between Jawaharlal and me. But they are not significant. Without him I feel myself a cripple. He also feels more or less the same way. Our hearts are one. This intimate relationship between us has not started with politics. It is very much older and deeper. We shall leave it at that.
I shall come now to Gangadharrao's question.
The socialists say that while you are tolerant and liberal, we others are intolerant and narrow-minded. For instance you might be prepared to take them on the Working Committee but we would not agree to it. What is the reason for this?
How can I say? How can I answer that? You should search your own hearts for the reason. I can only say that in this matter you must follow me. You must be as gentle of speech as I am . The socialists come to me frowning, but they leave smiling. This does not mean that I do not express to them my differences with them. I tell them frankly what is in my heart. I do not flatter them, but try to enter their hearts. I have faith in their honesty. I try to understand their point of view. I find time to talk to them . You should treat them with the same courtesy. I can go so far to help you.
Now one more question remains. But it is very important. Other things are of only passing importance. You are all in Gandhi Seva Sangh. I have read its constitution. It contains many things. You believe in certain principles. If the question Annada raised had been raised on the Congress platform it would have been a different matter. But when it is raised on the Sangh platform I feel a little grieved. Why should you entertain such doubts? The differences between me and Subhas Babu are of a passing nature. But if this leads to bad blood between us, the country will be ruined.
Differences of opinion should never lead to bitterness. You are all believers in religious tolerance. I would suggest that you must broaden the definition of religious tolerance. We must also include in it the moderates and the radicals. We must see equality between the moderates and the radicals. We should have respect even for those who call themselves radicals. We must look at the views of the radicals from their angle and those of the moderates from theirs. We should see our dharma with our eyes and those of others with theirs. This is religious tolerance. This means that we must emphasize the points on which there is agreement between us. We should not stress the points of difference. Just because I respect Islam and Christianity I do not become a Muslim or a Christian. What I mean to say is that I respect these religions as much as I respect my own religion. But I would not be converted to either Islam or Christianity. What is the sense in my reading the Koran or the Bible, if I remain intolerant? This is not the correct meaning of the expression 'religious tolerance'. In politics too let us take our differences in the same light. Let us regard the socialists too in the same way. If we take this attitude our differences would be only temporary and we would try to end the quarrels as far as possible. If we do not do so, we shall become narrow minded. We shall get entangled in small quarrels. Man shapes himself after the dharma he follows. If we forget larger issues and remember only the small points which cause differences, the country will be completely ruined.
Why is it so difficult to discover the points of agreement? The royal road of non-violence consists of mutual trust and willingness to understand another's point of view with an unprejudiced mind. In this connection I take up once again the matter of that circular. I have read it again. The central point in it is the same. The central point is the Sardar. Many people have a feeling that the Sardar does not work properly. Deep down in their hearts they feel that he has been unfair in the cases of Nariman, Khare and Subhas. But they should frankly express themselves. This is the inviolable dharma of the votaries of ahimsa. This is our dharma in relation to the whole world. If we feel distrust or anger for anybody, it is our duty to go straight to that person and understand his point of view. We should remember two statements from the Bible. In the matter of morality the word of the Bible or any other scripture should be considered as authentic as that of the Vedas. One of thesestatements is : "Agree with thine adversary quickly" and the other statement is : "Be ye angry, and sin not : let not the sun go down upon your wrath". To me these utterances are as precious as anything in the Vedas. This is the very root of ahimsa. Indeed ahimsa has to rush into the mouth of himsa. If you feel that the Sardar has been unfair to Subhas Babu, unfair to Nariman and unfair to Khare, let me say that the blame for the Khare affair and the Nariman affair lies with me. I am not saying this to protect the Sardar. I am making a statement of fact. But it is now irrelevant. I call myself a seeker of truth, a speaker to truth and a satyagrahi. I will not therefore deliberately give support to those resorting to injustice. But if you have anything against the Sardar in your hearts, you should go and speak to him. If you are not satisfied with his explanation or if there is still something rankling in your heart, it becomes your duty to relieve the Sardar from the Sangh. Thereby he would not cease to belong to the Gandhi Seva Sangh. I freed myself from the Congress and continued to serve the Congress. Your relieving the Sardar from the Sangh would not mean that you have become his enemies or he has become your enemy.
