Thank you, Michael, for a very brief,
for an interesting introduction.
It's true that I have taken an assignment
which is not exactly academic,
but it involves a lot of administrative responsibilities,
and as I was telling Michael,
it also involves human relations.
You know, I'm meeting people from morning till I go to bed.
So, you know, I've become an administrator.
But, you know, don't worry,
you know, I cannot leave my academy and academics
because that's what which gives me maximum pleasure.
So I keep on working on themes which I like most.
You know, today I'll talk about an interesting aspect of Gandhi
because, you know, when you talk of Gandhi,
normally we try to understand the man who led the nationalist movement.
We know a lot of stuff about Gandhi being the leader of the
in the nationalist movement in the freedom struggle.
But, you know, I was interested in understanding
how did Gandhi become Gandhi?
Because, you know, Gandhi is certainly a human being,
you know, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi,
but when you talk of Gandhi to me,
he becomes not a human being but a conceptual category,
a parameter, a theoretical wave.
So my purpose is to understand that theoretical wave
with reference to the context and with reference to the influences
which he articulated in his response to India's freedom struggle.
And last time you remember I talked about the external influences
or so-called exogenous influences
because I feel that Gandhi was influenced heavily
by some of the top intellectuals of his period from the Western world,
you know, and I refer to Tolstoy, I refer to Raskin,
I refer to Edward Carpenter and many others, you know,
who really contributed immensely to the Gandhian ideas of nonviolence,
Gandhian ideas of nation, nationalism, national identity.
So this is one part of the story that, you know,
Gandhi was influenced by Western thinkers, which is quite obvious
and I had shown that if you look at some of the text written by Gandhi himself,
then you'll find Gandhi referred to the Western sources
primarily to gain what is called, you know, acceptability
because he was writing in the context of colonialism,
so he always was aware that to gain respectability to the Westerners,
it's better to refer to the literature which Western world has produced.
But that's one story, one part of the story.
You know, I just found out that Gandhi was also influenced
by some of his illustrious colleagues
who fought with him for the nationalist cause in a different way.
Gandhi's fighting with British imperialism was one kind of exercise
and those who influenced Gandhi from within India,
their approach to nationalism was little different.
But you know, they, dandiras, they influenced Gandhi.
So today I'll just refer to those intellectuals who, according to me,
became very prominent in conceptualizing Gandhi being Gandhi.
So, you know, I'm making an argument in which I'm putting forward the view
that Gandhi was influenced by external sources,
which I talked about last time,
and today I'll talk about the internal sources,
what I call the indigenous sources.
Now before I talk about the indigenous sources,
let me just, you know, put the, I put my lecture in a context or in a perspective.
The first perspective to me, you know,
when I talk of the internal influences I have in mind the nationalist context
because Gandhi became Gandhi in the context of India's freedom struggle,
which started roughly from the early part of the 20th century
and concluded with the attainment of independence in 1947.
So to me, when I looked at the ideas of individuals who influenced Gandhi,
the nationalist context is very important.
So whatever ideas I just draw on,
these ideas are organically linked with the nationalist context.
That's one.
And secondly, interestingly, you know, the individuals who influenced Gandhi,
they were influenced by Gandhi also.
So, you know, that's why I said, you know, it is Gandhi who set the agenda.
You know, Gandhi wrote the script,
and most of the, most of his colleagues performed their duties,
disturbed the responsibilities in accordance with the script written by Gandhi.
So now I'm making two points.
The first, the context is very important.
And second, in the context is Gandhi who is important.
You know, Gandhi set the agenda.
So whatever, you know, I'm going to talk about,
you'll find they had clear roots in Gandhi's Gandhian conceptualization,
in Gandhi's approach to the nationalist struggle.
Now, but, you know, to undertake this kind of exercise is very difficult,
simply because there is not one Gandhi.
You know, in my conceptualization, I find many Gandhis.
And, you know, to be very precise, I have, I have found out three Gandhis.
You know, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi became Gandhi, that's one Gandhi.
But if you analyze or dissect this Gandhi, you'll find three Gandhis.
The first Gandhi, you know, I see in the context of South Africa, you know,
and I argue that this Gandhi was a loyalist Gandhi.
You know, he was very, you know, favorably disposed towards British colonialism.
He was the one who was trying to imbibe liberal interest.
He was the one who was very appreciative of British philosophy enlightenment.
At the same time, you know, he was also questioning the way British authority
was articulated in the context of South Africa.
You know, if you look at his campaign in South Africa, you'll find that Gandhi
questioned South African authority not because it was exploitative,
not because it was inhuman, but because the policies which they are following
were contrary to the British policy of enlightenment.
So, the South African authority was not British per se.
And because they were not British per se, they deviated from the, the
philosophical foundation on which British assistive administration is based.
So, this is one Gandhi.
So, a loyalist Gandhi was trying to imbibe the spirit of
British philosophy enlightenment in so far as governance is concerned.
The second Gandhi I found out when Gandhi came to India.
As you know, he came to India after almost 21 years in South Africa in 1914.
And in 1914, he did not plunge into politics.
He did not get involved in nationalist movement at all.
You know, he was influenced by another person, Gokhale, G.K. Gokhale.
Gokhale said, you know, you have come, just come from South Africa.
You don't know India.
So, first you know India.
So, Gandhi undertook a kind of journey.
And that journey, you know, completed in three years.
He just traveled to India for three years.
And then in 1917, he started getting involved in nationalist politics.
The first Pan-Indian movement which he organized is the non-cooperation movement,
which started in 1919 and completed in 1921.
Now, this movement was a failure.
This movement, you know, Gandhi didn't achieve what he wanted to.
Simply because Gandhi realized that Indians were not fit to be non-violent.
Indians, you know, were not ready to accept non-violence as a principle.
So, those who participated in the non-cooperation movement, they became violent
and Gandhi had to withdraw the movement.
You know, there was a famous incident in Chauri Chaura, Uttar Pradesh in 1921
where the nationalists put eight constables in fire,
which really infuriated Gandhi and Gandhi immediately withdrew the movement.
Now, this is one Gandhi that here Gandhi was trying to bring together Hindus
and Muslims in one platform.
