Ramachandra Guha Quotes

What is now in the past was once in the future

It is in the nature of democracies, perhaps, that while visionaries are sometimes necessary to make them, once made they can be managed by mediocrities.

So long as the Constitution is not amended beyond recognition, so long as elections are held regularly and fairly and the ethos of secularism broadly prevails, so long as citizens can speak and write in the language of their choosing, so long as there is an integrated market and a moderately efficient civil service and army, and — lest I forget — so long as Hindi films are watched and their songs sung, India will survive

In India, the sapling was planted by the nation’s founders, who lived long enough (and worked hard enough) to nurture it to adulthood. Those who came afterwards could disturb and degrade the tree of democracy but, try as they might, could not uproot or destroy it.

Here we are on top of the world. We have arrived at this peak to stay there forever. There is, of course, this thing called history. But history is something unpleasant that happens to other people. —Arnold Toynbee, recalling the 1897 diamond jubilee celebration of Queen Victoria   Like other practicing historians, I am often asked what the “lessons of history” are. I answer that the only lesson I have learnt from studying the past is that there are no permanent winners and losers. —Ramachandra Guha

in India, Bhakti or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in religion may be the road to the salvation of a soul. But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.

India is no longer a constitutional democracy but a populist one.

in the post-Gandhian war for power the first casualty is decency’.

If Jawaharlal Nehru was the Maker of Modern India, then perhaps Potti Sriramulu should be named its Mercator.

In India the choice could never be between chaos and stability, but between manageable and unmanageable chaos, between humane and inhuman anarchy, and between tolerable and intolerable disorder. ASHIS NANDY, sociologist, 1990.

In his speeches on Azad Hind Radio, Subhas Bose referred to Gandhi as the ‘Father of the Nation’. This seems to be the first time Gandhi was called this. The usage soon became ubiquitous.

Our treatment of Adivasi is a blot on Indian democracy. Only someone who cares sincerely for the future of this country will say that. Others will say that ‘Oh no no, they are doing fine, they live wonderfully… It is all hyperbole, exaggerated and manufactured dissent.’ If you are in a mode of self-denial, you will stay where you are- a flawed, intolerant and imperfect society. The main task of any nationalist is to be ashamed of crimes committed against his fellow citizens in the name of nationalism.

என்னைக் கொல்வதன் மூலம் ஒரு தீயவனை ஒழித்துவிட்டதாக நினைப்பாரென்றால் அவர் உண்மையான காந்தியை அல்ல அவருக்குத் தீயவனாகத் தோன்றிய காந்தியைத்தான் கொன்றிருப்பார். என்னைக்

At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom,

a mere five years after the last maharaja had signed away his land, Indians had ‘come to take integrated India so much for granted that it requires amental effort today even to imagine that it could be different’.

Like other practicing historians, I am often asked what the “lessons of history” are. I answer that the only lesson I have learnt from studying the past is that there are no permanent winners and losers. —Ramachandra Guha

In 1951 Dec 20th, Nehru, while campaigning for the first democratic elections in India, took a short break to address a UNESCO symposium in Delhi. Although he believed democracy was the best form of governance, while speaking at the symposium he wondered loud... the quality of men who are selected by these modern democratic methods of adult franchise gradually deteriorates because of lack of thinking and the noise of propaganda....He[the voter] reacts to sound and to the din, he reacts to repetition and he produces either a dictator or a dumb politician who is insensitive. Such a politician can stand all the din in the world and still remain standing on his two feet and, therefore, he gets selected in the end because the others have collapsed because of the din. -Quoted from India After Gandhi, page 157.

A common civil code will help the cause of national integration by removing disparate loyalties to laws which have conflicting ideologies.

You gave us a lawyer; we gave you back a Mahatma.

the differences between the countries of Europe were much smaller than those between the ‘countries’ of India. ‘Scotland is more like Spain than Bengal is like the Punjab.’ In India the diversities of race, language and religion were far greater. Unlike in Europe, these ‘countries’ were not nations; they did not have a distinct political or social identity. This, Strachey told his Cambridge audience, ‘is the first and most essential thing to learn about India – that there is not, and never was an India, or even any country of India possessing, according to any European ideas, any sort of unity, physical, political, social or religious’. There was no Indian nation or country in the past; nor would there be one in the future.

As that wise Indian, André Béteille, always points out, what we must strive for is reasonable equality of opportunity, not absolute equality of result. That we have plainly not achieved,

பாரபட்சம் அவரை துன்பப்படுத்தியது. அவர், ‘இன்னொரு மனிதரின் சிந்தனைகள் மோசமானவை, நம்முடைய சிந்தனைகளே நல்லவை என்றும், நம்மிடமிருந்து வேறுபடும் பார்வை கொண்டவர்கள் நாட்டின் எதிரிகள் என்றும் சொல்வது கெட்ட பழக்கம்

An early gesture was to rename Harrington Road after a hero of the world communist movement, so that at the height of the Vietnam War the address of the United States Consulate was 7 Ho Chi Minh Sarani, Calcutta.

நியாயமான வழிமுறைகளே நியாயமான விளைவுகளை உண்டாக்கும்; எல்லாவற்றிலும் இல்லாவிட்டாலும், குறைந்தபட்சம் பெரும்பாலான நிகழ்வுகளில் அன்பு, இரக்கம் ஆகியவற்றின் சக்தி ஆயுதங்களின் சக்தியைவிட எல்லையற்ற அளவில் அதிகமானது. காந்தியைப்

My religion is a conspiracy My prayer meetings are a conspiracy My lying quiet is a conspiracy My attempt to wake up is a conspiracy My desire to have friends is a conspiracy My ignorance, my backwardness, a conspiracy.

