Author’s Name Paper No Unit No Chapter No

9.1.1 The Legacy of Mahatma Gandhi

Introduction

On January 13, 1948, Mahatma Gandhi went on a fast. It was to be his thirty-first fast in public
life, and as it so happened, his last. (see Narayan Desai 2009, 472). He called it his yagna, and
his greatest fast. Throughout the fast, he spoke (although with diminishing energy) to the crowds
at his daily prayer meetings, dictated letters and talked to political colleagues, friends and
community leaders who came to see him. Seventeen days later he was dead, gunned down by an
assassin at a prayer meeting. Gandhi’s utterances and deeds in the last weeks of his life,
especially during this fast are of great significance. They are a message about the tragic events
surrounding the partition of India, mixed with foresight and advice about their consequences and
how to cope with them. He sensed that his life was about to come to a close, so this was also his
farewell. Reading these utterances today, we get the feeling that he was speaking across the
boundaries of time and space, and not only to Indians. He refused to consider Pakistanis as aliens
and enemies. “Both India and Pakistan are my country,” he said in June 1947, “I am not going to
take out a passport for going to Pakistan.”

Gandhi was also speaking to people the world over affected by war, displacement and massacres.
In the years immediately following the second world war, there were millions of such people. In
addition to the issues raised by Gandhi in his last fast, his views on two major events in the
global arena deserve more attention than they have received. These are the atomic bombardment
of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the USA in August 1945; and the
establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine in 1948. (The second issue is covered in the lecture
on Communalism).

War and Nuclear Weapons

Gandhi first spoke about the atom bomb in February 1946. One historian has suggested that he
delayed speaking out because he was concerned that India’s independence might be affected by
an atomic threat from the USA (Rothermund 1991, 112). It should be remembered that Britain’s
wartime leader was the staunch colonialist Winston Churchill. Even after Gandhi’s fear of an
atomic threat to India’s freedom receded, he warned of the dangers of colonialism. Britain was
one of the Big Three powers of which one was armed with atomic weapons; and the atom bomb
was “the last word in violence today” (CWMG 89:402). Thus, commenting on the communal
killings in Bihar in November 1946, Gandhi said that they had set back the clock of
independence. “Before long India will pass under the yoke of the Big Three with one of them
probably as the mandatory power” (CWMG 93:4). These statements remind us that Gandhi
remained a steadfast opponent of imperialism till the end of his life. He reminded all “oppressed
races of the earth” that “unless we can have a new way of fighting imperialism of all brands in
the place of the outworn one of a violent uprising,” there would be no hope left for them
Author’s Name Paper No Unit No Chapter No

(CWMG 89:103). In May, responding to people who believed that the bomb would put an end to
war, he said, “The atom bomb has not stopped violence. People’s hearts are full of it and
preparations for a third world war may even be said to be going on” (CWMG 90:374).

In July 1946, Gandhi answered some American friends who were arguing along similar lines. He
insisted that the bomb had deadened the finest feelings of humanity. “There used to be so-called
laws of war which made it tolerable. Now we know the naked truth. War knows no law except
that of might. The atom bomb brought an empty victory to Allied arms but it resulted for the
time being in destroying the soul of Japan. What has happened to the soul of the destroying
nation is yet too early to see” (CWMG 91:221). In September, he said, “I regard the employment
of the atom bomb for the wholesale destruction of men, women and children as the most
diabolical use of science.” When asked whether the bomb had made non-violence useless, he
said, “No. It is the only thing the atom bomb cannot destroy. I did not move a muscle when I first
heard that the atom bomb had wiped out Hiroshima. On the contrary, I said to myself, unless
now the world adopts non-violence it will spell certain suicide for mankind” (CWMG 92:234).
In June 1947, he commented on science, “There are two kinds of shastras in the world, one
satvik and the other rajasik, one conforming to dharma and the other not conforming to dharma.
The shastra of the atom bomb does not conform to dharma. It does not show faith in God. It
usurps the place of God” (CWMG 95:221).

Gandhi During Partition

In early September 1947, just after Independence, Gandhi had fasted in Calcutta to change the
hearts of the people and politicians of Bengal. The background to this was as follows. 1946 had
seen the worst communal massacre in the decade before partition. It took place in Calcutta as a
result of Jinnah’s call for Direct Action on August 16. (The Muslim League controlled the
provincial government under Chief Minister Husain Suhrawardy). There were reports of five to
ten thousand people being killed and fifteen thousand injured between August 16 and 19.
Suhrawardy’s extremist speeches in the run-up to August 16 led many to suspect deliberate
political instigation of the massacre. This event came to be known as the Great Calcutta Killing
(Markovits 2007). It severely embittered communal relations and the political atmosphere. The
months that followed were extremely tense. The province was engulfed in fear. In October there
was violence in Noakhali, north Bengal, a Muslim majority area soon to become part of East
Pakistan. Here Hindu villagers were the main victims. Soon afterwards, riots erupted in Bihar
that resulted in over 7000 Muslims being killed. Gandhi severely criticised Bihar’s Congress
government and demanded that senior Congressmen do their utmost to stop the violence. From
November 1946 till February 1947, he walked through the villages of Noakhali. This pilgrimage
for harmony became legendary, as his prayer meetings healed the public psyche, encouraged
Hindus to return to their villages and Muslims to discard their animus. The area has a Gandhi
Museum, and legends of his visit are still repeated among the elderly. (Rajmohan Gandhi 2006,
591-593)
Author’s Name Paper No Unit No Chapter No

Five months later, when India and Pakistan emerged as newly independent nations, Gandhi was
back in Bengal. Contemporary observers thought it a miracle that thousands of Hindus and
Muslims celebrated Eid together on August 18, 1947. For once, British officialdom was happy
with Gandhi’s presence. On August 26, Viceroy Mountbatten sent him a telegram stating: “My
dear Gandhiji, in the Punjab we have 55 thousand soldiers and large-scale rioting on our hands.
In Bengal our forces consist of one man, and there is no rioting… As a serving officer may I be
allowed to pay my tribute to the One Man Boundary Force.” And the Muslim League fraction in
the Constituent Assembly in Delhi 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” (Dalton 1970, 234). Gandhi now decided to visit the Punjab.

But the peace did not last. On August 31, renewed violence in Calcutta prompted Gandhi to
change his travel plans. On September 1, he announced his decision to fast against violence. He
stayed in the abandoned Hydari Mansion in a Muslim part of the city. Within a day, students
began to take out peace processions, and even the European and Anglo-Indian officers of the
north Calcutta police force wore arm-bands and fasted on duty in sympathy with Gandhi. The
following day bands of hooligans came to him to surrender their weapons and pleaded with him
to end his fast. Gandhi said it was the first time he had seen a sten-gun. (Rajmohan Gandhi 2006,
636-637; and Dalton 1970, 235-238). On September 4, 1947, he received a delegation including
businessmen, the Muslim League-led Seaman’s Union, the Hindu Mahasabha, and Chief
Minister Suhrawardy. He made them swear they would risk their own lives before allowing
another outbreak of communal violence. This unprecedented oath was then written and signed by
the entire delegation. Chakravarthi Rajagopalachari, independent India’s second Governor
General, remarked that not even the struggle for Independence was “as truly wonderful as his
victory over evil in Calcutta.” (The Statesman, 06/09/1947). In his editorial of September 1, the
English editor of The Statesman announced that henceforth “Mr Gandhi” would be referred to in
his columns as the Mahatma.

