Mahatma Gandhi on the use of Indian Armed Forces - 2

This is an excerpt from a speech by Sardar Patel given on October 1, 1948.
You can read the whole speech here.

I am proud of the Air Force, for their doings in the short period, both in Kashmir and Hyderabad; for their work for the relief operations, for removing the refugees, for supply the necessities of the army in Kashmir.  While people talk of our failing to follow Gandhiji’s teachings, I wish to give you one example which I remember from his conversation.  When Srinagar was touch and go, when we wanted to put our Army in Srinagar and when the Air Force was asked that they had to carry the Army and all its requirements quickly, they did it with wonderful speed; and if we had been late by twenty-four hours the whole game would have been lost.   That is the work which you have done, which is written in letters of gold in the history of Freedom.  We are proud of you.   But what Gandhiji said to me was “I feel so proud when I hear the noise of these airplanes.   At one time, I was feeling very miserable and oppressed when I heard this.  But when this Kashmir  operation began, I began to feel proud of them and every airplane that goes with materials and arms and ammunition and requirements of the Army.  I feel proud.”  Because he felt injustice over Kashmir by the raiders.  And he said: “Any injustice on our land, any encroachment on our land should either be defended by violence, if not by non-violence.”  “If you can defend by non-violence, by all means do it; that is the first thing I should like.   If it is for me to do, I would not touch anything, either a pistol or revolver or anything.   But I would not see India degrading itself to be feeling helpless.   Therefore, when the Air Force has performed this miracle of saving Srinagar by its organized strength and the co-operation it gave to the Army, I feel proud of them and I feel happy.”  That is what he said.

Therefore, those who say that we do not follow the preachings or teachings of the Mahatma, we tell them: “Perhaps you from a distance know better about Mahatma’s teachings than we who have all our life with him know.  Thank you very much.  We will not take our lessons from you, but we will go our own way.  We must go our own way.   We have got small lights.  We must work according to our own lights.

Sardar Patel on Gandhi, India and the World

From:
The Collected Works of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Volume XIII, (1st January 1948 - 31st December 1948)
Chief Editor: P. N. Chopra


(emphasis as in the book, footnotes inserted inline)

Sardar Patel on Gandhi, India and the World

In Tune with the Millions

1 October 1948

[In this marvellous and deeply touching speech before officers and men of the Royal Indian Air Force on 1 October 1948, Sardar in the context of world affairs, and in the context of Gandhiji’s teachings and India’s civilization, projects this true and objective picture of the demands of his time.]

Officers and Members of the Royal Indian Air Force, Ladies and Gentlemen:

The first thing that I inquired about was whether I can talk to you in our own language because we have won freedom after a hard struggle after many years of slavery and bondage; and if we do not begin to talk in our own language now, there is a danger of harboring the remnants of slavery which may grow again into a tree; and, therefore, at least the Armed Forces in India must learn to talk in our own national language.  But I am told that there are many South Indians here who will not be able to understand our national language.   I find the same difficulty in the Congress also; and our Assemblies occasionally, we have to talk, largely or, we have to talk in the foreign language because of the South Indian block in the Congress lagging behind in spite of their great efforts to learn the Hindi language. You must make up quickly because if you go to South India also, you will not be able to talk to the common man except in the provincial language or in the national language.  We have to make rapid progress in that direction.  For the present, I will abide by your desire and say a few words in the language which you say you can understand.

I have been a soldier all my life.  I am not a statesman nor am I a politician.   I have joined the armed forces of India which after a hard struggle—a prolonged struggle—got the country emancipated from bondage and although the Commander-in-Chief¹

¹Mahatma Gandhi

of our armed forces departed from the transitory world this year; and you and we all paid our homage to him when he left us as orphans.   It was he who had really started the real struggle for freedom.  Freedom’s struggle which we fought was a different kind of struggle and in that struggle there were rules of honor, rules of conduct and rules which governed the struggle in which we were all engaged and which has no parallel in the history of the world’s struggle for freedom.

Mahatma Gandhi came to India in 1915.   For one year, he kept himself secluded in his own temporary abode in Ahmedabad to see what is happening in the country.  According to the advice of his leader or guru²

²Preceptor, teacher, adviser

Gopal Krishna Gokhale³

³Gandhiji’s political guru, a most distinguished moderate leader, contemporary of Tilak, founder of the Servants of India Society, President, Indian National Congress, 1905.

who brought him here from South Africa and advised him to stay in India, one year, without doing or involving himself in any public life.   Unfortunately, his guru died during that year; but as soon as the first year was over, he started his experiments in different fields.

The first was in Champaran⁴,

⁴In 1917

in Bihar, where the indigo planters who had settled themselves in Bihar for several years were exploiting the poor peasants.   Their history of sufferings and sorrows are written in the history of that Struggle⁵.

⁵This story of distress and sorrow of the Champaran peasants and Gandhi’s unique work among them has been very graphically and objectively recorded in Satyagraha in Champaran by Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Pub. Navajivan, Ahmedabad.

That was the foundation of the struggle for freedom.  In a short period without any weapon in his hand—except the weapon of the soul-force—he made the planters surrender; he made the Bihar Government and the Government of India surrender; and since many years, you see no planters in Bihar; they have all disappeared. There was no slavery as bad as the slavery of the laborers in those plantations in Bihar. 

