0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
190 vizualizări39 pagini
This document provides an overview and analysis of the Hindu nation in India. Some key points:
1) While India is a Hindu majority nation, a "Hindu rajya" or polity to protect Hinduism was not established after independence due to British opposition and leaders like Gandhi who did not prioritize Hindu interests.
2) Problems currently facing the Hindu nation include the de-Hinduization of politics, population growth of religious minorities, evangelism, and lack of strong Hindu leadership.
3) The document analyzes Kautilya's Arthashastra to understand the importance of "rajya" or state power in protecting Hindu territory and religion, and argues Hindus currently lack this
This document provides an overview and analysis of the Hindu nation in India. Some key points:
1) While India is a Hindu majority nation, a "Hindu rajya" or polity to protect Hinduism was not established after independence due to British opposition and leaders like Gandhi who did not prioritize Hindu interests.
2) Problems currently facing the Hindu nation include the de-Hinduization of politics, population growth of religious minorities, evangelism, and lack of strong Hindu leadership.
3) The document analyzes Kautilya's Arthashastra to understand the importance of "rajya" or state power in protecting Hindu territory and religion, and argues Hindus currently lack this
This document provides an overview and analysis of the Hindu nation in India. Some key points:
1) While India is a Hindu majority nation, a "Hindu rajya" or polity to protect Hinduism was not established after independence due to British opposition and leaders like Gandhi who did not prioritize Hindu interests.
2) Problems currently facing the Hindu nation include the de-Hinduization of politics, population growth of religious minorities, evangelism, and lack of strong Hindu leadership.
3) The document analyzes Kautilya's Arthashastra to understand the importance of "rajya" or state power in protecting Hindu territory and religion, and argues Hindus currently lack this
1.1 Rashtra and Rajya In Arthasastra, the Hindu science of statecraft, rashtra implies both territory with well-defined borders, and its inhabitants. Hindus comprise 83% of Indias population, but when colonial rule ended in 1947, despite being a nation of Hindus we failed to establish a Hindu rajya (polity) enjoined and empowered to protect sanatana dharma and the dharmi, that is, the Hindu dharma and the Hindu people 1 . This failure to establish a Hindu rajya may be attributed to the fact that
Both the British Raj and the Indian National Congress (INC), which assumed control of the freedom movement in its decisive last phase, discredited and/or ruthlessly put down all Hindu expressions of resistance and rebellion.
Gandhi and his doctrines of passive resistance and non-violence occupied the public space vacated by Tilak, Aurobindo and Savarkar (towering Hindu thinkers and votaries of armed resistance); Gandhi de- legitimized Hindu anger and all expressions of Hindu anger.
Nehru inherited the mantle of leadership from Gandhi and was acutely hostile to everything Hindu.
No significant leader of the freedom struggle, neither Tilak nor Aurobindo or Gandhi, explicitly articulated or delineated the concept of Hindu rajya as the ultimate objective of the freedom movement.
After the advent of Gandhi and the ascent of Nehru, with the exception of Savarkar, there was no sense of conscious Hindu political objectives to the freedom movement in general and to the Indian National Congress in particular, as there was no collective and conscious realization of the nature of a Hindu rashtra
1 Words Hinduism and Hindus wherever used in the book connote Hindu dharma and Hindu people and the objectives of Hindu rajya, and hence no intention or determination to achieve them.
Currently pluralism and secularism are the internationally legitimate themes of statecraft and even intelligent Hindus have failed to distinguish between Hindu rashtra and rajya and their mutual inter-dependence and have compounded this failure by equating Hindu rashtra with Hindu rajya, and associating both with an Abrahamic religion-driven or controlled theocratic state. As the non-Abrahamic and Abrahamic faiths have vastly differing perceptions about the purpose of human life and the moral worth of the individual and society, the social and political theories arising out of their respective worldviews are not readily interchangeable. The political theories of the dominant colonial power however, have been superimposed upon a dormant colonized people, and their silence mistaken for acquiescence.
Kautilyas Arthasastra 2 accorded primacy to Rajya as the most important and ultimate, if not sole, instrument to protect and enforce dharma. Rajya has seven components (prakritis) Svamin (King), Amatya (Minister), Rashtra (Nation), Durga (Capital), Kosa (Treasury), Danda (Armed forces) and Mitra (Allied kings and kingdoms). Some earlier texts list the seventh component as bala, which connotes not only the enforcing authority of the king but also the military or armed forces. In Kautilya however, bala is implicit in danda which Kangle translates as armed forces. 3 Hindu rashtra is thus clearly a constituent of Hindu rajya (polity); it follows that while Hindu rajya derives from rashtra, the rashtra can be protected and defended only by the rajya. As evident, contemporary English-language political lexicon offers near- equivalents of the constituents of rajya.
The above constituents of rajya are not listed in order of relative importance as all are equally important, though some gain precedence in times of peace and some in times of crisis. Kautilya makes the exemplary point of the relative importance of the components of Hindu rajya and if we accept this as the
2 All quotations and references henceforth to Kautilyas Arthasatra in the book are from the monumental work in three volumes, The Kautiliya Arthasatra (TKA) by RP Kangle, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited, 1963 3 The king, the minister, the country, the fortified city, the treasury, the army and the ally are the constituent elements (of the state), Book 6, Chapter 1, Sutra 1, The Kautiliya Arthasastra (TKA), Part II, page 314 yardstick to judge the state of well-being of the nation and its rulers, we can easily find examples from contemporary history of the conditions described by him:-
A king endowed with personal qualities endows with excellences the constituent elements not so endowed. One not endowed with personal qualities destroys the constituent elements that are prosperous and devoted (to him).
Then (that) king not endowed with personal qualities, with defective constituent elements, is either killed by the subjects or subjugated by the enemies, even if he be ruler up to the four ends of the earth.
But one possessed of personal qualities, though ruling over a small territory, being united with the excellences of the constituent elements, (and) conversant with (the science of) politics, does conquer the entire earth and never loses 4 .
Even a cursory glance at the acute problems confronting the nation will serve to show that almost all of them have assumed threatening proportions not just because the leaders of the Hindu nation suffered from one or all of the weaknesses listed above but also because even political-minded Hindus have failed to grasp the critical importance of a Hindu rajya and Hindu society therefore failed to throw up such a leader during the critically important period between 1890-1947; this notwithstanding the fact that Tilak, Aurobindo and Savarkar, all had great intellectual and organizing capability. Hindus are failing even now to put the Hindu rajya in place because of their incapacity to produce a Hindu visionary political leader with the stamina to stay the course. Gandhis untested mahatmahood gave him a ready constituency but he declared that neither he nor the INC represented Hindu interests.
1.2 Problems confronting the Hindu nation 1. Almost total de-Hinduising of Indian polity, resulting in politics of minority-ism and Hindu inability to influence the polity.
4 TKA, Book 6, Chapter 1, Sutras 16, 17, 18, Part II, page 317
2. Cavalier attitude to territory and failure to understand the need to monitor and keep under constant surveillance the character of the people living in the territory, and hence supreme indifference/ignorance about the critical importance of rashtra.
3. De-Hinduised and/or virulently hostile anti-Hindu state structures and administration.
4. Growing Muslim and Christian population percentage.
5. Aggressive evangelization with the open support and endorsement of White Western nations as instruments of their foreign policy.
6. Intensified jihad against Hindus and Hindu territory, unchecked infiltration of Bangladeshi Muslims into India constituting a significant threat.
7. Growing power of anti-Hindu Marxist/Maoist/Naxalite groups.
8. The increasing possibility of a significant segment of overseas Indians People of Indian Origin (PIOs) and Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) being used as agents against the Indian State and/or her people.
9. Indias total isolation in the region and political unwillingness to deal resolutely with neighboring countries lending their territory for anti-Hindu terrorist activities.
10. The persisting inability of Hindus to consciously come together as Hindus.
11. Absence of a powerful Hindu leadership with the ability to grasp the critical importance of rajya to deal with the above-mentioned problems, and
12. The inability of Indian polity to resist and challenge western political idioms and theories, which have by default received universal and international status.
1.3 Hindu determination to protect Hindu territory and religion The British Government in India used state power to brutalize and break the spirit of Hindu nationalists to discourage all thoughts of armed resistance and political independence. Post- independence Indian polity continued with use of state power to quell Hindu nationalism because Hindu nationalism threatened to dismantle the shaky edifice of the bogus but highly remunerative secular polity which sustains politics of minority-ism and their votaries. Hindus may be cowed down and disempowered today by state power but they were not always so dispirited.