Earlier, at a prayer meeting in Bombay in March 1946, Gandhi had said, “It has become the
fashion these days to ascribe all such ugly manifestations to the activities of hooligans. It hardly
becomes us to take refuge in that moral alibi. Who are the hooligans after all? They are our own
countrymen, and so long as any countryman of ours indulges in such acts, we cannot disown
responsibility for them consistently with our claim that we are one people.. Mankind is at the
crossroads. It has to make its choice between the law of the jungle and the law of humanity.”
(CWMG 90: 64). And at the height of the violence of 1947 he said, “it is time for peace-loving
citizens to assert themselves and isolate goondaism. Non-violent non-cooperation is the universal
remedy. Good is self-existent, evil is not. It is like a parasite living in and around good. It will
die of itself when the support that good gives it is withdrawn.” (CWMG 96: 335). In Gandhi's
way of thinking, the struggle between good and evil took place in every soul, and was not merely
demarcated by the social distance between goondas and polite society.
Author’s Name Paper No Unit No Chapter No

Politics and Ethics

Gandhi's ideas are sometimes misunderstood because of his refusal to separate religion from
politics. One reason for the confusion is the fact that religion nowadays is treated more as a flag
to identify ourselves as members of a community, rather than as a source of philosophical and
moral standards, which is what it was for Gandhi. It is easier to understand this matter if we
substitute "ethics" for "religion", and "power" for "politics". Does anyone believe that power
should be free of moral guidance? Gandhi saw himself as a karmayogi. He regarded selfless
action towards self-knowledge and human salvation as his spiritual duty. He saw political
activity as the highest sphere of social action, and insisted on informing this action with moral
guidelines such as ahimsa and the abolition of untouchability. Since he was searching not for
personal power but swaraj for Indians, he exercised tremendous moral influence arising out of
his avoidance of selfish goals. Truth for him included spiritual goals such as moksha and self-
knowledge; and earthly ideals such as justice and social integrity. His motives were at once
spiritual and political because he saw political activity as a form of spiritually inspired social
service. Very often even the high-priests of religion could use the separation of religion and
politics as a convenient excuse to overlook crimes committed by their co-religionists. Gandhi
challenged them to translate their fine-sounding doctrines into reality. This is why he refused to
separate means and ends – evil means, he said, would end up corrupting even the best of ends.
Religion and spirituality were not instruments for the pursuit of political power, rather, political
activity had to be informed by the best spiritual ideals.

Gandhi was not a hopeless idealist. He recognised that complete non-violence would lead to the
total cessation of all human activity. Violence in his definition, meant causing “suffering to
others out of, or just for the sake of doing so” (Parekh 1989, 117). He distinguished between self-
interest and selfishness. Self-interest meant securing the conditions necessary for leading a
dignified life; selfishness meant putting oneself above others and pursuing one's interests at their
expense. Violent ideas were dangerous, since they created conditions for real violence.
Humiliating others was also a form of violence. Gandhi recognised that the machinery of the
state was a concentrated form of violence, an instrument for the maintainance of an unjust social
system. He also made a distinction between the violence of the oppressors and that of the
oppressed - defensive violence, in his view, was morally superior to the offensive variety (Parekh
1989, 133-35). In extreme situations he argued, violence was preferable to cowardice. He was
against using ahimsa as an excuse for passive acceptance of injustice. He favoured physical
resistance by victims of rape if there was no possibility of resisting non-violently.

Gandhi was convinced that “the reign of violence could not be overthrown by adding to it”
(Parekh 1989, 134). Great danger lay in using common-place justifications for violence, such as
the violation of nature for human self-interest; the need to maintain the coercive apparatus of the
state; and revolutionary violence in the name of resistance to oppression. He was “deeply
worried about the way in which the limited legitimacy of violence in human life was so easily
turned into its general justification,” making it the rule rather than the exception. Once this
Author’s Name Paper No Unit No Chapter No

happened, “men kept taking advantage of the exceptions and made no effort to find alternatives”
(Parekh 1989, 128). This was why activists needed to train themselves as non-violent warriors
for justice. Ahimsa in his definition was not merely the absence of violence but included the
positive value of karuna or compassion. By elevating ahimsa to the level of a moral ideal, he
hoped to minimise the violence which was inevitable in the process of social and political
transformation. Even if it could never be fully realised, ahimsa functioned as an ideal, without
which human society would have no standards of perfection with which to judge our actions. A
critical discussion of Gandhi’s views on violence and ahimsa may be read in Parekh, 1989,
chapters 4 & 5.

Unexpected Converts to Ahimsa

Among those powerfully influenced by Gandhi's message were two communities traditionally
considered the most militant in India, the Sikhs and the Pathans. Today, few remember that the
Akali party originated in a satyagraha to liberate gurudwaras from pro-British mahants. The
Guru-ka-Bagh agitation in 1922 involved the peaceful violation of a ban on woodcutting for
religious purposes by Akali jathas, whose members (including ex-soldiers who had fought for the
British Empire in the First World War) were beaten with metal-capped lathis by English police
officers and Indian policemen. About 1500 Sikhs were injured and 5000 imprisoned in a
campaign which shook the country. Gandhi's associate Reverend C. F. Andrews witnessed this
"ultimate moral contest". The sight of the brutalities, he reported, was “incredible to an
Englishman…each blow (was) turned into a triumph by the spirit with which it was endured.”

Value addition: Eye-witness account of the Guru ka Bagh satyagraha by the Christian
missionary, Gandhi’s confidante Reverend C.F. Andrews dated September 12, 1922.
When I ... stood face to face with the ultimate moral contest I could understand the
strained look and the lips which silently prayed. It was a sight I never wish to see again, a
sight incredible to an Englishman. There were four Akali Sikhs with their black turbans
facing a band of about a dozen police, including two English officers. They had walked
slowly up to the line of the Police.. And were standing silently in front of them.. Their
hands were placed together in prayer. Then without the slightest provocation on their
part, an Englishman lunged forward the head of his lathi which was bound with brass..
The blow which I saw was sufficient to fell the Akali Sikh and send him to the ground.
He rolled over, and slowly got up once more and faced the same punishment over again.
Time after time one of the four..was laid prostrate by repeated blows, now from the
English officer and now from the police... the police committed certain acts which were
brutal in the extreme - I saw with my own eyes one of these police kick in the stomach a
Sikh who stood helplessly before him... when one of the Sikhs..was lying prostrate, a
Author’s Name Paper No Unit No Chapter No

police sepoy stamped with his foot upon him, using his full weight.. The brutality and
inhumanity of the whole scene was indescribably increased by the fact that the men who
were hit were praying to God and had already taken a vow that they would remain silent
and peaceful in word and deed. The Akali Sikhs who had taken this vow, both at the
Golden Temple and also at the shrine of Guru Ka Bagh, were...largely from the Army.
They had served in many campaigns in Flanders, in France, in Mesopotamia and in East
Africa... Now they were felled to the ground at the hands of English officials serving in
the same government which they themselves had served... But each blow was turned into
a triumph by the spirit with which it was endured... The vow they had made to God was
kept to the letter. The onlookers too..were praying with them...and for them.. It was very
rarely that I witnessed any Akali Sikh who went forward to suffer, flinch from a blow
when it was struck. The blows were received one by one without resistance and without a
sign of fear..