வன்முறைப் போராட்டத்தைவிட அஹிம்சைப் போராட்டத்துக்கு அதிகமான வீரம் தேவை என்றார் காந்தி. ‘யார் உண்மையான போராளி’ என்று கேட்டார். ‘மரணத்தைத் தன் நண்பனாகத் தன்னுடனே வைத்துக்கொண்டிருப்பவனா, மற்றவர்களின் மரணத்தைக் கட்டுப்படுத்துபவனா?’.

காந்தியின் பார்வையில், வெவ்வேறு மதங்கள் என்பவை ‘ஒரே இடத்துக்கு இட்டுச்செல்லும் வெவ்வேறு பாதைகள் மட்டுமே. ஒரே இலக்கை அடையும்வரை, எந்தப் பாதையில் செல்கிறோம் என்பதற்கு என்ன முக்கியத்துவம் இருக்கிறது? இதில் சண்டையிட்டுக்கொள்ள என்ன இருக்கிறது?’.

Srinagar, there was a grave of a Christian soldier from Travancore, which had the Vedic swastika and a verse from the Quran inscribed on it. There could be ‘no more poignant and touching symbolof the essential oneness and unity of India’.61

It’s no conspiracy [for the Hindu] to make me a refugee in the very country of my birth It’s no conspiracy to poison the air I breathe and the space I live in It’s certainly no conspiracy to cut me to pieces and then imagine an uncut Bharat.

Writing in 1959 – a decade and more after Independence – an Indian editor who was bitterly opposed to Nehru was constrained to recognize his two greatest achievements – the creation of a secular state and the granting of equal rights to Untouchables.

The Indian commitment to the semantics of socialism is at least as deep as ours to the semantics of free enterprise . . . Even the most intransigent Indian capitalist may observe on occasion that he is really a socialist at heart. J. K. GALBRAITH, economist, 1958

How much more does Sonia Gandhi’s son know about the past of the party of which he is now the vice president? Not very much. In Rahul Gandhi’s understanding of his party’s history, only five leaders have mattered: his mother, his father, his grandmother, his great-grandfather and Mahatma Gandhi, the only Indian politician whom he (and Sonia) have granted parity with their own family. Gokhale, Tilak, Rajaji, Azad, Kamaraj, even (or especially) Patel—these are merely names (and sometimes not even that) to the heir apparent. By

I have no doubt that if British governments had been prepared to grant in 1900 what they refused in 1900 but granted in 1920; or to grant in 1920 what they refused in 1920 but granted in 1940; or to grant in 1940 what they refused in 1940 but granted in 1947 – then nine-tenths of the misery, hatred, and violence, the imprisonings and terrorism, the murders, flogging, shootings, assassinations, even the racial massacres would have been avoided; the transference of power might well have been accomplished peacefully, even possibly without Partition. LEONARD WOOLF, 1967

And it is only in its early stage. All those who believe they will remain untouched by its wrath are delusional. If Ehsan Jafri, a former member of parliament with a line to the deputy prime minister’s office, could be dragged out of his home and gashed and burned alive, what makes anyone think he or she will remain unharmed? If Aamir Khan, one of India’s biggest film stars, can be unpersoned; if Gauri Lankesh, one of its boldest journalists, can be shot dead; if Ramachandra Guha, one of its greatest historians, can be stopped from lecturing; if Naseeruddin Shah, among its finest actors, can be branded a traitor; if Manmohan Singh, the former prime minister, can be labelled an agent of Pakistan by his successor; if B.H. Loya, a perfectly healthy judge, can abruptly drop dead; if a young woman can be stalked by the police machinery of the state because Modi has displayed an interest in her—what makes the rest of us think we will remain untouched and unharmed? Unless the republic is reclaimed, the time will come when all of us will be one incorrect meal, one interfaith romance, one unfortunate misstep away from being extinguished. The mobs that slaughtered ‘bad’ Muslims will eventually come for Hindus who are not ‘good’.

Thus, Rajaji wrote of the need to try and think fundamentally in the present crisis. Are we to yield to the fanatical emotions of our anti-Pakistan groups? Is there any hope for India or for Pakistan, if we go on hating each other, suspecting each other, borrowing and building up armaments against each other – building our two houses, both of us on the sands of continued foreign aid against a future Kurukshetra? We shall surely ruin ourselves for ever if we go on doing this . . . We shall be making all hopes of prosperity in the future a mere mirage if we continue this arms race based on an ancient grudge and the fears and suspicions flowing from it.27

மனித உழைப்பை இடம்பெயர்க்கும் இயந்திரங்களுக்கு அங்கு இடம் கிடையாது. அது அதிகாரத்தை ஒரு சிலரின் கைகளில் குவித்துவிடும். நாகரிக மனித சமூகத்தில் உழைப்புக்கென்று ஒரு விசேஷ இடம் உண்டு. மனிதர்களுக்கு உதவும் ஒவ்வொரு இயந்திரங்களுக்கும் இடம் உண்டு. ஆனால், அப்படியான இயந்திரம் என்னவாக இருக்க முடியும் என்று உட்கார்ந்து யோசித்துத்தான் பார்க்கவேண்டும். இப்போது

My own view – speaking as a historian rather than citizen – is that as long as Pakistan exists there will be Hindu fundamentalists in India. In times of stability, or when the political leadership is firm, they will be marginal or on the defensive. In times of change, or when the political leadership is irresolute, they will be influential and assertive.

கடைசியில் ஹரிலால் கிளம்பியபோது மே 16 அன்று காந்தியுடன் டால்ஸ்டாய் பண்ணையிலிருந்து சில மாணவர்களும் ஜோஹானஸ்பர்க் நிலையத்துக்கு அந்தப் பையனை வழியனுப்பச் சென்றனர். அந்த மாணவர்களில் ஒருவர் நினைவுகூர்ந்தபடி, ‘புகைவண்டி கிளம்பும் சமயம் பாபு ஹரிலாலை முத்தமிட்டு, அவர் கன்னத்தில் லேசாகத் தட்டிவிட்டுச் சொன்னார்: ‘உன் தந்தை உனக்குக் கெடுதல் செய்திருக்கிறார் என்று நீ நினைத்தால் அவரை மன்னித்துவிடு'.

