Jawaharlal Nehru writes about the timely arrival of Gandhiji to Indian politics, when the country was in dire need of such a leadership. Gandhiji was like a beam of light that removed the darkness. Jawaharlal Nehru makes a right assessment of Gandhiji in his 'Discovery of India' . Read the excerpt.
....World War I ended at last, and the peace, instead of bringing us relief and progress, brought us repressive legislation and martial law in the Punjab. A bitter sense
of humiliation and a passionate anger filled our people.We had become a derelict nation. Yet what could we do,how to change this vicious process? We seemed to be
helpless in the grip of some all-powerful
monster; our limbs were paralysed, our minds deadened. Large numbers of people, cut off from the land and incapable of any kind of manual or technical work,joined the swelling army of the unemployed,
and helpless, hopeless, sank ever deeper into the morass. They did not know where to look, for neither the old nor the new offered them any hope.What could we do? How could we pull India out of this
quagmire of poverty and defeatism? Not for a few years of excitement and agony and suspense, but for long generations our people had offered their 'blood and toil,
tears and sweat.' And this process had eaten its way deep into the body and soul of India, poisoning every aspect of
our life....
And then Gandhi came. He was like a powerful current of fresh air that made us stretch ourselves and take deep breaths; like a beam of light that pierced the darkness and removed the scales from our
eyes; like a whirlwind that upset many things,but most of all the working of people's minds. He did not
descend from the top; he seemed to emerge from the millions of India, speaking their language.
‘Get off the backs of these peasants and workers’, he told us, ‘all of you who live by their exploitation; get rid of the
system that produces this poverty and misery’. Political freedom took a new shape then and acquired a new
content.
Much that he said we only partially
accepted or sometimes did not accept at all.
But all this was secondary. The essence of his teaching was fearlessness and truth, and action allied to these,
always keeping the welfare of the masses in view. The greatest gift for an individual or a nation, so we had been
told in our ancient books, was abhaya
(fearlessness), not merely bodily courage but the absence of fear from the mind. The
dominant impulse in India under British rule was that of fear -- pervasive, oppressing, strangling fear; fear of the
army, the police, the widespread secret service; fear of the official class; fear of laws meant to suppress and of
prison; fear of the landlord's agent; fear of the moneylender; fear of unemployment and starvation, which were always on the threshold. It was against this all-
pervading fear that Gandhi's quiet and
determined voice was raised: Be not afraid.
Was it so simple as all that? Not quite. And yet, fear builds its phantoms which are more fearsome than reality itself,
and reality, when calmly analysed and its consequences willingly accepted, loses much of its terror.
So, suddenly, as it were, that black pall of fear was lifted from the people's shoulders, not wholly of course, but to an amazing degree. As fear is close companion to falsehood, so truth follows fearlessness. The Indian people did not become much more truthful than they were, nor did they change their essential nature
overnight; nevertheless, a sea change was
visible as the need for falsehood and furtive behaviour lessened. It was a psychological change, almost as if some expert in psycho-analytical methods had probed deep into
the patient's past, found out the origins of his complexes, exposed them to his view, and thus rid him of that burden.
There was the psychological reaction also, a feeling of shame at our long submission to an alien rule that had degraded and humiliated us, and a desire to submit no longer, whatever the consequences
might be. We did not grow much more truthful perhaps than we had been previously, but Gandhi was always there as a symbol of uncompromising truth to pull us up and shame us into truth.What is truth? I do not know for certain, and perhaps our truths are relative and absolute truth is beyond us.Different persons may and do take different views of truth,and each individual is powerfully influenced by his own background, training, and impulses. So also
Gandhi. But truth is, at least for an individual,what he himself feels and knows to be true. According to this definition, I do not know of any person who holds to
the truth as Gandhi does. That is a dangerous quality in a politician, for he speaks out his mind and even lets the
public see its changing phases.Gandhi influenced millions of people in India in varying degrees. Some changed the whole texture of their lives,
others were only partly affected, or the effect wore off; and yet not quite, for some part of it could not be wholly shaken off. Different people reacted differently and each will give his own answer to this question.
His call of action was two-fold. There was, of course, the action involved in challenging and resisting foreign rule;there was also the action which led us to fight against
our own social evils. Apart from the fundamental objective of the Congress − the freedom of India − and
the method of peaceful action, the principal
planks of the Congress were national unity,
which involved the solution of the minority problems, and the raising of the depressed classes, and the ending of the curse of untouchability.