There has been something far greater in this event than a mere dispute about land and
property. It has gone far beyond the technical questions of legal possession or distraint. A
new heroism, learnt through suffering, has arisen in the land. A new lesson in moral
warfare has been taught to the world..”
Source: (Ralhan & Sharma 1994, 1-8)

The Khudai Khidmadgar, or Servants of God movement in the North West Frontier Province
(also known as Pakhtunistan) is another example of a Gandhian campaign for independence and
social upliftment in colonial India. Their leader Abdul Ghaffar (Badshah) Khan came to be
known as the Frontier Gandhi. He preached a version of Islam that emphasised forgiveness and
self-restraint. (For a short biography see Rajmohan Gandhi 2004). The red-shirted Khidmadgars
led the civil disobedience campaign in 1931. They seized control of Peshawar and ran a parallel
administration for a few days. This happened after a regiment of the Garhwal Rifles (all Hindus)
refused to open fire on Pathan satyagrahis. The slogans heard in Peshawar’s Kissa Khani Bazaar
included Allah ho Akbar and Mahatma Gandhi ki jai. The platoon commander, Chander Singh
Garhwali, reportedly told his English officer that a soldier of the Indian Army could not ask his
men to shoot unarmed civilians. Chander Singh was sent to jail and became a hero of the national
movement. A Turkish scholar who visited the Frontier in the 1930's suggested that the Pathans
had developed a new interpretation of force. In her words, “non-violence is the only form of
force which can have a lasting effect on the life of society... And this, coming from strong and
fearless men, is worthy of study” (Bondurant 1965, 138).

Value Addition: Gandhi, Badshah Khan and the Pathans

The Turkish scholar Halide Edib, who visited the Frontier in the 1930's wrote of Badshah
Khans’ achievements: “Although he based his simple ideology on religion, his
Author’s Name Paper No Unit No Chapter No

interpretation of it was so universal, that instead of separating the Muslims from the rest
of the world, he tried to make them so that they could co-operate with their fellow-men
for the good of all...his supreme importance lies in his having brought the simplest and
truest conception of Islam into the lives of a most elemental people..” (Bondurant 1965,
143)

Gandhi’s exhortations to the Pathans spoke the language of courage, but in a strange new
way: “At every meeting I repeated the warning that unless they felt that in non-violence
they had come into possession of a force infinitely superior to the one they had and in the
use of which they were adept, they should have nothing to do with non-violence and
resume the arms they possessed before. It must never be said of the Khudai Khidmatgars
that once so brave, they have become or been made cowards under Badshah Khan’s
influence. Their bravery consisted not in being good marksmen but in defying death and
being ever ready to bare their chests to the bullet.” (Tendulkar 1961, 303-304).

The commitment of the Khudai Khidmatgars to non-violence was based on the culture of
Pukhtunwali and Islam. The Congress leadership believed the stereotypes about Pathan
ferocity and were anxious about the Red Shirts’ commitment to ahimsa. Yet in 1942 the
Khidmatgar’s non-violent struggle forced the government to station 30,000 troops in
NWFP (a three-fold increase over 1941) - this served to lessen the burden upon the rest of
India. When it came to the Pathans, the British excelled themselves in cruelty and
psychologically designed torture including forcing activists to make counter-oaths upon
the Koran, violating the sanctity of the womens’ quarter in Pathan homes; public
exposures of private parts and even sexual mutilation. The Peshawar massacre in April
1930 (over 200 killed) and the Bannu shooting in August (70 dead) shocked the country,
whilst arousing admiration for the Pathans’ patriotism and non-violent spirit. After
touring the Frontier, British journalist Robert Bernays wrote that “some of the stories of
the wholesale shootings and hangings made me hang my head in shame” (Bondurant
1965, 138). All the while Badshah Khan insisted on restraint as the greatest Koranic
virtue, asking the Pathans to abstain from violence, not to defame their nation, because
the world would marvel to see “such a barbarous nation observing patience” (Bannerjee
2001, 156). The Khidmatgar movement grew from a thousand members in 1930 to
25,000 in 1931, with women entering public life for the first time. It was not lost on the
nationalist public that the Englishmen on a civilising mission were behaving like mad
dogs, and the volatile Pathans were teaching their rulers a lesson in civility.

The Question of Truth

Author’s Name Paper No Unit No Chapter No

Gandhi called himself a sanatani Hindu. However, it is clear that he placed both tradition and the
opinions of spiritual authorities to the test of his own conscience. He believed that the individual
had to apply his or her reason and intuition to religious tradition. He was not a slave of religious
doctrines. Rather, he used his knowledge of them to strengthen his convictions. When reading
the shastras, he said, “one should not stick to its letter, but try to understand its spirit, its meaning
in the total context. Tulsidas’s Ramayana is one of the greatest works because its spirit is that of
purity, compassion and devotion to God. An evil fate awaits one who beats his wife because
Tulsidas has said in his work that a Sudra, a dull-witted person, a beast and a woman merit
chastisement. Rama not only never raised his hand against Sita, he did not even displease her at
any time. Tulsidas merely stated a common belief… in any case, his Ramayana was not
composed in order to justify men beating their wives.” (Gandhi 1993, 11-12). And despite the
scenes of carnage described in the Mahabharata, Gandhi insists that Vyasa wrote his epic "to
depict the futility of war", and that it symbolised the inner struggle between good and evil
encountered by all human beings. If the purest form of action was devoid of desire for reward,
then violence and untruthfulness were taboo, for selfishness was implied in them. Language and
meaning changed and expanded over the centuries, and “it is the very beauty of a good poem that
it is greater than its author.” Despite the warlike metaphors of the Gita, he insisted that “after
forty years unremitting endeavour to enforce the teaching of the Gita in my own life, I have in all
humilty felt that perfect renunciation is impossible without perfect observance of ahimsa in every
shape and form.”