கல்வி தொடர்பான அத்தியாயம் ஒன்றில் காந்தி இந்தியாவுக்குள் ஆங்கிலம் அல்லாத பிற மொழிகளின் பயன்பாட்டைத் தீவிரமாக ஆதரித்தார். இந்தியர்கள் அனைவரும் தம் தாய் மொழியை அறிந்திருக்கவேண்டும். இந்தியை ஓர் இணைப்பு மொழியாக முன்னெடுக்கலாம். அதை எழுத தேவநாகரி அல்லது பாரசீக எழுத்துக்களைப் பயன்படுத்த அனுமதிக்கலாம்; இதன் மூலம் இந்துக்களுக்கும் முஸ்லிம்களுக்கும் இன்னும் நெருங்கிய தொடர்பை உருவாக்க முடியும்.

Ambedkar knew that while there were enough influential Hindus – such as Jawaharlal Nehru – who were behind progressive legislation, among the Muslims the liberal contingent was nowhere near as strong. The government, he said, could not be so ‘foolish’ as ‘not to realize the sentiments of different communities in this country’. That was why the code at present dealt only with the Hindus.

காந்தி இந்தியன் ஒப்பீனியனில் இனி விளம்பரங்கள் வெளிவராது என்று அறிவித்தார். ‘விளம்பரங்கள் என்ற முறையே மோசமானது; தீங்கான போட்டியை ஏற்படுத்துகிறது; நாமோ அதை எதிர்ப்பவர்கள்; பலசமயம் பெரிய அளவில் பொய்யான தகவல்களைத் தருகிறது.’ கடந்த காலத்தில் அவ்விதழ் ‘எப்போதுமே எங்கள் அளவுகோல்களைக் கருத்தில்கொண்டே வந்திருக்கிறது; நம் மனசாட்சிக்கு ஒவ்வாத பல விளம்பரங்கள் நிராகரிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன. இப்போது விளம்பரங்கள் முற்றாகவே நிறுத்தப்படும்.

Had Shastri been given another five years, there would have been no Nehru–Gandhi dynasty. Sanjay Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi would almost certainly still be alive, and in private life. The former would be a (failed) entrepreneur, the latter a recently retired airline pilot with a passion for photography. Finally, had Shastri lived longer, Sonia Gandhi would still be a devoted and loving housewife, and Rahul Gandhi perhaps a middle-level manager in a private sector company.

British journalist Don Taylor. Writing in 1969, by which time India had stayed united for two decades and gone through four general elections, Taylor yet thought that the key question remains: can India remain in one piece – or will it fragment? . . . When one looks at this vast country and its 524 million people, the 15 major languages in use, the conflicting religions, the many races, it seems incredible that one nation could ever emerge. It is difficult to even encompass this country in the mind – the great Himalaya, the wide Indo-Gangetic plain burnt by the sun and savaged by the fierce monsoon rains, the green flooded delta of the east, the great cities like Calcutta, Bombay and Madras. It does not, often, seem like one country. And yet there is a resilience about India which seems an assurance of survival. There is something which can only be described as an Indian spirit. I believe it no exaggeration to say that the fate of Asia hangs on its survival.

The changes which the destruction of forests, the clearing of plants and the cultivation of indigo have produced within half a century in the quantity of water flowing in on the one hand, and on the other the evaporation of the soil and the dryness of the atmosphere, present causes sufficiently powerful to explain the successive diminution of the lake of Valencia . . . By felling the trees that cover the tops and sides of mountains, men in every climate prepare at once two calamities for future generations, the want of fuel and the scarcity of water.

நீ மட்டும் தைரியத்தைக் கைவிடாமல் இருந்து, தேவையான சத்தான ஆகாரங்களையும் எடுத்துக்கொண்டால் உடம்பு சரியாகிவிடும். ஆனால், துரதிர்ஷ்டவசமாக நீ காலமாகிவிட்டால், நான் உயிருடன் இருக்கையில் என்னிடமிருந்து பிரிந்திருக்கும்போது நீ அப்படிச் செய்வதில் குற்றம் எதுவும் இல்லை என்று மட்டும் சொல்வேன். நான் உன்னை எந்த அளவுக்கு நேசிக்கிறேன் என்றால், நீ இறந்துவிட்டாலும்கூட என்னைப் பொறுத்தவரை வாழ்ந்துகொண்டுதான் இருப்பாய். உன் ஆன்மாவுக்கு மரணமில்லை. நான் அடிக்கடி சொல்லியிருப்பதை மீண்டும் சொல்கிறேன்: உன் வியாதி உன்னை எடுத்துச் சென்றுவிடுமானால், நான் இன்னொரு திருமணம் செய்துகொள்ளமாட்டேன். 33 இந்தக்

அக்டோபர் மாதம் காந்தி மேத்தாவுக்கு, ‘நான் கூடிய விரைவில் இந்தியா திரும்பிச் சென்று, அங்கேயே நிரந்தரமாகத் தங்கிவிடவேண்டும் என்பதில் நீங்கள் குறியாக இருப்பது எனக்குத் தெரியும். இந்த யோசனை எனக்குப் பிடித்திருக்கிறது. இங்கே பொறுப்புகள் தீர்ந்த அதேகணம் நான் போய்விடுவேன்’ என்று எழுதினார். மேத்தா தனது நண்பர் தென்னாப்பிரிக்காவில் தங்கியிருப்பதன் மூலம் தங்கள் தாய்நாட்டைப் புறக்கணிப்பதாகக் குற்றம்சாட்டியதாகத் தெரிகிறது. ‘நான் முழு உலகத்துக்கும் பணி செய்யவேண்டும் என்ற மாயையில் வீழ்ந்துவிடுவேன் என்று நினைத்துவிடாதீர்கள். என் வேலை இந்தியாவில்தான் இருக்கமுடியும் என்று நான் நன்றாகவே உணர்ந்திருக்கிறேன்' என்றார் காந்தி.