After that, he started the struggle in Kaira and simultaneously with Kaira, he started the great labour organization in Ahmedabad when no Trade Union movement was born in India.   It was he who laid the foundations of labour movement in India and that Organization ⁶

⁶The Majdur Mahajan of Ahmedabad had its birth in the wake of Gandhiji’s fast in 1917 to secure a just wage for the Ahmedabad mill-hands and under his protecting care it soon blossomed into a mighty tree as the most formidable and disciplined labour organization in the country.

today is the best and the most well-organized organization in this country and yet the movement was of such a nature and the organization was built on such foundations that there has been the least friction between capital and labour in that city.  So the industry there has thrived to an extent that it is the most well-organized industry in India and the laborers the best-paid in the country.   That was because he avoided friction and laid the foundation of settlement by arbitration for any dispute that arose between labour and capital.

It is not so in Europe.  The movement of Trade Union in Europe or in the West is based on the principle of collective bargaining in which there is an element of coercion and force which always result in bitterness.   Now when he first started this movement he had to fast for several days in support of labour which could not stand the organized opposition of the industry.  And at the end of his fast there was a settlement which made industry and labour accept the principle of resolving all differences and disputes by independent arbitration.  

His one principle in all his movements was that we must not always claim to be in the right although we know that we are in the right.  We must not insist on our point of view being the final thing.  The opponent would also claim the same thing; and therefore, the best solution between the two warring elements was to refer the matter to an independent arbitration.  If that principle today is accepted in the world, there will be no trouble.

But you know what is happening in the United Nations’ Organization.  People assemble there; the big powers, who of all countries, have laid the foundations of world unity, are not able to resolve their own differences and they meddle with the other peoples’ differences.   Those who are not able to compose their own differences have no right to meddle with the differences of other people.

We have seen what price we have paid in Kashmir by going to that organization.  We went to the United Nations’ Organization in order to bring the dispute to an early end.  For six months, we were maligned all over the world by the representatives of Pakistan.  And people who had never seen this country and who did not understand what the problem of India and Pakistan or Kashmir was, — they began to hear our case from people who had no bone in their tongue.  They, therefore, went on talking anything that came to their mouth and for six months it went on like that.   After that, their delegation came here.  They visited Kashmir, they visited Pakistan, they visited India, and had long and prolonged conversations and discussions.  Eventually, they made proposals for a cease-fire.  We accepted the proposals for a cease-fire. The other party did not.   Yet we are where we were.  If we were to fight this out by armed forces and if the United Nations’ Organization is not able to do anything, then instead of calling it the Security Council, it must be termed the “insecurity council” which disturbs the security of the law.

You have seen what is happening in Hyderabad.  The Nizam says: “I do not want my case in the United Nations’ Security Council.”   But the Security Council says: “We are seized of it.”  It is so because they have no other thing to do.   Therefore, anything that comes before them they go on discussing it which disturbs the security here or which is likely to disturb the security here and thereby it disturbs the security of the world and thus it is a proper and fitting thing to call this organization an “insecurity council”.  How far it is advisable to be a member of that august organization is a question which has to be seriously considered.

You have seen that we have performed the operation in Hyderabad with the least amount of blood.  But has the above Security Council solved any problem which they have handled after its establishment?   Take Palestine, take Indonesia, take any question that has been referred to the Security Council.   It has not been able to dispose of them and bring about peace; and they are all problems which they are not able to settle.    So, in one way, the League of Nations was more or less a harmless organization.  This organization if it does not improve itself is going to land the world into a terrific slaughter and destruction.   In that context, if the Security Organization would have been based on the principles on which Gandhi led his struggle, the world would be happier and there would be no struggle at all.  There would be peace.  But we all pay our lip-sympathy and homage to that great leader which this country in its degraded state, in the state of slavery of several hundred years, produced.  Now it is a free country.   If a slave country produced such leaders, why should not India produce such  greater leaders who would raise its head amongst the nations of the world.

That is our ambition.  We do not want to have armed forces to have aggression on any country in the world.   That is not India’s history.  Its civilization is entirely different.   India has never made any encroachment on any country throughout its history by sword.  It has done so by its culture, by its civilization, by its force of the soul.   That is how it has spread its message in the past, right up to Japan, Afghanistan and other places.  When the world hardly knew what civilization was, our civilization, without any air force, without any fighting force, spread the message of peace, love and goodwill.

That was the message which Gandhiji gave to us, and wanted us to fight with that force— that weapon.  We started the struggle.  After a hard struggle for a prolonged period in which I had the honor to share his sorrows, his miseries, his joys, in every struggle, and pass prolonged periods of seclusion in jail with him, we got our liberty and the fruits of which we have now to enjoy.   Whether we are fit for it or not, the future history can tell.

But the world has progressed fast and it has changed.   Some people in the foreign countries criticize us saying, “These people are not following Gandhiji’s ways.”  As if they know more about Gandhiji’s ways that we who have passed our life with him.   Gandhiji knew that the world was not following him.  He knew very well that India was not following him.  And if India had followed him, the world would also have followed him.  Therefore, he knew India’s limitations and he knew and he appreciated the work of the armed forces also.  His ambition was that the world should have no armed forces and all countries should disarm themselves.

That is what the United Nations’ Commission⁷

⁷On Kashmir

also says.  When will it be fulfilled? If one country says: “I must have monopoly of the atom bomb or the atom energy,” the other country says: “I must find its antidote. . . .” How is the world going to disarm itself?   If it is not going to disarm itself, India would not do it also even though it accepts the principles of non-aggression.   We have never done it; we shall never do it in the future also.  But Gandhiji never advised us to be cowards.  He never advised us to forsake our country or not to protect the country’s honour and the country’s liberty.  Therefore, we shall not fail to arm ourselves with the requisite armed force whatever it may cost for the protection of this land.  We would be unworthy of the inheritor of liberty.  We would be unworthy of the great soul who released the country from bondage if we did not provide sufficient armed strength to protect its borders and not for its internal troubles.

