Autobiography
D.P. Sinha, I.A.S.(Retd.)
That there was a secret understanding between
Gandhi and the British Govt. is obvious from the foregoing facts. But, in
some corner of my heart, I do not want to believe this. It hurts me to damage
the icon, built so laboriously by Congressmen over the years. Rightly or wrongly
he has come to be identified with India and Indianness. But it is my Indianness
that prompts me to look for the truth. I wish some Gandhi scholar proves otherwise
and enlightens why did Gokhle ask Gandhi to return to India from South Africa
'via London'.
Gandhiji in his autobiography informs that
"At the conclusion of the Satyagrah struggle in 1914, (in South Africa)
I received Gokhle's instruction to return home via London. So in July I sailed
for England". (An Autobiography or The story of my experiments with truth
by M.K. Gandhi; Navjeewan Publishing Mouse, Ahmedabad, 2001; page 287).
Gandhiji does not tell the readers as to why
Gopal Krishna Gokhle, the then leader of the Indian National Congress asked
him to return to India 'via London'. There is a direct route to India from
South Africa. No one will ever go to London from South Africa if he is to
ultimately go to India, unless he has some special reason to do so. Gandhiji
does not mention that 'special reason' for which he was asked by Gokhle to
visit London on his way to India. If only Gokhle had to meet and talk with
Gandhiji, he could have done so on latter's arrival in India. Then why did
he ask Gandhi to take longer and circuitous route to meet with him in London,
before his final return to India? The autobiography gives no answer to these
questions. The only conclusion one can derive is that Gokhle wanted to meet
Gandhiji along with some third party which was available only in London. Who
could be that third party?
Normally one does not wind up his business
or establishment at someone else's behest. It is always a difficult decision.
One can never be sure of setting up a new establishment in a new, unknown
place, particularly, if one has a large family to support. Such adventurism
is possible only when one is young and without family responsibilities. Gandhiji
not only had a large family to support, (he had four sons), he also had dozens
of Satyagrahi's to take care of, who were being trained in his 'Phoenix' Ashram
in South Africa. Though Gandhiji does not write it in so many words, but the
autobiography indirectly conveys that Gokhle had given him assurance of full
economic support for his family and his 'Ashram' inmates in India, if he moved
bag and baggage from South Africa. This is also a fact that not only Gandhi's
family was taken care of, but inmates of Phoenix Ashram were also given tickets
to travel to India, and lodged in Gurukul Kangri in Haridwar and later in
Shanti Niketan in Bengal, before finally being settled in an Ashram in Ahmedabad.
Thus Gandhi returned to India, not on his
own, but under 'instruction' from Gokhle. This could be possible only with
the financial support from Gokhle. Did he have sufficient funds to pay travel
expenses and support Gandhi's large entourage of his family and 'ashramites'
in India? If not, who was at the back of Gokhle with pots of money to spare?
What interest Gokhle had in the return of
Gandhi from South Africa? What did he gain or could have possibly gained from
it? If Gandhi's return was not to benefit Gokhle personally or his 'Servants
of India Society,' who could have benefited from it? Did Gohkle ask Gandhi
to return to India on behalf of some third party? Which could be that party?
The autobiography tells that Gandhiji left
for London to meet Gokhle by sea and had booked tickets in 3rd class, yet
he was given special facilities, not given to passengers travelling in third
class. He was also given 'fruitarian diet' (food consisting of fruits and
nuts only) as a special favour.
Gandhiji writes, "The steamship company
had reserved closet accommodation for us, and as we were fruitarians, the
steward had orders to supply us with fruits and nuts. As a rule, third class
passengers get little fruit or nuts. These facilities made our eighteen days
on the boat quite comfortable". (An autobiography by M.K. Gandhi, page
288).
Why was Gandhi given special facilities by
the Steamship Company? Who had ordered stewards to supply fruits and nuts
to Gandhi and his party? Who influenced the Steamship Company to treat Gandhi
as a VIP? Surely, Gokhle could not have wielded influence with a foreign Steamship
Company? Then who was operating behind the facade of Gokhle?
Gandhiji has devoted 14 pages of his autobiography
about his stay in London. It is a masterly exercise in concealing the true
reason, for which Gokhle had asked Gandhiji to meet him in London. He writes
in great details about insignificant matters and persons and his reflections
on the concept of 'Ahimsa', but not a word on the core issue: why had Gokhle
asked him to return to India 'via London'?