In the Indian tradition, the principal rajadharma or the responsibility of the State in India is the preservation of Dharma. Srimad Bhagavadgita teaches that Dharma samsthapana (preservation of dharma) involves both protection of society Paritrana and destruction of its enemies Vinasa.
In the first millennium of the so-called historical period, during 5 th century BC to 6 th century AD, Indians successfully repulsed all major invasions of Persians, Greeks, Sakas and Hunas.
Indian civilization and Sanatana Dharma faced a major challenge during the Islamic invasion (635-1190) and subsequent Islamic domination of large regions of India during 1200-1700.
The great kingdoms and armies of the Chalukyas, Karkotas (Kashmir), Gurjara- Pratiharas and the Rashtrakutas and the Rajputs, rose to the occasion and successfully prevented the Islamic forces, which had spectacular success elsewhere in Asia, Africa and Europe, from establishing themselves in the Indian heartland for nearly six centuries during 630-1200.
When the Islamic forces conquered North India and invaded South India, they were thwarted by the establishment of the major Hindu empire of Vijayanagara (1336-1565). In fact, most of South India, Orissa, and Assam could not be brought under Islamic rule for any significant period of time.
Thus, during the height of Mughal rule 5 around 1600 (and after nearly four centuries of Islamic domination) it was estimated that only about one-sixth of the Indian population (in the regions that constituted the Mughal Empire) had become adherents of Islam.
From about the middle of the 17 th century, people all over India, especially the Marathas, Sikhs, Jats, and the Bundelas created powerful military organizations that shook the Mughal empire. By the 18 th century, the Mughal Empire had collapsed and the indigenous rulers were in the process of establishing themselves everywhere in India.
In 1760, the Maratha Samrajya exercised control over a very large part of India , including Northern Karnataka, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Punjab, Western and Southern Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhatisgarh, Jharkhand and Orissa. There were also important Hindu Rajyas in Mysore, Thiruvananthapuram, Assam, Nepal and Jammu at that time. 6
When Hindu society was unable to mount effective military challenge to Islamic and Christian-colonial invaders, it responded with great religious activity to strengthen sanatana dharma in a manner not easily amenable to destruction by invading Muslim or Christian hordes. Having drawn appropriate lessons from the massive devastation of temples, great acharyas wrote intellectually enthralling bhashyas (commentary) created new and powerful streams of panthas (denominations within Hindu dharma), composed elegant and immensely elevating songs and poetry of bhakti (devotion), all
5 I personally prefer the word Islamic because to Hindus, it matters little if the jihadis were Arab, Turk, Mongol or Persian 6 Indian response to the challenge of Islam and Christianity, Center for Policy Studies, Chennai, December 2006
of which continue to inspire and motivate Hindu society to respond to continuing challenges to the survival of their dharma and way of life.
The politically paralyzing and defeatist role played by Gandhi, and Aurobindos comprehensive failure to stay the course, must be seen against the backdrop of complete disempowerment and disarming of the indefatigable martial spirit of Hindus who have ever picked up arms to defend dharti and dharma against all threats. It is largely because of Aurobindo and Gandhi that we did not set Hindu rajya to protect the rashtra as the goal of the freedom movement during its last phase between 1890 and1947.
1.4 Origins of current Hindu powerlessness The Indian National Congress We are concerned here with the twin issues of Hindu powerlessness to influence Indian polity and the need for conscious Hindu state power. The Hindu community has been victimized by an Indian polity powered by the phony mantra of secularism and the bogey of Hindu communalism. For decades, Indian polity has successfully disempowered Hindus and rendered them incapable of organizing themselves to demonstrate strength, anger and resolve when confronted by a hostile State or other provocations. And on occasions when Hindus gathered together to exhibit their collective will or anger, Indian polity used ruthless state power to quell all such protests. 7
While the Muslim League government in the Bengal province used state power to fuel jihad against Hindus in response to Jinnahs call for Direct Action in August 1946, the Congress government in Bihar used police and military power to quell the Hindus who reacted violently to the jihad in Bengal. Over 200 Hindus were killed in police and military firing alone. The Central Government in Delhi and the state governments of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh arrested all important leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad at the height of the Ramjanmabhumi movement in October 1990. These governments were headed by Hindus. In November
7 The recent determined and well-organized protest by the Hindus of J ammu and the displaced Kashmiri Hindu community as embodied by the Amarnath Sangharsh Samiti has been the exception to the established rule and is a portent of things to come. 1990, over 50 Hindu bhaktas or karsevaks were killed in police firing in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh. Over 200 Hindus were killed in police firing in Gujarat, in March 2002 during riots that followed the burning alive of 58 Hindu pilgrims by jihadis in Godhra, Gujarat in February 2002. The Tamil Nadu government arrested and jailed 6 Hindu activists under the draconian National Security Act in 2006 for attempting to remove the statue of a violent, anti-Hindu dravidian iconoclast, placed with state support in front of a revered Hindu temple in Srirangam, Tamil Nadu.
Since 1947 secular Indian polity has been consciously anti- Hindu; it proactively promotes politics of minority-ism to the detriment of the Hindu faith and Hindu way of life. However, the aspect of Hindu powerlessness which manifests itself as an inability to demonstrate strength or outrage needs clinical analysis in the light of recent history. This malaise can be specifically attributed to the last phase of the freedom struggle, to the Indian National Congress and the INC leaders who abdicated their responsibility to the Hindu nation at a critical time, particularly, in our view, Gandhi and Aurobindo. We will substantiate our claim through extensive quotations from the hitherto largely ignored corpus of writings and speeches of these two towering personalities.
The first war of independence was a serious challenge to British supremacy in India, the first warning to the British that Indian society could throw up leaders with the capacity to translate the seething anger of the people into organized and sustained armed attacks against their rule. The much- publicized catalyst for the revolt, the alleged use of animal fat- smeared cartridges was just that a catalyst; for the Hindus, the widespread rebellion in the armed forces in 1857 which soon spilled over into society and spread across the country was in a sense, the culmination of widespread Hindu anger and protests against intensified cow slaughter under the Raj while Muslims were fighting to re-establish Islamic rule over the Indian nation. The Muslims knew what they were fighting for and what they were fighting against; for Muslims and Christians the ultimate goal of their respective religions is political to establish the universal Dar-ul-Islam and Christian Kingdom of God on Earth.
Indian Muslims, to the last man considered Christian colonial rule as temporary defeat and eclipse of Islamic rule over Hindu India; Hindu India was just one theater in the unrelenting war that the two Abrahamic faiths were waging around the world for ultimate annihilation of the other and the final victory culminating in total control over the earth. Under the circumstances, the strategy of Indian Muslims in 1857 was to seek Hindu co-operation in a superficial bonding on the basis of race to challenge the Whiteman. The ploy worked, even if only minimally within the British Indian Army; but outside, the fierce resistance of the Mahrattas to the growing menace of the East India Company, which was using trade and Church to tighten its political grip over the country, was yet another chapter in the ceaseless and determined, centuries-long civilisational struggle of the Hindus against both Islam and Christianity.
The anti-cow slaughter movement by local Gosamrakshana Samitis (Gosamrakshana Movement, 1860-1920) was led by Hindu sadhus and community leaders, and spread across the country. The British Raj perpetrated cow slaughter on a horrendous scale in order to keep the British Army and establishment supplied with beef. Strangely and as a portent of things to come, the intense Hindu anger at increasing cow slaughter was viewed with strong distaste by Gandhi in Hind Swaraj. 8 In what was to become his trademark style, Gandhi, instead of confronting the British establishment and its allied Muslim community on the question of cow slaughter, de- legitimized Hindu anger. 9 Indeed, he did not even formally hold the British fundamentally responsible for the scale of cow- slaughter at the time, but made it a Hindu-Muslim issue and laid the onus for cow protection completely on the Hindus:
I myself respect the cow, that is, I look upon her with affectionate reverence. The cow is the protector of India, because it, being an agricultural country, is dependent on the cows progeny. She is a most useful animal in
8 Henceforth all references to and quotations from Hind Swaraj are from, Gandhi Hind Swaraj and Other Writings, (HS) Edited by Anthony J Parel, Cambridge Texts in Modern Politics, Cambridge University Press, 1997 9 An unbiased reading of Gandhis huge corpus of writings will show consistent lack of sympathy towards the legitimate civilisational concerns of Hindus and excessive accommodation towards their tormentors hundreds of ways. Our Mahomedan brethren will admit this.