My note: Sardar Patel means India has an adequate police force. See below where Sardar Patel says: You need not trouble yourselves any more with internal troubles.   I shall manage it with my Police because I do not want to degrade the profession of the Indian soldier to shoot down his own brothers.

The internal troubles are all solved now.  So far as India is concerned, in the Indian Union, nobody will raise his head again.  The last ghost⁸

⁸Hyderabad

has been buried recently.  We have pricked the bubble which created frightening shadows and pictures all over; there will be massacres of Hindus and Muslims; there will be a big invasion from Pakistan; oh! you do not know what war is; don’t do this; don’t do that.  But we said we shall see.  We shall perform this operation at the proper time when there will be least amount of bleeding; and, thanks to you all, we did it, and we are free.

We have now the only question of Kashmir; and God willing, if the Security Council releases us from that embarrassment, we shall perform that operation with the least amount of bleeding.  But we are involved in many cobwebs of that problem and I do not which to enter into it at present. 

We must remember that outside India there is no peace.  Take Burma.  When was its liberty won? Burma got its liberty simultaneously with us.  But if you go ten miles out of Rangoon, there is no Government.  In one year, the liberty that they won is very nearly going.   It is touch and go.   So take Indonesia, take Burma, take China where trouble is going on continuously and we have our friends— the neighbors in the North⁹.

⁹Pakistan 

They are not very friendly to us.  They talk of friendship; they look like friends.  We want to be friends.   We have so often told them: “You often talk of enemies; your enemies, whoever they are, they are within yourselves and not outside.”  We do not wish to be enemies of anybody.   We wish to be friends with everybody; that was the legacy that our leader has left us.   For years we have learnt at his feet not to harbour ill-will for anybody.  But at the same time he has taught us: “Do not be cowards.  Learn to fight bravely.  Defend every inch of your country.”  We shall not fail to preserve that legacy that has been given to us.

Only you, the Air Force, the Defence Force and the Navy— you have all to work together and see that day and night we keep a watch on our borders.   You need not trouble yourselves any more with internal troubles.   I shall manage it with my Police because I do not want to degrade the profession of the Indian soldier to shoot down his own brothers.   It is not good for us.

When people talk of aggression on Hyderabad, they either deliberate misrepresent the thing for whatever motives they may have or they do not understand what aggression is.   How can we have aggression on our people?  What is Hyderabad?  Is the Nizam Hyderabad?  If the people of Hyderabad is Hyderabad it is part of India.  The British people still think that Hyderabad is a British preserve.  It is one year¹⁰,

¹⁰Since achievement of Independence

yet they do not understand that they have no claim here.   And I trust that this will be the last debate in Parliament¹¹

¹¹British Parliament

in which reference is made about India’s business.   Otherwise, we do not want to be forced into friendship.   If friendship is not wanted, we have self-respect enough to stand aloof against the whole world.  Because if violence is the order of the world, and we have not got sufficient organized violence, we have enough non-violence by which we know how to die.  

But we know how to preserve our self-respect.  Therefore, I wish we have no more sermons from people who still believe that they are trustees here—the trustees of the world.   They must know that they had enough mismanagements in all parts of the world.  They must now leave us alone.

Therefore we, members of the Air Force, members of the Army, members of the Navy— we have learned these lessons of modern warfare from the West.   Let us not degrade it in any manner.   I am glad and I am proud of you that although the Air Force has been born recently and is a baby, yet it is a very healthy and very beautiful, good-looking baby of which India can be proud.  Do nothing to disfigure it.   Observe and concentrate on the rules of discipline and chivalry and do not forget that in the Armed Forces there can be no community— only one community.  Whether it is a Hindu, a Muslim, or a Sikh, we are all brothers.  It should be so in India, but at least in the Armed Forces, it should be the first.  You have to lay an example.  We politicians have inherited a very bad legacy.  We have, you had also, but we had particularly, communal representation.   Everything that we did, every action that we took, was weighed on communal scales.  You had also the Mahratta Regiment, the Jat Regiment, the Sikh Regiment, etc. But we wish to forget all that.  We must now rewrite our history because we are making a beginning and we have a clean slate now.

In one year you have seen that India’s map has been considerably changed.   The proud princes have also realized the changed atmosphere; and, in one year, they have accommodated themselves in such a manner that without firing a shot, without any trouble, except in the two States, we rearranged the whole map of India.  It is an achievement of which we can all be proud; and therefore, I always congratulate our princes for showing wisdom and sense of patriotism.

Let us forget the past.  Let us see what they are doing now.  The were themselves not free; they are free today.  So you see the Maharaja of Bhavnagar¹²

¹²Shri Krishnakumar Sinhaji

being the Governor of Madras.  It is a great change; it is a great thing.  He is a common man.  He has abandoned his title of “His Highness” and became a protector and a trustee of the people of Madras.  Thus princes and people must learn to be equals and share the fates, sorrows, miseries and the pride and well-being of our nation.  In that, let us all put together in a common boat and begin sailing safe in the ocean of the world.

I still want to preserve the little energy that is left to me at this age to see that India takes its proper place not merely by winning the freedom but by raising the status and strength of India in such a manner that the people who are preaching sermons will begin to respect us and say that they have also something to learn from us.   That is my ambition.  For that, we must all put our heads together and go ahead.

