Gandhi prioritised communal harmony
EVERY year, India pays homage to the Father of the Nation, especially on Gandhi Jayanti. It gratefully recalls how Mahatma Gandhi led the country from colonial bondage to freedom. Many leaders and thinkers focus on his principles and ideals and their relevance to contemporary India. Nothing is more important in these times of sharp and polarising ideological contestation than Gandhiji’s emphasis on social harmony and cohesion.
The transformation of India that Gandhiji sought was shattered by the Muslim League under Jinnah through its demand for the Partition.
Before I focus on this aspect, I will take a detour. My grandfather, Kailas Nath Katju, joined the Indian National Congress and became a committed follower of Gandhiji. He has left us, his grandchildren, an unpublished biography. He began and wrote a large portion of his life story in jail in the 1940s. I thought it would be appropriate to turn to his biography to note what he recorded about his initial impressions of Gandhiji.
Grandfather attended the 1916 Congress session in Lucknow. He notes that it was memorable because it was attended by Gandhiji. He writes: “He (Gandhiji) spoke quietly on the South African question. He looked on the platform so unimpressive and simple, but his name and fame had preceded him. The whole of India — Hindus and Muslims alike — had been moved to the depths during the past two years, I think 1912-1914, by tales of heroic civil resistance under Gandhiji’s leadership.”
Grandfather goes on to write: “So, when Gandhiji returned home to India, he was a well-known and beloved name, but his method of work and his technique were not fully appreciated, and there was a tendency to treat him as an eccentric individual, almost as a crank. He was lionised, of course, wherever he went, but he was somewhat of a freak, people quietly murmured to each other.” Grandfather mentions Gandhiji’s visit to Allahabad, which was part of the travels in India which Gokhale had advised him to undertake before he embarked on a political journey. In Allahabad, Gandhiji addressed a public meeting. Grandfather writes: “I remember him well, looking completely like a rustic of Gujarat, with a big, uncouth paggar on his head, a very low home-made angarkha, and a low coarse dhoti, all hand-spun and hand-woven. And khadi in those days used to be pretty coarse and rough. He spoke in broken Hindustani, but we all listened to him in awe and reverence, because we all felt that he was a man apart. At that time, or maybe some years later, when he once came to Dr Sapru’s home for tea and Dr Sapru smilingly invited his attention to a portrait in oils in the drawing room of Gandhiji in a European costume, very fashionably attired — Gandhiji laughed and said, ‘It was not a picture, it was a caricature.’ What a man and how within two years he shook the whole of India, and transformed the face of the land.”
There is no doubt that India changed, with Gandhiji influencing the Congress to his way of thinking on non-cooperation to achieve freedom. Non-cooperation was based on two pillars: non-violence and social unity. The first inspired those seeking political and social emancipation from oppressive power. Non-violence was both a principle as well a technique for India’s emancipation. But its relevance was universal. It proved its efficacy in the Civil Rights Movement in the US and, in part, against apartheid in South Africa. Non-violent protests and civil disobedience are entirely in harmony with the values of democracy. They are potent, but require patience to yield results.
The transformation of India that Gandhiji sought was shattered by the Muslim League under Mohammad Ali Jinnah through its demand for the Partition. Yet, amidst the communal carnage that occurred during the Partition, Gandhiji never abandoned his commitment to communal harmony in India. Indeed, he and the leaders who gave direction to India by framing its Constitution gave the greatest priority to social change. Their priority was to rid the country of social hierarchies, promote inter-faith harmony and ensure the progress of those who had suffered dehumanising discrimination for centuries.
Gandhiji’s commitment to communal harmony and amity between Indians pursuing different faiths should manifest itself most noticeably in Parliament. India’s highest legislative body naturally has to be guided by the constitutional guarantee that the state will not discriminate on the basis of religion or beliefs. But, more than that, parliamentarians have to set standards of socially correct language and action. This is lamentably absent today. The shocking incident in the Lok Sabha last month has been referred by the Speaker to the Privileges Committee. A heavy responsibility rests on the shoulders of the committee members. They have to realise that their decision would be closely followed in India and abroad. It would not be wrong to say that whatever may be the provocation, slurs and communal invectives have no place anywhere, especially in Parliament. Words may be expunged, but how do you expunge the hurt they cause?
As India transforms, so will its public culture. The simplicity of Gandhiji’s life demonstrates his desire that free India’s public culture should be marked by abjuring ostentation. India’s public culture attempted to pursue Gandhian traditions, but by now these have been abandoned both by the political class and the commercial elites. Indeed, the commercial elites’ extravagant lifestyles now rival those of the maharajas and the nawabs.
The most memorable and enduring image of the New Delhi G20 summit will be the collective homage paid by the world’s most powerful leaders at Rajghat. Will it be too much to hope that the leaders of the political class will gather at Rajghat to collectively pledge to work for social cohesion and harmony? Will it be naïve to expect that they will also pledge to eschew personal attacks in elections and contest only on the basis of policies? Their coming together at Rajghat will be a far more powerful and meaningful image for the Indian people than that of the G20 leaders. I am, of course, daydreaming, for can collective nobility be expected of them?