Gandhi's conscience impelled him towards human equality and the resolution of political and
social conflict. He rejected the violence of caste-oppression and the justifications for violence
contained in religious traditions. He managed to speak in a conservative voice while advocating
a break from traditional practices. In that sense he was a law-giver, not a mere follower of
religious commandments. He used tradition to make people think about their situation in an
idiom they were familiar with. And he did this without deceit. He acknowledged the ambivalent
character of these traditions while respectfully challenging them from within. Instead of using
religious identity to demarcate himself from others, he used it to build bridges with them, by
studying their traditions and drawing out a common message of truth, love and non-violence. His
method was to treat myths and legends symbolically rather than literally. As he once said, “The
immortal but unknown author of the Mahabharata weaves into his story sufficient of the
supernatural to warn you against taking him literally.” Again, “I do not believe that the Gita
advocates violence for self-defence. I understand the Gita differently. If the Gita or some other
Sanskrit work advocates this I am not prepared to accept it as Shastra. An utterance does not
become scriptural merely because it is couched in Sanskrit.” These remarks show that that he
used religion as a moral guide, and did not surrender his own powers of individual judgement.
His approach indicates that he was both a deeply religious person and one who was prepared to
challenge religious scriptures when he thought they went against his conscience. He believed all
human beings possessed such an inner voice and appealed to them to consult it. Different
religious traditions were but differently evolved paths to the same goal.
Author’s Name Paper No Unit No Chapter No

It is useful to contrast Gandhi’s approach to this issue by that of his assassin Nathuram Godse, a
self-proclaimed Hindu nationalist, for whom sin or moral correctness had to be sought not in a
man’s act but in his motives. Godse’s statement at his trial made it clear that for him, right
intention coupled with infallible knowledge were sufficient grounds for him to murder Gandhi
(Payne 2003, 637-41). To this day, a similar line of reasoning is adopted by political groups who
adopt murder as a means to achieve their ends. Their politics may be different from Godse’s but
their moral reasoning is the same: they are sure that their view of things is absolutely correct, and
that their intentions are pure. In their view, these two grounds give them a right to kill. We are
speaking here not of random acts of violence or crimes of passion, but of political assassination,
whether of single persons or entire groups. Extremist political programmes have the colour of
unquestioned faith, that gives their followers the strength to perform violent unilateral actions in
the name of ‘the people’. Gandhi’s position is radically different, and modest. He argued that we
do not have irrefutable knowledge, and hence we cannot assume the right to commit irrevocable
acts such as killing other human beings.

Gandhi’s Last Fast

From September 1947, the communal situation in north India became grievous. Massacres were
taking place in Punjab, Sindh and what is now Haryana, sparking off the migration of over ten
million Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims moving in opposite directions. In September, hundreds of
Muslims of Delhi had been killed in localities such as Karol Bagh, Subzi Mandi and Paharganj.
Tens of thousands of Hindu and Sikh refugees from Punjab were crammed into Diwan Hall,
Chandni Chowk and Kingsway Camp; while thousands of Muslims, including Meos from Alwar
and Bharatpur, were living in fear in Jamia Millia, Puran Qila and Humayun’s Tomb. The Vice
Chancellor of Jamia Millia and president of the Hindustani Talimi Sangh, Dr Zakir Husain, who
later became President of India, barely escaped with his life. He had been saved by a Sikh army
captain and a Hindu railway official. The senior Congressman Saifuddin Kitchlew was obliged to
flee to Kashmir. Upon arrival in Delhi on September 9, Gandhi was asked to detrain in Shahdara
for reasons of safety. The same reasons motivated Sardar Patel to arrange for his stay not in the
sweepers colony which was his prefered residence in the city, but in Birla House. Once in Delhi,
Gandhi plunged into the ongoing turmoil around him, travelling to nearby places such as
Gurgaon and Panipat, talking to refugees, community leaders and cadres of social organisations.
On December 22, he made this announcement at his prayer meeting:

“Some eight or ten miles from here, at Mehrauli, there is a shrine of Qutubuddin Bakhtiyar
Chisti. Esteemed as second only to the shrine at Ajmer, it is visited every year not only by
Muslims but by thousands of non-Muslims too. Last September this shrine was subjected to the
wrath of Hindu mobs. The Muslims living in the vicinity of the shrine for the last 800 years had
to leave their homes. I mention this sad episode to tell you that, though Muslims love the shrine,
today no Muslim can be found anywhere near it. It is the duty of the Hindus, Sikhs, the officials
and the Government to open the shrine again and wash off this stain on us. The same applies to
other shrines and religious places of Muslims in and around Delhi. The time has come when both
Author’s Name Paper No Unit No Chapter No

India and Pakistan must unequivocally declare to the majorities in each country that they will not
tolerate desecration of religious places, be they small or big. They should also undertake to repair
the places damaged during riots.” (CWMG, vol 98, p 98-99).

This was the background to his last protest. There was also the matter of the Government’s
decision to withhold payment of Pakistan’s share of undivided India’s sterling balance, which
amounted to Rs 55 crores. We may take it that the fast was undertaken both to restore the
mosque and to convey to the public his feelings about ongoing events. It began on January 13,
1948 and was announced by Gandhi at his prayer meeting that evening. He said: “Now that I
have started my fast many people cannot understand what I am doing, who are the offenders –
Hindus or Sikhs or Muslims. How long will the fast last? I say I do not blame anyone. Who am I
to accuse others? I have said that we have all sinned.”

He continued: “I shall terminate the fast only when peace has returned to Delhi. If peace is
restored to Delhi it will have effect not only on the whole of India but also on Pakistan and when
that happens, a Muslim can walk around in the city all by himself. I shall then terminate the fast.
Delhi is the capital of India. It has always been the capital of India. So long as things do not
return to normal in Delhi, they will not be normal either in India or in Pakistan. Today I cannot
bring Suhrawardy here because I fear someone may insult him. Today he cannot walk about in
the streets of Delhi. If he did he would be assaulted. What I want is that he should be able to
move about here even in the dark. It is true that he made efforts in Calcutta only when Muslims
became involved. Still, he could have made the situation worse, if he had wanted, but he did not
want to make things worse. He made the Muslims evacuate the places they had forcibly occupied
and said that he being the Premier could do so. Although the places occupied by the Muslims
belonged to Hindus and Sikhs he did his duty. Even if it takes a whole month to have real peace
established in Delhi it does not matter. People should not do anything merely to have me
terminate the fast. So my wish is that Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis, Christians and Muslims who are in
India should continue to live in India and India should become a country where everyone’s life
and property are safe. Only then will India progress.”