After the Poona Pact, Gandhi had begun referring to the ‘untouchables’ as ‘Harijans’, a term meaning ‘Children of God’. He thought it less pejorative than ‘untouchable’ or its equivalent in Indian languages, less patronizing than the colonial coinage, ‘Depressed Classes’, and more indigenous-sounding than his own earlier alternative, ‘suppressed classes’. The term ‘Harijan’ had first been used by the medieval poet-saint Narasinha Mehta, whom Gandhi had long admired. ‘Not that the change of name brings about any change of status,’ he remarked, ‘but one may at least be spared the use of a term which is itself one of reproach'.

Then, in January 1961, a religious riot broke out in the central Indian city of Jabalpur. A Hindu girl had committed suicide; it was alleged that she took her life because she had been assaulted by two Muslim men. The claim was given lurid publicity by a local Jana Sangh newspaper, whereupon Hindu students went on a rampage through the town, attacking Muslim homes and burning shops. In retaliation a Muslim group torched a Hindu neighbourhood. The rioting continued for days, spreading also to the countryside. It was the most serious such incident since Partition, its main sufferers being poor Muslims, mostly weavers and bidi (cigarette) workers.52

Both Arun Shourie and Arundhati Roy see history in terms of heroes and villains. Neither seeks to place the choices made by Gandhi and Ambedkar in context, seeking only to elevate one by disparaging the other. Roy has all of Ambedkar’s polemical zeal but none of his scholarship or sociological insight. Shourie, meanwhile, perhaps loves India as much as Gandhi did, but he loves it in the abstract, without empathy for those Indians who suffer discrimination at the hands of their compatriots. Both seek—by the technique of suppressio veri, suggestio falsi so beloved of ideologues down the ages—to prove a verdict they have arrived at beforehand: that Gandhi was the Enemy of the Dalits, for Roy; that Ambedkar was the Enemy of the Nation, for Shourie.

Gandhi, claimed Ambedkar, had orally promised him that the Congress would encourage candidates from the Depressed Classes who contested in general seats, but in the absence of constitutional safeguards such promises meant nothing. Ambedkar thus wrote that he could not 'accept the assurances of the Mahatma that he and his Congress will do the needful. I cannot leave so important a question as the protection of my people to conventions and misunderstandings.' 'The Mahatma is not an immortal person....There have been many Mahatmas in India whose sole object was to remove untouchability and to elevate and absorb the Depressed Classes but every one of them have failed in their mission. Mahatmas have come and Mahatmas have gone. But untouchables have remained as untouchables'.

லண்டனில் காந்தியின் முதலாம் ஆண்டில், அவரது மாத செலவுகள் 12 பவுண்டுகள். இரண்டாம் ஆண்டில் அதை அவர் 4 பவுண்டுகளாகக் குறைத்துக்கொண்டார். சட்டைகளுக்குக் கஞ்சி போடுவதை விட்டுவிட்டார். இதற்கு உந்துதலாக இருந்தது ‘இங்கிலாந்தில் இருந்த சில மரபுக்கு மாறான மனிதர்கள்; நவநாகரிகத்தை கடவுள்போலத் தொழுவதை விட்டுவிட்டவர்கள்’. கோடைகாலத்தில் டிராயர்கள் அணிவதை நிறுத்தினார். இது சலவைக்காரருக்கான செலவைக் குறைத்தது. பொதுப் போக்குவரத்தைப் பயன்படுத்துவதற்குப் பதிலாக எல்லா இடங்களுக்கும் நடந்தே போய்வரலானார். தபால்தலை செலவைக் குறைப்பதற்காக அவர் வீட்டுக்கு எழுதும் கடிதங்களை உறையில் இட்டு அனுப்புவதற்குப் பதிலாக அஞ்சலட்டைகளைப் பயன்படுத்த ஆரம்பித்தார். முடி வெட்டுபவரிடம் செல்வதற்குப் பதிலாகத் தானே சவரம் செய்துகொள்ள ஆரம்பித்தார். செய்தித்தாள்களைத் தானே வாங்குவதற்குப் பதிலாகப் பொது நூலகங்களில் படிக்க ஆரம்பித்தார்.

the key question remains: can India remain in one piece – or will it fragment? . . . When one looks at this vast country and its 524 million people, the 15 major languages in use, the conflicting religions, the many races, it seems incredible that one nation could ever emerge. It is difficult to even encompass this country in the mind – the great Himalaya, the wide Indo-Gangetic plain burnt by the sun and savaged by the fierce monsoon rains, the green flooded delta of the east, the great cities like Calcutta, Bombay and Madras. It does not, often, seem like one country. And yet there is a resilience about India which seems an assurance of survival. There is something which can only be described as an Indian spirit. I believe it no exaggeration to say that the fate of Asia hangs on its survival.9

More notable perhaps were the names of those who were not from the Congress. These included two representatives of the world of commerce and one representative of the Sikhs. Three others were lifelong adversaries of the Congress. These were R. K. Shanmukham Chetty, a Madras businessman who possessed one of the best financial minds in India; B. R. Ambedkar, a brilliant legal scholar and an ‘Untouchable’ by caste; and Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, a leading Bengal politician who belonged (at this time) to the Hindu Mahasabha. All three had collaborated with the rulers while the Congress men served time in British jails. But now Nehru and his colleagues wisely put aside these differences. Gandhi had reminded them that ‘freedom comes to India, not to the Congress’, urging the formation of a Cabinet that included the ablest men regardless of party affiliation.6

