Mahatma Gandhi

by Dennis Dalton

  178. Ample evidence exists of Jewish resistance during the 1930s and 1940s in Europe. See the extensive discussion in Jewish Resistance During the Holocaust. Proceedings of the Conference on Manifestations of Jewish Resistance, Jerusalem, April 7–11, 1968 (Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 1971). Blair B. Kling, “Gandhi, Nonviolence, and the Holocaust,” Peace and Change, 16 (2) (April 1991): 176–196, analyzes thoroughly Gandhi’s position on the Jews and examines problems of Jewish nonviolent resistance. He concludes that no evidence of satyagraha exists because “Although in their resistance Jews did often make use of the techniques of nonviolent action, the spirit in which these were used was non-Gandhian.” He also makes the important point that because the Jews were invariably a small minority, “In general, studies of Jewish resistance show that the success with which Jews, particularly in Eastern Europe, were able to survive and resist, violently or nonviolently, depended primarily on the non-Jews among whom they lived.” This fact underscores the difference between the Indian and German situations. Gene Sharp documents numerous instances of what Kling calls “techniques of nonviolent action” used by Jews and non-Jews alike in his classic and encyclopedic work, The Politics of Nonviolent Action.

  179. Sharp, Ibid., p. 28.

  Chapter 5

  1. CWMG 19: 541.

  2. CWMG 75: 282.

  3. The Statesman (Calcutta), May 20, 1947, p. 4.

  4. Ibid. August 21, 1946, p. 4.

  5. Suranjan Das, Communal Riots in Bengal 1905–1943 (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 176. Also his article “Towards an Understanding of Communal Violence in Twentieth Century Bengal,” Economic and Political Weekly, August 27, 1988, pp. 1804–1808.

  6. G. D. Khosla, Stern Reckoning: A Survey of the Events Leading Up To and Following the Partition of India (Bombay: Claridge and Co., 1952), pp. 52–53; and Richard D. Lambert, “Hindu-Muslim Riots,” Ph.D. Dissertation in Sociology, University of Pennsylvania, 1951, pp. 169–170.

  7. Gandhi, as quoted in D.G. Tendulkar, Mahatma (1953), vii, p. 475.

  8. The Statesman, November 24, 1945, p. 4.

  9. Sir Francis Tuker, While Memory Serves (1950), p. 102.

  10. Ibid., p. 100.

  11. The Statesman, February 13–15, 1946. The rioting lasted four days; 42 killed and 380 injured.

  12. Ibid. February 15, 1946, p. 4.

  13. Ibid. February 13, 1946, p. 7.

  14. It may be noted that the largest riots of February occurred not in Calcutta, but in Bombay (The Times of India, February 22–24, 1946). Indeed, during the months of late 1945 and early 1946, Bombay’s incidence of large-scale rioting became the highest in India. Significantly, these riots were noncommunal in nature, and therefore the situation in Bombay did not deteriorate on the Calcutta model. These riots did, however, drive home the realization of the terrifying scale that could be reached. Thus, when Gandhi commented on them he struck precisely the note of anxiety that was in the air, and the press throughout India commented on his words: “A combination between Hindus and Muslims and others for the purpose of violent action [as had happened in Bombay] is unholy and will lead and probably is a preparation for mutual violence bad for India and the world.” (Gandhi quoted in The Times of India, February 25, 1946, p. 7).

  15. Tuker, While Memory Serves, p. 108.

  16. R.G. Casey, An Australian in India (1947), p. 38.

  17. Tuker, While Memory Serves, p. 114.

  18. The Statesman, July 31, 1946, p. 1.

  19. Ibid. July 31-August 2, 1946.

  20. Ibid. August 13–16, 1946.

  21. Gandhi, quoted in The Times of India, August 5, 1946, p. 5.

  22. The Leader (Allahabad), August 16, 1946, p. 4.

  23. The Times of India, August 7, 1946, p. 6. (“Candidus”).

  24. The Statesman, August 15, 1946, p. 6.

  25. Ibid. February 23, 1947, p. 11.

  26. Interview with Nirmal Kumar Bose, Calcutta, November 16, 1966. Suranjan Das in his focused study of communal riots observes that “The survivors of the Great Calcutta Killing, for example, still talk about their experience in the same way the second world war provides a framework for Europeans who lived through it.” “Towards an Understanding of Communal Violence in Twentieth Century Bengal,” Economic Political Weekly, August 27,1988, p. 1808. The casualty figures are from official reports, also cited in Das, Communal Riots in Bengal, pp. 171, 269. These figures are often higher in other accounts. G. D. Khosla, Stem Reckoning gives an estimate of 5,000 killed and 15,000 injured, commenting that “the Muslims fared almost as badly as the Hindus.” (p. 66). R. D. Lambert, ‘Hindu-Muslim Riots. “says that” the deaths are generally put well over 5,000 and the number of injuries about five times that number.” (p. 173).