But just as I respect the cow, so do I respect my fellow-men. A man is just as useful as a cow, no matter whether he be a Mahomedan or a Hindu....
When the Hindus became insistent, the killing of cows increased. In my opinion, cow protection societies may be considered cow-killing societies. It is a disgrace to us that we should need such societies. When we forgot how to protect cows, I suppose we needed such societies....
Who protects the cow from destruction by Hindus when they cruelly ill-treat her? Who ever reasons with the Hindus when they mercilessly belabour the progeny of the cow with their sticks? But this has not prevented us from remaining one nation 10 .
We shall later go into greater detail about Gandhis peculiar views and questionable attitudes on several issues in Hindu dharma and tradition besides cow slaughter. It is, however, pertinent to note that Hindu powerlessness is a recent phenomenon, in complete contrast to the combative history of the previous twelve centuries, when Hindus displayed fierce and consistent determination to protect their territory and dharma. Indeed, the war of 1857 was a continuation of the organized resistance of hundreds of years to desecration and destruction of temples, to cow slaughter, and thus an extension of Hindu societys resistance to the Islamic invasion of Hindu territory and destruction of the Hindu way of life.
1.5 Why the British manufactured the INC As Gandhi wielded enormous clout in the INC owing to an allegedly successful political sojourn in South Africa, as a result of which he received the sobriquet, Mahatma, we shall examine the following issues:
10 Hind Swaraj (HS), Chapter X, The condition of India (cont.): the Hindus and the Mahomedans, pp 54-55
The purpose and timing of Hind Swaraj which many consider Gandhis seminal work. The not-so-well-known aspects of Gandhis career in South Africa. Gandhis interpretation of satyagraha and ahimsa Gandhis limited and even flawed understanding of contemporary issues and events, and his skewed understanding of the Bible and the Bhagwad Gita. Gandhis leadership qualities. Gandhis judgment of White civilization, the British Empire, and the Muslims. Gandhis moral authority, which put his every word and action beyond the pale of critical scrutiny and thus thwarted all attempts at objective assessment of his political legacy; and The consequences for Hindus of the Gandhian legacy in the Indian polity.
The Muslim League was set up in December 1906 as a creature of British inspiration, just as the Indian National Congress was conceived in 1885. Both initiatives aimed to weaken intensifying Hindu armed resistance to colonial regime and to politically dis-empower the Hindus vis--vis the Muslims. The timing of the move to create both the Congress and the Muslim League is significant. Allan Octavian Hume, father of the INC 11 , was a Scotsman posted as Collector in Etawah at the time the conflict broke out in 1857. Hume repulsed the advance of Mughal prince Feroze Shah into Etawah from Rohailkhand. His contribution to colonial victory in the Central Indian Campaign of the war earned him the Order of the Bath, because this was a campaign that was fought over the widest area in terms of length and breadth as compared to all the other campaigns of 1857. It took the British longer in terms of time to suppress the rebellion in Central India as compared to all other regions involved in the rebellion 12 , not the least because they had to confront a determined Rani Laxmibhai of Jhansi and the formidable and extremely skilled Tantia Tope.
The First War of Independence alarmed London, which saw intense Hindu anger and Hindu skills at armed resistance, including guerilla warfare, unleashed by Tantia Tope. Yet
11 Hindus seem to have a father obsession; Gandhi was designated father of the Nation and Tilak the father of Indian Unrest. 12 http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/feb/central-indian.htm London learnt to its advantage that Hindus could be pressured, bribed, beguiled or flattered to betray their own. It must have amused the British that a section of Hindus fought fiercely not only to defeat the East India Company but to reinstate Muslim rule over India; a stated objective of the war was to make Bahadur Shah Zafar the real power in Delhi once again! Having learnt several important lessons from the war, London moved decisively to retain the jewel in the British Crown at any cost.
The Queen promptly wound up the East India Company and brought all territories controlled by it directly under the British Government 13 . Having unleashed ruthless State power to pacify the natives, the British soon afterwards played their masterstroke by weaning away important sections of society from armed resistance and opposition to their rule with the offer of political participation through self-governance.
This task was entrusted to Allan Octavian Hume, and in 1885 he founded the Indian National Congress, touted by motivated historians as the ultimate vehicle of Indian nationalism. The ideologically inept Hindus were enchanted by the ruse and the best Hindu minds, conditioned by English education, were entranced by the thought of being dark-white partners (dark in skin, white in thinking) of the British Raj. The British, however, made of sterner stuff, sought to ensure that the natives did not entertain original ideas of independence and initially planted their own countrymen as INC Presidents. Later they relied upon other tactics to execute their unstated agenda of neutralizing all Hindu resistance and weaning the Hindu intelligentsia away from revolutionary objectives and away from Hindu society, culture and roots. The Indian National Congress was set up by A.O. Hume to make Indians willing and/or unwitting collaborators of the Raj. Gandhi, in 1909 happily pranced to the tune of the British piper Reader: Do you consider that a desire for Home Rule has been created among us? Editor: That desire gave rise to the National Congress. The choice of the word National implies it.
13 It is surprising that we have failed to draw upon this single fact to demolish the myth that the East India Company came to India just for trade and was accidentally drawn into her domestic affairs. If that were indeed so, then European trade would never have metamorphosed into colonialism and the consequent enslavement of colonised nations Reader: That surely is not the case. Young India 14 seems to ignore the Congress. It is considered to be an instrument for perpetuating British Rule. Editor: That opinion is not justified. Had not the Grand Old Man of India (Dadabai Naoroji) prepared the soil, our young men could not have even spoken about Home Rule. How can we forget what Mr. Hume has written, how he has lashed us into action, and with what effort he has awakened us, in order to achieve the objects of the Congress? Sir William Wedderburn has given his body, mind and money to the same cause. 15
. Aurobindo may not have bluntly articulated the British subterfuge behind founding the INC but while he politely welcomed its creation, he was also aware of its serious deficiencies. Aurobindo wrote a series of nine scathing articles about the INC, titled New lamps for old, in Indu Prakash, a Marathi-English Bombay daily, when he was only 21 years and the INC barely eight years old! 16 In the last part of the series written on March 6, 1894, Aurobindo uses the English language effectively to describe what he thought of the Service to which Hume belonged. Hume as mentioned earlier was an officer of the Indian Civil Services (ICS). And when one knows the stuff of which the Service is made, one ceases to wonder at it. A shallow school-boy stepping from a cramming establishment to the command of high and difficult affairs can hardly be expected to give us anything magnificent or princely. Still less can it be expected when the sons of small tradesmen are suddenly promoted from the counter to govern great provinces. Not that I have any
14 Young India the Indian revolutionaries associated with India House (1905-9), London, referred to themselves as the Young India Party. The name had its origin in Mazzinis concept of Young Italy. Young India was also the name of the weekly newspaper Gandhi edited in India from 1919-1931. (Editor Parels foot-note to the above excerpt from HS, Chapter I, page 14) 15 HS, Chapter I, The Congress and its Officials, page 14 16 Excerpts from Aurobindos writings reproduced in the book, unless otherwise specified have been sourced from Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary Library Deluxe Edition, Vol. 1, Published by the Sri Aurobindo Ashram, Pondicherry, 1972 fastidious prejudice against small tradesmen. I simply mean that the best education men of that class can get in England does not adequately qualify a raw youth to rule over millions of his fellow-beings. 17
Aurobindos criticism of the Indian National Congress and its leaders was just as blunt and as unsparing. I am quite aware that in doing this, my motive and my prudence may be called into question. I am not ignorant that I am about to censure a body which to many of my countrymen seems the mightiest outcome of our new national life...and if I were not fully confident that this fixed idea of ours is a snare and a delusion, likely to have the most pernicious effects, I should simply have suppressed my own doubts and remained silent. 18
I say, of the Congress, then, thisthat its aims are mistaken, that the spirit in which it proceeds towards their accomplishment is not a spirit of sincerity and whole-heartedness, and that the methods it has chosen are not the right methods, and the leaders in whom it trusts, not the right sort of men to be leaders; in brief, that we are at present the blind led, if not by the blind, at any rate by the one-eyed 19
Like the best laid plans of mice and men however, some elements in the INC were neither pliant nor compliant. The economic rape and plunder of India began to be documented (Poverty and un-British rule in India by Dadabhai Naoroji) and the anger against the colonial government soon became a war-cry. Yet Dadabhai Naoroji, like Gandhi later in Hind Swaraj, blamed the British only partially, indeed, half- heartedly. Naoroji understood that the predatory Raj was responsible for Indias gross impoverishment and economic deprivation, yet he defined this rapaciousness un-British! Gandhi picked up this theme readily -
17 New lamps for old, Indu Prakash, March 6, 1894, pp 52-53
18 New lamps for old, Indu Prakash, August 7, 1893, page 15
19 New lamps for old, Indu Prakash, August 28, 1893, page 15 It is my deliberate opinion that India is being ground down not under the English heel but under that of modern civilization. 20
The true remedy lies, in my humble opinion, in England discarding modern civilization which is ensouled by this spirit of selfishness and materialism, is vain and purposeless and is a negation of the spirit of Christianity. 21
Gandhi in Hind Swaraj and Other Writings attributed the evils of colonial administration to modern Western civilization, ignoring the Christian roots that drove this civilization to plunder and exploit most of Asia, Africa and America. Aurobindo saw the roots and exposed them. Under the stimulus of an intolerable wrong, Bengal in the fervour of the Swadeshi movement parted company with the old ideals and began to seek for its own strength. It has found it in the people. But the awakening of this strength immediately brought the whole movement into collision with British interests and the true nature of the Englishman, when his interests are threatened, revealed itself. The Swadeshi movement threatened British trade and immediately an unholy alliance was formed between the magistracy, the non-officials and the pious missionaries of Christ, to crush the new movement by every form of prosecution and harassment. 22
1.6 Manufacturing the Muslim League The Swaraj and Swadeshi movement masterminded by Aurobindo, Bhupendranath Dutta, Barin Ghosh and Chittaranjan Das, among other Bengali luminaries, was akin to the go-samrakshana (cow-protection) movement of the nineteenth century, in that it was a spontaneous eruption of Hindu society, except that it made economic and broader cultural issues central to its concerns, and was a spontaneous
20 HS, Chapter VIII, The condition of India, page 42 21 Supplementary writings (HS), Gandhis letter to Lord Ampthill, London, October 30, 1909 22 Lessons at J amalpur,, Bande Mataram, September 1, 1906, page 21.
