Gandhi’s Vision of Ramarajya: A Critique - Part II

Ramkrishna Bhattacharya

The extent of democracy

Is Gandhi’s Ramarajya a land of the equals with all economic disparity gone? The utopias conceived by many writers since the sixteenth century do so. Gandhi held out no such hope in this regard. On the other hand, he categorically declared:

[The] Ramarajya of my dream ensures equal rights alike of prince and pauper (Amrita Bazar Patrika (a Kolkata daily, ceased publication), 02.08.1934; The Pioneer, 03. 08. 1934. CWMG  64 p. 231).

Only in this sense his Ramarajya is truly democratic: no discrimination is made between the rich and the poor. Whatever be the citizen’s economic status, he or she is assured of this.  Gandhi’s vision of democracy covers this much.

Ramarajya essentially Indian

How does Gandhi link the idea of Swaraj to Ramarajya?  He never defined it in so many words. He had no quarrel with any system of government in the world. His Ramarajya was something unique and appropriate for India alone. Moreover, it was not only political but based on morality. Thus he said in 1937:

By political independence I do not mean an imitation to the British House of commons, or the Soviet rule of Russia or the Fascist rule of Italy or the Nazi rule of Germany. They have systems suited to their genius. We must have ours suited to ours. What that can be is more than I can tell. I have described it as Ramarajya i.e., sovereignty of the people based on pure moral authority. (Harijan, 02-01-1937, p. 374, CWMG  70 p. 232).

   
The Kingdom of God on earth

Gandhi repeated the same view in other words in 1946:

Friends have repeatedly challenged me to define independence. At the risk of repetition, I must say that independence of my dream means Ramarajya i.e., the Kingdom of God on earth. I do not know it will be like in Heaven. I have no desire to know the distant scene. If the present is attractive enough, the future cannot be very unlike. (Harijan, 05-05-1946, p. 116, CWMG 90 p. 327).

Gandhi most probably got his idea of the two kingdoms from the Lord’s Prayer, the prayer Jesus taught his disciples (called Paternoster by the Catholics) to be found in the Gospel according to St. Matthew 6:10: ‘Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven’.

Morality instead of violence

Just on the eve of the transfer of power Gandhi did not feel at ease with the possibility of a nation-state with its own army. The very existence of armed forces without which no state can function was not exactly desirable to him. It went against the very grains of his dream of a non-violent Ramarajya. He expressed his discomfiture in clear terms in 1946:

My conception of Ramarajya excludes the replacement of the British army by a national army of occupation. A country that is governed by even its national army can never be morally free and, therefore, its so-called weakest member can never rise to his fullest moral height. (ibid.; CWMG 90 p. 327).

Socialism rejected

Even before India became independence Gandhi made his disagreement with the doctrine of socialism clear enough. He was of course opposed to the disparity between the handful rich and the poor millions. Yet he thought that socialism could not bring about any real change – not because its programme was wrong, but solely because of the fact that the socialists were prepared to opt for violent means to achieve their ends. Non-violence was to Gandhi an inviolable creed which could not be compromised for any reason or motive. He thought that abolition of inequality was not to be achieved under the existing circumstances, and hence, his Ramarajya too would have to carry the burden of inequality and ill distribution of riches. The pragmatist Gandhi was, made him admit all this:

There can be no Ramarajya in the present state of iniquitous inequalities in which a few roll in riches and the masses do not get even enough to eat. I accepted the theory of socialism even while I was in South Africa. My difference with the Socialists and others consists in advocating non-violence and truth as the most effective means for any reform. (Harijan, 01-06-1947, p. 172, CWMG 95 p. 135)

Gandhi again took up the theme of violence just on the eve of the transfer of power. Violence was to him still the greatest enemy, and he blamed violence for all the evils of the Indian society. In addition to Ramarajya and the kingdom of heaven (already alluded to on 05.05.1946) he brings in the Buddhist concept of nirvāṇa, the ultimate emancipation:

I compare nirvana to Ramarajya or the Kingdom of Heaven on earth…. The withdrawal of British power does not mean Ramarajya. How can it happen when we have all along been nursing violence in our hearts under the garb of non-violence?  (Harijan, 03-08-1947, p. 262, CWMG 96 p. 120)

Ramarajya = tolerance of all religions

A few months after this, Gandhi added a new dimension to his concept of Ramarajya: it was mutual toleration of all religions, but not secularism. He made the distinction clear by proclaiming himself to be a Hindu, but at the same time highlighting the fact that it was his Hinduism that taught him to be tolerant towards all religions: ‘My Hinduism teaches me to respect all religions. In this lies the secret of Ramarajya’. (Harijan, 19-10-1947, p. 378).

A week after this Gandhi again harped on the moral side of his Ramarajya. This time it is personal morality, a self-critical attitude instead of finding faults in others. This was his last message related to Ramarajya:

If you want to see God in the form of Ramarajya, the first requisite is self-introspection. You have to magnify your own faults a thousand fold and shut your eyes to the faults of your neighbours. That is the only way to real progress. (Harijan, 26-10-1947, p. 387)

