Gandhi: Experimentation, Current Generation and Questions

Name Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
Born 2 October, 1869
Birth Place Porbandar, Gujrat
Marriage Kasturba Kapadia, in 1883
Death 30, January,1948
Occupation – Lawyer

– Politician

– Activist

– Writer

Right from the first decade of the 20th century, nationalism was gradually taking the form of mass movement in India due to the contradictions and socio-economic changes emanating from the British Raj. By the late 1920s, almost all the signs of a widespread independence movement were visible in it. These symptoms needed a form and direction so that this movement could actually become a mass movement. This work was done by ‘Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi’, often known as Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi emerged in 1920 as the most important leader of Indian nationalists.

We grow up watching Gandhi again and again on various currency notes, in the name of streets, in statues, photographs, etc. Gandhiji’s life is an open book, anyone picks up any event of his life or something written by him according to his needs.

Subhash Chandra Bose called him ‘Father of the Nation’ for the first time in 1944 and since then this tag has been stuck with him. Just as after his assassination, there was a flood of reverence towards him, in the same way now there is an outrage towards him. At least Hindutva elements are engaged in this effort. It is like an intense desire to kill fathers. They ask, who else is guilty if not the father of the nation for our country’s problems? Why did Gandhi allow the partition of India-Pakistan? Why did he get so much money for Pakistan?

I want to move towards the answer to this question. It is so long stretched that we have to start from the very beginning.

We have to go back about 58 years before Gandhi’s arrival in India, where in the revolution of 1857, when the British saw Hindu-Muslim fighting together, the British understood that they could not rule here for long. However, the number of days to rule can certainly be increased if the people of India are fought and divided among themselves.

First the British broke the army on the basis of caste-creed – Jazz Regiment, Mahar Regiment, Sikh Regiment … etc.

Congress was established in 1885. Initially, the relations between the government and the Congress were friendly. However, by the 1890s, the growing popularity of the Congress increased the opposition of the British government against the Congress. Now the British government wanted to play some big bets.

From 1905 onwards, the British continued to take Muslims into their faith. Seeing the development of the spirit of nationalism in India, the British promoted Muslim communalism, which resulted in the formation of the Muslim League on 30 December 1906. (Also, in 1905, Bengal was partitioned and this too had its own consequences)

And then came the famous ‘Minto Reform’ in 1909, under which Indians got representation for the first time in the Governor General’s Executive Council. The ‘Minto Reform’ had a system of ‘Separate Electoral.’

Different for Hindu and different for Muslim. (Separate constituency provided)

…. and this was the first seed of ‘Pakistan’ sown.

In 1921, when Gandhiji had come to the ground, I will admit here one thing that Gandhiji made a small mistake. The ‘Khilafat Movement’ he started caused damage. Before this (after the establishment of the Muslim League), no Muslim leaders were against the British but were also not against the Hindus. With the advent of the Khilafat Movement, there were ‘mass movements’ and there was a political decline here. Those Muslims who were full of religious feelings (Maulvi) , now started emerging as leaders.

Now, these people who became leaders were against the British but at the same time they were also against the Hindus.

Later, when the Simon Commission came in 1927, Congress boycotted the commission. Everyone agreed in this. Hindu-Muslim all. The Muslim League also boycotted.

The British government could not digest this. They broke the league. Raised the ‘Akali Party’ in Punjab and raised ‘Iqbal Saheb’. It was Iqbal Saheb who said in 1930, that “India should be divided.”

Mr. Jinnah, the leader of the Muslim League, introduced ‘Fourteen Conditions’ in December, 1929 for the interests of Muslims.

The idea of creating a separate country by merging the Muslim majority areas of India and renaming it as ‘Pakistan’ was put forward by Chaudhary Rahmat Ali in a pamphlet published in January, 1933. As a country, ‘Pakistan’ was used in this pamphlet for the first time.

Rahmat Ali presented this pamphlet at the Round Table Conference in London in 1933. In this pamphlet, Ali had demanded the merger of five northern regions of India with a national record. In the pamphlet, Rahmat Ali described himself as the founder of the ‘Pakistan National Movement’.

Now in 1940, the resolution of the Muslim League came.

‘Pakistan Proposal’!

Now in the elections held in 1946, the Muslim League won most of the Muslim seats across the country.

Pakistan was in demand!

There was a commotion across the country. Britishers conspiracy was successful. The Indian nation was handicapped and this country got busted.

Now a question which has been asked the most behind the partition is that “Why did Gandhiji not go on hunger strike? Why did Gandhiji not protested against the partition of India and Pakistan?”

When I was reading ‘Raj Mohan Gandhi’ (grandson of Gandhiji), he has mentioned these things. He has written that all these questions also came in front of Gandhiji.

I am writing here the same way that he answered it. Whether you accept the answer or not, it is your right.

Gandhiji said- “If Hindus and Sikhs of India were with me, I would not have allowed the partition of India, but I feel that the simple opinion is not with me today. According to him (Gandhi Ji), fasting and giving your life, Just to tell history, to tell the future that I was right. I think it’s crazy! ”

When the country was celebrating independence and happiness on the second day after partition, the biggest hero of Independence was roaming around where riots were taking place.

I want to mention one incident so that Gandhi’s point can be understood more deeply. Violence erupted after partition in Bengal. Over the night of August 31, 1947, more than 50 people had died. The next morning Gandhi Ji decided that he would go on a fast.

A friend of Gandhi asked him “How will you go on a fast against the goons?”

Gandhi replied “If I can restore peace in Kolkata then I am confident that I can do it in any corner of the country. But if I lose confidence here, you know that the fire of violence will spread all over the country and then two or three foreign powers will come on our head and we will lose the dream of independence we have got recently. ”

Gandhi’s friend said that “If you lose your life in this effort, then this violence will spread even more.”

Gandhi’s reply was, “At least I will not be alive to see that day, I will not back down in my endeavor.”

Gandhi started his fast on 2 September. As the next day passed, Hindu and Muslim goons and anti-social elements came to him and kept weapons. In different parts of the city, a joint procession of Hindus and Muslims began to take place for communal harmony. A delegation of prominent leaders of Congress, Muslim League and locally influential Hindu Mahasabha met Gandhi and they assured the Mahatma that there would be no rioting here. Only after this, the Mahatma broke his fast.

Lord Mountbatten wrote that “an unarmed man in Bengal proved to be more influential than the 50,000 army personnel working in Punjab.” The newspaper run by Britishers ‘Statesmen’ wrote – ‘After a long time, the most famous experimenter of fasting, we failed to understand it as a political weapon by a Hindustani leader. But in our view, in his long political life, the Mahatma did not use fasting for such a purpose in such a simple manner, nor did its message in the general public immediately assess its immediate impact. ”

Finally, I want to reiterate that today the imagination to understand Gandhi has been lost. Albert Einstein warned about this. He wrote that – “the succeeding generations could hardly believe that someone like Gandhi was on this earth.” Now such generations have arrived. Those whose life was changed from Gandhi, they have all left. New people do not have references to Gandhi. To understand Gandhi, people of the 21st century will have to rise above their body, mind and wealth.