and determined reaction to the partition of Bengal. 23 The Swaraj and Swadeshi movement which came to be known even at that time as Boycott, aimed at total political independence from the British and not merely self- governance, Home Rule, or Dominion Status, which would keep Indian people in serfdom within the British Empire. Their Swaraj was self governance as obtained not in the colonies of the Raj but in the Raj itself. Aurobindo demanded self-rule, not like that of Canada but like that of the United Kingdom. As articulated by Tilak and Aurobindo, Swaraj and Swadeshi meant total and complete political independence and therefore entailed the total boycott of all British goods, government schools and the judiciary. Boycott or Swaraj and Swadeshi, was only passive resistance or satyagraha, which post- independence Indian polity, for vested interests, continues to propagate as a Gandhian principle and virtue. Between April 11 and April 23, 1907, Aurobindo in Bande Mataram under the general title New Thought wrote a series of brilliant articles on Passive Resistance, after reading which Gandhis exposition on Satyagraha or passive resistance seems vacuous by comparison. 24 There was little that Gandhi could add to Aurobindos discourse on passive resistance but in typical Gandhi vein he does not give credit where it is due in Hind Swaraj, considered by Gandhians to be his seminal work. The comprehensive boycott of British goods, British schools and the judiciary had such an inspirational impact on the nation at large that in spite of the fact that it was neither well-organized nor directed by any individual or group, its fire spread outside of Bengal and frightened both the imperial government in London and the British government in India. Aurobindos passive resistance movement triggered a series of chain reactions which culminated tragically for Hindus in 1909. This period saw the meteoric rise of intellectual stalwarts like Tilak, Aurobindo and Savarkar, their tragic eclipse, and fading away from the political arena.
The first partition of Bengal, which the colonial regime claimed was undertaken for administrative purposes, was intentionally crafted on communal lines, viz., Muslim majority East Bengal and Hindu majority West Bengal, a measure which Aurobindo declared -
23 Lord Curzon announced the partition of Bengal in 1903 and elaborated it in 1904. 24 Excerpts from Aurobindos phenomenal exposition on passive resistance is reproduced at the end of Chapter 4. Was no mere administrative proposal but a blow straight at the heart of the nation. That it is something far other than this (administrative purpose), that the danger involved far more urgent and appalling, is what I shall try to point out in this article. Unfortunately, to do this is impossible without treading on Lord Curzons corns; and indeed one of the tenderest of all the crop. We have recently been permitted to know that our great Viceroy particularly objects to the imputation of motives to his government and not unnaturally; for Lord Curzon is a vain man loving praise and sensitive to dislike and censure; more than that he is a statesman of unusual genius who is following a subtle and daring policy on which immense issues hang and it is naturally disturbing him to find that there are wits in India as subtle as his own and which can perceive something at least of the goal at which he is aiming. 25
The British met with a fierce and violent backlash from Bengal Hindus; Muslims in general and Bengali Muslims in particular were delighted with the move. This period saw Bankim Chandra Chatterjis Vande Mataram acquiring high Hindu nationalist overtones which inspired some of the most brilliant writings of Tilak and Aurobindo along with widespread, nation- wide Hindu armed resistance to the partition.
It seems reasonable to infer that alarmed over the fierce Hindu backlash to the partition and encouraged by the absence of Muslim anger with the government on any issue (as evidenced by the scarcity of Muslim presence in the INC), the British took measures to strengthen, if not Muslim support for the Raj, at least their non-cooperation with the INC, by widening the rift between Hindus and Muslims. Viceroy Mintos inspired meeting with important Muslim leaders in Shimla in October 1906, wherein the demand for separate electorate for Muslims, proportional quotas in government employment, appointment of Muslim judges to the High Courts, and Muslim members in the Viceroys Council, was a critical link in the series of measures planned to this end. Indeed lady Minto had
25 Incomplete and undated article titled, The Proposed Reconstruction of Bengal Partition or Annihilation, pp77-78 this to say about this far-sighted move by the British Government Very very big thing had happened today; A work of statesmanship that will affect India and Indian history for many long years. It is nothing less than pulling back 62 millions of people from joining the ranks of the seditious opposition. 26
Two months after the Shimla conclave, in December 1906, the Muslim League was set up as a counterfoil to what was perceived as a Hindu INC. Its mandate was to fulfill the incomplete agenda of 1857; the partition of Bengal was seen as the first step towards the return of Muslim rule over Hindustan; with hindsight, it was also the precursor to the vivisection of 1947. It seems logical to deduce that just as the British created the INC to wean away important Hindus from opposition to British rule and particularly armed resistance, they sponsored the Muslim League to counter the Swaraj and Swadeshi movement, to Jugantar, a Bengal revolutionary organization and to the nation-wide anger over the partition of Bengal. In the immediate aftermath of the partition of Bengal and British appeasement of the Muslims, Aurobindo observed:
The idea that by encouraging Mahomedan rowdyism, the present agitation may be put down, is preposterous; and those who cherish this notion forget that the bully is neither the strongest nor the bravest of men; and that because the self-restraint of the Hindu, miscalled cowardice, has been a prominent feature of his national character, he is absolutely incapable of striking straight and striking hard when any sacred situation demands this 27 .
The British government conceived the Muslim League as a thorn in the flesh of the Hindus. State power made an ascendant Islam possible by undermining Indias Hindu community. A striking feature of the evolving Indian polity at this time was that while the Raj exploited the gullibility of the English-educated Hindu political leadership of the INC and
26 Majumdar RC, History of Freedom Movement in India, Ed. 2, Vol. 2, Firma KLM Pvt. Ltd, Calcutta, 1975, page 216 27 Partition of Bengal, Bande Mataram, 4 September 1906, in Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary Library, Vol 27, Supplement edition, p. 21. . planted British officials within the party besides getting one of them to create it in the first place, the Muslim League steadfastly resisted White penetration while playing ball with the regime, wringing as many concessions and benefits for the Muslim community as government was prepared to concede in separate but parallel attempts to check the rising tide of Hindu nationalism.
Aurobindo astutely perceived the dangers of the British ruse of empowering Muslims to weaken Hindus, but erroneously concluded that this was happening because the INC did not go out of its way to include Muslims in the movement. He averred the INC must be an all-inclusive organization drawing upon all sections of Indians in order to transform itself into a national movement; the critical flaw in this argument was that he assumed Muslims shared the Hindu sense of nationhood and nationalism.