Conclusion

What are we to gather from all this? In his speeches and writings Gandhi links Ramarajya to several ideas, both ancient and modern, Hindu and Christian (for example, the kingdom of God on earth), democracy, justice, equality, religious tolerance, and last but not least, Swaraj. However, one looks in vain for a thread that would connect all this. No concrete image of an ideal state envisaged by him comes out of these stray and occasional statements. One has a feeling that Gandhi never attempted, or even thought of attempting, to provide a clear picture of India as she could be made to be or as Gandhi would like her to be. What Jawaharlal Nehru said about Gandhi’s idea of Swaraj can be applied equally to his concept of Ramarajya: both are ‘delightfully vague’ (p.76). Gandhi never worked out the details of all the dimensions – political, economic, social, and educational – of his ideal state. His comments hover between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom on earth. It is difficult to decide the nature of this Ramarajya, except one fact: it is altogether free from violence. That’s all. All other vital issues, for example, who would control the means of production, how wages are to be determined, what would be the system of pedagogy, etc. etc. remain unanswered. Perhaps they were never addressed by Gandhi. Notwithstanding its explicit acceptance of the varna system and adherence to the prescribed duties of every varna (Tulasidas improves upon Valmiki by declaring that the division of works is ordained by the Veda, something that Valmiki did not say). The Ramarajya of the Ramayana within the compass of only seven couplets at least posits the pangs of early death, the husband predeceasing the wife and such other elemental questions. Tulsidas too takes up these themes in his verses. The scattered pronouncements of Gandhi about his dream of the Ramarajya, however, do not touch even one serious question concerning life and death. The only consolation he offers to the toiling masses is the lessening of the cost of litigation and assurance for democracy, which again is never defined by him in clear and unambiguous terms.

One point, however, is evident: Gandhi merely borrowed the name Ramarajya from the Valmiki Ramayana and/or the Ram-charit-manas. His utopia does not resemble the Ramayana utopia except in one particular detail: both are class-utopias.  As the Valmiki Ramayana upholds the sanctity and inviolability of the varna system and the hierarchical arrangement of the existing society, so does Gandhi approve of the co-existence of the prince and the pauper, without holding out any hope for the abolition of inequality even in the distant future. One might at best call it: Gandhi’s dream of a non-violent yet effective state, devoid of all immorality and inequity.

Appendix: The Ramarajya Parishad

It is no wonder that in independent India a political party called Akhil Bharatiya Ram Rajya Parishad (All India Council of Rama's Kingdom) came into being. It was founded by Sriswami Karpatriji Maharaj in 1948. Karpatri wrote a voluminous work (xii+804 pages) in Hindi called Marxvad aur Ramarajya (Gita Press, Gorakhpur, 2014 Samvat=1957-58 CE). Next year Mahapandit Rahul Sankrityayan came out with a short polemical pamphlet (iv+75 pages in the sixth edition) in 1959, appropriately named Ramarajya aur Marxvad.

The Akhil Bharatiya Ram Rajya Parishad was dharmic in their political outlook. Hindu dharma, it believed, does not generally accept the (Western) concept of a nation-state because dharma is said to permeate the entire universe, rather than demarcate people based on a geo-political entity such as the state. Like Hindutva-based parties, this party too wanted a uniform civil code in India, based on the Code of Manu with non-violence (ahimsa) as its first creed. 

The party won three Lok Sabha seats in the 1952 elections and two in 1962. In 1952, 1957 and 1962, it won several dozen of State Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha) seats, all in the Hindi belt, mostly in Rajasthan. The party gradually became inactive and was one of the many small parties to merge into the Bharatiya Jan Sangh (the first incarnation of the Bhartiya Janata Party). [Adapted from Wikipedia and other sources]

Works Cited

Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna. A Class Utopia in the Ramayana. 2015 (Online copy)
Bloch, Ernst. Something Missing: A Discussion between Ernst Bloch and Theodor W. Adorno on the Contradictions of Utopian Thinking (1975). The Utopian Function of Art and Literature: Selected Essays. Cambridge, Mass. and London: The MIT Press, 1988.
Gandhi, M.K. Collected Works. Delhi: Publications Division. Electronic version. 
Gospel according to St. Matthew. The New Testament. King James Version. London: British and Foreign Bible Society, 1929.
Goswami, Tulsidas. Sri Ramcaritamanasa. Gorakhpur: Gita Press. (often reprinted)
Johnson, J.W. (ed.). Utopian Literature: A Selection. New York: The Modern Library, 1968.
Morton, A. L. The English Utopia. Berlin: Seven Seas Publishers, 1968 (first published 1952).
Morton, A.L. Utopia as a Reflection of Social Ideas. MarxismToday, November 1962, pp.336-42.
Nehru, Jawaharlal. An Autobiography. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Ojha, Krittivasa. Ramayana. Ed. Subodh Chandra Majumdar. Kalikata: Deb Sahitya Kutir, n.d.
Ramayana of Valmiki. 2 vols. Ed. Shastri Shrinivas Katti Mudholkara. Delhi: Parimal Publications, 1983. (vulgate)
Ruesen, Joerm and others (eds.). Thinking Utopia: Steps into Other Worlds. New York: Berghahn Books, 2005.
Sankrityayan, Rahul. Ramarajya aur Marxvad. New Delhi: People’s Publishing House, 1982 (first published 1959).
Valmiki Ramayana, The. Critically edited by G.H. Bhatt and others. Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1960-75.

Websites:

 
<http://www.gandhiserve.org/e/CWMGmg/CWMGmg.htm>
http://www.mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/chap67.htm
http://www.gitapress.org/books/1318/1318_Sri%20Ramchritmanas_Roman.pdf 

https://www.academia.edu/10299352/A_Class_Utopia_in_the_R%C4%81m%C4%81ya%E1%B9%87aAcknowledgements: Amitava Bhattacharyya, Sourav Basak

Ramkrishna Bhattacharya taught English at the University of Calcutta, Kolkata and was an Emeritus Fellow of University Grants Commission. He is now a Fellow of PAVLOV Institute, Kolkata.