For the first time in the history of India,
I find that Gandhi led the communist nationalist movement
and the Muslim leadership led what is called Khilafat movement.
You know, at that point of time in 1921,
you know, the British abolished Caliph in Turkey.
So, there is a massive campaign of the Muslims all over the world.
So, Muslims joined Gandhi to attack the British authority in India.
So, for the first time in the history of India,
Hindus and Muslims came together and formed a joint platform
to combat British authority. That's the first and last.
So, here, you know, I think Gandhi was trying to bridge the gulf
between Hindus and Muslims, which was temporary though,
but at least he made an effort to bring Hindus and Muslims together
for a particular, for a common cause.
So, this is to me the second Gandhi.
And then finally, I find the Gandhi which began developing after 1921.
By that time, the situation became very complicated.
First, Muslims emerged as a solid group espousing their own causes.
Then we have the Dalits, the untouchables.
They also became a very, you know, powerful group within Indian society.
Thirdly, the Congress did not remain as united as it was in the past.
There are, you know, multiple opinions within the Congress.
So, Gandhi now had to develop a skill of negotiating with his colleagues.
And this is the starting point of my today's lecture.
So, you know, the context is very important.
What we find, Muslims have become independent entity in the nationalist politics.
Dalits were trying to assert their authority.
By that time, Ambedkar also became an important leader.
And thirdly, Gandhi was not acceptable without question.
So, Gandhi had to negotiate with his colleagues in the Congress.
So, you know, again, you know, it's a kind of effort on his part to manage human relations.
So, this is the starting point of my lecture.
When Gandhi started negotiating with his colleagues,
I find three important colleagues who played a critical role in shaping Gandhi as Gandhi.
Who are these people?
The first one is M.N. Roy, R-O-Y, Roy, M.N. Roy.
Now, M.N. Roy was essentially communist.
And, you know, I'll talk briefly about him.
And he was the one who had interacted with Lenin.
And he forced Lenin to revise the nationalist thesis.
I'll come to that in a minute.
So, the first person to me happens to be M.N. Roy,
who influenced Gandhi to a significant extent by putting what we call the Marxist critique of Gandhiism.
So, M.N. Roy conceptualized Gandhiism in a different angle,
in a different conceptual parameters, namely Marxism.
That's one.
The second person happens to be Rabindranath Tagore.
I mean, the university, which I'm heading now,
that university was founded by him in 1921.
Tagore.
You know, Tagore was not a political activist,
like M.N. Roy, like Gandhi, or like Ambedkar.
Tagore was essentially a poet.
But he was the one who believed in universalism.
He didn't believe in nation.
He always believed in globalization, global citizenship,
the point which I'm talking about now.
So, he started talking about global citizenship as early as the early part of the 20th century.
So, Tagore.
And the third person happens to be B.R. Ambedkar.
Now, Ambedkar was the one who introduced Gandhi to the idea of distributive justice.
Ambedkar was the one who introduced Gandhi to the idea of universal liberalism,
or liberal constitutionalism.
So, you know, when you look at Gandhi in the third phase,
I find a lot of influence of M.N. Roy,
a lot of influence of Rabindranath Tagore,
and a lot of influence of B.R. Ambedkar.
So, now, you know, I'm making the argument that Gandhi,
being influenced by his colleagues like Roy, Tagore and Ambedkar,
conceptualized in a nationalist movement in a different light altogether.
You know, or in other words, you know, Gandhi's approach to nation,
nationalism and national identity had undergone a sea change
once he was introduced to the ideas of M.N. Roy, Rabindranath Tagore and B.R. Ambedkar.
So, this is the point I'm making, that, you know,
Gandhi was influenced equally by his equally illustrious nationalist colleagues.
So, you know, I mean, see the situation that here Gandhi is a giant,
but those who are working with him in that context, they are equally giant.
You know, they devised ideas which were accepted by Gandhi.
They devised ideas which led India to a different kind of direction altogether.
So, this is the kind of, you know, point which I'm going to make.
Now, first of all, let me talk about M.N. Roy.
Now, as I mentioned, M.N. Roy was a communist,
but he started his career as a revolutionary nationalist.
He didn't believe in Gandhisham. He didn't believe in nonviolence.
He believed in violence.
So, he participated in this violent kind of activities.
But then, you know, to escape arrest, he left and he reached United States
and then went to Mexico.
And, you know, I don't know how many of you know that Mexican Communist Party
was founded by M.N. Roy.
And he became famous in 1927 when Lenin produced what is called the nationalist thesis.
And I'll quote from his text soon.
And Lenin's argument is that, that, you know, in those countries
where there is not effective pro-Dothareth movement,
we can depend on the nationalists who are espousing the cause of the nation.
So, Lenin's argument is that, that instead of creating a communist party
in that part of the world where there is no communist party,
let us draw on the support of the nationalists.
M.N. Roy questioned it. He said, no, don't do that,
because most of the nationalists are in favor of the bourgeois.
So, we'll have to have communist party.
You know, I'll come to that in a minute.
But M.N. Roy, when he confronted Gandhi, you know,
he wrote extensively his critique of Gandhi in a famous book
which was published in 1922, India in Transition.
The title of the book is India in Transition.
And in that particular book, M.N. Roy talked extensively about Gandhi.
Now, what is the point he made?
M.N. Roy argued, just, you know, I'll just refer to that.
M.N. Roy, you know, argued that, you know, if you want to have freedom,
the first thing which you have to do, you have to mobilize people across classes.
So, he was trying to develop a collectivity based not on class distinction,
but based on the goal for freedom.
So, even if you are, you know, separated in terms of class category,
you can come together simply because there is a common enemy.
So, at that point of time, the British was the common enemy.
So, even if you are rich or poor, doesn't matter, please come together.
We'll fight the British as a collectivity.
So, that was the kind of conceptualism he made.
Now, in order to do that, you know, he put forward an agenda.
And this agenda is very interesting.
You know, again, I keep telling that Gandhi did not acknowledge M.N. Roy's contribution.
But if you look at his text, if you, you know, read his text in between lines,
you'll find that he was heavily influenced by M.N. Roy.