The true policy of the Congress movement should have been from the beginning to gather together under its flag all the elements of strength that exist in this huge country. The Brahman Pandit and the Mahomedan Maulavi, the caste organisation and the trade-union, the labourer and the artisan, the coolie at his work and the peasant in his field, none of these should have been left out of the sphere of our activities. For each is a strength, a unit of force; and in politics the victory is to the side which can marshal the largest and most closely serried number of such units and handle them most skilfully, not to those who can bring forward the best arguments or talk the most eloquently. But the Congress started from the beginning with a misconception of the most elementary facts of politics and with its eyes turned towards the British Government and away from the people. 28
To their great satisfaction, Indian Muslims had learnt in 1857 that their ploy to seek racial convergence with the Hindus against the British found resonance not only among sections of ordinary Hindus but even among the English-educated leadership of the Indian National Congress. Aurobindo and
28 By the Way Lessons at Jamalpur, Bande Mataram, 1 September, 1906, p.145. . Gandhi exemplified the success of the Muslim ploy. Decades later, Subhash Boses Indian National Army (INA) would traverse the same path.
1.7 Armed resistance and British response Jugantar, a revolutionary off-shoot of the Anusilan Samiti and one of the earliest armed Hindu resistance movements of the twentieth century came into being in the early 1900s. The partition of Bengal, British appeasement of Muslims by Viceroy Minto, and the creation of the Muslim League added an edge to the resistance, which also influenced a section of the INC. Tilak and Aurobindo, among others, refused to allow the INC to serve as implementing agency of British intent. As a definitive response to the Muslim League and Muslim appeasement policies of the colonial power, and as a response to the meek leadership of the INC which neither responded effectively to the creation of the League nor opposed the British successfully, the INC, under the Presidentship of Aurobindo split vertically in December 1907, just one year after the League was born, with Tilak and Aurobindo leading the nationalist faction 29 . The Nationalist section soon began to be pejoratively labeled as Extremist, while the faction led by Surendranath Banerjea and Gopal Krishna Gokhale was termed Moderate.
We should be absolutely unsparing in our attack on whatever obstructs the growth of the nation, and never be afraid to call a spade a spade. Excessive good nature, chakshu lajja [the desire to be always pleasant and polite], will never do in serious politics. Respect of persons must always give place to truth and conscience; and the demand that we should be silent because of the age or past services of our opponents, is politically immoral and unsound. Open attack, unsparing criticism, the severest satire, the most wounding irony, are all methods perfectly justifiable and indispensable in politics. We have strong things to say; let us say them strongly; we have stern things to do; let us do them sternly. But there is always a danger of strength degenerating into violence and sternness into
29 Implicit in the term nationalist was Hindu nationalist. ferocity, and that should be avoided so far as it is humanly possible 30 .
Unnerved by the armed revolution of Jugantar and the rise of votaries of armed resistance within the INC, the British government, consistent with its response in 1857, employed the full might of repressive State power against the members of Jugantar and the nationalist segment of the INC, in order to break the backbone of Hindu resistance. National sentiment over the partition of Bengal, fuelled by the swaraj and swadeshi movement soon spread to the Punjab, Central Provinces, Poona, Bombay, Madras and other cities of the country. It was a dangerous replay of 1857 and the Raj reacted just as ferociously. Within two years, by the end of 1909, almost all the leaders of Jugantar, the nationalists in the Congress including Tilak, Aurobindo, and Savarkar had been hanged, deported, or arrested and confined in jails; some opted for voluntary exile.
Savarkar was inspired by the three Chapekar brothers Damodar, Balakrishna and Vasudev, who had been found guilty of conspiring to kill and killing British ICS officer Walter Rand on 22 nd June 1897, on Ganeshkhind Road, in Pune, when Rand was returning from a party to celebrate the anniversary of Queen Victorias coronation. The three brothers and their close associate, Mahadev Ranade were hanged in Pune over a period of 13 months between April 1898-99 and Lokmanya Tilak was arrested and sentenced to 18 months rigorous imprisonment for seditious writing which allegedly inspired the Chapekar brothers to take up arms against an officer of the British government. This act of great courage by the Chapekar brothers and Ranade and their brave death left a deep impression upon the teenaged Savarkar who too decided to take up armed struggle against the British. To this end he set up the Abhinav Bharat Society which preached only armed resistance to British rule.
But in the two years between 1907 and1909 an enraged and extremely frightened British government brutally crushed this spontaneous and soon well-organized armed revolution by the nationalist faction of the INC, by Jugantar, and Savarkar. Aurobindo was first arrested in August 1907 and jailed for a
30 By the Way Bande Mataram, 13 April, 1907, page 257 .
month on charges of seditious writing in Bande Mataram; he was arrested again in May 1908 in the Alipore Bomb Case, Tilak was charged with seditious writing and jailed in Mandalay in the then Burma 31 and Savarkar who was arrested in France in 1910, following the killing of Sir Curzon Wyllie by Madanlal Dhingra in London, was sentenced with transportation for life and suffered confinement in the Cellular Jail in the Andamans, a sentence unparalleled in the history of the British Empire; it is significant that Vasudeo Balwant Phadke, Tilak and Savarkar, all Hindu Nationalists were sentenced to Transportation which in effect meant removing them from the scene and from public consciousness with a view to denying them martyrdom. 32
Aurobindo was arrested, tried and released in the Alipore bomb case but when he was threatened again with fresh arrest for seditious writing in Karmayogin; he decided inexplicably to abandon politics and armed resistance. As in 1906, the British Government in 1909 again empowered the Muslim community while simultaneously decapitating the Hindu nationalist leadership. The Minto-Morley reforms of 1909 granted the Muslim League demand for separate electorates for Muslims, and thus Muslim separatism acquired a sharper edge. In more ways than one, the year 1909 was a turning point in the political destiny of the Hindus.
Unable to cope with the barbaric use of British State power, which left the nationalist movement in complete disarray, Aurobindo, immediately after his release on May 6, 1909 in his famous Uttarapara Speech delivered on May 30, 1909, signaled his retreat from active politics and armed resistance; justifying this abdication as deference to what he termed was the call of his inner voice. To his own physical advantage but to the detriment of Hindu nationalism, Aurobindo declared his
31 Tilak was sentenced to transportation and removed to Mandalay in Burma, over 3000 miles away. The life expectancy of an average British male in 1908 was around 48 years while for an average Indian male living in conditions of slavery would have been even less. The barbarity of British rule can be estimated from the fact that Tilak was aged 52 years when he was sentenced to transportation to Mandalay. 32 The very idea of Transportation, if it werent so tragic, would be considered black humour. That invaders who were forcibly occupying territory not their own, were actually transporting natives of that territory as punishment, to alien lands surely belongs to the realm of the absurd. For details of Savarkars trial and the sentence, see end of chapter. intention to depart from Bengal, his political karmabhumi and seek refuge in the distant French colony of Pondicherry down South, beyond the reach of the British government and henceforth work only for the spiritual uplift of the nation. Relieved on this front, the British took further measures to ensure that Hindu armed resistance from within the INC was effectively neutralized. A part of this grand strategy was to get Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, who had already positioned himself against armed resistance, against the nationalists and who always spoke with tremendous affection and awe of the English, to quietly occupy the space vacated by the nationalists.
1.8 The rise and retreat of Aurobindo There is a stark difference in the style and content of Aurobindos writings in the two distinct periods before and after he left for Pondicherry, which accurately reflect his state of mind and his life mission. From 1893 until mid-1908 when he was arrested, his writings focus on the political disempowerment of Indians; he is most scathing when he attacks Western civilization and English education; and his language is lucid and powerful; most importantly, he connects Hindu dharma to national political objectives. Aurobindo unambiguously articulated the contours and substance of the Hindu rashtra, but the major lacuna in his thinking and writing at this time and even later, was that while he bemoaned Indias enslavement to shopkeepers and traders, he failed to make the vital connection between Hindu rashtra and the critical importance of Hindu rajya to protect and sustain the rashtra. Then from mid-1909 when he was released from jail, he made a deliberate disconnect between politics and spirituality. Fatally for Hindu nationalism, he completely renounced active involvement in politics and gave nationalism an unconvincing, un-Hindu spiritual-only connotation. As this detachment was against Hindu ethos, his writings became ponderous, thoughts laborious, and language unnatural; obviously neither Aurobindo nor his later writings inspired or galvanized Hindus towards political action or towards spirituality.