Email ID: ramkrishna.bhattacharya@gmail.com)

Read More

Gandhi’s Vision of Ramarajya: A Critique: Part I

Ramkrishna Bhattacharya

Ramarajya, ‘’the kingdom of Rama,’ is the projection of an ideal state in the Sanskrit epic, Valmiki Ramayana. When Rama, after rescuing Sita, his wife, from the demon Ravaṇa, came back from his fourteen-year exile, he was given back his kingdom by his devoted brother, Bharata. Rama, we are told, was a model ruler. His reign is described in glowing terms in the Sixth Book, The Book of War (Yuddhakanda), canto 116 verses 84-90 as follows:

While Rama was ruling the kingdom, there were no widows to lament, nor was there any danger from wild animals, nor any fear born of diseases. 84

The world was free from robbers. No one felt worthless, nor did old people perform obsequies of the youngster ones. 85

Every creature felt pleased; everyone was intent on virtue. Turning their eyes towards Rama alone, creatures did not kill one another. 86

While Rama was ruling the kingdom, people survived for thousands of years, with thousands of their progeny, all free from illness and grief. 87

The trees there were bearing flowers and fruits regularly, without any injury by pests and insects. The clouds were raining in time and the wind was delightful to the touch. 88

All [that is, Brahmins (the priest-class), Kshatriyas (the warrior-class), Vaiśyas (the class of merchants and agriculturists), and Sudras (the servant-class)] were performing their own duties, satisfied with their own work, and bereft of greed. While Rama was ruling, the people were intent on virtue and lived without telling lies. 89

All the people were endowed with excellent characteristics. All were engaged in virtue. Rama was engaged in the kingship thus for one thousand years. 90   

Tulsidas Goswami (Tulsidasa Gosvami, c.1532–1623) in his Rama-charita-manasa, the Hindi version of the Valmiki Ramayana, paraphrased this passage in the The Last Book (Uttarakanda), not in the Book of War as in the Valmiki Ramayana, as follows:

Under the rule of Rama there was none who suffered from affliction of any kind – whether of the body, or proceeding from divine or supernatural agencies or that caused by another living being. All men loved one another: each followed one’s prescribed duty, conformably to the precepts of the Vedas. Dharma with its four pillars (viz., truth, purity – both external and internal, compassion and charity) reigned everywhere throughout the world; no one even dreamt of sin. Men and women alike were devoted to Sri Rama’s worship and all were qualified for final beatitude. There was no premature death nor suffering of any kind; everyone was comely and sound of body. No one was destitute, afflicted or miserable; no one was stupid or devoid of auspicious marks. All were unaffectedly good, pious and virtuous; all were clever and accomplished – both men and women. Everyone recognized the merits of others and was learned and wise; nay, everyone acknowledged the services and benefits received from others and there was no guileful prudence. (Listen, O king of the birds, (continues Kakabhusundi,) during Sri Rama’s reign there was not a creature in this world, animate or inanimate, that was liable to any of the sufferings attributable to time, past conduct, personal temperament and character. (pp. 995-96)

In addition to everyone’s adherence to his or her duties (as in Valkmiki Ramayana 6.89), Tulsidas mentions the Veda as the authority which ordained the division of work (not mentioned by Valmiki) and brings in Dharma, again, something not mentioned explicitly by the ‘first poet’ (adi-kavi). 

Let us now examine whether Gandhi’s concept of Ramarajya corresponds at all to all this or provides a totally different picture.

                                                                                    #

The First Phase:  non-violence

The first reference to Ramarajya in Gandhi’s works is found in a passage which, however, highlights non-violence rather than any alluring feature of an ideal state visualized by Gandhi:

If the king is mindful of the difficulties of the weakest section of his subjects, his rule would be Ramarajya, it would be people’s rule. We cannot expect this of any government in modern times, be it British or Indian, Christian, Muslim or Hindu. Europe, which we are so impatient to imitate, also worships brute force or, which is the same thing, majority opinion, and the majority, surely, does not always look after the interests of the minority. (Navajivan, 30-05-1920)

Apparently it is not political or economic equality or even equity which Gandhi stresses. He never spoke of the first but mentioned the second later (see below). Both brute force and majority opinion are unacceptable to him, for neither of them protects the minority. Gandhi thinks in terms of the whole people; his sole interest is in protecting the weakest section, but not in empowering them, apparently because he is not yet thinking in terms of the abolition of privileges and thus build up a state free from all oppression: in other words, a state which has neither the strongest nor the weakest section: the whole people are empowered.

In the next reference too it is non-violence, ahimsa, that is emphasized. The allusion, however, is not to the merits of Ramarajya, but to the evils of Ravaṇarajya, with which Gandhi compares the British Empire. He looks at the whole thing as divine dispensation; without God’s will nothing can be achieved – neither Swaraj nor Ramarajya. The term, Ramarajya, occurs no fewer than seven times in this lecture.  Gandhi says:

The present Government is no Ramarajya; it is Ravanarajya. We suffer under this Ravanarajya and learn the ways of wickedness under it. How are we to be rid of this Ravanarajya? By becoming evil men in dealing with evil men? By meeting a crafty man with craftiness? How can we ever match them in their wickedness? How can we outwit the Empire in its cunning ways? How can the men of policy among us succeed against this Empire which, by its skilful deceptions, has conquered even Europe with all her cunning ways? Even if we, Hindus and Muslims, would employ cunning, we simply do not have it. If we want to kill Ravana with brute force, we should have ten heads and twenty arms like him. From where are we to get these? It is only a man of Rama’s strength who can do so. What was that strength of his? He had observed brahmacharya and he was God-fearing. His army consisted of monkeys. Have monkeys ever used weapons? During Diwali we celebrate even today the victory of Rama over Ravana. But we can truly celebrate this victory only when we destroy this monster with not ten but a thousand heads. So long as we have not accomplished this, there is nothing but vanavasa for us. If you are men who would never cast lustful glances at chaste and devoted women like Sita, then alone will you be able to mobilize sufficient strength to destroy this Empire. If any power has succeeded in subduing Satan, it is God’s. He it was Who created Satan and He it is Who can kill him. Man can never vanquish him by his own strength. It is God Who subdues him through the agency of a man serving Him with single-minded devotion. (Navajivan, 03-11-1920)

It is in the same speech than Gandhi recalls the Hindi proverb: Ram is the strength of the weak, Nirbal ke bal Ram.