Realizing that the main props of British rule were fear,prestige, the co-operation of the people, and certain classes whose vested interests were centred in British
rule, Gandhi attacked these foundations. Titles were to be given up and though the title-holders responded to this only in small measure, the popular respect for these British-given titles disappeared. New standards and values were set up and
the pomp and splendour of the viceregal court and the princes suddenly appeared supremely ridiculous. Rich men were not so anxious to flaunt their riches; outwardly at
least, many of them adopted simpler ways, and in their dress, became almost indistinguishable from humbler folk.
He sent us to the villages, and the countryside hummed with the activity of innumerable messengers of the new
gospel of action. The peasant was shaken up and he beganto emerge from his shell. The effect on us was different
but equally far-reaching, for we saw, for the first time as it were, the villager in the intimacy of his mud-
hut, and with the stark shadow of hunger
always pursuing him. We learnt our Indian economics more
from these visits than from books and learned discourses.
The emotional experience we had already undergone was
emphasized and confirmed, and henceforward, there could
be no going back for us to our old life or our old standards.
What was the idea of India which he was setting out to
mould according to his own wishes and ideals?
‘I shall work for an India in which the poorest shall feel
that it is their country, in whose making they have an
effective voice, an India in which there shall be no high
class and low class of people, an India in which all
communities shall live in perfect harmony.... There can
be no room in such an India for the curse of untouchability
or the curse of intoxicating drinks and drugs.... Women
will enjoy the same right as men.... This is
the India of my dreams.’ Proud of his Hindu
inheritance as he was, he tried to give to
Hinduism a kind of universal attire and included all
religions within the fold of truth. He refused to narrow
his cultural inheritance. 'Indian culture,' he wrote, 'is
neither Hindu, Islamic, nor any other, wholly. It is a fusion
of all.' Again he said: 'I want the culture of all
lands to be blown about my house as freely as
possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet
by any. I refuse to live in other peoples' houses
as an interloper, a beggar, or a slave.' Influenced by modern
thought currents, he never let go of his roots and clung to
them tenaciously.
It is not surprising that this astonishingly vital man, full
of self-confidence and an unusual kind of power, standing for equality and freedom for each individual, fascinated
the masses of India and attracted them like a magnet. He
seemed to them to link up the past with the future and to
make the dismal present appear just as a
stepping-stone to that future of life and hope....
Thus he effected a vast psychological
revolution not only among those who followed
his lead but also among his opponents and those many
neutrals who could not make up their minds what to think
and what to do.
(Adapted)
(An excerpt from Jawaharlal ‘The Discovery of India’)
AND THEN GANDHI CAME
Jawaharlal Nehru....World War I ended at last, and the peace, instead of bringing us relief and progress, brought us repressive legislation and martial law in the Punjab. A bitter sense
of humiliation and a passionate anger filled our people.We had become a derelict nation. Yet what could we do,how to change this vicious process? We seemed to be
helpless in the grip of some all-powerful
monster; our limbs were paralysed, our minds deadened. Large numbers of people, cut off from the land and incapable of any kind of manual or technical work,joined the swelling army of the unemployed,
and helpless, hopeless, sank ever deeper into the morass. They did not know where to look, for neither the old nor the new offered them any hope.What could we do? How could we pull India out of this
quagmire of poverty and defeatism? Not for a few years of excitement and agony and suspense, but for long generations our people had offered their 'blood and toil,
tears and sweat.' And this process had eaten its way deep into the body and soul of India, poisoning every aspect of
our life....
And then Gandhi came. He was like a powerful current of fresh air that made us stretch ourselves and take deep breaths; like a beam of light that pierced the darkness and removed the scales from our
eyes; like a whirlwind that upset many things,but most of all the working of people's minds. He did not
descend from the top; he seemed to emerge from the millions of India, speaking their language.
‘Get off the backs of these peasants and workers’, he told us, ‘all of you who live by their exploitation; get rid of the
system that produces this poverty and misery’. Political freedom took a new shape then and acquired a new
content.
accepted or sometimes did not accept at all.
But all this was secondary. The essence of his teaching was fearlessness and truth, and action allied to these,
always keeping the welfare of the masses in view. The greatest gift for an individual or a nation, so we had been
told in our ancient books, was abhaya
(fearlessness), not merely bodily courage but the absence of fear from the mind. The
dominant impulse in India under British rule was that of fear -- pervasive, oppressing, strangling fear; fear of the
army, the police, the widespread secret service; fear of the official class; fear of laws meant to suppress and of
prison; fear of the landlord's agent; fear of the moneylender; fear of unemployment and starvation, which were always on the threshold. It was against this all-
pervading fear that Gandhi's quiet and
determined voice was raised: Be not afraid.