டால்ஸ்டாய் மேற்கொண்ட பல மாறுதல்களில் மிகவும் துன்பம் தருவதாக இருந்தது அவர் சிற்றின்ப நுகர்வை முற்றாக ஒதுக்கித் தள்ளியதுதான். அவரது இளமைக்காலத்தில் (அவரது வார்த்தைகளிலேயே), ‘தீவிரமாகப் பெண்களைத் துரத்துபவராக’ இருந்தவர். அவரது மனைவி ஒரு டஜன் தடவைக்குமேல் கருவுற்றார். தனது பண்ணைத்தோட்டத்தில் வேலைசெய்த குடியானவப் பெண்களுடன் அவருக்குத் தொடர்பிருந்தது. ‘கட்டுப்பாடற்ற இச்சை’ கொண்ட ஒரு மனிதரான அவர் நடுவயதில் மற்ற இன்பங்களைப்போல பாலியல் உறவையும் துறக்க முனைந்தார். டால்ஸ்டாய் எளிய வாழ்வைக் கைக்கொண்டது பரவலாகப் பேசப்பட்டது; பலர் அவரைப் பின்பற்றவும் செய்தனர். ஐரோப்பாவிலும், ஆசியாவிலும், வட அமெரிக்காவிலும் அவரைப் பின்பற்றியவர்கள் ராணுவசேவையில் இணைய மறுத்தனர்; கைத்தொழில், வேளாண்மை கூட்டுறவு சங்கங்களை ஏற்படுத்தினர்; சைவ உணவுப் பழக்கத்தைக் கடைப்பிடித்தனர்; சமய சகிப்புத்தன்மை பற்றிப் போதனை செய்தனர். தமது குருநாதர் எழுதியவற்றைப் படித்தும் அவரைப் பின்பற்றியும் இந்த டால்ஸ்டாயர்கள் டால்ஸ்டாய் தனது தாய்மண்ணில் செய்ததாக நம்பப்படுவனவற்றைத் தாமும் தமது நாடுகளில் செய்ய முனைந்தனர்.

One day, the physicist Sir C.V. Raman came up from Bangalore to see Gandhi. Raman’s conceit was legendary. In the summer of 1930, he booked a passage for his wife and himself on a boat leaving for Europe in October, so confident was he of winning the Nobel Prize for physics that year (which he did). Now, meeting an Indian even more celebrated than himself, Raman told him: ‘Mahatmaji, religions cannot unite. Science offers the best opportunity for a complete fellowship. All men of science are brothers.’ ‘What about the converse?’ responded Gandhi. ‘All who are not men of science are not brothers?’ Raman had the last word, noting that ‘all can become men of science’. Raman had come with a Swiss biologist who wished to have a darshan of the Indian leader. Introducing his colleague, Raman said he had discovered an insect that could live without food and water for as long as twelve years. ‘When you discover the secret at the back of it,’ joked Gandhi to the Swiss scientist, ‘please pass it on to me.

This took the shape of government announcements paid for by the Directorate of Audio-Visual Publicity (DAVP). While ‘liberally granting advertisements to so-called “friendly” periodicals’, the DAVP withdrew their favours from those deemed critical of the government.

An incidental victim of Sanjay Gandhi’s family planning drive was the great popular singer Kishore Kumar. Other film stars and musicians agreed to perform in a programme to raise money for sterilization, but Kishore refused. As a consequence, his songs were banned from Vividh Bharati, the AIR channel that exclusively broadcast film music. The Film Censor Board was instructed to hold up the release of movies in which Kishore acted or sang. Sanjay’s men also warned record companies against selling Kishore’s songs. It was an act of petty vindictiveness in keeping with the times.

From the time of the Congress split, Mrs Gandhi had worked to place loyal individuals in position of authority, and to make public institutions an instrument of her will.

However, by the end of 1947, P.C. Joshi found his line challenged by the radical faction of the CPI. They claimed that the freedom that India had obtained was false—‘Ye Azaadi Jhooti Hai’, the slogan went—and asked that the party declare an all-out war against the Government of India.

promoting concord in the place of discord,

Millions of refugees from East and West Pakistan had to be found homes and gainful employment. An undeclared war was taking place in Kashmir. A new constitution had to be decided upon. Elections had to be scheduled, economic policies framed and executed.

In March 1950 Sukumar Sen was appointed chief election commissioner.

the director general of rehabilitation, Sardar Tarlok Singh of the Indian Civil Service

Sir Jadunath Sarkar,

perhaps the most motley assemblage in any quarter of this orb’; to quote another, it was ‘a true centre of the diverse varieties and types of mankind, far surpassing the mixed nationalities of Cairo and Constantinople’. The fifth chapter was geographical, an argument for Bombay’s physical isolation, with the sea and the mountains separating it from the Marathi-speaking heartland.

the District Teachers Guild of Vizianagaram and the Central Jewish Board of Bombay

Indians are better speakers than listeners,

K. M. Munshi, a Gujarati polymath

member from the United Provinces, Begum Aizaz Rasul,

Article 356 gave it the power to take over a state administration on the recommendation of the governor.

Indian Council for Agricultural Research,

Never, never underestimate a politician’s need to survive . . . I will not make the mistake of underestimating the political instinct of a Kashmiri, who is, additionally, Jawaharlal Nehru’s daughter.

Jana Sangh ko vote do, bidi peena chhod do/ Bidi mein tambaku hai, Kangresswala daku hai’.