The Second Phase: Protecting the poor, the women and the starving millions, and ensuring safety and food

Two years later, Gandhi for the first time comes out with the promise of Ramarajya, characterized by the following features:

But, at the end of this struggle, we hope to establish Ramarajya and the poor hope to get protection, women to live in safety and the starving millions to see an end of hunger. (Navajivan 15.01.1922)

It is no longer a question of violence versus non-violence, but a definite goal to be achieved in everyday life. God or providence is no longer invoked. Gandhi’s Ramarajya thus takes the shape of a model state, ensuring protection to the poor (but holding out no hope of the eradication of poverty), safety for women, and freedom from hunger. One might venture to remark that in this stray remark Gandhi’s Ramarajya for the first time takes a concrete shape.

‘No curtains (purdah) during Rama’s rule’

 In his next reference to Ramarajya Gandhi sticks to mundane matters such as the purdah (curtain separating the women from the men in a public gathering) system. He never approved of the purdah and was aggrieved to find such a segregated place for women in the venue of the Kathiawar Rajput Conference held in June 1924. He expressed his disapproval by referring to Ramarajya, which, according to Gandhi, had no such purdah, although neither Valmiki nor Tulsidas mentions anything of that sort. The idea was Gandhi’s own. He said:

The organizers of the Conference certainly deserve congratulations on making such perfect arrangements. But one can only express sorrow for the fact of curtains having been put up. This time, one may say, when curtains were necessary is past. There seem to have been no curtains during Rama’s rule. It is of course true that we still do not have Ramarajya, but if we so desire, we may act right from now as if we had it. (Navajivan, 22.06.1924)

Swaraj = Ramarajya

While addressing the audience in a prayer meeting for women in 1926 Gandhi, again for the first time equated Swaraj with Ramarajya. He, however, tells his audience that it was only in women’s gatherings that he refers to Swaraj as Ramarajya,  presumably to communicate the idea of Swaraj in a more homely way, understandable even by the commonest of common woman who did not have the privilege of any political education. This equation of Swaraj with Ramarajya  continues to persist for many years, not just in women’s gatherings any more, but for all occasions. In 1926 Gandhi declared: ‘At women’s meetings I have always used the word Ramarajya in place of swaraj’.

Democracy and swift justice at low cost

Let it be noted at the outset that Gandhi, unlike Thomas More (1478-1535) and many other European modern European authors and social thinkers after him, did not write any Utopia (1516). Nevertheless, he spoke and wrote of an ideal state envisaged by him which he used to call ‘Ramarajya’.  Right from 1929 to the last year of his life (1948) he refers to it. It is possible to locate those short occasional utterances and arrange them in such a way that a full picture of his utopia would emerge in outline, though not in full.

Gandhi elaborated his concept of Ramarajya in a speech in a public meeting, Bhopal on 10.09.1929 as follows:

BY RAMARAJYA I do not mean Hindu Raj. I mean by Ramarajya Divine Raj, the Kingdom of God. For me Rama and Rahim are one and the same deity. I acknowledge no other God but the one God of truth and righteousness.

Whether Rama of my imagination ever lived or not on this earth, the ancient ideal of Ramarajya is undoubtedly one of true democracy in which the meanest citizen could be sure of swift justice without an elaborate and costly procedure. Even the dog is described by the poet to have received justice under Ramarajya. (Young India (hereafter YI), 19.9.1929, p. 305; Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (hereafter CWMG)  vol. 47 p.41).

The whole passage is remarkable for several reasons. Having projected Ramarajya as described in the Ramayana as his ideal, Gandhi instantly recalls that it is a work associated with the Hindus; it is the best known sacred book of Hinduism in north India. Therefore he immediately attempts to disabuse his listeners or any apprehension that he was opting for a Hindu theocratic state. After asserting his belief in one god, who is the god of both Hindus and Muslims (and by extension, of all religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, and other theistic sects) he goes back to the salient features of his ideal state. Democracy and easy availability of justice are two basic characteristics of this ideal state. Both the concepts, however, are anachronistic in relation to the epic, composed between – 400 and + 400. Ayodhyā is a hereditary monarchy, with no division of power between legislature, executive, and judiciary. There is no elected government that prevails in a democratic state. We are also unable to trace any reference to dogs having justice in the Valmiki Ramayana. There are two passages in the Ramayana where Ramarajya is described. Neither in Book 6 where ideal character of the Ramarajya is projected (quoted above), nor in Book 1 (The Book of Boyhood, Balakanda) where the city of Ayodhya, the capital of the kingdom of Dasaratha, is depicted as a land of heart’s desire. In neither of the two or anywhere else could we locate any reference to dogs, least of all to their getting justice. In all probability, Gandhi was thinking in terms of the cost of litigations that the poor Indians had to bear (as then so now). Like any utopian thinker, he would like to assure the poor that in the Ramarajya of his dream, even the meanest citizen could be assured  of swift justice without any ‘elaborate and costly procedure.’ Gandhi, it appears, was merely making use of the name Ramarajya; it has only that much to do with the epic.
 
The other point to be noted is the spiritual nature of his Ramarajya. It is the kingdom of heaven on earth. In other words, it is god-ordained, not dependent on human endeavour. In other words, it is purely providential and hence, will come when God would will so; human effort alone cannot achieve it for the benefit of the Indian people. Gandhi held and expressed  this same view earlier too (03.11.1920).