Inexplicably scholars have failed to note that Aurobindo and his inner voice communicated with each other in poor imitation of ponderous Biblical English, and that the voice exhorted him in much the same manner as the Christian God probably exhorted Jesus before sending him to earth on his mission to establish the kingdom of god on earth. If Thou art, then Thou knowest my heart. Thou knowest that I do not ask for Mukti 33 , I do not ask for anything which others ask for. I ask only for strength to uplift this nation, I ask only to be allowed to live and work for this people whom I love and to whom I pray that I may devote my life. I strove long for the realisation of yoga 34
and at last to some extent I had it, but in what I most desired, I was not satisfied. Then in the seclusion of the jail, of the solitary cell I asked for it again, I said, Give me Thy Adesh 35 . I do not know what work to do or how to do it. Give me a message. In the communion of Yoga two messages came. The first message said, I have given you a work and it is to help to uplift this nation. Before long the time will come when you will have to go out of jail; for it is not my will that this time either you should be convicted or that you should pass the time, as others have to do, in suffering for their country. I have called you to work, and that is the Adesh for which you have asked. I give you the Adesh to go forth and do my work. The second message came and it said, Something has been shown to you in this year of seclusion, something about which you had your doubts and it is the truth of the Hindu religion. It is this religion that I am raising up before the world; it is this that I have perfected and developed through the Rishis 36 , saints and Avatars 37 , and now it is going forth to do my work among the nations. I am raising up this nation to send forth my word.... When therefore it is said that India shall rise, it is the Sanatan Dharma that shall rise. When it is said that India shall be great, it is the Sanatan Dharma that shall be great. When it is said that India shall expand and extend herself, it is the Sanatan Dharma that shall expand and extend
33 Ultimate liberation from life and re-birth 34 The perfect union and harmony of mind and body 35 Directive or injunction 36 In Hindu religious tradition, the repositories of knowledge and wisdom 37 Earthly manifestation as some life-form of the Divine also known as Ishvara, Brahman or Narayana itself over the world. It is for the Dharma and by the Dharma that India exists. 38
Thus, Aurobindos inner voice 39 told him that he should not allow himself, like others, to be convicted again and to spend time suffering for his country in jail. Obedient to its call, Aurobindo redefined his nationalism (unconvincingly) and his mission. Aurobindos towering intellect accurately analysed the nature of the monumental work nationalists had to undertake to rejuvenate the nation. Hindu dharma and its adherents and structures had been weakened by the ruthless use of state power by successive Muslim rulers and Christian-colonialism; Hindu society had been debilitated economically by the organised rapacity of the East India Company followed by British Crown rule, and assaulted culturally as foreign missionaries ran amok pitting caste against caste. The result was all-pervasive economic, spiritual and cultural deprivation, and enervating tamas (inertia) in thought and action.
Tilak and Aurobindo failed to articulate the crucial point that this all-pervasive weakening and deprivation was effected by alien faiths which machinated within Hindu society with the full backing of their respective state powers. Had they considered and articulated this unambiguously in their writings and made this the core of public discourse, its natural corollary would have been for Tilak and Aurobindo to not only postulate total and complete independence from colonial rule as the goal of the freedom movement, which was the content of their Swaraj in the early 1900s, but also to assert that Swaraj was synonymous with Hindu rajya protecting the Hindu rashtra.
Articulating such a demand would have entailed confronting the reality that Hindu society had to unshackle itself from Christian-colonialism and all its structures and institutions, and acquire the capacity to thwart Muslim efforts to re-establish Muslim rule in India after the departure of the British. The political expositions of both Tilak and Aurobindo failed to
38 Excerpt from Aurobindos landmark Uttarapara Speech, May 30, 1909 Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary Library, Vol. 2, page 1 (Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram, 1972).
39 This was startlingly reminiscent of J esus too exhorting his disciples after his Resurrection. Later, Gandhi also held his inner voice responsible for every act of appeasement towards Muslims and of coercion of Hindus. address the question of how Hindus could undertake all-round rejuvenation of their society, religion and nation without state power and with colonial structures and separatist Muslims in their midst. Savarkar however confronted the issue frontally and in his Presidential address at the 21 st session of the Hindu Mahasabha in Kolkata in 1935, stated his apprehensions bluntly and with startling foresight No realist can be blind to the probability that the extra-territorial designs and the secret urge goading on the Moslems to transform India into a Moslem State may at any time confront the Hindusthani State even under self-government either with a Civil War or treacherous overtures to alien invaders by the Moslems. Then again there is every likelihood that there will ever continue at least for a century to come a danger of fanatical riots, the scramble for services, Legislative seats, weightages out of proportion to their population on the part of the Moslem minority and consequently a constant danger threatening internal peace.
Despite witnessing growing Muslim separatism and despite their sound understanding of the substance and character of the Hindu nation, Tilak and Aurobindo failed to grapple with the potential consequences of Muslim hostility to a Hindu polity, and its implications after the end of colonial rule. But my line and intention of political activity would differ considerably from anything now current in the field, said Aurobindo, to justify his abdication of political responsibility to the Hindus, though he never spelled out how he differed and how he envisioned the course that Indian polity would have to take to realise and protect the Hindu rashtra. This was his core incompetence and failure.
Contemporary nationalists have an important lesson to learn from 1909: in stark contrast to the manner in which Hindu society had habitually confronted the onslaught of Islam over centuries, English education and the tantalizing exposure to western modernism eroded our spirit of resistance and lowered our threshold for physical and mental pain. Perhaps Aurobindos spirit was broken by the Rajs persistent assaults upon his person and his physical and intellectual liberty, and perhaps because he and other nationalists were physically isolated from each other and rendered alone without support from even the INC which fell under the complete sway of the moderates; the truth however remains that Aurobindo abandoned politics despite knowing that politics was critically important at that time and sought personal solace in spirituality.
Two important Congress leaders from Nagpur, Dr. Moonje and Dr. Hedgewar, who would later be renowned as the founder of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), with a chilling premonition about the tragic consequences which would afflict the nation after the advent of Gandhi in India, persuaded Aurobindo in 1920 to return to active politics immediately and assume Presidentship of the soon-to-be-held Nagpur Congress. Dear Dr. Munje, As I have already wired to you, I find myself unable to accept your offer of the Presidentship of the Nagpur Congress. There are reasons even within the political field itself which in any case would have stood in my way. In the first place I have never signed and would never care to sign as a personal declaration of faith in the Congress creed, as my own is of a different character. In the next place, since my retirement from British India, I have developed an outlook and views which have diverged a great deal from those I held at the time and, as they are remote from present actualities and do not follow the present stream of political action, I should find myself very much embarrassed what to say to the Congress. I am entirely in sympathy with all that is being done so far as its object is to secure liberty for India, but I should be unable to identify myself with the programme of any of the parties. The President of the Congress is really a mouthpiece of the Congress and to make from the presidential chair a purely personal pronouncement miles away from what the Congress is thinking and doing would be grotesquely out of place. The central reason however is this that I am no longer first and foremost a politician, but have definitely commenced another kind of work with a spiritual basis, a work of spiritual, social, cultural and economic reconstruction of an almost revolutionary kind, and am even making or at least supervising a sort of practical or laboratory experiment in that sense which needs all the attention and energy that I can have to spare. A gigantic movement of non-cooperation merely to get some Punjab officials punished or to set up again the Turkish Empire which is dead and gone, shocks my ideas both of proportion and of common sense. 40
Divorced from politics, Aurobindos writings after May 1909 lacked the originality and inspirational fire characteristic of his works between 1893 and 1908. More than anyone else in that period, barring perhaps Savarkar, Aurobindo perceived that the Moderates and Gandhi were leading the Congress and the nation in a direction that would inevitably prove suicidal for the Hindus. Hence his flight from the political arena in 1909 became the single most important cause for Gandhis entrance and subsequent occupation of that space; Aurobindos adamant refusal to return to active politics even after 1914 when Gandhi returned to India, pushed the nation inexorably towards vivisection in 1947 and Hindu political disempowerment thereafter.
Thus in 1909, barely three years after the creation of the Muslim League, the stage was set for the ascent of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi on Indias political stage. His arrival was timed to neutralize the powerful and growing influence of Tilak and Aurobindo. Lord Minto considered Aurobindo the most dangerous man we have to deal with at the present, whose writings prior to and in Jugantar and Bande Mataram, together with Tilaks fiery writings in Kesari and Mahratta, were inflaming Hindu passions within the INC and among educated Hindus. I attribute the spread of seditious doctrines to him personally in a greater degree than to any other single individual in Bengal, or possibly in India, Edward Baker, Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, said of Aurobindo. There can be no doubt that the raging fire of Swaraj and Swadeshi as articulated by Aurobindo and Tilak in their writings and speeches, threatened the British stranglehold on a restive nation. Tilak was in jail; Aurobindo had abdicated, Bande Mataram was closed down by the British in 1909; Gandhi and Gandhis Hind Swaraj were ready to take over.