The Fights 1962: US vs Russia in General / China vs Formosa over possession / India vs China over border territory / India vs Pakistan over possession Kashmir – Religious / India vs Portugal over possession Goa / India vs Nagas over Independence / Egypt vs Israel over possession of territory and Religion / E. Germany vs W. Germany sovereignty / Cuba vs USA – Ideas / N. Korea vs So. Korea – Sovereignty / Indonesia vs Holland – Territory / France vs Algeria – Territory / Negroes vs whites – US / Katanga vs Leopoldville / Russian Stalinists vs Russian Kruschevists / Peru APRA vs Peru Military / Argentine Military versus Argentine Bourgeois / Navajo Peyotists vs Navajo Tribal Council – Tribal / W. Irian? / Kurds vs Iraq / Negro vs Whites – So. Africa – Race / US Senegal vs Red Mali – Territory / Ghana vs Togo – Territory / Ruanda Watusi vs Ruanda Bahutu – Tribe power / Kenya Kadu vs Kenya Kana – Tribe power / Somali vs Aethopia, Kenya, French Somali / Tibet Lamas vs Chinese Tibetan secularists / India vs E. Pak – Assam Bengal over Border & Tripura / Algeria vs Morocco over Sahara.

The report first carefully outlined the arguments for and against linguistic states. It urged a ‘balanced approach’ which recognized ‘linguistic homogeneity as an important factor conducive to administrative convenience and efficiency’ yet not ‘as an exclusive and binding principle, over-riding all other considerations’. Among these other considerations were, of course, the unity and security of India as a whole.33

Do we believe in a national state which includes people of all religions and shades of opinion and is essentially secular . . ., or do we believe in the religious, theocratic conception of a state which considers people of other faiths as something beyond the pale? This is an odd question to ask, for the idea of a religious or theocratic state was given up by the world some centuries ago and has no place in the mind of the modern man. And yet the question has to be put in India today, for many of us have tried to jump back to a past age. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU

The Assembly finally arrived at a compromise; that ‘the official language of the Union shall be Hindi in the Devanagari script’; but for ‘fifteen years from the commencement of the Constitution, the English language shall continue to be used for all the official purposes of the Union for which it was being used immediately before such commencement’.59 Till 1965, at any rate, the notes and proceedings of the courts, the services, and the all-India bureaucracy would be conducted in English.

New version: A republican Government was established under George Lavoff, a member of the Royal Family. It failed to secure popular support and proved incapable of ending the war or of effecting social and economic reforms. At this time, Lenin arrived in Russia and this gave impetus to the Russian people. A new Government with Lenin as President was evolved. First, Lenin made the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany. Then land and other capital goods were nationalised. All agricultural land was taken away from the landlords and divided among the peasants. All factories became the property of the State. The privileges of the clergy and the nobility were abolished. Mines, railways and banks were taken over by the Government. And thus to the astonishment of all, a new world, based upon Socialism, took shape in Russia and the dreams of Karl Marx were realized in this way. Old version: Lenin established a Workers’ Government. But the first election showed that the Bolsheviks had no majority. However, to maintain themselves in power, they dissolved the Duma on the ground that it was reactionary. Local Soviets who did not support the Bolsheviks were also disbanded. Private schools were forbidden and education was taken over by the State. Voting right was denied to the nobility and the clergy. Communism encourages violence, and does not believe in an omnipotent God. The Communists forget that man has a soul. It is a one-party Government that prevails in Communist Russia. There is neither freedom of opinion nor of religion. Many other defects in the System may also strike the eye of an observant critic.

freedom of a nation cannot be won by solitary acts of heroism’; rather, it ‘requires the patient, intelligent, and constructive effort of tens of thousands of men and women, young and old’.

The second warning concerned the unthinking submission to charismatic authority. Ambedkar quoted John Stuart Mill, who cautioned citizens not ‘to lay their liberties at the feet of even a great man, or to trust him with powers which enable him to subvert their institutions’. This warning was even more pertinent here than in England, for in India, Bhakti or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in religion may be the road to the salvation of a soul. But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.

By December 1940, several thousand satyagrahis were in prison, arrested one by one, as each shouted slogans against the war and thereby breached the law. Now, as a gesture of goodwill, Gandhi announced that there would be no courting of arrest between 24 December 1940 and 4 January 1941, so as to allow theofficials to celebrate Christmas and New Year with their families.

Speaking on All India Radio on the evening of the 30th, Jawaharlal Nehru said ‘the light has gone out of our lives’, and then immediately corrected himself, saying, ‘No, the light shines and will continue to shine thousands of years hence'.

He no longer had time even for the caste system itself. In Bombay, in answer to a question about whether caste was ‘consistent with democracy and democratic organizations’, Gandhi replied: ‘I do not need to refer to my past writings to say what I believe today, because only what I believe today counts. I wish to say that the caste system as it exists to-day in Hinduism is an anachronism. It is one of those ugly things which will certainly hinder the growth of true religion. It must go if both Hinduism and India are to live and grow... The way to do [this] is for all Hindus to become their own scavengers, and treat the so-called hereditary Bhangis as their own brothers.

In May 1945, some Gujarati colleagues decided to reprint an old pamphlet of Gandhi’s on the caste system. They asked him for a fresh foreword, which he disarmingly began by saying: ‘I do not have the time to read this book again. I do not even wish to.’ He then outlined his current thinking on caste. While the Hindu scriptures spoke of four varnas, in his view ‘there prevails only one varna today, that of Shudras’, or, you may call it, Ati-Shudras’, or Harijans’ or untouchables.... Just as it is not dharma but adharma to believe in the distinctions of high and low, so also colour prejudice is adharma. If a scripture is found to sanction distinctions of high and low, or distinctions of colour, it does not deserve the name of scripture.’ Given how far he had moved on in this regard, Gandhi requested the reader ‘to discard anything in this [older] book which may appear to him incompatible with my views given above’.