What I say of the Sardar I say of everyone. We have Appa Patwardhan here. He is a great mathematician. With the help of mathematics he can explain the mechanism of the charkha in great detail. He has faith in the charkha, he believes in khadi and ahimsa. But supposing he begins to have doubts, he loses confidence in the honesty of the members, must he then continue in the Sangh? Must he necessarily cease to serve like other members of the Sangh simply because he is no longer a member? Or because he cannot be a member of the Sangh, does it mean that he is worse than the rest of us? But when there is mutual distrust there cannot be any Sangh. Only so long as we honestly believe that no one belonging to the Sangh can deliberately act improperly will our path be easy. As soon as a doubt arises in our heart we must seek mutual explanations. I do not wish to suggest that those who thus suspect the Sardar are bad while the Sardar is good. I would never utter such a thing. I have merely indicated the way. The Sardar himself has been saying that if there are any suspicions concerning him he would not like to remain in the Sangh. You may be aware that a few days ago there was a heated exchange of words between the Sardar and Jamnalalji. Jamnalalji said he would leave the Sangh. TheSardar said Jamnalalji had created the Sangh. Why should he leave? Rather, he himself would leave. Then both of them wanted to be relieved assuring they would continue to work for the Sangh. But neither of them left because at heart they had nothing against each other. Whatever misunderstanding was there, was cleared. There was no question of bad blood. Similarly the Sardar is seeking to be relieved today. If there is even the slightest suspicion concerning him in our hearts we must drive it out. If a large number of people have suspicions about him he must go out.
But there should not be a single person who has distrust about any member. These things do not seem very important so long as they are limited in extent. But if they become widespread the Sangh will be destroyed. Then the conclusion to be drawn will be that in the present age no organization of satyagrahis and votaries of ahimsa can be formed. But it is my claim that it is very easy to organize those who believe in truth. Im my life I have made special attempts to make a collective dharma of truth and non-violence. But if distrust becomes widespread in our organization, if even at the end of fifty years, I have to confess that the believers in truth and non-violence cannot be brought together as an organization; then I shall declare itΓÇöconfess it shamelesslyΓÇöand say that after fifty years I have come to the conclusion that the unique idea I had developed in my life cannot be worked through an organization, that it is not capable of being organized. Then the Sangh will have to be discontinued. But today I have hope in my heart. I consider it my supreme dharma to see truth and non-violence organized .
Now I come to Deo's first question. It is the principal question .
In what way are the constructive programme and non-violence closely related? kindly explain.
If the constructive programme is not closely related to non-violence, what else can be? Hindu-Muslim unity, removal of untouchability, prohibition and the fourth is charkha. The relation of the first three items with non-violence is very clear. How can anyone who believes in non-violence regard anybody as untouchable even for a moment? How can he allow his mind to degenerate by taking alcohol? How can he have feelings of hostility against the Muslims or any otherreligious group? There cannot be any mass satyagraha unless all this is taken for granted. This is true for me and for Subhas Babu. Even Subhas Babu cannot start a satyagraha unless these conditions are fulfilled.
Now for the charkha. To me the charkha is the symbol of non-violence. As I have already said, its basis is dedication. The same is true of Ramanama. Ramanama has no independent power. It is not a quinine pill, which has a power of its own. One may or may not trust that power. It is as effective when A has malaria as when B has it. It destroys malaria germs wherever they may be. Ramanama has no such independent power. A mantra acquires power through dedication. Gayatri is a mantra for me . I have willed moksha through it. For a Muslim his kalma is the mantra. There is a great difference in a Muslim reading kalma and my doing so. When a Muslim reads kalma he becomes a different man, because he has willed his moksha through it.