Now, in 1922, M.N. Roy put forward a program for India.
How to achieve independence?
And once independence is achieved, what is to be done?
So, the agenda, the agenda for Indians was set by M.N. Roy in 1922.
And what are the agenda?
The first, you know, is agenda comprising nine items.
Now, the first item happens to be very obvious, nationalist independence.
And what does it mean?
It means complete break from the empire, a democratic republic based on universal suffrage.
You know, see, see, revolutionary, the idea is so revolutionary,
he's talking about universal suffrage as early as 1922.
Nobody was talking in that language.
Even Congress didn't talk about that language.
So, M.N. Roy was the one who started putting forward this point of view,
that if you want to have independent country,
the first thing is obviously we'll try for national independence.
But at the same time, we'll have to think in terms of what is going to happen after independence.
And that what part is articulated by him as a democratic republic based on universal adult suffrage.
Even America, it didn't have, you know, universal suffrage at that point of time.
You know, the American, African Americans got their voting right as late as 1965.
So, M.N. Roy see the, you know, the foresight, which M.N. Roy had in 1922.
Then second item is abolition of feudalism and landlordism.
You know, here his communistic idea became important,
that so long as landlordism and feudalism exist, you know, independence is a remote possibility.
And unless and until we get out of this landlordism and feudalism, we cannot think of real freedom.
The third is that nationalization of land.
You see the foresight.
He was talking about nationalization of land,
but the cultivator will have the right of land holding.
So, you know, he's talking about ownership.
Ownership of land normally belongs to the landlord.
But he's saying, no, that's unfair.
That should be abolished. That should be done away with.
So, those who cultivate land should have ownership.
Now, again, this is revolutionary because at that point of time,
he's talking about ownership of land by the cultivator themselves is a revolutionary kind of conceptualization.
The fourth point is modernization of agriculture by state aid.
You know, Russia, after revolution did it, that, you know, state controlling everything
and state is helping modernize cultivation.
Nationalization of mines and public utilities.
You know, again, it's the state's responsibility to take care of the interests of the people
and for that the national wealth should be owned by the state
so that state can distribute wealth in accordance with the requirement of the people.
So, this is something which, again, was a revolutionary point.
Development of modern industries.
Protection of workers, minimum wages, eight-hour day.
Even Germany, that was not the case in 1920.
Forget about other places.
Abolition of child labor.
Abolition of child labor. See, 1922.
Insurance for the workers.
And other advanced social legislation.
You know, the point I'm making, because then I'll link it with Gandhi,
that, you know, here is a person who was thinking far ahead of his age.
And because of these, you know, his communistic kind of leaning,
he was thinking in terms of those activities, those designs,
which are actually contributing to the well-being of the people at large.
Free and compulsory primary education.
Free and compulsory primary education, even in Germany at that point of time, it was absent.
Freedom of religion and worship.
Secularism. The idea of secularism.
And then right of minorities.
We are talking about it now. Right of minorities.
So, you know, these are the items which Amenrodt referred to.
And now the Gandhi.
Gandhi talked about all these things.
In a scheme called Constructive Program, 1943.
So, which, what Amenrodt conceptualized in 1922,
it took 21 years for Gandhi to realize that.
But, you know, interesting, you will hardly find any acknowledgement.
Any acknowledgement of Amenrodt, while Gandhi writing his Constructive Program.
So, the point which I am trying to establish, that Amenrodt,
despite not being recognized by Gandhi, influenced Gandhi to a significant extent.
Because if you look at Constructive Program, it had 11 items.
And these 11 items are nothing but reproduction of the items which Amenrodt talked about in 1922.
So, you know, the point which I made at the outset,
that Amenrodt influenced Gandhi to a significant extent.
But then, there is a debate.
The debate is that, as you know, Gandhi talked, always referred to spinning wheel.
Charkha.
Then, homespun, khadar.
And fight against untouchability.
And then, Gandhi was also opposed to drinking alcohol.
So, Amenrodt talked about these items.
First, khadar, spinning wheel.
Then, sorry, charkha, khadar is homespun.
And then, untouchability.
And then, drink, taboo against alcohol.
Amenrodt took up these issues.
He said, you know, first of all, he argues that, you know, you are talking about spinning wheel.
Now, spinning wheel is not effective in terms of producing items for mass consumption.
Because it takes long.
Spinning wheel takes long.
Spinning wheel is very slow.
So, if you depend on spinning wheel to take care of your interest,
I think you are actually living in false paradise.
This is not practical.
According to Amenrodt, spinning wheel or khadar is not practical.
Similarly, you know, the homespun.
Now, how can you impose homespun unless and until you have the production?
But for production, you are depending on, you know, traditional handicrafts.
So, traditional handicrafts may not be adequately fitted to give you enough production.
So, this is impractical.
This cannot be feasible in today's context.
Then, thirdly, untouchability.
Now, you said untouchability, you know, is something which is perennially effective in Indian situation.
So, you cannot get rid of untouchability overnight.
Because untouchability reflects the mindset.
Untouchability reflects the mindset.
And that mindset has developed over ages.
So, if you, you cannot just get rid of untouchability by a single stroke.
So, what you require, you need to create another mindset to counter that.
And for that, what you need, you require time.
So, Gandhian, you know, attempt to get rid of untouchability overnight doesn't seem to be practical.
You know, it, there cannot be a magic.
There cannot be a magic to get rid of untouchability.
To get rid of untouchability, you need to start a process whereby a counter mindset is created,
counter mindset is established, and that mindset will counter the mindset in favor of untouchability.
This is the point which he made.
And about alcohol, you know, M.N. Roy said, yes, alcohol is bad for health.
But why does, why does a cultivator, why does a worker drink?
He said, you know, because when they drink, they forget the drudgery of life.
So, even for the time being, they escape the hard reality of life, probably they enjoy being there.
So, similarly, you know, alcohol is something, it is a kind of escape route.
It is an easy escape route.
And you cannot take that easy escape route from the workers without giving them an alternative.
You know, you can force them not to drink alcohol.
But what is the alternative?