Bose was correct in identifying Vallabhbhai Patel as his main opponent within the party. The two had an old rivalry, at once personal and political. Their relationship rapidly deteriorated after the death of Vallabhbhai’s elder brother Vithalbhai in 1933. Bose had nursed Vithalbhai during his last illness. In his will, the elder Patel left three-fourths of his estate to Bose, to be used ‘preferably for publicity work on behalf of India’s cause in other countries’. Vallabhbhai now cast aspersions on the authenticity of the will. A long legal battle ensued, which ended in a triumph for Vallabhbhai, with Vithalbhai’s next of kin getting the money instead of Subhas. This familial history apart, Patel was also opposed to Bose’s militant socialism. When, in 1938, Gandhi decided to propose Bose’s name for the presidency of the Congress, Patel opposed it. Gandhi overruled his objection. In 1939, when Bose sought a second term, Patel opposed him again, unsuccessfully. ‘I never dreamt,’ wrote Patel to Rajendra Prasad, ‘that he [Subhas] will stoop to such dirty mean tactics for re-election.’ In another letter, he told Prasad that ‘it is impossible for us to work with Subhas’. The resignation of the working committee members in February, and Pant’s resolution at Tripuri in March, were both approved of—if not instigated by—Patel.

There were, of course, plenty of tributes in the popular press, a particularly fine one appearing in the News Chronicle. ‘The hand that killed the Mahatma,’ said this newspaper, ‘is the same hand that nailed the Cross; it is the hand that fired the faggots; it is the hand that through the ages has been growing ever more mightily in war and less sure in the pursuit of peace. It is your hand and mine.

As the Chronicle had predicted, Ambedkar spoke out against the Gandhi–Jinnah talks at the meeting of his followers in Madras. ‘The Hindu–Moslem problem,’ he remarked here, ‘was not the only one confronting the country. Christians, Scheduled Castes and other minorities were involved . . .’ He warned Gandhi not to ‘give more to Jinnah’ at the expense of the Scheduled Castes. He then launched a furious broadside against Gandhi, calling him ‘a man who has no vision, who has no knowledge, and who has no judgment, a man who has been a failure all his life . . .’ This prompted a puzzled editorial in a local newspaper. ‘Dr Ambedkar’s is undoubtedly one of the best causes in the world today', remarked the Indian Express. ‘Why is he then so keen on spoiling it by intemperate attacks on others, who have at least as much claim as he has to their own viewpoints?’.

Visiting a village where many Muslims were reported to have been killed, he was told by the local magistrate and police officers that the reports were false. But Gandhi saw some wells had been filled up; he had them excavated, to find many decaying corpses within.

On 2 October 1947, Gandhi turned seventy-eight. From the morning a stream of visitors came to wish him. They included his close lieutenants Nehru and Patel, now prime minister and home minister respectively in the Government of India. Gandhi was not displeased to see his old friends and comrades. But his overall frame of mind was bleak. ‘What sin have I committed,’ he told Patel in Gujarati, 'that He should have kept me alive to witness all these horrors?’ As he told the audience at that evening’s prayer meeting: ‘I am surprised and also ashamed that I am still alive. I am the same person whose word was honoured by the millions of the country. But today nobody listens to me. You want only the Hindus to remain in India and say that none else should be left behind. You may kill the Muslims today; but what will you do tomorrow? What will happen to the Parsis and the Christians and then to the British? After all, they are also Christians.’ Ever since his release from jail in 1944, Gandhi had spoken often of wanting to live for 125 years. Now, in the face of the barbarism around him, he had givenup that ambition. ‘In such a situation,’ he asked, ‘what place do I have in India and what is the point of my being alive?’ Gandhi told the crowd who had gathered to wish him at Birla House that ‘if you really want to celebrate my birthday, it is your duty not to let anyone be possessed by madness and if there is any anger in your hearts you must remove it’.

In July 1945, B.R. Ambedkar published a book called "What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables". This argued that Gandhi’s campaign to lift the Depressed Classes had failed, and for three reasons. First, ‘Gandhi’s sermons on Untouchability have completely failed to move the Hindus’, who ‘hear his after-prayer sermons for few minutes and then go to the comic opera’. Second, that while Gandhi claimed to be against untouchability, he had himself never launched a concerted political (as distinct from social) campaign for its abolition. Third, that (as Ambedkar saw it) ‘Gandhi does not want the Untouchables to organize and be strong. For he fears that they might thereby become independent of the Hindus and weaken the ranks of Hindus.’ Ambedkar argued that ‘it is to kill this spirit of independence among the Untouchables that Mr. Gandhi started the Harijan Sevak Sangh’. He claimed that ‘the whole object of the sangh is to create a slave mentality among the untouchables towards their Hindu masters. Examine the Sangh from any angle one may like and the creation of slave mentality will appear to be its dominant purpose.’ When asked why there were no Harijans in the governing body of the Harijan Sewak Sangh, Gandhi had answered that it was an institution that asked caste Hindus to make reparations for the sins of the past. The exploiters had to make amends themselves. Ambedkar saw this as a cunning ploy to keep the ‘untouchables’ forever subservient. He claimed that ‘if the Sangh was handed over to the Untouchables Mr. Gandhi and the Congress will have no means of control over the Untouchables. The Untouchables will cease to be dependent on the Hindus.... [T]he Untouchables having become independent will cease to be grateful to the Hindus'.

Ambedkar’s dislike for Gandhi was intense. In 1946, his Bombay publishers,Thackers and Co. brought out a book by the Gandhi-worshipping journalist Krishnalal Shridharani, entitled The Mahatma and the World. Climbing the stairs to his publisher’s office, Ambedkar was outraged to see a poster advertising this book. ‘The number of books that people write on this old man takes my breath away,’ he grumbled, pointing at the display board. Not long afterwards, he met the journalist Vincent Sheen, and told him that if Americans loved Gandhi so much, they should import him to the United States so that Indians would at last be rid of him.

The letter was redirected to Gandhi in Srirampur. In his reply (which is not in the Collected Works), Gandhi told Heath that Ambedkar 'represents a good cause but he is a bad advocate for the simple reason that his passion had made him bitter and made him depart from the straight and narrow path. As I know to my cost, he is a believer in questionable means so long as the end is considered to be good. With him and men like him the end justifies the means. Have you read his book [What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables]? It is packed with untruths almost from beginning to end'.

