2nd October, 1869: Birth Anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi

2^nd October, 1869: Birth Anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi

To American Friends:

Dear Friends,

          As I am supposed to be the spirit behind the much discussed and equally well abused resolution of the Working Committee of the Indian National Congress on Independence, it has become necessary for me  to explain my position. For I am not unknown to you.  I  have in America, perhaps, the largest number of friends in the West – not even excepting Great Britain. British friends knowing me personally are more discerning than the American. In America I am a victim of the well-known malady called – hero worship. Good Dr. Holmes until recently of the Unity Church of the New York, without knowing me personally, became my advertising agent. Some of the nice things he said about me I never knew myself. So I receive often embarrassing letters from America expecting me to perform miracles. Dr. Holmes was followed much later by the late Bishop Fisher who knew me personally in India. He very nearly dragged me to America but fates had ordained otherwise and I could not visit your vast and great country with its wonderful people.

Moreover, you have given me a teacher of Thoreau who furnished me through his essay on the ‘Duty of Civil Disobedience’ scientific confirmation of what I was doing in South Africa. Great Britain gave me Ruskin whose ‘Unto this Last’ transformed me overnight from a lawyer and city-dweller into a rustic living away from Durban on a farm three miles from the nearest railway station and Russia gave me in Tolstoy a teacher who furnished a reasoned basis for my non-violence. He blessed my movement in South Africa when it was in its infancy and of whose wonderful possibilities I had yet to learn. It was he who had prophesied in his letter to me that I was leading a movement which was destined to bring a message of hope to the down-trodden people of the earth. So you will see that I have not approached the present task in any spirit of enmity to Great Britain and the West. After having imbibed and assimilated the message of ‘Unto this Last’ I could not be guilty of approving of Fascism or Nazism whose cult is suppression of the individual and his liberty.

I invite you to read my formula of withdrawal or as it has been popularly called ‘Quit India’ with this background. You may not read into it more than the context warrants.

I claim to be a votary of truth from my childhood. It was the most natural thing to me. My prayerful search gave me the revealing maxim “Truth is God” instead of the usual one “God is Truth”. That maxim enables me to see God face to face as it were. I feel him pervade every fibre of my being. With this Truth as witness between you and me, I assert that I would not have asked my country to invite Great Britain to withdraw her rule over India, irrespective of any demand to the contrary, had I not seen at once that for the sake of Great Britain and Allied cause it was necessary for Britain boldly to perform the duty of freeing India from bondage. Without this essential act of tardy justice Britain could not justify her position before the unmurmuring World Conscience, which is not vocal but which is there nevertheless. Singapore, Malaya and Burma taught me that the disaster must not be repeated in India. I make bold to say that it cannot be averted unless Britain trusts the people of India to use their liberty in favour of the Allied cause. By that supreme act of justice Britain would have taken away all cause for the seething discontent of India. She will turn the growing illwill into active goodwill. I submit that it is worth all the battleships and airships that your wonder-working engineers and financial resources can produce.

I know that interested propaganda has filled your ears and eyes with distorted versions of the Congress position. I have been painted as a hypocrite and enemy of Britain under disguise. My demonstrable spirit of accommodation has been described as my inconsistency proving me to be an utterly unreliable man. I am not going to burden this letter with proof in support of my assertions. If the credit I have enjoyed in America will not stand me in good stead, nothing I may argue in self defence will carry conviction against the formidable but false propaganda that has poisoned American ears.

You have made common cause with Great Britain. You cannot therefore disown responsibility for anything that her representatives do in India. You will do a grievous wrong to the Allied cause, if you do not shift the truth from the chaff whilst there is yet time. Just think of it. Is there anything wrong in the Congress demanding unconditional recognition of India’s Independence? It is being said, ‘But this is not the time’. We say, ‘This is the psychological moment for that recognition’. For then and then only can there be irresistible opposition to Japanese aggression. It is of immense value to the Allied cause, if it is also of equal value to India. The Congress has anticipated and provided for every possible difficulty in the way of recognition. I want you to look upon the immediate recognition of India’s Independence as a war measure of first class magnitude.

I am,

Your friend,

M.K. Gandhi:

On the way to Bombay

3.8.1942:

Source: M.K. Gandhi Papers (Pyarelal) (XV Inst.), MSS, NMML

2nd October, 1904: Birth Anniversary of Lal Bahadur Shastri

2^nd October, 1904: Birth Anniversary of Lal Bahadur Shastri

Shastriji -As Conciliator

Second October is a doubly important, auspicious day for the people of India: the one, the birthday of a truly great man of our time of whom Einstein, the eminent scientist said, "generations to come will scarcely believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth’’. The other, the birthday of a man of humble origin who by his character and dedicated service became the First Minister of the Union Government of India. Even though his tenure was all too brief-cut off by sudden death - Lal Bahadur Shastri did make an impact on his people and contributed to national progress.