Swaraj, Ramarajya, and  Sitarajya

 While addressing women Gandhi, as noted before, equated the concept of Swaraj with Ramarajya, presumably to make the idea of self-rule more readily comprehensible. On one occasion, at a women’s meeting in Varanasi on 26 September, 1929, he introduced another concept, Sitarājya, which should precede Ramarajya. Swaraj now turns out to be not a political, but a moral concept:

I would like to say a few words to you. We want swaraj for the country. We should therefore know what swaraj means. Swaraj means Ramarajya. Swaraj does not mean unrestrained freedom. But how can we bring about Ramarajya without first attaining Sitarajya? If you all become as pure as Sita, Ramarajya is sure to follow. Sita did not wear fine clothes, nor did she wear a lot of jewellery. She had compassion in her heart for those who were suffering. (Aaj, 27-09-1929)

Swaraj = Ramarajya = the rule of dharma

Soon after this Gandhi again explained Swaraj as people’s rule, a ‘regulated power in the hands of thirty crores of people.’ But he does not speak of democracy. He refers to the undefined power of a ‘king’, who, however, would act as ‘the servant of servants’ and, like a mother in a joint family, look after the well-being of all it members. Who the king is or should be is not clearly stated or explained.
Gandhi further admits that the name Ramarajya might be misinterpreted by the minority religious communities as a Hindu rajya or Hindu rule. Hence he preferred the expression ‘the rule of dharma’ too. Nevertheless, the image of Rama as the ideal king seems to stay close to Gandhi’s mind.

The whole passage despite its length is worth quoting:

The gentleman seems to believe that swaraj means the transfer of power from British hands to Indian hands. To my mind swaraj means regulated power in the hands of thirty crores of people. Where there is such rule, even a young girl will feel herself safe and, if the imagination of a poet is correct, animals like dogs, etc., who live among human beings will have a similar feeling of safety. We shall have to arrive at various basic decisions in regard to swaraj because under swaraj such decisions are not subject to officials in power but are based on truth and justice. I have succinctly called this kind of swaraj Ramarajya. As the Muslims and others may misinterpret it, I call it the rule of dharma too. Here there is room for a king, but a king means a protector, a guardian and a trustee, the best servant, the servant of servants. A king subsists on the leavings of his subjects; hence he should sleep after making his subjects sleep, eat after feeding them and live after enabling them to live. May such kings live for ever. If such kings do not arise in this age, I am certain that the very word ‘king’ will perish. (Navajivan, 20-10-1929)

Gandhi’s concern for the dog, first expressed in the speech of 10.09.1929, also recurs in this article/letter.

Who will bring Ramarajya?

 A few days after this, Gandhi contrasts Jatin Das’s self-sacrifice after 63 days (died on 13.09.1929) of fasting to the sacrifice made by millions of ‘poor but heroic men and women’ of India. They too suffer but forever remain unwept, unhonoured, and unsung, while Jatin Das’s death gets the widest publicity. Gandhi favours ‘such unknown people’ and again equates Swaraj with Ramarajya. In reply to a reader of the journal Navajīvan, Gandhi’s organ in Gujarati, he made his position clear:

I have already written about Jatin Das. He has been praised all over the country and abroad. It is the special dharma of Navajivan to sing praises of those poor but heroic men and women whom no one knows nor would care to know. It is my firm belief that we are going to achieve true swaraj or Ramarajya with the help of such unknown people. Those who believe that without self-purification such swaraj is impossible should preserve such articles [published in Navajivan]. (Navajivan, 03-11- 1929)

Ramkrishna Bhattacharya taught English at the University of Calcutta, Kolkata and was an Emeritus Fellow of University Grants Commission. He is now a Fellow of PAVLOV Institute, Kolkata.

Email ID: ramkrishna.bhattacharya@gmail.com)

Read More

Resurgence of Godse Worship

Ram Puniyani

 

Times are a changing; and changing fast. During last many decades most Hindu nationalists have kept the appreciation of their hero, Nathuram Godse under wraps. The programs appreciating his politics did use to make small news here and there some time; but as such it was a muted act not much publicized and generally kept as a low key affair. During last few years Pradeep Dalvi’s play in Marathi, Mee Nathuram Boltoy (I, Nathuram speaking), attacking Gandhi and upholding Godse, drew packed houses in various places in Maharashtra. Many people had also protested against staging of this play off and on.

With the new dispensation coming to power (Modi Sarkar, May, 2014) many a communal assertions, acts and intimidations are up in the air. It seems these acts are being silently appreciated by those in power. This inference is logical as none in the positions of power have either reprimanded or opposed these Godse acolytes. The main reason is that due to the compulsions of power they do not openly support the Godse appreciation clubs. They also do not condemn these voices as they too belong to the Godse ideology of Hindu nationalism. This Hindu nationalism in popular parlance is projected as ‘Nationalism’, keeping the Hindu prefix in the silent mode.

Nathuram Godse

The latest in the series of acts-statements by this Godse appreciation clubs is the bhumi pujan (earth prayer-a ritual before beginning of new construction) by Hindu Mahasabha for Godse temple in Meerut (Dec 25 2014). The activists of Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha are all set to build the country's first temple for murderer of Mahatma Gandhi in Meerut. There are several demands from the Hindu Mahasabha offices to install his statues. The Hindu Mahasabha has requested land from the Centre to erect a statue of Godse in the national capital. The paperback issue of Godse’s book is already running into second reprint.

The BJP MP Sakhshi Maharaj recently called Godse as Nationalist; of course he retracted it soon; apparently to ensure that the ruling party, BJP, is not embarrassed on the issue. At the same time, BJP’s parent organization RSS has come out with two books meant for internal circulation. These books claim to ensure that RSS viewpoint is reached to its Pracharaks, swayamsevaks. These books are RSS-Ek Parichay (RSS-an introduction) and RSS-Ek Saral Parichay (RSS-a simple introduction), the second of which is written by veteran RSS member MG Vaidya. Mr. Vaidya claims that "a narrative of accusation was built around RSS" so the book to dispel that. Essentially these books aim to dissociate RSS from Godse. While the Prime Minister Mr. Modi is maintaining maun (silence) on the subject the opposition leaders are  strongly criticizing Hindu Mahasabha's and others’ views on the murder of Mahatma Gandhi by Nathuram Godse.