  27. G.D. Khosla, ibid., p. 64.

  28. Nehru, quoted in The Statesman, August 18, 1946, p. 1.

  29. Maulana Azad quoted in The Statesman, August 20, 1946, p. 1. The indictment was repeated by Sarat Chandra Bose, leader of the opposition in the central assembly of Bengal.

  30. Jinnah, quoted in The Statesman, August 18, 1946, p. 1.

  31. The Times of London: August 26, 1946, p. 5.

  32. Liaqat Ali Khan, quoted in The Statesman, August 28, 1946, pp. 1, 5.

  33. Jinnah, quoted in The Statesman, September, 5, 1946, p. 1.

  34. The Statesman, September 1, 1946, p. 1.

  35. Ibid. September 7, 1946, p. 5.

  36. The Modern Review, edited by K. Chatterji (Calcutta), September, 1946, p. 171.

  37. Arthur Moore, in a letter to the editor from Delhi, dated August 22, 1946. The Statesman, August 27, 1946, p. 4.

  38. The Statesman, August 23, 1946, p. 2. Suranjan Das, comparing riots in Bengal from 1905–1947, argues that the Great Calcutta Killing was unprecedented in character: “For the first time, Bengali Hindus and Muslims joined their coreligionists of up-country origin on a large scale in the Great Calcutta Killing of 1946. While the earlier riots were mostly characterized by looting and other forms of violence committed by a large crowd, those in the 1940s also saw the killing of individuals by small groups. The emphasis now was not on economic gain but on revenge and humiliation of the members of the rival community. This rite of violence displayed communal animosity at its peak, thereby completing the process of dehumanisation,” p. 1806.

  39. The Times of London, August 26, 1946, p. 5.

  40. Ibid. August 20, 1946, p. 5.

  41. Gandhi, quoted in The Statesman, August 27, 1946, p. 5.

  42. Percival Griffiths, Modern India (1957), p. 85.

  43. The riots lasted from March 26 to April 1; 73 were killed and 481 injured. See The Statesman.

  44. Governor Burrows, quoted in The Statesman, May 28, 1947, p. 7.

  45. For example, on “Pakistan Day,” March 23, 1947, Suhrawardy banned all processions, demonstrations, and public meetings in Bengal, and enforced this ban stringently with troops. The Statesman, March 21 and 22, 1947.

  46. The Statesman, April 10, 1947, p. 4.

  47. See Tuker on this point, While Memory Serves, pp. 234, 412.

  48. The Statesman, April 9, 1947, p. 1.

  49. Ibid., April 16, 1947, p. 1.

  50. Ibid., May 10, 1947, p. 1.

  51. Ibid., May 12,1947, p. 6.

  52. Ibid., July 9, 1947, p. 4

  53. Ibid., August 4, 1947, p. 4.

  54. Ibid., August 5,1947, p. 1. This followed the Viceroy Lord Mountbatten’s visit to Calcutta at the end of July during which he expressed his “grave concern at the disturbed conditions in the city.” Lord Spens remarked that he had himself urged the central government to increase military forces in Calcutta at this time.

