Ahimsa is not a universal truth

Gandhi’s insistence for the principal of non-violence (ahimsa) and his experiments with the concept are well known. To be fair they inspired people such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela who once remarked “At a time when Freud was liberating sex, Gandhi was reining it in, when Marx was pitting workers against capitalists, Gandhi was reconciling them; when the dominant Europe thought had dropped God and Soul out of the social reckoning, he was centralising society in God and the Soul; and when the ideologies of the colonised had virtually disappeared, he revived them and empowered them with a potency that liberated and redeemed”

That Gandhi was a pioneer in his style of resistance is of no doubt to anyone, but his apparent insistence on a “one size fits all” was the bone of contention of many. I am reading an excellent book “The untold story of India’s partition” by Narendra Singh that chronicles the period leading upto the tragic date of rending India, beginning with the duration of the second world war. While Narendra’s book seems to squarely place the blame for the partition on the British and the Muslim League (which at every point appeared to advance British interests over India’s) this is for you folks to decide on reading this book, that I highly recommend. Narendra also blames the Congress for its haphazard policies, no clear stand, knee jerk moves and divergent opinions on hastening the process of division. But personally, I think while the Congress may have been guilty of incompetence, their intent (at least in those days) was not malicious to India’s detriment. The book also suggests the gradual side-lining of the great Subhash Chandra Bose by Gandhi and the rest of Congress as his popularity soon over shadowed those of the Grand Old Party’s tallest leaders! It also hints at how Gandhi’s ahimsa was extremely irritating for even members of the Congress, a charge that they now conveniently hurl at only the RSS.

It is interesting to note that Britain’s insistence for partition came from its desire to have troops stationed on the subcontinent to counter any Russian adventure in the region. The British knew that an independent India would not allow for foreign troops to be stationed on its soil if India become independent. The next thing was the use their good offices with the Muslim League and a rabidly ambitious Jinnah (who knew he was dying anyway) to conspire for the division of the country so get a base in North West India (now known as Pakistan) for their troops. This is also evident from the fact that soon after partition Pakistan did join with Britain in a couple of cooperation and military pacts. The book also identifies the Aga Khan as one of the persons responsible for the flowering of the idea that hindus and muslims are different nations.

Anyway coming back to, the failure of Gandhi to apply his one size fits all philosophy that eventually saw his get assassinated is evident from a few instances mentioned in the book. The first example is the conversation that took place with Lord Linlithgow, the viceroy, in the summer of 1940 soon after Hitler had overrun France. In a chat that left the Lord white in the face with no words, Gandhi said:

“Let them (Germans) take possession of your beautiful island, if Hitler
chooses to occupy your homes, vacate them, if he does not give you
free passage, allow yourself man, woman and child, to be slaughtered”

This outburst led many in the British establishment question Gandhi’s sanity. This is also the moment perhaps that endeared the British to the Muslim League and away from the Congress. On the other hand I cannot help but note with sarcasm how many more lives Gandhi was willing to sacrifice for his Ahimsa instead of a resistance, which in this case, almost certainly would have cost fewer lives!

Anyway, the next para that I pick verbatim from the book, highlights what I have always felt about the concept of Ahimsa and other means of non-violent protests:

“At the core of the great mans confusion at this stage of his life was whether or not or how far to continue to adhere to the policy of non-violence in a situation that was changing grom a purely colonial struggle to something different, more akin to one faced by independent states in their dealings with other states. The true power of the satyagraha lay in provoking deep moral stirrings in the oppressor by the willingness of the oppressed to withstand all atrocities even to the extent of calmly facing self-annihilation. It is a tenet for action by individuals who risk their lives or those of their near and dear ones. It cannot be a gospel for leaders of sovereign states to fight aggression by another country.

No leader of a country can afford to turn the other cheek to an invading army and risk defeat of his country and annihilation of perhaps millions. Non violence could be used to fight racism (as in S. Africa) or colonialism (as in India) practiced by people who are capable of doubting the morality of their own policies and actions. It cannot be a policy to fight pressures exerted by people with totally different ethical or moral values or by fundamentalists or jihadis”

This is a most succinct exposition of what I believe of the principal of non-violence and I am sad that I am not as articulate as the author!

Gandhi’s own doubts are evident from his statement to Vincent Sheen, his biographer, two days before his death. He said “Mind you, no ordinary government can get along without the use of force”. Or his statement on 29th October 1947 that the Indian army would have to “do or die” in Kashmir. This from a man who very recently had advocated a genocide of British in their own country rather than a armed resistance to an invader!