40 Aurobindos Letter to Dr. Moonje, August 30, 1920 Vol. 26, page 432. 1.9 Why Hind Swaraj In 1906, Gandhi had just begun his satyagraha in South Africa, two years after the fire of Aurobindos Boycott or swaraj and swadeshi passive resistance had begun to rage in Bengal. As a tool of engagement with the British government, it had not been tested adequately or frequently enough between 1906 and 1909 for its efficacy when Hind Swaraj was written; nor had Gandhis own character been tested on the crucible of consistency for his doctrine of satyagraha to deserve elevation to the status of Indias sole symbol of moral force. It is also pertinent to note here that the narrow objectives of his struggle in South Africa, that of ending laws discriminatory to Indians (alone), would not be achieved until 1914.
These facts need to be borne in mind considering that in January 1915, when Gandhi returned to India for good from South Africa via London, he arrived as de jure leader of the freedom movement, even though he would not be nominated President of the INC until 1918. This leadership position flowed from Indians accepting the skillful propaganda that Gandhian Satyagraha was an effective and morally superior tool of engagement with the British Raj as opposed to Aurobindos passive resistance. Satyagrahas moral superiority in turn rested on the moral authority then vested in Gandhi, which in turn rested on his public pronouncement of abstinence from conjugal relations and the misinformation that ahimsa was the primary dharma of Hindus.
Englishmen then close to Gandhi, along with vested interests in the Indian National Congress who were close to the Raj, especially Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Pheroze Shah Mehta and Surendranath Banerjea, were behind the motivated propaganda that propelled Gandhi and his satyagraha prematurely to undeserved heights. In the period 1906-1909, none of Gandhis public writings suggested that he contemplated returning to India in the near future to participate in the freedom movement, let alone assume leadership of the INC.
The question legitimately arises: why did Gandhi pen the Hind Swarajin 1909? What is more, why did he personally translate it post-haste into English in just a few months and publish it with alacrity in 1910? From a confidential letter Gandhi wrote in 1909 to Lord Ampthill, former Governor of Madras and Pro Tempore Viceroy of India (discussed later), it is apparent that by this time he had made up his mind (or he had been persuaded to make up his mind) to play a decisive role within the INC and the freedom movement. We can safely deduce from the letter itself that the subject matter of Gandhis letter to Ampthill would have been concealed from the general Indian public of the time and even the leaders of the INC, except perhaps Gokhale.
To quote Hind Swaraj Had I not known that there was a danger of methods of violence becoming popular, even in South Africa, had I not been called upon by hundreds of my countrymen, and not a few English friends (emphasis added), to express my opinion on the Nationalist movement in India, I would even have refrained, for the sake of the struggle, from reducing my views to writing. But, occupying the position I do, it would have been cowardice on my part to postpone publication under the circumstances just referred to 41 .
A reader would legitimately wonder what position Gandhi claims to be occupying at this time in the struggle in South Africa against the British Government. We shall, however see later from the timeline of his sojourn in South Africa, that between 1906 and 1909, Gandhi enjoyed easy access to important officers of the British Government and Members of Parliament in London. It is notable that at this time, well before the outbreak of the First World War, the British Empire was at it peak and regarded as invincible. It seems unlikely that the Empire would smile benevolently upon a mutineer and allow its highest officials to hobnob with an inconsequential native posing a genuine challenge to the Empire in the mineral-rich South Africa.
It seems logical to conclude therefore, that the INC leadership, specifically Gopal Krishna Gokhale, then a member of the prestigious Viceroys Council, Dadabhai Naoroji and Sir William Wedderburn, took the initiative to promote Gandhi as future leader of the INC with the British government. Within a month of the extremely significant Calcutta Congress in September
41 Hind Swaraj, Preface to the first English Edition, J ohannesburg, March 20, 1910.
1906, Gandhi was in London on a deputation to meet with important government officials. Also in London were Dadabhai Naoroji and Wedderburn. Gandhi met them in London in October 1906 and also with Winston Churchill no less! Gokhales patronage fanned Gandhis political ambitions, first kindled in South Africa, and gave them the thrust that took him to the forefront of the INC in 1915, which after the exit of Tilak and Aurobindo was leaderless and rudderless.
In retrospect, it seems likely that Gopal Krishna Gokhale and Gandhis English friends asked him to write a prescriptive book whose central theme would focus on how Indians should view and deal with the colonial administration. Hind Swaraj was written only to project Gandhi as a political theorist no less, and as a contrast to Aurobindo and as Aurobindos intellectual peer. The leadership of the Moderate section of the Congress built up Gandhis Satyagraha as a foil to Aurobindos passive resistance. Gokhale and Gandhis White friends may have wished Gandhis Satyagraha to influence the INC with his variation of passive resistance to put an immediate end to and ultimately halt all violent attacks against British government officials. The INC moderates favoured Gandhi propagating his satyagraha as the only tool of engagement with the colonial power in order to boost their sagging relevance within the Hindu community and perpetuate their status as sole representatives of the Indian people in all such engagements, as the Raj was making major concessions to the recalcitrant Muslim community with whose leadership it was similarly engaged.
The British saw great merit in covertly promoting the view that Gandhis Satyagraha was an effective tool, and in fact the only legitimate tool of engagement for Indians with the British government. Satyagraha was perceived as a guarantor of the safety of British lives in the immediate present, and the assurance of safe passage for the British while exiting from India. Certainly the Raj was not short-sighted. When Winston Churchill met the still inconspicuous Gandhi in London in October 1906, the first steps in the plan to transport Gandhi back to India had been taken.
1.10 Significance of Gandhis letter to Lord Ampthill Prior to his appointment as Governor of Madras in 1901, Lord Ampthill was Principal Secretary to Joseph Chamberlain, father of future Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. In an extremely private and confidential letter dated 30 October 1909, during his second visit to London from South Africa, again on deputation, Gandhi gave Lord Ampthill a preview of Hind Swaraj and revealed his intention to play a major role in the freedom movement. Discussing his politico-economic ideas and the respective philosophies of the leaders of the freedom movement, Gandhi positions himself to Lord Ampthill as a possible future leader of the INC, as an alternative to the extremist leadership for which he repeatedly expresses great disdain, and as an alternative even to the Moderates.
As the British had ruthlessly persecuted and decimated the nationalists in the INC, and as the Moderates were projecting him as some kind of leader in 1909, it is inexplicable and even indefensible that Gandhi secretly positioned himself as a future leader by expressing negative opinions about both sections of the INC to an influential British Government official who had intimate knowledge of the freedom movement and its leaders in his capacity as Governor and later as Viceroy. Gandhi writes
Opposed as I am to violence in any shape or form, I have endeavoured specially to come into contact with the so-called extremists who may be better described as the party of violence. This I have done in order to if possible to convince them of the error of their ways.
Let us not forget that Gandhi is actually speaking in this vein to an important British government official about Tilak, Aurobindo and Savarkar. He reveals to the colonial official the seething anger of the people against the British, unmindful or possibly uncaring about the fact that the administration might consider his report as an authentic account of the mood and sentiment of the people and may resort to even greater repression against the INC leadership and the common people:
I have noticed that some of the members of this party are earnest spirits, possessing a high degree of morality, great intellectual ability and lofty self-sacrifice. They wield an undoubted influence on the young Indians here. They are certainly unsparing in their efforts to impress upon the latter their convictions.
An awakening of the national consciousness is unmistakable. But among the majority it is in a crude shape and there is not a corresponding spirit of self-sacrifice. Everywhere I have noticed impatience of British rule. In some cases the hatred of the whole race is virulent. In almost all cases distrust of British statesman is writ large on their minds. They (the statesmen) are supposed to do nothing unselfishly. Those who are against violence are so only for the time being. They do not disapprove of it. But they are too cowardly or too selfish to avow their opinions publicly. Some consider that the time for violence is not yet. I have practically met no one who believes that India can ever become free without resort to violence (emphasis added).