I am proud of the Air Force, for their doings in the short period, both in Kashmir and Hyderabad; for their work for the relief operations, for removing the refugees, for supply the necessities of the army in Kashmir.  While people talk of our failing to follow Gandhiji’s teachings, I wish to give you one example which I remember from his conversation.  When Srinagar was touch and go, when we wanted to put our Army in Srinagar and when the Air Force was asked that they had to carry the Army and all its requirements quickly, they did it with wonderful speed; and if we had been late by twenty-four hours the whole game would have been lost.   That is the work which you have done, which is written in letters of gold in the history of Freedom.  We are proud of you.   But what Gandhiji said to me was “I feel so proud when I hear the noise of these airplanes.   At one time, I was feeling very miserable and oppressed when I heard this.  But when this Kashmir  operation began, I began to feel proud of them and every airplane that goes with materials and arms and ammunition and requirements of the Army.  I feel proud.”  Because he felt injustice over Kashmir by the raiders.  And he said: “Any injustice on our land, any encroachment on our land should either be defended by violence, if not by non-violence.”  “If you can defend by non-violence, by all means do it; that is the first thing I should like.   If it is for me to do, I would not touch anything, either a pistol or revolver or anything.   But I would not see India degrading itself to be feeling helpless.   Therefore, when the Air Force has performed this miracle of saving Srinagar by its organized strength and the co-operation it gave to the Army, I feel proud of them and I feel happy.”  That is what he said.

Therefore, those who say that we do not follow the preachings or teachings of the Mahatma, we tell them: “Perhaps you from a distance know better about Mahatma’s teachings than we who have all our life with him know.  Thank you very much.  We will not take our lessons from you, but we will go our own way.  We must go our own way.   We have got small lights.  We must work according to our own lights.

We have seen what is happening in Europe, what degradation, what destruction the world has faced from the Western civilization!  With all your pride and pomp, God forgive us from that civilization!  We want to be spared of it.  Let us go our own way.

That is what we want to tell them.  And for that purpose, we must not forget our foundations, our civilization, although we may copy the best from the West.   And, therefore, when we take lessons in the Army, in the Navy, or in the Air Force, in modern warfare, we must not degrade ourselves.

May God give us enough sense not to do anything which could bring dishonour to our country.   The departed soul¹³

¹³Mahatma Gandhi

takes account of our doings.   He watches us from the heavens.   Whether we deserved his leadership which he gave us for a prolonged period and freed the country— whether we deserved it or not — he takes account.   Let us not forget it.  Let us not do anything which would make him unhappy.   We have, when we cremated his last remnants of the frail body, paid our homage to him, but that is all worldly.   The real homage that we can pay to his memory is to try to follow his footsteps as far as we can.   His life is an open book.   We know his teachings.  We must try to follow that.

Never forget that unity is your strength.    If one of your colleagues gets a better job do not feel jealous of him rather be proud of him.  If one below you is promoted, try to obtain enough merit to get your proper place, but do not be disgruntled.  Do not feel unhappy because your colleague has been better off than you.  Feel happy because after all he is your comrade.

Therefore, learn more of discipline, comradeship and unity in your Force.  In thirty or thirty-five years of struggle, we have also learned the rules of struggle, of chivalry, of discipline, of comradeship and of unity which are more or less common in both the non-violent struggle as well as the violent struggle.   The rules of struggle or fight are all common because they are all based on a moral standard.  Therefore, do not do anything which would bring discredit to you.  I wish you success and godspeed in your career. 

Mahatma Gandhi on the use of Indian Armed Forces - 1

The following is from "Slender was the Thread" (1969) by Lt. Gen. L.P. Sen.  Sen, then a Colonel,  was sent to Kashmir as acting Brigadier in command of the 161 Infantry Brigade to fill in for the wounded Brigadier Katoch.  Per Col. Bhaskar Sarkar, "Outstanding Victories of the Indian Army",  Brigadier Sen led his forces to a decisive victory at Shalateng, November 7, 1947.

The battle of Shalateng was one of the most decisive battles ever fought by the Indian Army. It totally changed the tide of battle in the Kashmir Valley. It completely removed the threat to Srinagar and led to recapture of most of the territories lost to the Raiders in the initial days of the conflict.

....

Shalateng was the first decisive victory of the Indian Army after independence. But the principles of war namely concentration, offensive action and surprise that were employed successfully in this battle by Brigadier Sen have contributed to the success of many battles. Years will go by. New weapon systems will be introduced. Firepower on the battlefield will grow. New battle drills and tactics may be evolved. But these fundamental principles of war remain relevant today and will continue to do so in the future. It is a battle that deserves to be studied by all aspiring generals.

 L.P. Sen writes:

As I was leaving General Russell's house {in Delhi, after briefing Russell on the appointment as acting Brigadier}, I received a message to the effect that Brigadier Thapar would be awaiting me at the southern entrance to South Block of the Secretariat.   When I arrived he informed me that Mahatma Gandhi wished to see me and be given an intelligence briefing.  We drove to his residence and I told him everything that was known to us.   He listened most intently and when I finished and asked whether he had any questions he would like answered, he replied, "No, no questions."

After a few seconds of silence, he continued: "Wars are a curse on humanity.  They are so utterly senseless.  They bring nothing but suffering and destruction."

As a soldier and one about to be engaged in battle in a matter of hours, I was at a loss to know what to say, and eventually asked him: "What do I do in Kashmir?"

Mahatma Gandhi smiled and said: "You're going in to protect innocent people, and to save them from suffering and their property from destruction.   To achieve that you must naturally make full use of every means at your disposal."