Was it so simple as all that? Not quite. And yet, fear builds its phantoms which are more fearsome than reality itself,
and reality, when calmly analysed and its consequences willingly accepted, loses much of its terror.
So, suddenly, as it were, that black pall of fear was lifted from the people's shoulders, not wholly of course, but to an amazing degree. As fear is close companion to falsehood, so truth follows fearlessness. The Indian people did not become much more truthful than they were, nor did they change their essential nature
overnight; nevertheless, a sea change was
visible as the need for falsehood and furtive behaviour lessened. It was a psychological change, almost as if some expert in psycho-analytical methods had probed deep into
the patient's past, found out the origins of his complexes, exposed them to his view, and thus rid him of that burden.
There was the psychological reaction also, a feeling of shame at our long submission to an alien rule that had degraded and humiliated us, and a desire to submit no longer, whatever the consequences
might be. We did not grow much more truthful perhaps than we had been previously, but Gandhi was always there as a symbol of uncompromising truth to pull us up and shame us into truth.What is truth? I do not know for certain, and perhaps our truths are relative and absolute truth is beyond us.Different persons may and do take different views of truth,and each individual is powerfully influenced by his own background, training, and impulses. So also
Gandhi. But truth is, at least for an individual,what he himself feels and knows to be true. According to this definition, I do not know of any person who holds to
the truth as Gandhi does. That is a dangerous quality in a politician, for he speaks out his mind and even lets the
public see its changing phases.Gandhi influenced millions of people in India in varying degrees. Some changed the whole texture of their lives,
others were only partly affected, or the effect wore off; and yet not quite, for some part of it could not be wholly shaken off. Different people reacted differently and each will give his own answer to this question.
His call of action was two-fold. There was, of course, the action involved in challenging and resisting foreign rule;there was also the action which led us to fight against
our own social evils. Apart from the fundamental objective of the Congress − the freedom of India − and
the method of peaceful action, the principal
planks of the Congress were national unity,
which involved the solution of the minority problems, and the raising of the depressed classes, and the ending of the curse of untouchability.
Realizing that the main props of British rule were fear,prestige, the co-operation of the people, and certain classes whose vested interests were centred in British
rule, Gandhi attacked these foundations. Titles were to be given up and though the title-holders responded to this only in small measure, the popular respect for these British-given titles disappeared. New standards and values were set up and
the pomp and splendour of the viceregal court and the princes suddenly appeared supremely ridiculous. Rich men were not so anxious to flaunt their riches; outwardly at
least, many of them adopted simpler ways, and in their dress, became almost indistinguishable from humbler folk.
He sent us to the villages, and the countryside hummed with the activity of innumerable messengers of the new
gospel of action. The peasant was shaken up and he beganto emerge from his shell. The effect on us was different
but equally far-reaching, for we saw, for the first time as it were, the villager in the intimacy of his mud-
hut, and with the stark shadow of hunger
always pursuing him. We learnt our Indian economics more
from these visits than from books and learned discourses.
The emotional experience we had already undergone was
emphasized and confirmed, and henceforward, there could
be no going back for us to our old life or our old standards.
What was the idea of India which he was setting out to
mould according to his own wishes and ideals?
‘I shall work for an India in which the poorest shall feel
that it is their country, in whose making they have an
effective voice, an India in which there shall be no high
class and low class of people, an India in which all
communities shall live in perfect harmony.... There can
be no room in such an India for the curse of untouchability
or the curse of intoxicating drinks and drugs.... Women
will enjoy the same right as men.... This is
the India of my dreams.’ Proud of his Hindu
inheritance as he was, he tried to give to
Hinduism a kind of universal attire and included all
religions within the fold of truth. He refused to narrow
his cultural inheritance. 'Indian culture,' he wrote, 'is
neither Hindu, Islamic, nor any other, wholly. It is a fusion
of all.' Again he said: 'I want the culture of all
lands to be blown about my house as freely as
possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet
by any. I refuse to live in other peoples' houses
as an interloper, a beggar, or a slave.' Influenced by modern
thought currents, he never let go of his roots and clung to
them tenaciously.
It is not surprising that this astonishingly vital man, full
of self-confidence and an unusual kind of power, standing for equality and freedom for each individual, fascinated
the masses of India and attracted them like a magnet. He
seemed to them to link up the past with the future and to
make the dismal present appear just as a
stepping-stone to that future of life and hope....
Thus he effected a vast psychological
revolution not only among those who followed
his lead but also among his opponents and those many
neutrals who could not make up their minds what to think
and what to do.
(Adapted)
(An excerpt from Jawaharlal ‘The Discovery of India’)
0 Comments