What is the relationship between Godse and RSS? Was he part of RSS and later left it or was he part of it and also joined Hindu Mahasabha in mid 1930s? As for as official line is concerned RSS has tried to keep its slate clean by stating that it had nothing to do with Godse and he was not a member of RSS when he killed Mahatma Gandhi. Just to recall, in early 1998 Professor Rajendra Singh, the then RSS chief, had stated "Godse was motivated by akhand Bharat. His intention was good but he used the wrong method." (April 27 1998, Outlook)

How do we understand the whole issue? The major backdrop to understand the issue is to see the politics of Hindu nationalism as expressed through Hindu Mahasbah and RSS. These organizations remained aloof from freedom struggle. Hindu Mahasabha (HM), was more interested in the immediate participation in politics, as the flag bearers of Hindu communal politics, and the RSS wanted to concentrate on making a network of ‘cadres’ before forming organizations and infiltrating into different arena of education, culture, electoral politics and state apparatus. There was a lot of overlap in the agenda of these organizations as they were both working for the common goal of Hindu Nation. Nathuram Godse, ‘uniquely’ symbolized the fusion of both these two trends.

RSS could get away with dissociating with Godse or rather underplaying Godse’s association with RSS as there was no official record of members of RSS, and so they could disown Godse at legal level. In 1930 Godse joined RSS and very soon rose to be the bauddhik pracharak(intellectual propagator). Like both HM & RSS he was ardent Hindu Nationalist.

As a strong Hindutvawadi he was extremely critical of Gandhi’s ahimsa (non-violence) and the anti British movements led by him. Godse had very poor opinion of Gandhi’s role in freedom movement. RSS-Hindu Mahasbha kept criticizing Gandhi for his involving all religious communities in the freedom movement. Gandhi kept religion as personal matter and projected overarching Indian identity for all. This was what annoyed the HM-RSS combine, as they wanted only Hindus to be recognized as Indians. Godse’s assessment of nationalism of Gandhi is expressed in a way which identifies nationalism with Hindu kings. He used very peculiar parameters to assess Gandhi, “His (Gandhi’s, added) followers cannot see what is clear even to the blind viz. that Gandhi was a mere pigmy before Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Govind  (ibid Pg. 40, Why I assassinated Gandhi?) and finally about the winning of swaraj and freedom I maintain the Mahatma’s contribution was negligible.” (Ibid. pg. 87)

He held Mahatma responsible for appeasing Muslims, and thereby the formation of Pakistan.  About his association with RSS and Hindu Mahasabha, he writes, “Having worked for the uplift of the Hindus I felt it necessary to take part in political activities of the country for the protection of just rights of Hindus. I therefore left the Sangh and joined Hindu Mahasabha  (Godse, ‘Why I Assassinated Mahatma Gandhi’ 1993, Pg.  102).

Hindu Mahasabha at that time the only political party of Hindutva, and he became general secretary of its Pune Branch.  In due course he started a newspaper, as founder editor, called Agrani or Hindu Rashtra.  As such Gandhi murder was not on the charges propagated by them (Partition and insistence on paying Pakistan’s dues (55 crore) from the treasury), but due to the basic deep differences with the politics of Gandhi and that of the followers of the Hindu Rashtra.  These two reasons are proffered merely as a pretext for the same.

What does Godse mean when he says that he left RSS? Is it true? This truth behind Nathuram’s leaving RSS, is clarified by his brother Gopal Godse. In an interview given to ‘The Times of India’ (25 Jan 98); Gopal Godse, who was also an accomplice in the murder when tells us the reality behind Nathuram’s statement that ‘he left RSS’. Gopal Godse says “The appeasement policy followed by him (Gandhi, added) and imposed on all Congress governments’ encouraged the Muslim separatist tendencies that eventually created Pakistan…Technically and theoretically he (Nathuram) was a member (of RSS), but he stopped workings for it later. His statement in the court that he had left the RSS was to protect the RSS workers who would be imprisoned following the murder. On the understanding that they (RSS workers) would benefit from his dissociating himself from the RSS, he gladly did it."

So this is the logic of Godse saying that he ‘left’ RSS. The dual membership (RSS+Hindu Mahasabha) was not a problem. Thus the murder of Gandhi was steeped in both the streams of Hindutva politics, RSS and HM.  His editing the paper called, ‘Hindu Rashtra was quite symbolic.  This murder had a broad sanction of the followers of HM and RSS, as they celebrated Mahatma’s murder by distributing sweets, “All their (RSS) leaders’ speeches were full of communal poison.  As a final result, the poisonous atmosphere was created in which such a ghastly tragedy (Gandhi’s murder) became possible.  RSS men expressed their joy and distributed sweets after Gandhi’s death."  (excerpt from Sardar Patel’s letters to M S Golwalkar and S P Mookerjee.). Godse was no freak.  The way Hindu communalists were spewing poison against Gandhi, it was the logical outcome of their politics.  And Godse had the ‘benefit’ of the teachings of both RSS as well as HM. They used the word wadh for this murder. This word wadh stands for killing a demon who is harming the society. In a way Gandhi murder was the first major offensive of the Hindutva politics on Indian Nationalism; in a way it was to herald the onset of bigger strides which Hindutva politics has assumed during last few decades, and this is what we are witnessing today.

So though officially RSS family kept dissociating from Gandhi’s murder by Godse, in private many a members not only uphold the dastardly act, but also have even succeeded in undermining the importance of Mahatma and they do ‘sympathize’ with Godse. This complex trick kept going on so far. Now with Modi Sarkar there is no need to hide the true ideology and thinking of this combine and so the open efforts to glorify Godse!

Read More

Targeting Nehruvian Legacy?