It was the last time I was to see him alive.

Gandhi on Christianity

Nowadays, Mahatma Gandhi's views on religion are considered to be responsible for Partition, responsible for many of India's ills, and so on.  In particular, Gandhi is considered by the modern mind as impossibly naive about Christianity and Islam.

I came across this in V.B. Kher's compilation of Gandhiana:

11. IS RELIGIOUS UNITY POSSIBLE?
(From "Weekly Letter" — by M. D.)

Sir Chandrashekharan Venkata Raman came up the hill one afternoon with Professor Rahm from Switzerland, a reputed biologist.

"He has discovered," said Chandrashekharan introducing him, "an insect that can live without food and water for 12 years, and has come to India for further researches in Biology."

"When you discover the secret at the back of it," said Gandhiji, "please pass it on to me."
 
"But," said the biologist, "I am a scientist and a monk also, and when I decided to come to pay my respect to you, I thought of asking you a question or two. May I do so?"

"With pleasure," said Gandhiji.

Dr. Rahm was perplexed by the many warring creeds in the world and wondered if there was no way of ending the conflict.

"It depends on Christians," said Gandhiji, "if only they would make up their minds to unite with the others! But they will not do so. Their solution is universal acceptance of Christianity as they believe it. An English friend has been at me for the past thirty years trying to persuade me that there is nothing but damnation in Hinduism and that I must accept Christianity. When I was in jail I got, from separate sources, no less than three copies of the Life of Sister Therese, in the hope that I should follow her example and accept Jesus as the only begotten son of God and my Saviour. I read the book prayerfully but I could not accept even St. Therese's testimony for myself. I must say I have an open mind, if indeed at this stage and age of my life I can be said to have an open mind on this question. Anyway I claim to have an open mind in this sense that if things were to happen to me as they did to Saul before he became Paul, I should not hesitate to be converted"

"But today I rebel against orthodox Christianity, as I am convinced that it has distorted the message of Jesus. He was an Asiatic whose message was delivered through many media and when it had the backing of a Roman Emperor it became an imperialist faith as it remains to this day. Of course there are noble but rare exceptions like Andrews and Elwin. But the general trend is as I have indicated."

"There was held the other day in Bombay a parliament of religions. Now a positive bar to a real parliament of religions is the refusal to accept an equal basis and a mutual regard for one another's faith. We must not forget that it is a parliament of religions, and not of a few religious- minded men. Did Christianity enter the parliament on a par with the others? When they do not do so openly, they secretly criticize us for our having many gods, forgetting that they have also many gods'."

Dr. Rahm was not perhaps prepared for this reply. He made no answer. He put another question in reply. "If we cannot unite, can't we fight atheism which seems to be so much on the increase?"

Sir C. V. Raman who was sitting all this while as a passive listener now put in: "I shall answer your question. If there is a God we must look for Him in the universe. If He is not there, He is not worth looking for. I am being looked upon in various quarters as an atheist, but I am not. The growing discoveries in the science of astronomy and physics seem to me to be further and further revelations of God. Mahatmaji, religions cannot unite. Science offers the best opportunity for a complete fellowship. All men of science are brothers."

"What about the converse?" said Gandhiji. "All who are not men of science are not brothers?"

The distinguished physicist saw the joke and said: 'But all can become men of science."

Then said Gandhiji, "You will have to present a Kalma of science as Islam presents one."

"Science," said Sir C. V. Raman, "is nothing but a search for truth—truth not only in the physical world, but in the world of logic, psychology, behaviour and so on. The virtue of a truly scientific frame of mind is the readiness to reject what is false and untrue. It proclaims from the house-tops that there is no virtue in sticking to untruth. I think the latest biological discovery is that there is no fundamental cleavage between the life of man and the life of the lower creation and that salvation lies in the perfection of the biological instinct for the perpetuation of race—the instinct to sacrifice the individual for the sake of the species."

Several years ago a great religious-minded scientist, Dr. Henry Drummond, an F.R.S. like Sir C. V. Raman, had said the same thing in his book, The Natural Law in the Spiritual World. And does not the Gita teach the same thing? Does it not proclaim that with sacrifice God created man, and enjoined upon him sacrifice as the only means whereby to seek to grow?

Harijan,30-5-'36, p. 121 at p. 122

---
My comment: in the very end, 'sacrifice' is mangled, conjoining two very different senses of the word, that too, translating 'yajna' as sacrifice. 



 

Secession in the Cabinet Mission Plan

Some questions and answers about the Cabinet Mission Plan.

Q1. Where did the proposal allowing for secession after 10 years come from?

 From the Muslim League proposals of May 12, 1946 (here)

10. The Constitution of the Union shall have a provision whereby any Province can, by a majority vote of its Legislative Assembly, call for reconsideration of the terms of the Constitution, and will have the liberty to secede from the Union at any time after an initial period of ten years.

The Cabinet Mission Plan statement of May 16, 1946 (here) accommodated it as follows (also read answer to Q2)

(6) The Constitutions of the Union and of the groups should contain a provision whereby any Province could by majority vote of its Legislative Assembly could call for a reconsideration of the terms of the Constitution after an initial period of ten years and at ten-yearly intervals thereafter.

Q2. What was the Congress response to the above proposal?