So, give them alternative because alcohol, they drink not for the sake of, you know, drinking,
but they drink because they enjoy.
And enjoyment is possible only when they forget the daily drudgery, the pain, the agony of life.
So, he argues that, you know, alcohol is an easy escape route to avoid daily drudgery of daily life, the pain of daily life.
So, he said, whatever you are saying doesn't seem to be practical.
So, Gandhism, according to M.N. Roy, is an ideology which is based on certain misconception about human reality, about human existence.
And unless and until you address that, it is very difficult for Gandhism to succeed.
And then he made a very serious point.
He said, you know, Gandhi is essentially a collaborator.
Because if you look at Gandhian model, Gandhi talks of the poor and the rich together.
He said, that's not possible because Gandhi never affected the interest of the landlords.
His campaign is for no tax so that the British is affected.
But his campaign is not for no rent.
Because the zamindars pay rent and the government, you know, takes tax from other kinds of activities.
So, if you want to have the support of the cultivators, the peasants, you have to go for no rent campaign,
which Gandhi would not have done simply because Gandhi believes in class collaboration.
So, he argues that Gandhian conceptualization of freedom struggle is highly restrictive.
It doesn't have a kind of universal appeal because he is talking about a particular group of people,
the owners, the landlords, the industrialists, not for the peasants, not for the workers, not for the underprivileged.
So, you know, so long as this kind of things continue, it is very difficult to think in terms of a pan-Indian nationalist movement.
So, he is questioning Gandhi being a pan-Indian national leader.
He is questioning Gandhi as a national leader simply because Gandhi failed to understand Indian reality as it is.
So, this is mainly the Amen Roy kind of thing.
Now, what is the basic point which comes out of it?
The first part I had shown that whatever Amen Roy devised in 1922 became part and parcel of Gandhian ideology in 1943.
So, Gandhi heavily borrowed ideas from Amen Roy.
Second, while critiquing Gandhi, Amen Roy put forward certain ideas by which he proved that Gandhism or Gandhian ideas do not seem to be practical.
He talked about spinning wheel.
He talked about homespun clothes.
And he talked about fight against untouchability.
And he talked about arguments in favor of alcoholism.
So, this is a kind of, you know, debate.
And you will find that Gandhi in the constructive program talked about all these things.
There are about 18 items.
And in 18 items, besides this 11 items which Amen Roy talked about, he talked about fight against untouchability.
He talked about fight against alcoholism.
So, you know, from that I argue or I derive the idea that Gandhi must have interacted intellectually with Amen Roy.
And on that basis, he devised these ideas and he borrowed these ideas from Amen Roy and which he articulated as his own ideas in the form of constructive program.
In 1943.
So, this is Amen Roy.
Now, the second point comes Tagore.
Now, Tagore, you know, Rabindar Tagore had a very cordial relationship with Gandhi.
Very cordial.
They were good friends.
And interestingly, unlike interaction between Roy and Gandhi, the relationship between Tagore was very intimate.
And whatever Gandhi wrote, Tagore responded and whatever Tagore wrote, Gandhi responded, either through newspaper or through letters.
I mean, I didn't find any single reference in Tagore's writings where he didn't refer to Gandhi.
I didn't find any, you know, any letter written by Gandhi in which he didn't refer to Tagore.
So, from that, you know, you can make out that their relationship is very cordial.
You know, they used to draw on each other.
And I don't know how many of you know, Gandhi is known as Mahatma, great soul.
And that Mahatma title was given by Tagore.
And Tagore was known as Gurudev.
And that Gurudev title was given by Gandhi.
So, that shows the sort of respect, the sort of honor they gave to each other.
So, unlike Roy, where I don't find, you know, kind of direct interaction between the two, in case of Tagore, I find there's a constant dialogue.
Between Tagore and Gandhi, constant dialogue on various themes.
And there are some areas, I'll just refer to it, where they held similar views.
And there are some areas where they held diametrically opposite views.
Yet, they respected each other.
So, what are the areas?
The first point which I'd like to make, you know, I'd say this honeymoon period, the honeymoon phase between Tagore and Gandhi.
You know, Gandhi liked Tagore so much, just like honeymoon period, husband and wife, they like each other so much.
But after some time, they start fighting, and then they hardly interact with each other.
So, it's just like, you know, I mean, this is how I see.
So, the first phase, you know, twenties and thirties, I call it honeymoon period between Tagore and Gandhi.
Why am I saying it?
Because they held similar kind of point of view, vis-a-vis India as a nation.
You know, both Tagore and Gandhi believe that India cannot be a nation in terms of the criteria which are applicable in the European context.
What does nation signify?
A nation is a nation provided it has same language, it has same culture, it has same memories of oppression.
So, you are similar in culture, you are similar in language, you are similar in dress code, you are similar in food habit, you are similar in religion.
I mean, Germany, Christianity, German language, and common enemy, there are some common enemy.
I mean, this is very much true with regard to Britain, you know, French is the common enemy, and France, Britain is the common enemy.
So, you know, when you think of a nation, these are the criteria which brought people together.
Now, Gandhi and Tagore said that, you know, you cannot have this kind of criteria with regard to India.
Because, you know, I am a Bengali, I do not hold same kind of food habit with somebody from South.
I do not put on the dress as my Indian friends from South do.
I do not speak the language which people from South speak.
It's a different, I mean, I don't understand, you know.
So, that means what? India is a nation of nations.
India is a community of communities simply because it's so diverse in terms of language, in terms of culture, in terms of topography even, in terms of topography, in terms of weather, you know, everything, you know, so different.
So, you know, if it's a diverse society and if you would like to bring them together in terms of the Western criteria, you are actually heading towards serious trouble.
So, what he was trying to argue? He argues that nation cannot be essentialized.
Nation cannot be, you know, homogenized. If you talk of India, India cannot be homogenized either in terms of culture, in terms of religion, in terms of language.
So, what is that which brings India together? Tagore said it's called civilizational ethos.
And he said, what are the civilizational ethos? For instance, Ramayana, Mahabharata, right, Sanskrit, you know, Pali, Buddha.
You know, these are the ideas which bring Indians together, right. I mean, nowadays I call it Bollywood.