What was Shastriji’s out standing contribution or achievement? He embodied what might be called the best in Hindu temperament in his attitude and approach to problems and relations with men. He was modest, cautions, tentative, tolerant; he was prepared to listen to views different and opposite to his own, try to learn from them without giving up his own basic stand. Succeeding a national figure like Jawaharlal Nehru, he had to be wary in his steps, watch carefully the trends and forces and  movements at home and abroad. He did not wish to do something spectacular and stagger mankind. Indeed, he had already too many serious and complex problems economic and regionals to be able to take up a heroic pose. Food, economic growth, controversy over language, were all there as legacies and to be faced by a party torn by internal dissensions. The Chinese episode in the autumn of 1962 had affected the nation's prestige and self-confidence. Pakistan was, as ever, a disturbing and unpredictable element.

Shastriji faced these formidable problems as they arose coolly and calmly. He was patient not in the sense of resigning himself to forces beyond his control or permitting events to work themselves out and find solution. His patience had an element of persistence and perseverance. He did not wait patiently for “something to turn up”. But on one point he was clear. He felt that in a vast country with so many divergences of religion, community and language, unity had to be obtained the hard way. It could not be taken for granted or imposed from above. In other words, he wanted to evolve as far as possible a consensus through consultations with his party as well as opposition leaders. That was not a sign of weakness but of strength. Conflict of interests and opinions is the essence of free political life….

...Shastriji had a broad and impartial mind which was constantly struggling….He recognised, perhaps instinctively, the value of the politics of consensus. But it takes more than mere ingenuous tactics or clever manoeuvring to achieve and maintain a worthwhile consensus. And an enduring consensus cannot be built up by ignoring or blurring vital issues. If Shastriji did not always succeed, it was not for want of trying.

It was on the international plane, however, that Shastriji evinced his quality of firmness and resilience. It is in such crises as he had to face in the summer of 1965 in the Rann of Kutch and in the autumn that year on the Punjab-Kashmir border that he rose to the occasion. Opportunity may make a man but it can also unmake him. In a very real sense, during such crucial events a statesman and his methods are put to severe test. It is at such times also that reputations are made and enhanced or reduced and shattered. Shastriji on these two occasions had the final authority and bore the ultimate responsibility. I believe that he showed courage and statesmanship in standing by the Kutch agreement and the earlier pact of distribution of the waters of the Indus basin in face of criticism. And while his conduct of the unfortunate conflict with Pakistan evoked the admiration and respect of his countrymen, he never turned bellicose or allowed fanaticism and hatred to pre-dominate. He emphasised the limited objectives of the conflict which had been imposed upon our country and which had nothing to do with a destruction or conquest of Pakistan. And if Shastriji has a place in history, it is because of the way he handled this war and equally, the subsequent peace at Tashkent. It is easy to pour scorn on the sincere endeavour to arrive at an honourable settlement with a neighbouring country which has been consistently hostile. But while we may be able to choose our allies, we cannot unfortunately choose our neighbours. Shastriji recognized, as peoples and leaders have to do sooner or later, that we have to live with many of our problems, that unhappily there are no quick, easy and satisfactory solutions in international relationship. Conciliation when done without sacrifice of essential interests is not surrender. It is demagogic to condemn every kind of compromise or adjustment with other countries as “appeasement”. Shastriji did not appease Pakistan at Tashkent. What he did was to recognise that the common interests of two neighbouring countries which were part of one and a decade and a half ago, should have precedence over their differences, that development of both was more vital for their mass of people than violent conflicts engendering bitterness and hatred….If the Tashkent accord has not worked out as Shastriji and all reasonable people in both countries hoped and wished, the fault was surely not his. The Tashkent agreement has no built-in weaknesses; it is singularly unfortunate that the Pakistan leaders have not lived up to it or imbibed its spirit.

The hour of triumph, said Gandhiji on a historic occasion, is the hour of humility. For Shastriji, Tashkent was the hour of his moral victory- victory not only over the armed forces of Pakistan but, what is not less important, over the evils of hatred and fanaticism. And yet this hour was also the moment of his sudden and untimely departure and of deep and genuine sorrow for his countrymen. He signed a peace pact, so to speak, with his own blood. For him, popular affection was stronger than a fortress. He had secured his place in the hearts of the people because he was one of them. It has been said that a politician must never forget that he is just one of the common folk. Shastriji, whatever his errors and limitations, never forget this; he never lost touch with the common man not did he encourage hero-worship or try to build up a personality cult. In politics what is believed is more important than what is propagated. And people believed in Lal Bahadur Shastri. Great man expect perhaps some prophets of old or saints do not have the character of simplicity. Shastriji was by no means as simple as he seemed. But he endeavoured to be true to himself and was, therefore, not  false to any other man.  He may have been right or wrong on specified issues but so far as I know, he was never on the side of wrong.

The last enemy of Shastriji faced, as we all have to some day, was death. But death, too, revealed his poise and serenity and it could be said of him-he ran  the race too quickly at the end but he kept to the course; fate did not spare him but he kept his faith with his fellowmen.

____________________________________

Excerpts from a talk given by Shri G.L. Mehta

over the All India Radio, on

October 2, 1967

Source: C. Rajagopalachari Papers, MSS, NMML