Ram Puniyani

The debates about India's partition, Gandhi murder and politics of Nehru have been a matter of ceaseless debates. Each political tendency has their own interpretation of these events, which in a way are landmarks of sorts in modern Indian History. As such the phenomenon of Partition of India and assassination of Gandhi are interwoven in the sense that Godse held Gandhi responsible for appeasement of Muslims. Godse constructed his story around warped understandings of the events of the time to create the ground for murder of the Mahatma. These views are shared by many Hindu nationalists, who are in and around RSS-BJP. Now with the ascendance of BJP to the seat of power many of its leaders are coming out more boldly with Hindu nationalist interpretation of the events, but a twist is being added. This twist is apparent in the article by a BJP leader from Kerala in the RSS mouth piece Kesari. This article indirectly suggests that Nathuram Godse should have killed Jawaharlal Nehru instead of Mahatma Gandhi, as according to him the real culprit was Nehru and not Gandhi. 

The BJP leader who wrote this is B Gopalkrishnan. He says "If history students feel Godse aimed at the wrong target, they cannot be blamed. Nehru was solely responsible for the partition of the country.” What does one make of it? Is it the official RSS line? To be on the safe side RSS spokesperson Manmohan Vaidya has distanced the RSS from the statement of its leader. Still it is not difficult to guess that there may be prevalence of such thinking within the RSS circles on the lines of the author of RSS mouthpiece article. This Kesari article is significant as it is trying to shift the blame from Gandhi to Nehru. It may not be too difficult to understand the reason for the same. Before we have a look at who was responsible for partition, let’s try to understand why the blame is being shifted from the Mahatma to Nehru. Recently Narendra Modi launched Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (Clean India campaign) on 2nd October as a tribute to the father of the nation, Gandhi. This move has two shrewd aims. One is to appropriate Gandhi for the politics of Hindu nationalism; two is to reduce Gandhi’s contribution to mere cleanliness and hygiene. This over projection of cleanliness associated with Gandhi as such dwarfs the major contribution of Gandhi, Hindu Muslim unity and national integration in the deepest possible sense.

Nehru’s staunch and principled commitment to Indian nationalism, pluralism, secularism and scientific temper make him a figure totally unacceptable to Hindu nationalists, as Hindu nationalism stands for the values totally opposed to these. So the attempts like this article are planned attempts for tasting of waters by throwing up Nehru’s name as the culprit for the partition tragedy.

As such Gandhi, Nehru and Patel were the most prominent leaders of the anti colonial freedom movement. Gandhi was the central pillar, who built up the anti-British-Indian nationalist mass movement, gave it solid foundations and then gradually became the moral guide for the same. He passed the major mantle of his responsibilities to Nehru and Patel. Most of the times Hindu nationalists, Hindu Mahasabha-RSS, were critical of Gandhi’s efforts for Hindu Muslim unity. The Muslim communal stream, Muslim League looked at Congress as a party representing Hindus alone. The truth is that majority of people from all religions were with the Gandhi led movement for Indian nationalism. It is only after 1940s that more Muslims started shifting to Muslim League due to the rise of communalism.

Gandhi was criticized by both communal streams, Hindu communal stream criticized him for appeasing Muslims, and Muslim communalists called him a Hindu representative. Partition was due to multiple factors. The first and foremost of these was the machination of British policy of ‘divide and rule’ which strengthened the communal streams-Muslim and Hindu both. Secondly British had an agenda of colonial masters. They perceived that a united India will be a power in its own right, more likely to ally with Soviet Union in global bipolar world. Their perception was due to the presence of a significant Left wing in the Indian National Congress led by Nehru himself.

Partition tragedy was multi layered phenomenon, which cannot be reduced to a single incident. Many such incidents had their own impact on the totality of the phenomenon of course. We need to see the deeper differences between the Indian nationalists on one hand and Religious nationalists (Muslim League-Hindu Mahasabha) on the other and the clever role of British in partitioning the nation. That should be central to understanding the process, rather than putting the blame on any single individual.

As per the perception of Hindu communal stream so far it was supposed to be Gandhi who was responsible for partition and for appeasement of Muslims, now this stream is trying to shift the blame on to Nehru as they need Gandhi as an icon, though freed from his core virtues of truth and non violence, reduced to mere ‘cleanliness man’. In no way they can appropriate Nehru, as Nehru lived after Independence to nurture the values of Indian nationalism, pluralism, liberalism and diversity, the principles which were the cementing factors of Indian national movement, the biggest ever mass movement in the World. So this Keasri, RSS mouthpiece article and the façade of its being disowned!

Read More

Gandhi Murder and Role of RSS: Debate Continues

Ram Puniyani

Last week (March 2014) Rahul Gandhi in an election campaign meeting said that ‘RSS people killed Gandhiji and today their people and BJP talk of him…They opposed Sardar Patel and Gandhiji.” In a reaction to his statement RSS has lodged a complaint with election commission. This is not the first time that Rahul Gandhi has made such a statement; on an earlier occasion also he had made similar statement. What is the truth of Gandhi murder; did RSS as an organization had any role in it? Were members of RSS involved in it? What was the reaction of RSS followers in the wake of Gandhi murder? What was the response of Sardar Patel, the then Home minister in Union Cabinet to this ghastly murder?

These have been the subject matters of many books, films and plays, apart from myriad of books and articles. While the incident, the commissions of inquiry and the judgment are there for all to see, the deeper causes of Gandhi murder have not been debated, the underlying cause of contrasting Nationalisms is not brought to the fore in most of the debates. Today it is necessary not only to unearth the incident of Gandhi murder but it is also imperative to understand that Gandhi murder had deeper ideological underpinnings, those related to two notions of Nationalism, the one Indian Nationalism, which Gandhi espoused and strived for and other the Hindu Nationalism, the nationalism pursued by Godse, Gandhi’s murderer. Incidentally the current Prime Ministerial candidate of BJP, the political wing of RSS, is also boasting about his nationalism being Hindu, so the matters become all the more relevant in the current political context.