You know, the films, Hindi films, you know, brought India together. But, you know, Tagore didn't have Bollywood, so Tagore talked about what is called civilizational ethos in terms of these criteria.
So, and Gandhi appreciated that. You know, Gandhi always believed that it is very difficult to bring India together in terms of language, in terms of religion, in terms of culture, in terms of food habit.
For instance, you know, I am a Bengali. I belong to Brahmin caste. But, you know, me being Brahmin is not respected by my Southern Brahmin.
Because they have a different kind of lifestyle. You know, for instance, Brahmin from Bengal, they eat non-veg food.
But, Brahmin from South, they don't. You know, they don't consider me as Brahmin simply because I eat non-veg stuff.
So, even within Hinduism, there is difference. Now, religion, Islam. Now, Islam is not uniformly defined throughout the country.
Muslims of North India, they behave differently from that of Muslims of Bengal.
Even, you know, even, you know, Muslims in Bengal, they have certain Hinduized habit.
So, that means what? You know, even in terms of religion, there is difference. Even in terms of Hinduism, you know, Hinduism in South is defined differently from Hinduism of North.
So, you know, the point Gandhi made, similar to that of Tagore, that India cannot be conceptualized as a nation simply because it is so diverse in terms of all the criteria which the Western society accepts as criteria of being a nation.
So, this is what I call the honeymoon period. You know, both of them held similar views. And that's why Gandhi never forced the Muslims to be part of the Congress platform.
Gandhi never forced the Bengalis to be part, to abdicate their Bengali-ness. On the contrary, he said, you come as a Bengali, but let us be united simply because we have a common enemy, the British.
So, this is, you know, Gandhi. But then, honeymoon period is over. Now, Tagore is questioning. Tagore is questioning first, again like a mandroid, the spinning wheel. Gandhi's emphasis on spinning wheel.
In fact, Gandhi was obsessed with spinning wheel. Now, his argument is that, that if you practice spinning wheel production, what you can do, you are actually contributing to a production in which masses participate.
He was not, he was not in favor of mass production. He was in favor of production by the masses. Because, as you know, I didn't bring the devil's workshop.
So, he argues that if people get involved in production, you know, they will think in terms of what is good, what is bad for the country as a whole.
So, but Tagore said that, you know, this is impractical. Because, you know, home span is good, ideal is very good. But when it comes to fulfilling the requirement of the people, large, continued people, you are, you are not adequate.
So, to make production adequate, you have to depend on machine civilization. And Gandhi was opposed to it. From the very beginning, Gandhi was opposed to machine civilization.
And, you know, I talked to you about this in my last lecture, that one of the foundational principles of Gandhi happens to be his critique of machine civilization.
And I also had argued last time that this is not Gandhian idea. This idea Gandhi borrowed from a British socialist called Edward Carpenter.
You know, Carpenter wrote a very fascinating book in the late 19th century called Civilization, Its Cause and Cure. And interestingly, this particular book was reproduced in a different language in Gandhi's own text called Hinswaraj.
And there also Gandhi questioned industrialization. There Gandhi questioned machine civilization. He said, you know, machine civilization is so bad that it is more harmful than snake bite.
He made this analogy. He said, you know, snake bite affects one individual. But machine civilization affects the entire community. You know, he gave interesting examples.
Now, because of machine civilization, he said we tend not to work hard. As a result, we develop all kinds of ailments.
He said, you know, for instance, previously people used to go for pilgrimage by walking. So they had, you know, great devotion to the deity.
But nowadays you take a vehicle, you get into the train and go to the temple and come back. So you don't give enough effort to reach God.
So Gandhi said, you know, machine civilization makes people idle, makes people lazy. And being lazy means you are inviting ailments.
Similarly, he said, you know, the doctor, doctor made this happen so easily. He said, you know, normally what happens when you go to a restaurant or go to a feast, we tend to eat a lot.
We know that even it causes stomach upset, we can go to a doctor and get medicine. So Gandhi said, see, because of the prevalent of doctor, you avoid practicing self-accountability.
If there is a doctor, you would have eaten less. But since there is a doctor, you tend to eat more so that, you know, you get, you know, relief immediately.
So, you know, the point which I am making here that Gandhi was opposed to machine civilization. And that was the argument he has been following consistently since early part of the 20th century.
Tagore was in favor of machine civilization. He was a modern mind. He said, you see, industrialization has happened. You cannot forget industrialization. You cannot shut your eyes.
It has happened and it has contributed to human development. So this thing you cannot simply forget. So Tagore and Gandhi, they differed now. They are differing in terms of their appreciation for machine civilization.
And he is questioning that homespun is also a source of torture. He is a source of torture. How? Tagore said, you see, machine produced clothes are cheaper than homespun clothes.
So if you force people to buy homespun clothes, you are actually forcing them to spend more money on clothes. So machine civilization in a way is helping the people to get cheaper clothes.
So those who are poor, probably they cannot afford to have homespun clothes. So in a way, what are you doing? You are actually torturing people, torturing masses to buy homespun clothes which they cannot afford otherwise.
So he said that, you know, by doing this, you are actually alienating the people. You know, one interesting text which Tagore wrote, and that was also made a film in the context of Bengal Partition Movement, 1905 to 1908.
And that particular novel is called Home and the World. And the home and the world is nothing but a critique of Gandhi in the context of Bengal. And Tagore himself was represented in that particular novel by suggesting that you see, unless or until you contribute to national well-being, you cannot force your ideas on the people.
So in that particular novel, Home and the World, Tagore articulated, you know, his support for machine civilization and his critique for what is called typical traditional handicrafts.
So Tagore, you know, they pursued this argument consistently beyond 1920s. The honeymoon period, once the honeymoon period is over, Tagore started talking very scally about Gandhian ideas.
Now then the economic program. He said, you know, Gandhian economic program is impractical simply because he doesn't think in terms of mechanizing cultivation.
Now unless or until you mechanize cultivation, unless or until you mechanize production, you cannot produce enough food grains to feed the millions of Indians.