The People’s Reaction

On the second day of Gandhi’s fast the government took the formal decision to release the
money due to Pakistan. Meanwhile Delhi was visibly affected. Addressing a gathering of three
hundred thousand people on January 17, Maulana Azad announced seven tests given him by
Gandhi to be fulfilled and guaranteed by responsible people. They included freedom of worship
to Muslims at the tomb of Khwaja Bakhtiar Chishti, non-interference with the Urs festival due to
be held there within a week; the voluntary evacuation by non-Muslims of all mosques in Delhi
that were being used for residential purposes or which had been converted into temples; free
movement of Muslims in areas where they used to stay; complete safety to Muslims while
travelling by train; no economic boycott of Muslims; and freedom to Muslim evacuees to return
Author’s Name Paper No Unit No Chapter No

to Delhi.” That evening a procession of citizens shouting peace slogans walked to Birla House
where Jawaharlal Nehru addressed them. Gandhi’s speech was read out at the prayer meeting,
atended by some four thousand people. He said:

“The number of telegrams coming from Rajas, Maharajas and common people continues to
increase. There are telegrams from Pakistan too. They are good as far as they go. But as a friend
and well-wisher I must say to all those who reside in Pakistan and mould its fortunes that they
will fail to make Pakistan permanent if their conscience is not quickened and if they do not admit
the wrongs for which Pakistan is responsible. This does not mean that I do not wish a voluntary
reunion, but I wish to remove and resist the idea that Pakistan should be reunited by force of
arms. I hope that this will not be misunderstood as a note of discord, whilst I am lying on what is
truly a death-bed. I hope all Pakistanis will realize that I would be untrue to them and to myself if
out of weakness and for fear of hurting their feelings, I failed to convey to them what I truthfully
feel. If I am wrong in my estimate, I should be so told and if I am convinced, I promise that I
shall retract what I have said here. So far as I know, the point is not open to question. My fast
should not be considered a political move in any sense of the term. It is in obedience to the
peremptory call of conscience and duty. It comes out of felt agony. I call to witness all my
numerous Muslim friends in Delhi. Their representatives meet me almost every day to report the
day’s events. Neither Rajas and Maharajas nor Hindus and Sikhs or any others would serve
themselves or India as a whole, if at this, what is to me a sacred juncture, they mislead me with a
view to terminating my fast” (CWMG 98:248).

On January 18, Gandhi ended his fast. Over a hundred representatives of various groups and
organizations including the Hindu Mahasabha, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Jamiat-ul-
Ulema who had assembled at Rajendra Prasad’s residence, called on Gandhiji at 11.30 a.m.
Those present included Jawaharlal Nehru, Abul Kalam Azad, Rajendra Prasad, INA General
Shah Nawaz Khan, Hifzur Rahman and Zaheed Hussain, Pakistan’s High Commissioner. Dr.
Rajendra Prasad reported that even those who had some doubts on the previous night were
confident that they could ask Gandhiji with a full sense of responsibility to break the fast. As the
President of the Congress, Rajendra Prasad said that he had signed the document in view of the
guarantee which they had all jointly and severally given. Khurshid, the Chief Commissioner and
Randhawa, Deputy Commissioner of Delhi, had signed the document on behalf of the
administration. It had been decided to set up a number of committees to implement the pledge.
Rajendra Prasad hoped that Gandhiji would now terminate his fast. Deshbandhu Gupta described
scenes of fraternization between Hindus and Muslims which he had witnessed when a procession
of Muslims was taken out that morning in Subzimandi and was received with ovation and
offered fruit and refreshments by the Hindu inhabitants. A seven-point declaration in Hindi was
read out solemnly affirming the people’s desire for communal harmony and civic peace. This
read as follows:
Author’s Name Paper No Unit No Chapter No

SEVEN-POINT DECLARATION OF JANUARY 18, 1948

“We wish to announce that it is our heart-felt desire that the Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs and
members of the other communities should once again live in Delhi like brothers and in perfect
amity and we take the pledge that we shall protect the life, property and faith of Muslims and
that the incidents which have taken place in Delhi will not happen again.

“We want to assure Gandhiji that the annual fair at Khwaja Qutub-ud-Din Mazar will be held
this year as in the previous years.

“Muslims will be able to move about in Subzimandi, Karol Bagh, Paharganj and other localities
just as they could in the past.

“The mosques which have been left by Muslims and which now are in the possession of Hindus
and Sikhs will be returned. The areas which have been set apart for Muslims will not be forcibly
occupied.

“We shall not object to the return to Delhi of the Muslims who have migrated from here if they
choose to come back and Muslims shall be able to carry on their business as before.

“We assure that all these things will be done by our personal effort and not with the help of the
police or military.

“We request Mahatmaji to believe us and to give up his fast and continue to lead us as he has
done hitherto.” .” (CWMG, vol 98, p 249, 253).

Gandhi’s Speech on the Delhi Declaration; January 18, 1948

In his reply, Gandhi said: “I am happy to hear what you have told me, but if you have
overlooked one point all this will be worth nothing. If this declaration means that you will
safeguard Delhi and whatever happens outside Delhi will be no concern of yours, you
will be committing a grave error and it will be sheer foolishness on my part to break my
fast. You must have seen the Press reports of the happenings in Allahabad, if not, look
them up. I understand that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Hindu Mahasabha
are among the signatories to this declaration. It will amount to breach of faith on their
part if they hold themselves responsible for peace in Delhi, but not in other places. I have
been observing that this sort of deception is being practised in the country these days on a
large scale. Delhi is the heart - the capital of India. The leaders from the whole of India
have assembled here. Men had become beasts. But if those who have assembled here,
who constitute the cream among men cannot make the whole of India understand that
Hindus, Muslims and followers of other religions are like brothers, it bodes ill for both
Author’s Name Paper No Unit No Chapter No

the Dominions. What will be the fate of India if we continue to quarrel with one
another?... Let us take no step that may become a cause for repentance later on. The
situation demands courage of the highest order from us. We have to consider whether or
not we can accomplish what we are going to promise. If you are not confident of
fulfilling your pledge, do not ask me to give up my fast. It is for you and the whole of
India to translate it into reality. It may not be possible to realize it in a day. I do not
possess the requisite strength for it. But I can assure you that till today our face was
turned towards Satan, we have now resolved to turn towards God. If what I have told you
fails to find an echo in your hearts or if you are convinced that it is beyond you, tell me
so frankly.

What greater folly can there be than to claim that Hindustan is only for Hindus and
Pakistan is for Muslims alone? The refugees here should realize that things in Pakistan
will be set right by the example set in Delhi. I am not one to be afraid of fasting. Time
and again I have gone on fasts and if occasion arises I may again do so. Whatever
therefore you do, do after careful thought and consideration. The Muslim friends
frequently meet me and assure me that peaceful atmosphere has been restored in Delhi
and Hindus and Muslims can live in amity here. If these friends have any misgivings in
their hearts and feel that today they have perforce to stay here - as they have nowhere else
to go to - but ultimately they will have to part company, let them admit it to me frankly.
To set things right in the whole of India and Pakistan is no doubt a Herculean task. But I
am an optimist. Once I resolve to do something I refuse to accept defeat. Today you
assure me that Hindus and Muslims have become one but if Hindus continue to regard
Muslims as Yavans and asuras, incapable of realizing God, and Muslims regard Hindus
likewise, it will be the worst kind of blasphemy. A Muslim friend presented me with a
book in Patna. Its author is an eminent Muslim. The book says: “God ordains that a kafir
- and a Hindu is a kafir - is worse than a poisonous creature. He should be exterminated.
It is one’s duty to be treacherous to him. Why should one treat him with any courtesy?” If
Muslims still harbouring such thoughts assure Hindus about their good behaviour, they
will only be deceiving Hindus. If you betray one you betray all. If I truly worship a stone
image I deceive no one. For me God resides in that stone image. I feel that if the hearts of
both Hindus and Muslims are full of deceipt and treachery, why need I continue to live?