 From the same link above, the relevant points

a.  from the Congress' proposals of May 12, 1946

8. The Constitution should provide machinery for its revision at any time subject to such checks as may be desired. If so desired, it may be specifically stated that this whole Constitution may be reconsidered after 10 years.

and

b. from the Congress response to Muslim League Proposals of May 12, 1946

(10) The Constitution of the Union will inevitably contain provisions for its revision. It may also contain a provision for its full reconsideration at the end of ten years. The matter will be open then for a complete reconsideration. Though it is implied, we would avoid reference to secession as we do not wish to encourage this idea."

 Q3. What would the strength of Muslims be in the proposed Central Legislature per the May 12 proposals?

The Muslim League: (here)

6. There should be parity of representation between the two groups of Provinces in the Union Executive and the Legislature, if any.

 7. No major point in the Union Constitution which affects the communal issue shall be deemed to be passed in the joint constitution-making body, unless the majority of the members of the constitution-making body of the Hindu provinces and the majority of the members of the constitution-making body of the Pakistan Group, present and voting, are separately in its favour.

 The Congress: (here)

(6 and 7) We are entirely opposed to parity of representation as between groups of Provinces in the Union Executive or Legislature. We think that the provision to the effect that no major communal issue in the Union Constitution shall be deemed to be passed by the Constituent Assembly unless a majority of the members of the community or communities concerned present and voting in the Constituent Assembly are separately in its favour, is a sufficient and ample safeguard of all Minorities.

We have suggested something wider and including all communities than has been proposed elsewhere. This may give rise to some difficulties in regard to small communities, but all such difficulties can be got over by reference to arbitration. We are prepared to consider the method of giving effect to this principle so as to make it more feasible.

Q4. What did the Cabinet Mission Plan statement of May 16 say about the composition of a Central Legislature?

It did not say much.  On the subject of the Central Legislature, here are the salient points:

(2) The Union should have an Executive and a Legislature constituted from British Indian and States' representatives. Any question raising a major communal issue in the Legislature should require for its decision a majority of the representatives present and voting of each of the two major communities as well as a majority of all members present and voting.

 Q5. Did Jinnah interpret the 10 year clause in the Cabinet Mission Plan as allowing for secession?

As per Jinnah's conversation with Major Woodrow Wyatt on May 24, 1946, Jinnah was upset that the Cabinet Mission Plan statement did not allow provinces to secede.

6. His general criticism of the Statement was that it had not settled any of the fundamentals. For example:-
...
(d) Provinces had not been given the right to secede after 10 years although the Congress had always been willing to give the right to secede and had raised no real objection this time at Simla.

 Q6.  Was Jinnah quite happy with the federal solution laid down by the Cabinet Mission Plan?

As per Jinnah's conversation with Major Woodrow Wyatt on May 24, 1946,  this is what Jinnah thought:

3. He considered that the Statement was not a practicable proposition. The machinery envisaged would not work and could not work mainly because there was no spirit of co-operation on the Congress side. The Mission had obviously not even fully appreciated the situation in India. What was required was a surgical operation. This Statement would settle nothing.....

5. He said that the preamble to the Mission's Statement had bitterly hurt the feelings of the Muslims. Not only that, it was inconsistent with the rest of the Statement. This onslaught was quite unnecessary and had been done in order to placate Congress. Indeed, the word Pakistan was an anathema throughout the Statement. This preamble made matters even more difficult for him than before.

6. His general criticism of the Statement was that it had not settled any of the fundamentals. For example:-

(a) The Muslim group of Provinces had not got parity with the others at the centre.

(b) There was no real protection for the Muslims in the Constituent Assembly, because from the very start the chairman would be a Hindu, unless the Muslims were to say that the election of the chairman was a communal issue, in which case the Constituent Assembly would break down straight away.

(c) The position of the States was left far too vague.

(d) Provinces had not been given the right to secede after 10 years although the Congress had always been willing to give the right to secede and had raised no real objection this time at Simla.

(e) The Union had been given the power to raise money. This was not a communal issue and would inevitably lead to taxation from the Centre with other subjects being added on the short list of the Union Government.

7. He explained to the Viceroy why there should be entirely separate Constituent Assemblies which only met together for the purpose of deciding the structure of the Union Government.

He thought the Viceroy had understood. This was a psychological matter and the Mission had created a single Constituent Assembly working in three sections only to please the Congress, ignoring Muslim feeling.

8. The only real safeguard for the Muslims was parity between Federations. The method of voting on communal issues would not work as there would always be dispute as to what was a communal issue and what was not.

9. He could not understand why the Muslim provinces had been split into two groups. He agreed that it was something to have the groups at all and without them he could not even have looked at the Scheme.

10. He disliked the Advisory Committee on which the Muslims would be in a minority, and as far as he could see would be unable to prevent the Union Constituent Assembly incorporating its recommendations as a part of the constitution of the Union Government, thus added another subject to those dealt with by the Union Government.

11. He dilated at considerable length on the attitude of Congress who had not conceded anything during the Simla Conference and would never approach the Constituent Assembly in a spirit of co-operation. They would aim the whole time to use their majority to steam-roller the Muslim League and sidetrack the provision as to safeguarding the Muslims on communal issues. It was inconceivable that such a Constituent Assembly could work at all.

12. He will not come down to Delhi until June 1st or 2nd. He can say nothing further until he has consulted the Muslim League Working Committee and Council. He is being bombarded with telegrams from his supporters protesting against the Statement and the Muslim reaction is very strong against it. My own impression is that he definitely wants to see where he is with the Muslim League before giving a decision on the Statement and he wants them to have time in which to absorb the two shocks which they have been given.

(a) His own letter agreeing to a Union Government
(b) The preamble to the Mission's Statement.