So typical traditional, you know, cultivation is not enough to produce enough food for India. So we'll have to go for mechanization of production, you know, this is the final point of departure between Tagore and Gandhi happened in 1934.
What had happened in 1934? There's a massive earthquake in Bihar, massive millions, you know, several hundred thousand people died because of this earthquake.
And Gandhi came out with a statement that this earthquake took place simply because the God, it is nothing called, I'm quoting Gandhi, it is nothing but God's revenge, vengeance.
Now that inferior Tagore, that made Tagore angry, that earthquake is a geological event, nothing to do with, you know, God.
So in Gandhi making the statement that it is nothing but God's capris, God's vengeance. That's why earthquake had happened. That's why many people died at that point of time.
So Tagore got very angry and he wrote, you know, there were exchange of letters between Gandhi and Tagore at that point of time.
And then Tagore said, what did you do? Why are you saying this as God's capris? Then Gandhi, Gandhi defended his point of view.
Tagore said that, you know, you are Gandhi, you are saying these things which are unscientific.
So what are you doing? You are actually leading people to unscientific thinking because earthquake is a geological event.
But then Gandhi said, you know, I did it deliberately.
Then Tagore said, how do you explain? He said, I did it deliberately simply because if I tell people that unless or until you avoid practicing untouchability,
God will keep on giving this kind of curse on you. So long as untouchability remains in India, earthquake, flood, epidemic will go on happening because that represents God's vengeance.
See the point, you know, for Tagore, it's a scientific explanation that it's a geological event. So you have to accept it as a geological event.
But Gandhi said, no, forbid no. Because suppose if I tell you that because of God's vengeance is happening, probably you will get scared.
So you will not practice untouchability because, you know, we are very religious people. In India, we are very religious people.
So only by reference to religious affiliation, religious predilection, you can force people to accept things which they would not accept otherwise.
So, you know, Gandhian logic is very powerful logic that by referring to God's capris, God's vengeance, you are actually forcing them to do certain things which Gandhi would have liked.
That untouchability is a sin. But if I say, don't practice untouchability, people will not accept my point of view.
But if I say, if you practice untouchability, God will be angry with you, then probably you will accept.
So Gandhi said, you know, Bihar earthquake is an example where God has become so angry because you are practicing untouchability for ages together and you will die.
So it's better not to practice untouchability. So I think the point I'm making that here I find two different kind of perspectives.
Tagore was not at all a political leader. Tagore probably didn't understand mass mind. He was a poet. He was, you know, in his own universe in which, you know, good ideas prevail.
But when you interact with people at large, you know, the reality is not so. So Gandhi, being Gandhi, a political leader, a politician, an organic leader, understood people's mind.
So his purpose and Tagore's purpose are similar. Both of them hate untouchability. But Tagore would have said something else.
But Gandhi tried to pursue his point of view by reference to God simply because people would now be scared of practicing untouchability because to please God, it's better not to practice untouchability.
So this is, you know, Gandhian kind of argument. Now, then I come to, I will finish at 7.30.
Yeah. Then I come to, you know, Ambedkar. Now, as you know, Ambedkar was not a nationalist leader in the conventional sense.
You know, I'm making this point very clearly because Ambedkar to me always talked about a particular segment of society, Dalits.
Whatever Ambedkar did, whatever Ambedkar wrote, if you read his text, it has got about 22 volumes. And all these volumes did not talk about India as a whole.
Didn't talk about, you know, India as a nation. But it talked about Dalits within India. It talked about, you know, untouchables within India.
It talked about, you know, to use Gandhi's expression, Harijans in India. So to me, Gandhi was a nationalist leader in the sense that he talked about the country as a whole.
You know, starting from Kashmir to Kannaka, America. And he talked about Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jains. He talked about reach poor, partly reach, partly poor.
So, you know, all segments of society. But when you read Ambedkar's text, you don't find that kind of reference. On the contrary, you'll find Ambedkar always talked about Dalits.
That's fair. I mean, he was talking about one segment of society. He talked about, you know, constitutional liberalism. He talked about distributive justice.
That only by, you know, taking things away from the reach, you can empower the poor. So, you know, the idea of distributive justice, he talks about.
So, Ambedkar referred to this dimension. And if you look at Gandhian text, you'll hardly find any reference to these kind of aspects.
So when he interacted with Ambedkar in 1930s, he started understanding. He started understanding the ideas of Ambedkar. And he found out, he was convinced that we need to talk about Dalits.
We need to take them seriously in so far as national movement is concerned. But, you know, he didn't go all the way. I mean, because as I said, he was a politician.
He had a political goal. And from that point of view, Ambedkar felt that, you know, we cannot go all the way for the Dalits at the point of time.
So that's why Ambedkar writes, those who are Ambedkar's disciple, they don't like Gandhi. But, you know, I, but I feel that it was Gandhi who understood India at that point of time better than anybody else.
That's why he didn't go all the way for the Dalits, which Ambedkar insisted. So this is the kind of, you know, prefacing remarks.
The first point Ambedkar says, Gandhi or Gandhism is a paradox. Why? He said, see, here is a person who is thinking in terms of political liberation, freedom from British imperialism.
But here is a person who is not questioning caste oppression. So it's a paradox.
At one level, Gandhi is thinking in terms of freedom from British imperialism. But at another level, the same Gandhi is supporting Hinduism, which talks of caste, which talks of caste hierarchy, which talks of Brahmin being superior to the non-Brahmin, which talks of untouchability being survived to the Brahmins.
So first he said, the first conceptualization to Ambedkar, that Gandhism or Gandhi is a paradox.
The second point, he said, you know, Gandhi talks about village, you know, village being the kind of epitome of Gandhian model.
If you look at Gandhian model of development, if you look at Gandhian model of democracy, you always think, Gandhi always focuses on village.
In his famous sentence, India lives in villages, which is true. But he said, you know, by appreciating village, Gandhi is actually appreciating untouchability.
How? You say, you know, if you go to any Indian village, even now, even now, you will find there are areas which are meant for the Dalits.
There are areas which are meant for the Brahmins. There are areas which are meant for the Shatriyas. There are areas which are meant for the Skaisters, so segregated.