The telegrams I have received today include some from prominent Muslims. They have
made me happy. It seems they have realized that the method adopted by them so far was
not proper to run a government. After listening to all that I have said, if you still ask me
to end my fast I shall end it. Afterwards you have to release me. I had taken the vow to do
or die in Delhi and now if I am able to achieve success here I shall go to Pakistan and try
to make Muslims understand their folly. Whatever happens in other places, people in
Delhi should maintain peace. The refugees here should realize that they have to welcome
as brothers the Muslims returning from Pakistan to Delhi. The Muslim refugees in
Author’s Name Paper No Unit No Chapter No

Pakistan are suffering acute hardships and so are the Hindu refugees here. Hindus have
not learnt all the crafts of Muslim craftsmen. Therefore they had better return to India.
There are good men as well as bad men in all the communities. Taking into consideration
all these implications, if you ask me to break my fast I shall abide by your wish. India
will virtually become a prison if the present conditions continue. It may be better that you
allow me to continue my fast and if God wills it He will call me.” (CWMG Vol 98, p
254-257)

Maulana Azad said that the remarks about non-Muslims to which Gandhiji had referred
were abhorrent to Islam. They were symptoms of the insanity that had seized some
sections of the people. Maulana Hifzur Rahman insisted that Muslims wanted to remain
in India as citizens with self-respect and honour. He welcomed the changed atmosphere
in the city as a result of Gandhi’s fast and appealed to Gandhi to break the fast. On behalf
of the R.S.S. and Hindu Mahasabha, Ganesh Datt reiterated the appeal. Pakistan’s High
Commisioner Zaheed Hussain addressed a few words to Gandhiji. He said he was there
to convey the deep concern of the Pakistani people about him and the anxious inquiries
they made every day about his health. It was their hearts’ desire that circumstances might
soon enable him to break the fast. If there was anything that he could do towards that end
he was ready and so were the people of Pakistan. Zaheed Hussain was followed by
Khurshid and Randhawa who on behalf of the administration reiterated the assurance that
all the conditions mentioned in the citizens’ pledge would be implemented, and no effort
would be spared to restore the Indian capital to its traditional harmony and peace. Sardar
Harbans Singh endorsed the appeal on behalf of the Sikhs. When Rajendra Prasad said: “I
have signed on behalf of the people, please break your fast,” Gandhi replied: “I shall
break my fast. Let God’s will prevail. You all be witness today.”

His Last Testament?

In the last weeks of his life Gandhi spoke his mind to Indians and Pakistanis. As was his habit,
he spoke freely, not sparing anyone, but always with respect and an appeal to their better side.
He asked Pakistan’s rulers to ensure the safety of minorities and predicted that Pakistan would be
an impermanent entity unless it evolved a secular polity. He warned those who were pained by
partition that Akhand Bharat, or a united India could only be established by love and mutual
respect, never by force. He spoke to community leaders whose utterances pained him, including
Muslim leaders who had called him a kafir; and the RSS and Hindu Mahasabha who hated him
for the respect he showed towards Islam and Muslims. He discussed the matter of the Somnath
Temple in Kathiawad, insisting that its restoration could not be paid for by the Union of India,
which was a secular state, but only by private donations from devout Hindus. “After all, we have
Author’s Name Paper No Unit No Chapter No

formed the Government for all. It is a ‘secular’ government, that is… it does not belong to any
particular religion. Hence it cannot spend money on the basis of communities” (CWMG 97: 413-
14). He addressed Sikh refugees in the company of Sheikh Abdullah, and hailed the example of
Kashmiri Muslims in maintaining communal harmony. He spoke to Sikhs, warning them never
to misuse the kirpan. The day he ended his fast was Guru Gobind Singh’s birthday. Gandhi sent
Sikhs a message congratulating them for their victory over anger, and ending with the slogan
Wahe Guruji ki Fateh. He sent a special message to fellow Gujaratis. He discussed the issue of a
national language and his preference for Hindustani. He spoke to caste Hindus about the evil of
untouchability. After recounting the painful experiences of the oppressed castes of Rohtak, he
admonished Jats and Ahirs for tormenting them and treating them as slaves. He talked about the
Meos, named ‘criminal tribes’ by the colonial administration, who had been forcibly evicted
from vast areas in Delhi’s hinterland, and called for their rehabilitation. He severely criticised
those Congressmen who had begun using power for personal benefit. He spoke to social
organisations such as the Hindustani Talimi Sangh, the Kasturba Gandhi National Memorial
Trust and the Harijan Sevak Sangh about their role in building independent India. He raised
philosophical issues about the crucial role of individual conscience and about ahimsa.

Most of all, he spoke words of comfort to refugees crazed by grief, calmly listening to their
abuses, even hatred. “Let Gandhi die” were the slogans raised by some people during his fast.
After the fast, he continued with his daily prayer meetings and his custom of reading from all
religious texts. The significance of this custom was brought out in April 1947, when, during his
stay at the sweepers colony in Delhi, he was prevented from reading the Koran by a small group
of protestors. Gandhi had refrained from praying, asking the objectors to either withdraw their
objection or leave the meeting. On the fourth attempt, he succeeded in reading the Sura Al-
Fatheha without protest. This was his way of showing Indians that all religions contained
something of universal value, recognisable by every decent person, and that Islam was no
different. At these meetings he asked everyone to see reason, to give up the ways of Satan, to
remember the best part of their traditions, to be brave in the face of tragedy and adversity, not to
seek revenge but to forgive. There was not a single issue of social, political and moral concern to
which he did not refer. His utterances were scattered over some weeks, but they were
undoubtedly his last will and testament. The assurance given to Gandhi on January 18 by various
individuals and organisations was a solemn (although not legal) commitment to maintain
communal harmony in independent India. It was also a re-iteration of the AICC resolution on
Minority Rights in independent India, adopted in November 1947 at Gandhi’s insistence.
(CWMG 97: 476)

The End

But Gandhi was also a man in pain. In his prayer meeting of November 25, 1947, he had spoken
about those who had been deprived of their homes: “If we come to our senses here today,
everything will be well tomorrow; I too will be free. Today I am very much disturbed. My life
has become a burden to me. I wonder why I am still here. I could become strong if Delhi were
Author’s Name Paper No Unit No Chapter No

restored to sanity, and then I would rush to West Punjab and tell the Muslims who have gone
away from here that I have prepared the ground for them and they could come back any time
they wanted and live wherever they chose… Today I have become a sort of burden. There was a
time when my word was law. But it is no longer so” (CWMG 97: 393). One scholar has written
about the climate of hatred in those days, a climate in which many people wished for Gandhi to
die (Nandy 1993). Perhaps he sensed this wish.