But much as it may surprise readers, I actually admire this about Gandhi. As a staunch believer of the premise “when the facts change, I change my mind” Gandhi’s doubt was a sign of intelligence that he himself doubted the veracity of his belief that non-violence could be applied to any and all situations. However, the interim doubt and contradictory positions he took often, especially during the religious riots leading up to the partition of India was what takes some sheen off MK Gandhi, in my humble view. If he had started with the thought “Ahimsa is a great idea, but it will not work all the time and will need pragmatic application”, he, in my view, would not have stoked the mentality that eventually led to his tragic assassination.

It also brings us to a bigger question. That Baba Ramdev and Anna Hazare fasted against the Indian government with no success. So is one correct in assuming that the Indian government lacks the ability to doubt the morality of their own actions? If so, then it would squarely put the Indian government in the league of fundamentalists and jihadis, would it not?

Once again all credit (and source reference) to this excellent book I mentioned earlier and I recommend it to all Indians.

"Mee Nathuram Godse..." (2) Nathuram's meeting with Gandhi's son

(no intention to copyright infringement, only a translation to the best of my abilities of this brilliant, brilliant, brilliant play)

Another interesting meeting that Nathuram has as depicted in “Mee Nathuram…” was with Debidas Gandhi, M.K. Gandhi’s son. This was their second meeting, the first one being the day on which Nathuram was arrested. At the first meeting Nathuram, expressed sorrow at the personal loss of the Gandhi family and expressed regret at the circumstances which left Nathuram with no choice but to do what he did. He clarified that as a person he did not have a problem with Gandhi, what he did was purely for the country and a political necessity. He told Debidas then that he would elaborate on the motive at a later date…but Gandhi’s son never met him again for almost two years after that and showed up only 8 days prior to the hanging, proposing to re-open Nathuram’s case and argue for a lenient punishment. Notably at this time Nathuram was completely at ease with the idea of being hung and used to spend a lot of his time with the staff that was setting up the hanging post and discussing the procedure and if he could offer help in setting it up.

Anyway, the conversation between Gandhi’s son and Nathuram went something like this:

Debidas Gandhi: How can you be so aloof about your death?

NG: Because I am, I just am!

NG: How are you here today? You found time only after two years!

DG: I needed signatures on a few legal papers. Papers that say that I have accepted you as my client.

NG: Signature should be taken from clients, should a client not ask the reason why? Especially since I have argued my own case in court and my case is over and decided.

DG:  But you ignored some points. I can challenge your death penalty on those grounds.

NG: But I want to be hung!

DG: Why?

NG: Because I have taken a human life. A killer has no right to life. I do not wish to hand my case to you.

DG: Why?

NG: I knew what you wanted to say the moment you asked me to sign the legal papers. But I avoided going into details because I did not want to offend you. I will tell you now. Are you not going to argue on the lines of “Gandhi did not agree with himsa…so even his murderer should not be killed”? But that is not the law, is it not the lawyers duty to explain the law to his client before asking to defend his case? The law does not recognise emotions and personal jealousies or brownie points.

DG: Do you mean to say I am here for some selfish reason?

NG: I don’t ‘mean’ to say that, I am saying it. Debidasji, if you wanted to accept someone as your client, why did you not accept Tatyarao Savarkar, why not Nana Apte?! Why did you not stand up to protect these innocent people? You have chosen only Nathuram for your magnanimity, why? It is all a vain attempt on your part to somehow prove the relevance of your fathers belief of turning the other cheek, is it not?

Forgive me for saying so Debidasji, but the capacity to think of Gandhi as a ideology beyond the confines of his personal image is possible for me, not for you.

DG: So what have you thought about Gandhi as an ideology?

NG: I have thought a lot, but you have delayed asking this question by two years. Have you thought about this at all? I had told you when I was arrested that my motive was purely political and not personal, but you still are not convinced, and perhaps have come here to explore this further. But you found time for that only now…because you know in eight days…there will be no one here to answer your questions…and your mind will eat at you for the rest of your life. Sit. Should I call for coffee for you?

I am writing my will. Do you know what my first, last wish? That my ashes should not be immersed in the holy river till such time the Sindhu river is not brought back into my undivided India. I don’t care if my ashes have to be handed down through generations, but keep them safe.

Devidasji, you are aware that in the Hindu Dharma, ashes are immersed in the holy rivers on the 10^th day after death. Till that time they are kept at the door of the deceased house. Till the immersion takes place, it is believed that the soul is not free. But I want to keep my soul entangled on purpose, I do not want liberation.