After the murder of Mahatma, the official RSS line had been that we have nothing to do with Godse; neither is he a member of RSS.  They could get away with this as there was no official record of members of RSS, and they could disown Godse at legal level. As such Godse joined RSS in 1930 and very soon rose to be its bauddhik pracharak (intellectual propagator), “Having worked for the uplift of the Hindus I felt it necessary to take part in political activities of the country for the protection of just rights of Hindus. I therefore left the Sangh (RSS) and joined Hindu Mahasabha (Godse, ‘Why I Assassinated Mahatma Gandhi’ 1993, and Pg.  102). He held Mahatma responsible for appeasing Muslims, and thereby the formation of Pakistan. He joined Hindu Mahasabha, at that time the only political party of Hindutva, and became general secretary of its Pune Branch.  In due course he started a newspaper, as founder editor, called Agrani or Hindu Rashtra.

In an interview given to ‘The Times of India’ (25 Jan 98) Nathuram’s brother Gopal Godse, who was also an accomplice in the murder, elaborates the apparent reasons and Nathuram’s RSS membership. “The appeasement policy followed by him (Gandhi) and imposed on all Congress governments’ encouraged the Muslim separatist tendencies that eventually created Pakistan…. Technically and theoretically he (Nathuram) was a member (of RSS), but he stopped workings for it later. His statement in the court that he had left the RSS was to protect the RSS workers who would be imprisoned following the murder. On the understanding that they (RSS workers) would benefit from his dissociating himself from the RSS, he gladly did it."

This murder was celebrated by RSS followers by distributing sweets, Sardar Patel wrote, “All their (RSS) leaders’ speeches were full of communal poison.  As a final result, the poisonous atmosphere was created in which such a ghastly tragedy (Gandhi’s murder) became possible.  RSS men expressed their joy and distributed sweets after Gandhi’s death."  Excerpts from Sardar Patel’s letters to M S Golwalkar and S P Mookerjee.  (Outlook, April 27, 1998) The way Hindu communalists were spewing poison against Gandhi, it was logical outcome of their politics.  They used the word wadh for this murder; this word stands for killing a demon who is harming the society.  In a way Gandhi murder was the first major offensive of the Hindutva politics on Indian Nationalism, in a way it was to herald the onset of bigger dangers which Hindutva politics has assumed today.

Contrary to the claims of Godse that it was only his planning, the commissions of inquiry have stated that it was a conspiracy by various followers of Hindu Mahsabha-RSS ideology, who planned to kill the Mahatma as he, a Hindu, was a big obstacle to turn this country in to a Hindu nation. Sardar Patel wrote that it was a fanatical wing of the Hindu Mahasabha directly under Savarkar that hatched the conspiracy and saw it through,…of course his assassination was welcomed by those of the RSS and Hindu Mahasabha who were strongly opposed to his way of thinking and to his policy…” (Sardar Patel Quoted in Justice Kapoor report Chapter I page 43). Justice Jivan Lal Kapoor himself concluded that “…all the facts taken together were destructive of any theory other than the conspiracy to murder by Savarkar and his group.”

This Hindutva became the base of politics of Hindu Mahsabha and RSS. Gandhi in contrast was a Hindu but was opposed to the idea of Nation being a Hindu nation. Similarly we see Maulana Abul Kalam Azad; a Muslim never supported the idea of a Muslim Nation Pakistan. Gandhi and Hindutva politics were two opposite poles. Gandhi united the whole nation on secular grounds, cutting across region, religion and caste. He was a religious person but he was opposed to misuse of religion for political goals... "In India, for whose fashioning I have worked all my life, every man enjoys equality of status, whatever his religion is. The state is bound to be wholly secular" (Harijan August 31, 1947) and," religion is a personal affair of each individual, it must not be mixed up with politics or national affairs"(ibid pg 90).While Hindu Mahasabha and RSS believed that this nation is a Hindu nation and minorities have to remain subordinate to Hindus. They mostly did not take part in anti British agitations and struggles. For example Savarkar who was an anti British revolutionary in the beginning of his life, after getting released from Andman jail, never participated in any anti British movement or joined and national movement. RSS followers barring Hedgewar, occasionally and in the beginning also did not take part in freedom movement. Their main focus was countering the Muslim communalists and subjugating them, they were not against the British power as such.

The issue of 55 crores was a mere pretext As a matter of fact this 55 crore was the Pakistan’s share from the united treasury. The first installment of the money was already given and 55 crores were to be given. Meanwhile Pakistan attacked Kashmir. Indian Government withheld these 55 crores after Pakistan attack on Kashmir. Kashmir that time was an independent state and Gandhi, true to his ethical stand in political arena, asked the government not to link Pakistan’s share with the Kashmir problem.

Any way this was a pretext as even before Gandhi talked about Pakistan’s share of 55 crores, already four attacks were made on Gandhi’s life, in some of which Godse was also involved. Jagan Phadnis in his book ‘Mahatmyachi Akher’  (Lokvangymay Griha, 1994) correctly argues that Gandhi murder was not on the charges propagated by them (Partition and insistence on paying Pakistan’s dues (55 crore) from the treasury), but due to the basic deep differences with the social politics of Gandhi and that of the followers of the Hindu Rashtra.  These two reasons are proffered merely as a pretext for the same. We need to understand that when BJP and company talk of nationalism, they are not talking of Indian Nationalism but Hindu nationalism, which is the not so hidden part of their political agenda. The present attacks on secular fabric of our polity are yet another assassination attempts of Mahatma. So talking about the deeper causes of his murder will remain relevant till the attacks on secular democratic values of the country continue to hover on the nation. 

Read More