On January 20, a bomb exploded 75 feet away from the dais at Gandhi’s prayer meeting. One
Madanlal Pahwa was arrested. Six other men escaped in a taxi. This was the fifth attempt on his
life since 1934, and all of them were made by extreme Hindu nationalists. Gandhi was unruffled.
Upon being asked by the DIG to agree to additional policemen for his prayer meetings, he
refused, saying that his life was in the hands of God, that if he had to die, no precautions could
save him. He would not agree to restricted entry to his prayer meetings or to anybody coming
between his audience and himself. At the next day’s meeting he said that “the man who exploded
the bomb obviously thinks that he has been sent by God to destroy me… He had taken it for
granted that I am an enemy of Hinduism. When he says he was doing the bidding of God he is
only making God an accomplice in a wicked deed. But it cannot be so… those who are behind
him or whose tool he is, should know that this sort of thing will not save Hinduism. If Hinduism
has to be saved it will be saved through such work as I am doing. I have been imbibing Hindu
dharma right from my childhood” (CWMG 98: 279-81). On January 30, soon after he arrived at
his prayer meeting, Nathuram Godse, editor of a Poona-based Marathi journal called Hindu
Rashtra, fired three bullets at him at point-blank range and killed him.

The story of this crime is complex (Payne 2003, 609-35). On February 4, the Government of
India declared the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh to be unlawful, noting that its members had
“indulged in acts of violence involving arson, robbery, dacoity and murder.. carried on under a
cloak of secrecy.” It accused the Sangh of “exhorting people to resort to terrorist methods.” The
communique went on to state that “the cult of violence sponsored and inspired by the activities
of the Sangh has claimed many victims. The latest and the most precious to fall was Gandhiji
himself” (Goyal 1979, 202). The trial of eight conspirators including V.D. Savarkar took place
through 1948. Godse made a speech stating his belief in in Savarkar’s ideal of Hindu
nationalism, and his conviction that Gandhi was “a political and ethical imposter… a traitor to
his faith and his country, a curse to India, a force for evil.., and the greatest enemy not only of
Hindus, but of the whole nation” (Payne 2003, 637-41). Parts of the speech suggest that Godse
saw himself as an agency of Lord Krishna. The speech remains popular with a certain section of
political opinion. Godse and Narayan Apte were sentenced to death in February 1949 and hanged
in November. They went to the gallows shouting Akhand Bharat amar rahe, not realising that a
united India was also Gandhi’s dearest ideal. Unlike them, however, he did not believe that
united India could be a Hindu Rashtra. Five conspirators were sentenced to life imprisonment,
which in India those days meant fourteen years. Savarkar’s links with the murderers was clear,
but he was acquitted for lack of corroborative evidence.
Author’s Name Paper No Unit No Chapter No

However, doubts remained about the extent of the conspiracy; the behaviour of the Bombay and
Delhi police between January 20 and 30; and the evidence of V.D. Savarkar’s involvement. In
1965, the Government of India set up a Commission of Inquiry into the Conspiracy to Murder
Mahatma Gandhi, headed by Justice Jivanlal Kapur of the Supreme Court. It examined evidence
not produced during the trial, including the testimony of Savarkar's bodyguard Appa
Ramachandra Kasar, and his secretary Gajanan Vishnu Damle. Had they testified in 1948,
Savarkar might have been convicted. The evidence confirmed Godse and Apte's visits to
Savarkar on January 14 and 17, 1948. Kasar told the Commission that they visited Savarkar
again on or about January 23, upon their return from Delhi after the bomb incident. Damle stated
that Godse and Apte saw Savarkar “in the middle of January and sat with him in his garden.”
Justice Kapur's findings were clear. He noted the deadly negligence of the police. And he
concluded that the facts taken together undermined “any theory other than the conspiracy to
murder by Savarkar and his group.” (Noorani, March 2003).

Gandhi died standing up, with God’s name on his lips, just as he had wanted to. He had always
said that he was prepared to die for his beliefs. His death could have been prevented. Who can
say what would have happened if he had been allowed to perform his padyatra to Pakistan? But
it was not to be. “In the eyes of too many officials, he was an old man who had outlived his
usefulness: he had become expendable. By negligence, by indifference, by deliberate desire on
the part of many faceless people, the assassination had been accomplished. It was a new kind of
murder – the permissive assassination, and there may be many more in the future” (Payne 2003,
647).

Gandhi’s Charisma

Gandhi appears far removed from us. He seems to be from another era, someone who dislikes
modern science and technology, who upholds sanatan dharma and the caste system, who insists
that religion cannot be separated from politics. It is better to avoid placing Gandhi within
political camps or to see him as a Rightist or Leftist. Gandhi encourages us to question these
concepts, to overcome the confusion into which they often throw us. Nowadays he is portrayed
as a ‘man of peace.’ Actually he was a fighter. He democratised the national movement and
infused it with popular energy. His message to Indian peasants was that “they were part of the
nation and that it could not be built to their exclusion. He gave them a dignity which no other
politician had done.” This recognition of their humanity and their citizenship earned him their
immense gratitude. (Markovits 2003, 141).

That is why the British rulers considered him a dangerous anarchist and repeatedly put him in
jail. Despite this he always proclaimed his friendship for the British people. When he was in
London for the Round Table Conference in 1931, he decided to visit the mill areas of Lancashire.
He was warned by the police not to go there, for he would be mobbed by thousands of angry
workers who had lost jobs due to the swadeshi boycott of English cloth. But he insisted on going
because he wanted to explain India’s case to them. The American journalist William Shirer
Author’s Name Paper No Unit No Chapter No

reported the workers’ reactions to Gandhi’s arrival in the mill town of Darwen. They
instinctively recognised in him “a man who had devoted his life to helping the poor. They gave
him a tumultuous welcome.” Gandhi was mobbed, but by people filled with admiration, not
anger (Shirer 1979, 180). An unknown person took a photograph showing a smiling Gandhi in
his dhoti surrounded by joyous women workers whose faces shine with love. Other photographs
from this trip show similar images of the common people’s love for the man whom their
government portrayed as the Empire’s chief trouble-maker. There are few, if any examples of the
leader of an anti-colonial struggle whom the citizens of the colonial power held in such affection.

Value Addition: Gandhi in Darwen, Lancashire, 1931

Source: Open, available on Wikipedia

Gandhi did not build a systematic political ideology or ‘ism’. ‘Isms’ deserve to be destroyed, he
said, they were useless things. He often made pragmatic adjustments to his political strategies
and ideas, some of them in response to public criticism. It could be said that he was in a
continuous debate, not only with his compatriots, but with friends and critics all over the world –
his writings were not shastras, but a prolonged conversation. He declared that he since he was
always growing intellectually, he was not concerned with consistency. At most, we could say
that his attitude and approach were consistent. If his actions and ideas carry different meanings
for people across space and time, this is not surprising. It explains the immense range and
magnetism of his appeal. As the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess reminds us: “There can be
no rule-books of Gandhian policy. There are no easy Gandhian formulae. This, however, does
not necessarily reduce the value of Gandhi’s teaching in the contemporary political situation.
Author’s Name Paper No Unit No Chapter No

After all, the indication of direction that a compass-needle gives is of some value in itself, even if
it takes no consideration of the terrain through which we must pass.” (Naess, 130.)