Do you know why? Because just like Gandhi is your father, he is my nation’s father. Gandhi had said about his death, that his ashes should be immersed in all great rivers of India. But Pakistan refused permission to immerse his ashes in the Sindhu on the grounds that Gandhi was a hindu saint. Would the pure water of Sindhu be defiled by the touch of the Mahatma’s ashes?!

I had then written to the government of India, requesting them to keep atleast a small portion of Gandhi’s ashes safe. Because it is inevitable that the brave soldiers of this country will at some point drag the Sindhu back into the border of this country. The, Gandhi’s ashes should be immersed in the Sindhu. And this HAS to happen, because this country is of Bhaghirath’s, of people who are capable of pulling the Ganga to earth from the heavens. But my request letter was trashed. There is no doubt then that Gandhi’s soul is suffering over this last insult to him, his last wish being left unfulfilled.

I do not want Gandhi’s soul to suffer alone, hence I will not let my soul be free on the 10^th day after my death. There are no enemies beyond death, it is said. But there is only one Nathuram who actually sticks to the ideals that he has believed in his life, even in his death.

Debidasji, I had no personal enmity with your father, but to extinguish his physical presence was necessary for the benefit of my country. I may not be a genius, but I have spent a few years of my life in the company of brilliant people. I was never rich, but I always had enough to eat. I had a position in society, respect and standing. I knew I was giving all this up when I decided to assassinate Gandhi. I chose death, I could have run away after shooting Gandhi like a coward. I did not do that...so I could tell the world my side of the story, because I HAD a story to tell, I had my own independent thoughts and philosophy.

DG: I am not saying this because he was my father…but he was a great man…

NG: There is not question of that! Of course, he was a great man! What is the truth, is the truth, it is not dependent on whether I agree to it or not. His daring fight against discrimination in South Africa is proof of that. On his return to India, this efforts to travel to rural India to understand the real Indian, is fully deserving of respect. Dandi March, Quit India, Salt March…all these agitations made me a worshipper of Gandhi. When Gandhi was arrested, I was one of the many protestors who shouted the slogan “Sabarmati no sant jail ma chhe” (The saint of Sabarmati is in jail).

DG: How could you still kill him?

NG: The ‘assasination’ was necessary, there was no option left. Gandhi’s decision to split India was avoidable. After that, the massacre of refugees and Gandhi’s cold response to that. After that, his childish tantrum on giving Pakistan money to buy weapons against out soldiers, when the battle was already on in Kashmir…all this…all this…was unforgivable.

DG: But he never saw people in terms of hindus or muslims…

NG: But Pakistan did! And that is the biggest sign of Gandhi’s failure. If you think Pakistan did not think in terms of religion, then why did they not allow Gandhi’s ashes to be immersed in the Sindhu? When Gandhi died, you are as aware as I am that the Pakistan National radio announced that a ‘hindu leader’ had died! This is all I was trying to tell Gandhi, that you are ours, but he insisted in saying.. NO…I am not yours, I am theirs.

DG: But he belonged to all humans…not to hindus or muslims or Indians or Pakistanis…he was everyones!

NG: Then why did he fight the British? Are they not human? Why did he fight the white people in South Africa? Arent they humans?

DG: You would have made a good lawyer.

NG: Your career advice is a little delayed now. But the reality is that much more than me, Gandhi’s alleged students and Gandhians are his real detractors. I shot him, he fell and at the last moment all he said was “Ah..”. But his students have spread the false rumour that Gandhi said “Hey Ram”.

DG: Do you mean to say, he did not say Hey Ram?

NG: No he did not. I was tortured at every stage to falsely confess in my declaration to the police, to the magistrate and in the court that Gandhi said “Hey Ram”. But they were unable to break me. If he did not take Rams name, then why should I lie! But if his minions keep harping on this and it gets incorrectly recorded in the history books, then this itself will be the biggest defeat of Gandhi and his ideals. Do you know why?

In life, this man never differentiated between Ram and Rahim, Krishna and Karim,  will such a person remember only Ram at his last moment? Why would he not take both names? And if he wanted to take just one name, he would have said Rahim…because Ram was always in his heart and Rahim was always on his tounge.

*On 15^th November 1949, Nathuram Godse and Nana Apte were hung at 8AM. They carried in their hands, a saffron flag, a map showing undivided India and a copy of the Bhagwad Gita. When the noose was placed around their neck, they both shouted “May undivided India be immortal” and “Vande Mataram” and then they went silent forever.*