The entire village is segregated. So he said, you know, the village is the place where casteism is practiced most ruthlessly.
Because, you know, those untouchables, they are not allowed to go to the Brahmin segment.
The caste, they are not allowed to go to the other segment. So because they are living in segregation, Ambedkar argues, casteism is practiced most ruthlessly in villages.
That doesn't happen in town. If you go to Delhi, if you go to Calcutta, if you go to Bombay, if you go to Madras, you will hardly find that kind of, you know, evidence of caste being so dominant.
But in villages, that exists. Now Gandhi, according to Ambedkar, appreciated village. So at the back of his mind, by appreciating village, he was actually supporting untouchability. That's the argument he put forward.
Now, the third important point, as I said, both of them were trying to utilize state for well-being. Because, you know, when Ambedkar became Ambedkar, that was 1930s.
Ambedkar was the one who came to London in 1931 to champion the cause of the Dalits. Gandhi also came to champion the cause of India.
Now, at that point of time, there is a very interesting debate which took place between Gandhi and Ambedkar.
The debate revolves around types of electorate. There are two types of electorate which are prevalent at that point of time because there is no universal suffrage.
There is no universal adult suffrage then. So there are two types of electorate that were prevalent at that point of time. What are those?
One is called separate electorate and it is called joint electorate. Now, what does separate electorate mean?
Now, separate electorate means that there are certain areas which are separated for the community. Now, that was agreed upon by the British for the Muslims.
Suppose in an X area, here Muslims are in a majority. So the British said that in that particular area, only the Muslims can contest. No Hindus can contest.
So it is separated for the Muslims to fight election to cast vote in election. So this is separate electorate. And joint electorate, you know, where Hindus, Muslims can vote.
Ambedkar said that, you know, for Dalits, we need separate electorate. And the British agreed because he said, you know, since we have given it to the Muslims, why not to Dalits?
Because their principle is to divide and rule. So this kind of concession to the Dalit will alienate them further from the nationalist campaign.
So the British was keen. The British, Ramsay Macdonald was the Prime Minister at that point of time. He was keen. He said, yes, I have agreed to give it to the Muslims. So I am willing to give it to the Dalits.
Now, then there is a debate going on. Dalits got separate electorate, constitutionally speaking, by the British. And Gandhi failed to dissuade Ambedkar from this kind of demand.
So what Gandhi did? Gandhi tried to persuade him, tried to argue with him, but failed. And then Gandhi, as you know, he had a very powerful moral weapon, which he used to, you know, practice quite often.
Going for fast unto death, fast unto death. So when Ambedkar insisted separate electorate for the Dalits, Gandhi said, you know, if that happens, then Dalits, they are part of Hindus.
So we are further dividing Hindus. Already Muslims are separate. So the nationalist platform became weak. Now among the Hindus, you are separating the Dalits. So it became more further weak.
So in order to, you know, avoid that kind of thing, Gandhi resorted to fast unto death. And see the predicament of Ambedkar.
Ambedkar was not a big leader at that point of time, Gandhi. So Gandhi went on fast, till death, unless Ambedkar give up that demand. So it is a kind of moral black nain.
I call it, you know, Gandhi under two vertical moral black nain. The fast went on for 21 days. And if you look at the newspaper at that point of time, everybody was blaming Ambedkar.
And if, and he said, you know, there is a threat that if Gandhi died at that point of time, Ambedkar would have received all kinds of brick pads.
Ambedkar's life was threatened by so many people. That you see, you are contributing to Gandhi's death. So Ambedkar was subject to all kinds of pressure, all kinds of, you know, force, so that he give up his demand.
And then finally it happened. Ambedkar had to give up his demand. Ambedkar said, okay, for the life of the Mahatma, I am giving up this demand. I will not insist on separate electorate.
And then he said, I am very upset that Mahatma, you know, great soul, resorted to the practices of a bad soul. He can't be Mahatma. If he was Mahatma, he would have understood.
Then Gandhi defended. And he said, you see, I did it for the sake of the nationalist cause. For me, the main purpose, the main goal happens to be India's independence, India's freedom.
So if Dalits are taken out of the nationalist platform, the platform will become weak, will lose its vitality. As a result, you know, the freedom struggle will have lost its vitality.
And that's why I always insisted they let the Dalits be with the Hindus so that we can fight the British quite strongly and attain freedom.
And he said, we'll take care of this concern. He said, you know, don't get upset. Don't, you know, think that I am giving up that kind of, you know, campaign which you are doing. We'll take it up once freedom is won.
So Ambedkar felt humiliated, felt bad about it. But at the same time, if you look at the Gandhian point of view, Gandhi also has a point.
Because for him, the freedom is more important than this kind of, you know, concession to a particular segment of society.
So this is, this is, you know, Gandhi versus Ambedkar vis-a-vis Poona. It's called the Poona Pact.
Then another interesting debate took place between Gandhian and Ambedkar on the partition of India.
You know, Ambedkar was the only nationalist leader in India who supported partition besides Jinnah.
Jinnah had a claim. Jinnah wanted to create Pakistan because he believed in two nation theory. Hindus and Muslims are different because their religion is different.
That was the argument he put forward. So Jinnah, I understand. But Ambedkar, despite being part of this block of leaders, supported partition.
And there's a famous text which he wrote is 400 pages text. It's partition or Pakistan.
And in that argument, in that particular text book, he justified partition. He said, you see, he made two major points.
He said, you see, Muslims have become culturally independent. They don't get along well with the Hindus.
And they are mobilized. You know, Muslims from Punjab where they held, they are in a majority and Muslims of Bengal where they had a majority, they were mobilized for the cause of Pakistan.
So Pakistan was inevitable anyway because the Muslims, they don't want to stay in India. They would like to be separate from the Hindus or from the Indians from India.
So Pakistan is inevitable. Now under these circumstances, it's better to accept it because if you allow them or if you force them to be in India, they will be a source of permanent irritation.
Permanent trouble for the Indians. So Muslims, those who are culturally separate from the Indians, they should be given separate homeland Pakistan.
That's one. And second point, you know, I mean, that now has become true. He said, now, if the Muslims are not allowed to have Pakistan, what would they do?