The Charkha has no independent power that will give you swaraj. But if I am resolved that I shall learn the lessons of non-violence through charkha and secure swaraj through it, it becomes for me a tangible means for attaining swaraj. The place that Gandhi Seva Sangh has given to the charkha is not merely to provide a little money to the poor. What is the economic necessity of having mass spinning for half an hour? And where is the need for silence? After all, how much are you going to spin in half an hour? The nation resolved in 1920 to attain swaraj through non-violent means. We have filled the charkha with the power of that resolve. Since then this process has been continuing. Impelled by that resolve we ply the charkha here. The charkha is thus a symbol of the resolve of all of usΓÇöHindu and Muslim, rich and poor, young and old. What closer relation can I point out? So long as every house does not have a charkha, so long as there is not total prohibition, so long as there is no Hindu-Muslim unity and complete removal of untouchability we cannot have the mass satyagraha which Subhas Babu wants and which I also want. Till then we cannot be fit for civil disobedience.
The right of civil disobedience will come only when we have learnt willingly to obey the laws we ourselves have created. Today I do not feel like telling Deo to go and offer satyagraha at Kolhapur, or telling Ramachandran And Radhakrishna to start satyagraha in Travancore and Jaipur. Two months ago I was willing to give them the permission. Things which did not appear to me ugly two months ago appear ugly to me now. That was why I had given permission to Jamnalalji. But certain things to me have assumed today a greater importance and greater value.
I discovered these things in the laboratory of Rajkot. The great strength I acquired through that experiment brought very happy consequences. I can make you laugh by describing things that happened at Rajkot. I am drinking deep the elixir of the strength I acquired at Rajkot. I am beginning to gain control over the atmosphere. My task is becoming easier. I cannot get work out of many people, because I have become more strict. But what does it matter if I can only find five persons at Rajkot? I shall complete the work with their help. It there are five persons, I can start my campaign only with them. I had said in 1920 that we could start the work even if there was only one true satyagrahi available, and we would definitely be victorious. Probably Vallabhbhai will testify to this. It is my endeavour to become such satyagrahi.
When the question of the Rowlatt Act arose I said that there was a way out, but that I could not all by myself do anything. For I was an imperfect satyagrahi. I might be able to do something if some people joined me. Then Shankerlal came, Horniman, Sarojini, Jamnadas Dwarkadas and Umar SobhaniΓÇöthe poor man is dead nowΓÇöall came. I got support from all these people. It was such a conglomerationΓÇöbut it awakened India and added to my strength. I want warmth and help from everyone. In trying to get co-operation from all and organizing them I increase my own strength. My power of introspection is increasing. I am a very selfish person. I do not merely watch you when I give you time. I place much value on my time. If I feel that by giving you time I would not be bringing some benefit to myself I would not be doing any such suicidal thing. I give you time because I find that I stand to gain something by doing so. It is of no consequence to me whether you gain something or not. What I am concerned with is whether I gain anything. I see if I am not heading for a downfall. I do not give you time in order to entice you. I only increase my strength. And my strength has increased that way. I have reached the age of seventy years. But my powers have not dimmed. I realize my responsibility. I would keep my vow, whatever it may be. What does it matter if I am left alone? I did the same thing in the Transvaal. I had taken a vow that I would give a fight to the Transvaal Government even if I was the only one to do so and win. The concept of satyagraha was not even born yet. Millions of people can thus be organized by a mere act of will. I have countless proofs of this. What happened when we decided to have the hartal on April 6? We had not organized anything. But people fasted and responded to the call of hartal throughout the length and breadth of the country. That was the beginning of swaraj for the country. That task was accomplished by sheer determination. But because of lack of training in constructive work it could not be continued. So long as you do not value the constructive programme and are not convinced that civil disobedience cannot be carried on without it, you will ever be disappointed. The constructive programme may take time but there is no other way.
We cannot make satyagraha complete without the constructive programme. An atmosphere of non-violence cannot be created without it. This is the only way of my working. That is why when Surendra went to Gujarat I told him that if nobody wanted his services, if nobody came to him he should think of the charkha and spin for all the twenty-four hours. If we did it with a resolute mind that alone would be an act of service. I have absolutely no doubt about it. My conviction is becoming stronger and stronger day by day.