Because of out-break of First World War Gokhle
was held up in Paris and could reach London only after sometime. After Gokhle's
delayed arrival in London, Gandhiji tells us that "I used to go to him
(Gokhle). Our talks were mostly about the war..." Was it only to talk
'about the war' that the two had gone to London? Could they have not talked
'about the war' in India? Gandhiji takes his readers for a ride. He does not
reveal the real motive of their being together in London. In the story of
his experiments with truth, he does not reveal the truth. How sad!
Language is to express one's ideas, but Gandhiji
has used it to conceal, like any seasoned diplomat. There is no dearth of
words in full 14 pages. Words, words, and more words: all to deflect reader's
attention from the core purpose of their planned meeting in London. As Gandhiji
is not helpful in the matters, all intelligent readers can guess the truth.
In Chapter 38 of his autobiography entitled
"My part in War" Gandhiji writes in his autobiography, "On
arrival in England I learned that Gokhle had been stranded in Paris where
he had gone for reasons of health, and communication between Paris and London
had been cut off, (due to war) and there was no knowing when he would return".
(page 289). So while waiting for his arrival from Paris, Gandhi tells that
with the help of Indian students studying in London, "a meeting of the
Indian residents in Great Britain and Ireland was called. I placed my views
before them". (page 289).
What were Gandhiji's views? Let us listen
to Gandhiji himself. "I felt that Indians residing in England ought to
do their bit in the war. English students had volunteered to serve in the
army, and Indians might do no less. A number of objections were taken to this
line of argument. There was, it was contended, a world of difference between
the Indians and the English. We were slaves and they were masters. How could
a slave co-operate with the master in the hour of the latter's need. Was it
not the duty of the slave seeking to be free, to make the master's need his
opportunity? This argument failed to appeal to me then. I knew the difference
of status between an Indian and an Englishman, but I did not believe that
we had been quite reduced to slavery. I felt then that it was more the fault
of individual British officials than of the British system, and that we could
convert them by love. If we would improve our status through the help and
co-operation of the British, it was our duty to win their help by standing
by them in their hour of need. Though the system was faulty, it did not seem
to me to be intolerable... The opposing friends felt that was the hour for
making a bold declaration of India's demands and for improving the status
of Indians.
"I thought that England's need should
not be turned into our opportunity, and that it was more becoming and far
sighted not to press our demands while the war lasted. I, therefore, adhered
to my advice and invited those who would to enlist as volunteers. There was
a good response, practically all the provinces and all the religions being
represented among the volunteers". (Autobiography by M.K. Gandhi; page
289-290).
Thus we see in 1915, a 46 year old British
loyalist Gandhi did not believe that Indians had been quite reduced to slavery.
He thought that England's need should not be turned into an opportunity for
India and that it was more, becoming and far-sighted not to press the demands
while the war lasted. As he got busy in organising Ambulance Corps of Indians
to help the British, he was criticised by many Indians and friends at that
time. With the hind-sight, while writing his autobiography in 1927, he sought
to justify his decision to serve the his colonial masters: "It was quite
clear to me that, participation in war could never be consistent with 'ahimsa'.
But it is not always given to one to be equally clear about one's duty. A
votary of truth is often obliged to grope in dark". Gandhiji may have
become wiser twelve years later, but in 1915 cringing loyalty to British was
part of his personality.
In just two pages (Chapter 41: Gokhle's Charity)
of his autobiography, Gandhiji narrates whatever transpired between him and
Gokhle after latter's arrival in London. He informs us that "our talks
were mostly about the war".
Gandhiji further informs in his autobiography
that he had fallen sick and Dr. Jivaraj Mehta had asked him to take milk.
Gokhle also pressurised him to take milk, but he did not budge. He told Gokhle-"I
am willing to yield on all points except one about which I beg you not to
press me. I will not take milk, milk-products or meat. If not to take these
things should mean my death, I feel I had better face it". (An Autobiography
by M.K. Gandhi, page 297-98). Gokhle did not press Gandhi any further to take
milk, and after a few days returned back to India.
Thus Gandhiji wants us to believe that during
their stay together in London, what Gandhi and Gokhle discussed was only war
and milk diet of the former, and nothing else of importance. If there was
nothing important to deliberate, why did the two go to London? Gandhi's truth
about their London visit does not inspire creditability.
What could have been the purpose of their
visit to London? Since Gandhiji and Gokhle have left no evident clue to answer
it, we will have to look for circumstantial evidence, bits of scattered statements
and read between the lines to get a glimpse of the truth, concealed by self-professed
votary of truth.
The Satyagrah of 1914 in South Africa
Gandhiji writes-"At the conclusion of the Satyagrah struggle in 1914,
I received Gokhle's instruction to return home via London". What was
the Satyagrah struggle of 1914? What did it achieve?