He is particularly hurt that the Mission have seized on this concession(which was an enormous one from his stand point) and have not taken his offer as a whole. None of the provisos that went with it have been accepted. I pointed out to him that everything that Congress had asked for had not been accepted either but he did not seem particularly convinced.

Q7.   Does the conversation of Major Woodrow Wyatt and Jinnah on May 24, 1946 prove "...that Muslim League’s resolution was aimed at saving face with its own constituents and did not have any serious ramifications in terms of the federation that was envisaged under the Cabinet Mission Plan, which Jinnah seemed to believe was workable"?

The answer to Q6 provides excerpts to this very conversation, which show that Jinnah did not believe the plan was workable.  Second,  there is nothing here about saving face:

13. I asked him, in view of the foregoing, whether he thought that the Muslim League Working Committee might possibly pass a resolution on the following lines:-

The British had exceeded their brief in pronouncing on the merits of Pakistan. They had no business to turn down what millions of people wanted. Their analysis of Pakistan was outrageous. But the Muslims had never expected the British to give them Pakistan. They had never expected anyone to give them Pakistan. They knew they had to get it by their own strong right arm.

The scheme outlined in the Cabinet Mission's Statement was impracticable and could not work. But nevertheless in order to show that they would give it a trial, although they knew that the machinery could not function, they would accept the Statement and would not go out of their way to sabotage the procedure-but they would accept the Statement as the first step on the road to Pakistan.

At this proposition he was delighted and said "That's it, you've got it", and I am completely convinced that that is what the Muslim League will do.

14. He will demand parity in the Interim Government if he decides to come into it.

 PS: Jinnah's public statement of May 22, 1946 on the Cabinet Mission Plan has pretty much the same complaints that he reiterated to Major Wyatt on May 24 (answer to Q6 above).

PPS: As to the sincerity of the June 5-6 acceptance of the Cabinet Mission Plan by Jinnah, also see this.

(Originally posted here.)

Wavell to Pethick-Lawrence, July 8, 1946

From Transfer of Power 1942-7, Volume VIII, #11,  Field Marshal Viscount Wavell to Lord Pethick-Lawrence (Secretary of State), July 8, 1946, L/PO/10/23.

5.  Menon will keep Turnbull informed of the progress of the elections to the Constituent Assembly.  Even the Sikhs appear to intend to elect their representatives to the Constituent Assembly, which is satisfactory.   There has however been insistence by the Ministries of Assam, Madras and Bombay that the declaration form for candidates should omit mention of paragraph 19, and it still appears that the Congress may try to move in the Constituent Assembly that the Assembly is a sovereign body and can changes its own rules of procedure, even include the one which requires a double majority for major communal issues.   They may even seek to elect a provisional Government in the Constituent Assembly.  If the Congress press their view as far as that, it is clear that the Constituent Assembly will break up at once, and all our efforts will have been in vain.  If that happens, it will mean I suppose that the Congress are prepared to attempt to take power by a mass-movement.  We must still recognize the possibility of this; and His Majesty's Government must give me as early as possible a definite plan to deal with a breakdown; it will take a considerable time to fill in details, when I know the general intention.   Only if the Right Wing of the Congress are unshaken in their control during the A.I.C.C. session shall we have any reason to hope that the Constituent Assembly will be worked in something approaching the way that we intended.

Gandhi on Hitler

"Hitler is not a bad man" - allegedly Gandhi wrote this;  the earliest reference that I can find to it dates to 1960:

The electronic version of the Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi has this as Gandhi's May 1940 letter to Linlithgow:

Gandhi had written this on November 20, 1938, that if there was ever a justifiable war it would be war against Germany to prevent the persecution of Jews.

A rich collection of books, however, claims that Gandhi wrote this, e.g.,

Liaquat Ali Khan, July 9, 1946

This following is from The Transfer of Power 1942-7, Volume VIII, a footnote in #16 (#16 is about Jawaharlal Nehru's July 10th press conference).


On 9 July 1946, the Associated Press reported Nawabzada Liaqat Ali Khan as having said that it had been decided to convene a meeting of the Council of the All-India Muslim League at Bombay on 28 and 29 July.  The Council was to examine 'the whole position, and decide as to what course of action should be adopted by the Muslim League under the changed circumstances.'  The changed circumstances were: (1) that 'the Cabinet Delegation and the Viceroy have gone back on their word in postponing the formation of an interim Government. . . and have broken their solemn pledges given in writing to the Muslim League in the connection'; and (2) that 'Congress has accepted the long-term plan of the Cabinet Mission only conditionally with reservations', and that the Congress interpretation was totally opposed to the Mission's Statement of 25 May, 'particularly with regard to the grouping of Provinces, which is the corner stone of the long-term scheme." L/P&J/10/73:f334.

Nehru's Tryst With Destiny Speech

"Tryst With Destiny" is the famous speech given by Jawaharlal Nehru given to the Indian Constituent Assembly in the Indian Parliament building, just as India emerged into independence, on the midnight of August 14-15th.

The speech was given in English. A Hindi version was recorded, spoken by Nehru, and broadcast on All India Radio (Hindi text and audio available on this page.).

Poornam Viswanathan recounted here how he broadcast a Tamil version of the speech on All India Radio, around 5:30 AM on August 15, 1947.

Coming to terms with the Partition

Was the Partition of India avoidable?

Of course it was!

One simple course of action to avoid Partition would have been for all the non-Muslims of India to voluntarily, peacefully and immediately convert to Islam.  There would have been no Partition.