  55. Ibid. August 7, 1947, p. 1.

  56. Ibid. August 11–12, 1947, p. 1.

  57. Ibid. July 31, 1947, p. 6.

  58. The incident is related in N. K. Bose, My Days with Gandhi, p. 232.

  59. The Statesman, August 13, 1947, p. 1.

  60. Sardar Patel quoted in Pyarelal, Mahatma Gandhi, T
he Last Phase (Ahmedabad: Navajivan, (1958), ii, p. 365.

  61. Ibid. p. 367.

  62. Khosla offers this assessment of this critical moment: “In the beginning of August 1947, when the partition of the province was imminent and the Government of the future East Bengal was ready to leave Calcutta, attacks on Muslims increased. Calcutta appeared to be on the verge of another catastrophe similar to the one in which it had been plunged a year previously. Mahatma Gandhi then came to the rescue and decided to live in Calcutta until peace was restored. Accompanied by Mr. Suhrawardy, he took up residence in the house of a Muslim and braving the anger of the Hindus, began to preach his gospel of non-violence. On one occasion a Hindu mob attacked the house in which he was living and a lathi was actually thrown at him. He stood his ground undaunted and his courage worked a veritable miracle in Calcutta.” (Stern Reckoning, p. 67) Richard D. Lambert observes that “At the time of partition the country looked to Calcutta for a replica of the Punjab disorders, but…the quieting effect of the joint efforts of Gandhi and Suhrawardy forestalled large-scale violence. And with Calcutta quiet, Bengal was divided with only minor disturbances.” (“Hindu-Muslim Riots,” p. 163) Suranjan Das, Communal Riots in Bengal, says that Gandhi “persuaded Suhrawardy to stay with him in the riot-torn areas which caused a rapid improvement of the situation. Largely as a result of this, the Hindus and Muslims jointly celebrated the end of the Raj on August 15—a scene which contrasted sharply with the continuous fratricidal warfare which had plagued the city for the last year” (p. 205). These assessments of Gandhi’s influence in Calcutta during Independence are accurate as far as they go, but they do not proceed with accounts of his September fast. In fact, as the analysis here suggests, Gandhi’s use of nonviolence in Calcutta had two stages, the first an essential preparation for the second. His “experiment” with Suhrawardy was a necessary but not sufficient condition for meeting the violence in Calcutta. His fast proved decisive mainly because of the high degree of self-sacrifice that it represented. The force of self-suffering is called tapas and Gandhi regarded it as a central idea in his tradition, felt by Hindus and Muslims alike.

  63. Comment in The Statesman, August 15, 1947, p. 6 (Leader).

  64. Rajagoplachari in The Statesman, August 19, 1947, p. 5.

  65. The Statesman, August 15, 1947, p. 1.

  66. Sir Francis Tuker gives several other reasons for the explosion of communal goodwill at the moment of independence. He terms Gandhi’s influence “considerable.” While Memory Serves, pp. 415,421–2.

  67. Comment by The Statesman, August 28, 1947, p. 4.

  68. Ibid. August 19, 1947, p. 1.

  69. On August 26th, Mountbatten wired Gandhi in Calcutta: “My Dear Gandhiji, In the Punjab we have 55 thousand soldiers and large scale rioting. In Bengal our forces consist of one man, and there is no rioting. As a serving officer, as well as an administrator, may I be allowed to pay my tribute to the One Man Boundary Force, not forgetting his Second in Command, Mr. Suhrawardy.” Gandhi, Correspondence with the Government, 1944–47(1959), p. 277.

  70. On August 24, 1947, The Muslim League party in the Indian constituent assembly passed a resolution expressing its “deep sense of appreciation of the services rendered by Mr. Gandhi to the cause of restoration of peace and goodwill between the communities in Calcutta” (The Statesman, August 25, 1947, p. 1). The press throughout India acclaimed Gandhi’s achievement in exalted terms: see, The Mail (Madras), August 20, 1947, p. 4; The Leader (Allahabad) August 20, 1947, p. 4; and The Times of India, September 3, 1947, p. 4.

  71. Nehru and Rees reported in The Statesman, August 29, 1947, pp. 1, 5–6.

  72. The Statesman, September 1, 1947, p. 5.

  73. Tuker, While Memory Serves, p. 426.

  74. Gandhi to Patel, Calcutta, September 1, 1947, in M. K. Gandhi, Letters to Sardar Patel (1957), pp. 225–6. Also, Pyarelal, Mahatma Gandhi, p. 406.

  75. Pyarelal, ibid., p. 407.

  76. Gandhi in The Statesman, September 2, 1947, p. 10; and CWMG 89: 132.

  77. The Times of India, September 3, 1947, p. 4.

  78. Pyarelal, Mahatma Gandhi, p. 412.

  79. Ibid. p. 421.

  80. Ibid. p. 420.

  81. Amiya Chakravarty, A Saint at Work. William Penn Lecture, 1950, Philadelphia, The Young Friends Movement of the Philadelphia Yearly Meetings, 1950, pp. 2324.

  82. The shift, in this The Statesman leader, from the use of “Mr.” to “Mahatma” is not coincidental; an editorial of September 1 had announced it as part of the paper’s future policy. The change was made in response to numerous requests from readers, one of whom wrote (letter to editor, September 1, 1947, p. 4): “I have always had great respect for Mr. Gandhi, but could not make up my mind to speak of him as Mahatma. However, seeing the wonders he has done in Calcutta I have no hesitation now in doing so. I hope that you will take the same view and in future write Mahatma Gandhi and not Mr. Gandhi.”