While he read, spun, walked or wrote, Gandhi was under the watch of ‘convict warders’, the prisoners who had been in Yerwada for a long time and whose good behaviour allowed them to supervise new entrants. The first warder assigned to look after Gandhi was a Punjabi Hindu called Harkaran, who had been convicted of murder, and already served nine years of a fourteen-year sentence. Harkaran was a master of stealing and hiding trifles, as indeed were many other prisoners in Yerwada. As Gandhi was to wryly write later: ‘If the whole of the jail yard were to be dug up twelve inches deep, it would yield up many a secret in the shape of spoons, knives, pots, cigarettes, soaps, and such like.’ Harkaran, ‘being one of the oldest inmates of Yerwada, was a sort of purveyor-general to the prisoners’. If an inmate wanted a knife, spoon, pot or pan, he knew where and how to get one. Harkaran watched over Gandhi during the day. At night, he was replaced by a powerful Baloch named Shabaskhan, also convicted of murder. Gandhi thought the authorities had deliberately chosen a Muslim to balance the Hindu. Not that he minded, for Shabaskhan’s build reminded him of his friend Shaukat Ali, while he told Gandhi on the very first day: ‘I am not going to watch you at all. Treat me as your friend and do exactly as you like'.

Shraddhananda made his criticisms public. ‘People who oppress a section of their own community,’ he wrote in a widely circulated booklet, ‘do not have any right to complain about the oppressive measures of foreign rulers'.

The roads to the temple remained barred to the lower castes. The satyagrahis responded by sitting outside the barricade and refusing to eat or drink. This part of India is always hot and humid—and the men were unaccustomed to fasting anyway. Several fainted, and were rushed to hospital. When Gandhi heard of these new developments, he sent a wire to the satyagrahis asking them to ‘QUIT FASTING BUT STAND OR SQUAT IN RELAYS WITH QUIET SUBMISSION TILL ARRESTED’. The next day, a letter followed, where Gandhi elaborated on his advice. ‘You cannot fast against a tyrant,’ said Gandhi. ‘Fasting can only be resorted to against a lover [by which Gandhi meant ‘one you love’], not to extort rights but to reform him, as when a son fasts for a parent who drinks. My fast at Bombay, and then at Bardoli, was of that character. I fasted to reform those who loved me. But I will not fast to reform, say, General Dyer, who not only does not love me, but who regards himself as my enemy'.

In the last week of June, the AICC met in Ahmedabad. Here, Gandhi moved a resolution making it mandatory for all Congress representatives/office-bearers to spin for at least half an hour a day except when travelling, and to send to the All India Khadi Board at least ten tolas (about 1.8 kg) of ‘even and well-twisted’ yarn every month. The resolution passed, by seventy-eight votes to seventy. Among those resolute in their opposition were Motilal Nehru and C.R. Das. The narrowness of Gandhi’s victory suggested that he no longer had complete control over the Congress.

While Gandhi had been pursuing Hindu–Muslim harmony in the North, the movement for the emancipation of ‘untouchables’ carried on in the South. The focal point remained Vaikom, the temple town whose roads were closed to lower castes. Among the new volunteers was E.V. Ramasamy, a radical Congressman with a deep antipathy to the caste system. Ramasamy threw himself into the struggle, being arrested twice. His commitment earned him the appellation Vaikom Virar, the valiant hero of Vaikom.

Among the first to befriend Mira was Mahadev Desai. Always keen to expand his knowledge, Mahadev began to take lessons in French from the well-bred Englishwoman. When Gandhi learnt of this, he asked Mahadev to discontinue the classes, because in his view much of the best French literature was available in English translation, and because when he toured with Gandhi the lessons would be interrupted anyway. When ‘we are engaged in a life and death struggle’, asked Gandhi of his secretary, ‘how could you think of learning French? You may read as much French as you like after swaraj.' Gandhi suggested that Mahadev instead teach Mira Hindustani to ease her transition into life in India.

Among the more important letters written by Gandhi in the first half of 1926 was one to his son Manilal. Still based in Natal, running the Phoenix Ashram, Manilal had fallen in love with a girl named Fatima Gool, whose parents, based in Cape Town, were also of Gujarati descent, but Muslim rather than Hindu. Fatima loved Manilal too, and was even amenable to the idea of converting to Hinduism. When Manilal wrote to his father about the relationship, Gandhi conveyed his strong disagreement, writing to his son that 'what you desire is contrary to dharma. If you stick to Hinduism and Fatima follows Islam it will be like putting two swords in one sheath; or you both may lose your faith. And then what should be your children’s faith?... It is not dharma, only adharma if Fatima agrees to conversion just for marrying you. Faith is not a thing like a garment which can be changed to suit our convenience. For the sake of dharma a person shall forgo matrimony, forsake his home, why, even lay down his life; but for nothing may faith be given up. May not Fatima have meat at her father’s? If she does not, she has as good as changed her religion.' Gandhi continued: ‘Nor is it in the interests of our society to form this relationship. Your marriage will have a powerful impact on the Hindu–Muslim question. Intercommunal marriages are no solution to this problem. You cannot forget nor will society forget that you are my son.’ Manilal seems to have asked his father to speak to his mother on his behalf. ‘I cannot ask for Ba’s permission,’ said Gandhi. ‘She will not give it. Her life will be embittered for ever'.

Before he boarded the train, he wrote to Irwin once more urging him to stay Bhagat Singh’s execution. ‘Popular opinion,’ he remarked, ‘rightly or wrongly demands commutation. When there is no principle at stake, it is often a duty to respect it.’ Gandhi had been assured by the ‘revolutionary party’ that if the lives of Singh and his colleagues were spared, it would stay its hand. Execution was ‘an irretrievable act’, Gandhi told the viceroy. Therefore, if he thought there was ‘the slightest chance of error of judgment’, he should ‘suspend for further review an act that is beyond recall’.