Of course, that is not what most people mean when they talk about this question.   The correct question is - "Was the Partition of India avoidable at a cost that was acceptable to the Indian nationalists?"   (The Indian nationalists included the Indian National Congress, the Hindu Mahasabha, and a multitude of other parties, all of whom favored a united  India.  The main separatists were the All India Muslim League, and they had some minor company  like the Communist Party of India, and some long-forgotten Dravidianists.)

"Was the Partition of India avoidable at a cost that was acceptable to the Indian nationalists?"

With the 20/20 vision of being able to look back at history, the answer to that question is - No. The nuanced answer is - most likely No.

Of course, no leader in 1946 could have known that answer with the certainty that we have today.  And the nationalists did try very hard to avoid Partition. 

So, e.g., when Tapan Ghosh‏ @hstapanghosh tweets

For Partition Nehru alone was not responsible. It was the defeat/failure of our the then collective leadership & elite class Hindus society.

what was the defeat/failure of the collective leadership and elite-class Hindu society?

In my opinion,  most of the leadership has still not grasped their failure.  The failure was not in avoiding Partition; but in not anticipating and planning for the contingency that Partition might be unavoidable.  B.R. Ambedkar is about the only leader who put some serious thought into that, and C. Rajagopalachari comes in a distant second in this arena.   Everyone else, including Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Sardar Patel, were in deep denial.   Many Indians today are still caught in the "those leaders could have avoided Partition, if only....".   E.g., if only Jawaharlal Nehru hadn't had his press conference on July 10, 1946.

Once you accept the possibility that Partition might be unavoidable, you start thinking about how to get the best possible result for the Indian union that remains.  We don't see much evidence of that happening except whatever little was possible in the very last couple of months of British rule.

Now, the British had their fingers on the scales, and it is not clear that any contingency planning to deal with an inevitable Partition would have been in any way fruitful.  But there was no such thinking or planning, and even today, far too many Indians are still in the deep denial that I've mentioned above. 

PS: The cost of accepting the Muslim League's demands that might have yielded a "united" India, here: Parity and Communal Veto in Numbers.
 

Nehru's press conference, July 10, 1946

From the Annual Register, 1946, and The Transfer of Power 1942-7, Volume VIII, #16.  {The changes to the Annual Register account derived from T.O.P. are in blue}

Congress and the Cabinet Plan

Pt. Nehru Explains Issues

The Congress President, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, in a 75-minute Press Conference at Congress House Bombay, on the 10th July discussed a number of important questions such as the position of Indians in Ceylon, the Constituent Assembly, the grouping of provinces as contained in the Cabinet Mission's statement of May 16, the subjects that will come within the purview of the Union Centre, what the Congress proposes to do in the Constituent Assembly, how the Kashmir Government's ban against his entry into that State has become an all-India issue between the Indian National Congress and the States' People's Conference on the one side and the Political Department of the Government of India and the Kashmir State on the other.  This last subject, he said, was likely to affect other matters including the whole question of the States in the Constituent Assembly.

Rashtrapita

"Rashtrapita" or "Rashtra pita" translates to "Father of the Nation".  Somewhere along his career, Mahatma Gandhi acquired that appellation.

Per a 2012 article in the Hindustan Times, a ten-year old girl, under RTI (Right to Information) asked the government when Gandhi acquired "Father of the Nation" status,  and the government archivists were flummoxed.

Who named Mahatma Gandhi 'father of nation'? Govt foxed
April 4, 2012

A Lucknow girl's simple query to know if Mahatma Gandhi was ever conferred the title of 'The Father of The Nation' has come a cropper.

From the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) to the ministry of home affairs (MHA) no one seems to really know the answer to the 10-year-old's question.

They coolly forwarded the RTI plea of class VI student Aishwarya Parashar to the National Archives of India (NAI), the body that claims to be the repository of the non-current records of the Government of India. Surprisingly, the NAI, after a hectic search in their records, was unable to find the desired information and requested Aishwarya to come and search for it in NAI's public records and library material herself.

Jayaprabha Ravindran, assistant director of archives and chief public information officer (CPIO) wrote back in a letter dated March 26: "As per search among public records in the National Archives of India, there are no specific documents on the information sought by you."

The maintainers of Gandhiana credit Subhas Chandra Bose:

...it was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose who first addressed him as such in his condolence message to the Mahatma on the demise of Kasturba.

Ba and Bapu had been interned at Aga Khan Palace, Pune in the wake of the Quit India Movement. It was while serving the prison term Kasturba passed away on 22 February, 1944.

Concerned about Gandhiji, Netaji sent the following message to the Mahatma on Azad Hind Radio, Rangoon on 4th June, 1944.

"...........Nobody would be more happy than ourselves if by any chance our countrymen at home should succeed in liberating themselves through their own efforts or by any chance, the British Government accepts your `Quit India' resolution and gives effect to it. We are, however proceeding on the assumption that neither of the above is possible and that a struggle is inevitable.

Father of our Nation in this holy war for India's liberation, we ask for your blessings and good wishes".

Note that this is after the death of Kasturba Gandhi.  But Women in the Indian National Movement: Unseen Faces and Unheard Voices, 1930-42, by Suruchi Thapar-Bjorkert (2006), mentions an article in the Hindi magazine Saraswati: Devidutt Shukla, Rashtra Mata Kasturba, Saraswati, September 1938.  "Rashtra Mata" translates to "Mother of the Nation".

This suggests that Mahatma Gandhi got this appellation earlier than 1944.

Note also that people called Gandhi "Bapu" or "Bapuji" - "father" - an honorific for an elderly man; and it might be an easy observation someone made that a nation calls him "father".