They create theocritic parties because Pakistan is based on religion, Islam. So all those who are in support of Islam, they will create all kinds of theocritic parties.
And the repercussion, Hindus also will create theocritic parties. So as you know, there will be constant battle between two Hindu parties and Islamic parties.
That is what is happening. You know, in today's India, you know, the BJP, one of the sources of importance happens to be Hinduism.
They are talking in terms of Hindu identity. So the one in which Ambedkar did in 1943 has become true in today's context.
The theocritic party that may not be always good for India's development and growth.
So he said, so, you know, given all this kind of arguments, he said it is better to agree to Pakistan. Pakistan is inevitable. Partition is inevitable.
So let us accept it because that will help India to remain quiet, to remain peaceful. That's the thing.
Now, the final point which Ambedkar made, he is questioning caste. He is questioning caste.
You know, Gandhi, as you know, if you look at Gandhi and text, Gandhi never questioned caste. Never.
Gandhi was always in favor of caste simply because he always believed, you know, in that, you know, the famous Bhagavad Gita slogan,
means, you know, caste is an identity, not in terms of birth, but in terms of professional excellence.
You know, the Brahmins are praised, the Shatriyas are warriors, the Kais are the, you know, writers caste and the Sudras are meant to serve all these three castes.
So he said, now this is something which you find globally true, that not all of them are praised, not all of them are, you know, soldiers, not all of them are workers.
This sort of division is inevitable in human society. So Gandhi had believed that casteism is nothing unusual.
But caste became a kind of source of irritation simply because of certain social configuration. So we have to address that, you know.
Society is bad, that is why caste has become distorted. But if you look at the origin of caste, caste means what? Division of labor.
So over a period of time, caste got distorted simply because of certain social configuration. So let us address it at that level.
Now Gandhi and Ambedkar said, now this is wrong logic. You are talking about certain things which don't exist now.
In origin caste was good, but I am talking about caste of today. So in order to address caste of today, you have to be equally ruthless.
Otherwise caste becomes a kind of, you know, a source of irritation, source of discomfort for everybody.
And he said, so long as caste remains, there cannot be democracy. Because caste means division. Caste means hierarchy.
And democracy, you know, is a question to those hierarchy and division. So so long as caste remains, India cannot be a democratic country.
And that is why he said caste is anti-national. You are talking about India being a nation. But you are also insisting on caste.
So so long as caste remains, India cannot be a nation. That is the point he made. So because caste is anti-national.
So this this is also an interesting kind of dimension which, you know, keep on developing. There is a, you know, long exchange of letters, long, you know, text in the local media at that point of time between Ambedkar and Gandhi continuously.
So, you know, if you look at these three individuals, in case of Ambedkar, there is hardly a dialogue I find, though Gandhi borrowed heavily from Ambedkar, which I have shown.
But in regard to Tagore and Ambedkar, Gandhi had exchanged views. So it's a kind of dialogical relationship when you talk about.
Now, if I, you know, just how do I summarize? Here, you know, I would like to make two important points.
The first important point that, you know, whether you talk of Amen Roy, whether you talk of Tagore or Ambedkar, they conceptualize India or freedom struggle, you know, nation, nationalism, national identity from their point of view, which was not national.
Tagore talked about India from his own understanding, which was not organically linked with the reality. He was, you know, he was a poet. He was a romantic poet.
He had his own ideas, which were partly connected reality, partly on the basis of his own understanding of social economic reality.
So unlike Gandhi, who had interacted with people every day, because he was a politician, he was a nationalist leader. So his idea to me is based on what India in reality, while Tagore's idea was based on India at the same time, India as he saw.
That's one difference. Similarly, you know, Amen Roy was a leader. Amen Roy tried to pursue certain things, but Amen Roy's approach to Indian nationalism was different simply because he believed in Marxism.
And Marxism, as an ideology, did not really take off in India ever, because Marxism believes in, you know, the division between bourgeois and proletariat.
In case of Indian, if you look at Indian history, that sort of distinction cannot be made at all. So Amen Roy was trying to understand India from a prism, which was not connected with Indian reality.
So here, there's a difference. Gandhi had that advantage. Gandhi looked at India from the Indian prism. Now, Ambedkar, as I mentioned earlier, he always saw India from the Dalits point of view.
And, you know, India is not Dalit. In India, there are Brahmins. In India, there are Hindus. There are Muslims. In India, there are giants. There are Christians. And there are Dalits too.
So when we talk of Ambedkar, to me, Ambedkar always focused on a specific segment of Indian society, which is very narrowly conceptualized. Dalit. I mean, 10% of the total population.
So Ambedkar talked about a very miniscule minority of Indians, while Gandhi talked about India as a whole, India as a lot.
So the best part which comes out of this, you know, here I am defending the point which I made at the outset, that when you talk of this kind of debate between Tagore and Gandhi, between Roy and Gandhi, between Ambedkar and Gandhi,
we find different interpretation of Indian nation. So India as a nation cannot be conceptualized from any derivative sources.
India as a nation is understood differently by different people. So the western criteria of conceptualizing India as a nation do not seem to work.
Because there is no, what is called, specific form of nation in case of India, which Tagore talked about, which Gandhi talked about, which Ambedkar talked about, which Eman Roy talked about.
So that is one theoretical point which comes out of this debate. And secondly, to me, these ideas, Tagore, Roy and Ambedkar's ideas are nothing but a critique within a critique.
So Gandhi put forward a kind of nationalist critique vis-a-vis British imperialism. And within that critique, I find several other critiques put forward by Tagore, put forward by Roy, put forward by Ambedkar.
So I think to me, when you talk of Gandhi, Gandhi being Gandhi, it is appropriate for us to draw on not only the western sources, but also on the Indian or indigenous sources.
Only then we can get a kind of, you know, a whole of Gandhi, the Gandhi in its full form. So Gandhi is not one ideological force. Gandhi to me is a creative blending of multiple ideological forces.
And these multiple ideological forces, which are originated both in the western context and also in the indigenous context. And if we take them together, only then we will have a fair understanding of what Gandhi or Gandhiji stand for. Thank you very much.