  83. The Statesman, September 3, 1947, p. 4.

  84. Chakravarty, p. 25.

  85. Quoted in Pyarelal, Mahatma Gandhi, p. 423.

  86. Chakravarty, p. 25.

  87. Quoted in The Statesman, September 6, 1947, p. 1.

  88. Ibid. September 7, 1947, p. 1.

  89. E. W. R. Lumby, The Transfer of Power in India, 194 5–1947 (London: Allen and Unwin, 1954), p. 193. For further specific comment on Gandhi’s achievement in the Calcutta satyagraha, and especially the September fast, see V. P. Menon, The Transfer of Power in India (1957), p. 434; also, Lord Pethwick-Lawrence et al. Mahatma Gandhi (London: Odhams Press, 1949), pp. 297–98; Tuker, While Memory Serves, p. 426. Extensive accounts of the fast itself are in Pyarelal, Mahatma Gandhi, N. K. Bose, My Days with Gandhi, D.G. Tendulkar, Mahatma, vols. 7 and 8, and Manubehn Gandhi, The Miracle of Calcutta (Navajivan: 1959). A dramatic relation of Gandhi’s achievement in Calcutta occurs in Larry Collins and Pierre Lapierre, Freedom at Midnight (New York: Avon, 1983), pp. 338–360. These authors conclude: “This time the ‘miracle of Calcutta’ was real and it would endure. On the tortured plains of the Punjab, in the Frontier Province, in Karachi, Lucknow and Delhi, the worst was yet to come, but the city of Dreadful Night would keep faith with the old man who had risked death to give it peace. Never again during Gandhi’s lifetime would the blood of a communal riot soil the pavements of Calcutta” (p. 360). General comment on the extent of Gandhi’s influence during the partition period occurs in Nicholas Mansergh, Survey of British Commonwealth Affairs, 1939–1952 (1958), p. 222, and his The Commonwealth and The Nations (1958), p. 142; Penderel Moon, Divide and Quit (1961), p. 249; Wilfred Russel, Indian Summer (19 51), p. 26; and Percival Spear, India, A Modern History, p. 142. My account of the Calcutta satyagraha is indebted especially to personal interviews with Pyarelal (Jan., 1967, Delhi), Archarya Kripalani (Oct., 1966, Ahmedabad) C. Rajagopalachari (May, 1967, Madras), and Nirmal Kumar Bose (Nov., 1966, Calcutta).

  90. Nicholas Mansergh, The Commonwealth and The Nations, p. 142.

  91. Ibid., p. 142.

  92. CWMG 75: 366.

  93. CWMG 39: 350.

  94. CWMG 25: 171.

  95. CWMG 86: 143.

  96. Suhrawardy, moreover, not only behaved like Gandhi’s trusted comrade during the experiment, but, to the astonishment of his Hindu antagonists, he admitted what he had heretofore denied vehemently: that he should bear the largest responsibility for the Calcutta Killing.

  97. Gandhi, Delhi Diary (1948), p. 302.

  98. The technique of the prayer meeting, developed in Calcutta, was perfected by Gandhi in Delhi (September 1947-January 1948). For his use of the “objector” in the audience see, for example, Delhi Diary, pp. 27, 29—32, 38, 45—48.

  99. CWMG 55: 412.

  100. CWMG 75: 147.

  101. CWMG 63: 91 and CWMG 83: 401.

  102. CWMG 83: 401.

  103. CWMG 86: 318.

  104. Young India, May 1, 1924. Gandhi’s theory and practice of fasting may be compared and contrasted with the Irish employme
nt of the technique against the British government from 1917–1973. On the one hand, Terence McSwiney, who died in a hunger strike in 1920, stated his philosophy in Gandhian terms: “It is not those who inflict the most but those who suffer the most who will conquer.” Yet, the Irish did not regard their adversaries as “lovers” nor did they adhere to creedal nonviolence. From a Gandhian perspective, the Irish hunger strike seems more duragraha than satyagraha. See Padraig O’Malley, Biting at the Grave. The Irish Hunger Strikes and the Politics of Despair (Boston: Beacon Press, 1990), pp. 26–27; and Tim Pat Coogan, Michael Collins: A Biography (New York: Arrow Books, 1991), pp. 154–155. Julie Boyer contributed these references.

  105. The analysis of Gandhi’s use of the fast in Calcutta in Collins and Lapierre, Freedom At Midnight, emphasizes this point. It also notes that “a fast gave a problem a vital dimension of time. Its dramatic message forced people’s thoughts out of the ruts in which they were accustomed to run and made them face new concepts.” (p. 356).

  106. CWMG 72: 456.

  107. Harijan, November 17, 1946; and CWMG 76: 76.

  108. Radhakrishanan, quoted in The Statesman, September 5, 1947, p. 8.

  109. CWMG 89: 132, 149.

  110. This concluding summary and analysis is indebted to interviews with Pyarelal Nayar and Nirmal Kumar Bose, as noted above, and particularly to the insights of Mirabehn (Madeline Slade), interviewed in Vienna, Austria, August, 1975.