The South African Govt. had announced a three-member
commission to look into the conditions and grievances of Indian settlers in
South Africa in 1914. Gandhiji had demanded that one of the commission members
should be an Indian. When the British did not pay any heed, Gandhiji declared
launching of Satyagrah from Jan. 1, 1914. A few days before the date, the
white employees of South African Rail-road Company went on strike to press
their demands and indulged in vandalism, destroying government and rail-road
property. When Gandhiji heard of this strike and violence, he promptly cancelled
his Satyagrah 'Struggle' declaring that if one's enemy is in difficulty, a
Satyagrahi does not take advantage of it. Thus the so called Satyagrah of
1914, which Gandhiji described in such grandiose hyperbole as "Struggle"
was no struggle at all; it was only an aborted intention. But this pleased
British masters immensely. The British Secretary of State telegraphically
congratulated Gandhiji, so did all members of South African Government. Gandhiji
endeared himself to British, as no Indian had done so ever before.
Gopal Krishna Gokhle
It is well known that Gopal Krishna Gokhle was a liberal, unlike Tilak, who
led the nationalist group of the Indian National Congress. In the Surat Congress
Session (1907), in the conflict between the liberals and nationalists, there
was free exchange of blows and fisti-cuffs between the two groups. The British
decided to free the Congress of dominations of nationalists. Tilak and Lala
Lajpat Rai were arrested and imprisoned.
Field was left open for liberals.
The British manipulated to annoint Gokhle,
their lackey, as the leader of Congress party. But by 1914, his health had
started failing. British were desperately looking for his successor to foist
on the Congress. They eyed Gandhiji in South Africa who swore his loyalty
to British Crown, who served them in Boer War and Zulu War and who always
withdrew his Satyagrahas in South Africa at the behest of British government.
He was eulogised by British Govt. and people, when he refused to take advantage
of Govt's difficulty in the wake of rail-road strike. From this point construction
of sequence is easy.
British asked Gokhle to ask Gandhi to return
bag and baggage to India. He promised Gandhi on behalf of British, that all
travel expenses will be paid and that all care would be taken of his family,
ashramites etc. in India. It is the British govt. that had ordered that steamship
company to give special hospitality, including accommodation and 'fruitarian'
diet, not given to other passengers. It is again British Govt. which had directed
Gokhle to meet them in London along with Gandhiji, before his plunge in Indians
politics. While his family members and ashramites were moved to India, Gandhi
and Gokhle reached London to meet the British officials. Some agreements were
arrived at. While Gandhiji must have reiterated his dual loyalty-one to British
crown and other to 'Ahimsa', the British on their part would have assured
him of British help and support in India in taking over the Congress, and
propagating his creed of Ahimsa.
The conduct of Gandhij, subsequent to his
London visit with Gokhle, confirms the above conclusion. As soon as he reached
India, big welcome was arranged for him in Bombay by Gokhle (read British).
A number of receptions were also held there. Gandhiji talks of one party given
in his honour at Mr. Jehangir Petiti's place, 'in palatial sroundings of dazzling
splendour' amidst 'pomp and splendour'. He also refers to another function,
a reception organised by Gujarati Community of Bombay.
In relation to Gandhiji, Gokhle served as
go-between British Govt. and Gandhiji. Through Gokhle, the Governor of Bombay
Lord Willingdon sent the message to Gandhiji, that he desired to meet him.
The Governors did not usually meet all and sundry, particularly a small-time
lawyer from a far flung British colony, unless there was a reason behind it.
The reason was obviously the agreement between Gandhi and British Govt. as
circumstantially concluded above. This inference is further confirmed by the
sampling of their dialogue which finds mention in Gandhi's biography: "The
moment I reached Bombay Gokhle sent me word that the Governor was desirous
of meeting me... Accordingly, I called on His Excellency. After the usual
enquiries he said:
"I ask one thing of you. I would like
you to see me whenever you propose to take any step concerning Government.
"I replied: I can very easily give the
promise, inasmuch as it is my rule as a Satyagrahi to understand the view
point of party I propose to deal with and try to agree with him as far as
it may be possible. I strictly observed this rule in South Africa and I mean
to do the same here.
"Lord Wellingdon thanked me and said:
'You may come to me whenever you like and you will see that my Govt. do not
wilfully do anything wrong.' 'To which I replied. 'It's that faith that sustains
me.' (An Autobiography by M.K. Gandhi; page 313).