Once, in the face of hostile sloganeering in Bengal in 1940, Gandhi remarked, “I love to hear the
words ‘Down with Gandhism’. An ‘ism’ deserves to be destroyed. It is a useless thing. the real
thing is non-violence. It is immortal. It is enough for me if it remains alive. I am eager to see
Gandhism wiped out at an earlier date. You should not give yourselves over to sectarianism. I do
not belong to any sect. I have never dreamt of establishing any sect. If any sect is established in
my name after my death my soul would cry out in anguish” (Hardiman 2003, 8). Gandhi’s
reference to immortality makes us think about our experience of time. Time is another name for
life. All of us live within a certain time-frame. This does not make us prisoners of time. We are
free to go beyond our immediate circumstances to greater or lesser extent - the most deprived
persons may be seen exercising this freedom. Chander Singh Garhwali was a humble soldier. But
he left a positive mark upon history. The mark of greatness is the extent to which our actions
express truths recognisable after our time; truths that in Gandhi’s words, are immortal.

Epilogue

Until the mid 1940’s, the cycle of partition-related communal massacres had not begun. Yet in
the twilight of British power in India, certain political groups and leaders threw away the chance
of mutual accomodation despite the opportunities available. But Gandhi spoke of love and
mutual respect in the midst of hatred and carnage. Some were pessimists even when there was
hope. Gandhi gave people hope in the midst of despair; he appealed to their better instincts at the
worst of times. This is the message of his fast in January 1948. It is a message from a man of
extraordinary strength and courage. After he died, politicians argued about whether he was the
father or the son of the nation. It would be more accurate to say that the Mahatma’s last sacrifice
became the foundation of India’s secular constitution.

The history of the sub-continent since the death of Gandhi is beyond the scope of this essay. It is
enough to recall that Jinnah’s Pakistan lasted for twenty-four years after partition, at which point
(1971) it disintegrated. India played a role in this, but it is noteworthy that the bulk of the people
of Pakistan (East Pakistanis were 55% of Pakistan’s population) preferred to lead a separate
existence. The logic of partition did not end in 1947, nor did the logic of communal strife. As for
Gandhi’s prediction that without communal harmony India and Pakistan would once again
become slaves of foreign powers, only time will tell.

Two symbolic events tell us something about how India has treated the legacy of the Mahatma.
In 1998, nuclear devices were exploded in the Rajasthan desert at a place called Pokharan. With
this, India announced its wish to emerge as a nuclear weapons state. And in February 2003, the
Indian Union’s highest officials unveiled a portrait of V.D. Savarkar in the Central Hall of
Parliament.

Albert Einstein had famously said of Gandhi, that generations to come would “scarce believe
Author’s Name Paper No Unit No Chapter No

that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth.” Perhaps less well-known
is the fact that a millennium poll conducted in 2000 by global readers of the BBC News website
voted Mahatma Gandhi the greatest man of the past thousand years (BBC, 2005).

References

Banerjee, Mukulika. 2001. The Pathan Unarmed: Opposition and Memory in the North West
Frontier; Oxford University Press; New Delhi

BBC; 14 Nov 2005 <>

Bhattacharya, Sabyasachi; (ed). 1997, 2008 (Fourth reprint). The Mahatma and the Poet: Letters
and debates between Gandhi and Tagore 1915-1941. New Delhi, National Book Trust India.

Bondurant, Joan. 1958, 1965. Conquest of Violence: the Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict.
Berkeley, University of California Press.

Dennis Dalton. 1970. Gandhi During Partition: A Case Study in the Nature of Satyagraha in:
C..H. Philips and M. D. Wainwright. 1970. The Partition of India: Policies and Perspectives
1935-1947; London, George Allen and Unwin Ltd.

Desai, Mahadev. (1946), 1991. The Gospel of Selfless Action or The Gita According to Gandhi;
Ahmedabad, Navajivan Publishing House.

Desai, Narayan. 2009. My Life is My Message, vol 4, Svarpan (1940-1948); New Delhi. Orient
Blackswan.

Gandhi, M.K. 1993. The Bhagvadgita, Orient Paperbacks, Delhi,

Gandhi, M.K. 2003. Hind Swaraj, or Indian Home Rule, (1909), Navjivan Publishing House,
Ahmedabad, (1938).

Gandhi, M.K., Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi Online.

http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/cwmg.html

Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi Online- Controversy regarding alterations:

http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/cwmg_controversy.html

Gandhi, Rajmohan; 2004. Ghaffar Khan: Nonviolent Badshah of the Pathans; New Delhi
Penguin-Viking.

Gandhi, Rajmohan. 2006. Mohandas: A True Story of a Man, his People, and an Empire; New
Delhi. Penguin-Viking

Goyal, D.R.; 1979. Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh; New Delhi; Radha Krishna Prakashan
Author’s Name Paper No Unit No Chapter No

Hardiman, David. 2003. Gandhi in his Time and Ours. Delhi, Permanent Black.

Markovits Claude. 2003. The Un-Gandhian Gandhi: the Life and Afterlife of the Mahatma;
Delhi, Permanent Black.

Markovits Claude. 2007. The Calcutta Riots of 1946.

<> Accessed April 10, 2009.

Naess, Arne. 1965.Gandhi and the Nuclear Age. Totowa, NJ; The Bedminster Press

Nandy, Ashis; Final Encounter: The Politics of the Assassination of Gandhi, in At the Edge of
Psychology: Essays in Politics and Culture; Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1994

Noorani, A.G. 2003. Savarkar and Gandhi. Frontline; vol 20, March 15-28.

http://www.hindu.com/fline/fl2006/stories/20030328003603400.htm

Accessed October 10, 2009

Parekh, Bhikhu. 1989. Colonialism, Tradition and Reform: An Analysis of Gandhi=s Political
Discourse; New Delhi, Sage Publications.

Payne, Robert; The Life and Death of Mahatma Gandhi; (1969); Rupa & Co.; New Delhi 2003

Ralhan, O.P.; and Sharma, Suresh K.; 1994. Documents on Punjab, vol 7, Sikh Politics (Guru-ka-
Bagh Morcha); Anmol Publications, New Delhi,

Rothermund, Dietmar. 1991. Mahatma Gandhi:An Essay in Political Biography. Delhi. Manohar
Publications.

Shirer, William. 1979. Gandhi: A Memoir; Abacus; London,

Tendulkar, D.G. 1961. Mahatma: Life of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi; v. 4, Government of

India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Publications Division, New Delhi