What a bon-homie! What an understanding! What
a meeting of minds! Gandhiji had 'faith' that British will never do 'anything
wrong'. For Gandhiji British had done no wrong in subjugating India and reducing
it to slavery.
From Bombay, Gandhiji went to Poona under
instruction from his master. There Gokhle told him..."you must look to
me for the expenses of Ashram which I will regard as my own." (An Autobiography
by M.K. Gandhi, page 313). Gandhiji further reveals in his autobiography that
Gokhle had instructed his accountant to open an account for him in Society's
books and to give him whatever he might require 'for Ashram and other public
expenses'. Gokhle, thus gave him proverbial key to Kuber's treasure. Gokhle
was neither an industrialist, nor a businessman. He was not very rich either
through inheritance or property. Then where did he get all the money for Gandhi?
The answer is obvious. From British masters. Thus Gandhi's leadership was
made and financed by The British.
Gandhiji did return the favours extended to
him by Britishers. From 1915 to 1918, he worked relentlessly to recruit Indians
to serve British army, notwithstanding his creed of 'Ahimsa'.
Much hyped Khilafat Movement (1920-21) was
to restore the powers of Khilafat in Turkey. It had nothing to do with India's
freedom. It only served to divert the freedom movement from its course. For
the next ten years, no mass movement was launched to throw out the British.
The British could breathe sigh of relief.
Similarly the Civil Disobedience Movement
and Salt Satyagrah (1930-31) also did not seek to throw out British from Indian
soil. These aimed only to get tax on salt abolished, which hardly figured
in Govt.'s total revenue collections.
The Quit India Movement is one movement enthusiastically
cited by Congressmen and historically illiterate middle class, as being a
Gandhian movement which sought to overthrow foreign yoke. But the facts are
otherwise.
The 1942 movement was never launched by Gandhiji
or Congress Party. Gandhiji had only expressed his intention to launch the
movement on 8th August 1942 at Bombay session of the Congress Party. He had
said: "I congratulate you on the resolution (Quit India Resolution) that
you have just passed... Nevertheless, the actual struggle does not commence
this moment. You have placed all your power in my hands. I will now wait upon
the Viceroy and plead with him for the acceptance of Congress demand. This
process is likely to take two or three weeks. What would you do meanwhile?...
As you know spinning wheel is the first thing that occurs to me... (Collected
Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. age ).
Thus Gandhiji inspite of his bravado postponed
the launching of movement by two or three weeks. For what reason? Was it to
plead with the Viceroy, that please Viceroy, kindly quit India! Was Gandhiji
as naive as he looked? Or it was a clever device to stem the tide of mass
anger that was seething against British? Or, was it to ensure that the British
are not caught unawares and they make adequate preparations in the interregnum
of two or three weeks to crush the movement, when launched? Which way it may
be, there in no dispute about the fact that Gandhi and the Congress Party
had never launched the 1942-movement. All the Congress leaders, including
Gandhiji were arrested in pre-down scoop on 9th Aug. The powerful and ferocious
movement was led by restless Indian people, who were no more willing to carry
the yoke of British rule and tolerate the double-speak and soft-pedalling
of Congress party.
Thus the answer to the question when did Gandhiji
or Congress launch a movement to free India of British rule, is an emphatic
NEVER.
Gandhi did not launch any movement to overthrow
the British rule; he also ensured that parallel freedom movement by the revolutionaries
is discredited and wiped out. In his confidential letter to Viceroy Lord Irwin,
dated 2.3.30, delivered to him personally by an Englishman, he boasted of
his commitment and resolve to curb revolutionary movement by his creed of
non-violence. He wrote. "It is common cause that... the party of violence
(i.e. revolutionary movement) is gaining ground and making itself felt...
My experience shows that non-violence can be extremely active force. It is
my purpose to set in motion that force (i.e. creed of non-violence) against
the... growing party of violence. (i.e. revolutionary movement)".
Why did he write this letter to the Viceroy?
Did he seek a pat on his back for his efforts to finish off the revolutionary
movement by his creed of non-violence? Or was he reporting to the British
masters that he was carrying on dutifully his part of agreement arrived at
with British government in the year 1914, when he had gone to London under
instruction from Gokhle?
That there was a secret understanding between
Gandhi and the British Govt. is obvious from the foregoing facts. But, in
some corner of my heart, I do not want to believe this. It hurts me to damage
the icon, built so laboriously by Congressmen over the years. Rightly or wrongly
he has come to be identified with India and Indianness. But it is my Indianness
that prompts me to look for the truth. I wish some Gandhi scholar proves otherwise
and enlightens why did Gokhle ask Gandhi to return to India from South Africa
'via London'.