This letter was written in 1909 and it is pertinent that just three years previously, Lord Ampthill had served in India as Governor of Madras between 1901 and 1906 and pro tem Viceroy in India in the wake of Lord Curzons retirement and would have been a man of great influence in London in 1909. It would thus appear that the timing, tone and content of Gandhis letter to Lord Ampthill would in contemporary slang amount to squealing; he was, to put it politely, informing Lord Ampthill, about his views regarding the Moderates, the Extremists, and also the ordinary people of India. There is no plausible reason why Gandhi should discuss the opinion of the people of India about British rule and the British people, the INC, and the nature of the freedom movement with Lord Ampthill. Yet he constantly makes use of highly expressive terms such as virulent, violence, hatred, selfish, and cowardly to describe ordinary Indians. There can be no doubt that Gandhi was presenting himself to an important British government official as a non-violent pacifist alternative, and was seeking British legitimacy and grace to assume the leadership of the INC and the freedom movement!
Gandhi positions himself Holding these views, I share the national spirit but I totally dissent from the methods whether of the extremists or of the moderates. For either party relies ultimately on violence.
Gandhi signals his intention I do not know how far I have made myself understood and I do not know how far I carry you with me in my reasoning (emphasis added). But I have put the case in the above manner before my countrymen. My purpose in writing to Your Lordship is twofold. The first is to tell Your Lordship that, whenever I can get the time, I would like to take my humble share in national regeneration and the second, is either to secure Your Lordships cooperation in the larger work if it ever comes to me or to invite your criticism.
The operative part of the letter The information I have given Your Lordship is quite confidential and not to be made use of prejudicially to my countrymen. I feel that no useful purpose will be served unless the truth be known and proclaimed.
This truth that Gandhi made known and proclaimed to an important Englishman contained the reality of Gandhis views and intentions, and also the truth about the mood of Indians and the consequent nature of the freedom movement. Hence it is against this backdrop that we must critique Gandhis Satyagraha and ahimsa, and its consequences for the nations Hindus.
Knowing what we now know, it seems safe to conclude that Gandhi wrote Hind Swaraj to counter and neutralize the fiery, inspirational writings of Tilak and Aurobindo, with the aim of weaning the nation away from the methods pursued by nationalists like the Chapekar brothers, Tilak, Aurobindo, Savarkar and Madanlal Dhingra. Gandhis South African satyagraha was to provide an alternative to Aurobindos passive resistance, to armed struggle; and Hind Swaraj was intended to be the definitive Word for Gandhis nascent cult of satyagraha monotheists, with Gandhi as the Last Prophet. His mandate was to douse the fire of Hindu nationalism, and as leader of the Congress, to-direct the INC back to the path desired by the Raj when it instructed A.O. Hume to create the organization.
Interestingly, Hind Swaraj was originally titled Indian Home Rule. The fact that Gandhi renamed it Hind Swaraj, seizing the slogan of Tilak and Aurobindo, signaled to Indians and the British his intention to challenge the political doctrines and philosophy of Tilak and Aurobindo on their home turf. In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi pays glowing tributes to Hume, Gokhale and Naoroji, completely ignoring and dismissing with scant respect Tilak, Aurobindo and Savarkar.
*****
Appendix
I Savarkar sentenced to a double term of Transportation for life Fifty Years! As retribution for the sentence of Transportation meted out to Ganesh Damodar (Babarao) Savarkar, Veer Savarkars elder brother and Dhingras martyrdom, the revolutionaries in Nashik, Anant Kanhere, Karve and Deshpande conspired and assassinated A.M.T. Jackson, the Collector of Nashik on 21 December 1909. Savarkar, in London at that time, developed double-pneumonia and was shifted to Dr. Muthus hospital in Wales to recuperate. In hospital Savarkar received a telegram from Shyamji Krishnavarma informing him of Jacksons assassination. Following Dhingras assassination of Sir Curzon Wyllie, Savarkar was arrested at Victoria Station, London on 13 March 1910 when arriving from Paris on an Indian warrant, charging him with sedition and inciting to murder in India. The extradition of Savarkar was handled at the highest level. On 29 June 1910, then Home Secretary Winston Churchill issued the following order, Now I, the Right Honourable Winston Leonard Churchill, do hereby order that the said Vinayak Damodar Savarkar be returned to the Empire of India. Accordingly, on 01 July 1910, Savarkar was made to board the S.S. Morea to bring him to India. The Governor of Bombay Sir George Clarke who played a major role in Savarkars conviction had this to say, V.D. Savarkar, a Konkanastha Brahmin, was one of the the most dangerous men that India has produced. He was the leading spirit at the India House when the murders at the Imperial Institute were planned, and one of his satellites accompanied the wretched assassin Dhingra to keep him to his fatal resolve. Savarkar sent twenty Browning pistols, purchased in Paris, to Bombay and one of them was used for the murder of Mr. Jackson at Nasik. It was on 08 July 1910 while S.S. Morea was docked at Marseilles that Savarkar made his epic leap into the ocean and braving bullets, he swam to the French soil. His subsequent arrest and handover to British Police on French soil caused an international furore. The case went to the International Court of Justice at The Hague. Savarkar was lodged initially in Nashik and then in Yerawada Jail, Pune. The British Government rejected efforts to stay his trial till the international ramifications of his arrest by British detectives on French soil had settled. Finally, the Government of the French Republic and the Government of His Majesty, having agreed by means of an exchange of notes dated October 4 and 5, 1910, to submit to arbitration, on the one hand the questions of fact and right raised by the arrest and the taking back, on board the Steamship Morea on July 8 th , 1910, at Marseilles, of the Indian Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, who escaped from boat on which he was a prisoner, and on the other hand, the claim of the Government of the republic for the surrender of Savarkar agreed to an arbitration tribunal. In the meanwhile, Savarkars trial began at the Bombay High Court on 15 September 1910 before a three-judge bench. There were 37 co-accused in three cases running concurrently, an unprecedented number for the trial of any revolutionary! The following eight charges were slapped on all the accused in the three cases: 1. Waging war against the King Emperor for a period of three years till December 1909 in Nashik and other places in India, and in London in the case of Savarkar 2. Attempt to wage such a war 3. Indulged in conspiracy to that end 4. Conspired to commit crimes under Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code 5. Conspired to deprive the King Emperor of the sovereignty of India 6. Conspired to overawe the Government of India or the Government of Bombay by criminal force 7. Collected arms and explosives with the aim of waging war 8. Concealed by illegal means the objective of waging war The marathon trial lasted for 69 days. The sentence was read on 24 December 1910. It said, We find the accused guilty of abetment of waging war by instigation, by circulation of printed matter inciting to war, the providing of arms and the distribution of instructions for the manufacture of explosives. He is therefore, guilty of an offence punishable under section 121 A of the Indian Penal Code. We also find him guilty of conspiring with others of the accused to overawe, by criminal force or show of criminal force, the Government of India and the Local Government. Savarkar was sentenced to Transportation for Life and forfeiture of all property. On the very day (29 November 1910) the task of collecting evidence in the Nashik Conspiracy Case was completed, the Bombay Government sent a telegram to the Government of India asking that a second trial of Savarkar on charges of abetting the Jackson murder be started after the outcome of the tribunal at The Hague. The Government of India replied that it could not wait for the tribunal to give its verdict. On behalf of the Government of I ndia, Lord Hardinge opined, Savarkar is an extremely dangerous man and would be regarded as a hero and his influence and power for mischief would be greatly increased if set free. Actually, Savarkar was in London when Jackson was assassinated. The evidence of having sent pistols and pamphlets had already been used in the first trial. However, the Government was hell-bent on securing death penalty for Savarkar. Hence it charged that the pistol used to kill Jackson was one of the many sent by Savarkar. The charge-sheet said that while in London in 1909, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar abetted the murder of A.M.T. Jackson on 21 December 1910 and was involved in the same and had thus committed crimes under Sections 109 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. For this, Savarkar was sentenced on 30 January, 1911, to Transportation for Life for a second time. On hearing this sentence, Savarkar made the following remarkable statement, I am prepared to face ungrudgingly the extreme penalty of your laws in the belief that it is through sufferings and sacrifice alone that our beloved Motherland can march on to an assured, if not a speedy triumph. NOTE: One Transporation for Life meant 25 years; thus two sentences of Transportation for Life meant 50 years. However, after a few years in the Cellular Jail, as per the Jail manual, prisoners were allowed to stay outside the Cellular jail and raise a family. Even this was denied to the Savarkar brothers. In fact their release from the Cellular Jail did not mean release from jail. They were imprisoned on arrival on Indian mainland. Even when Savarkar was interned in Ratnagiri district and prohibited from carrying out political activities (1924), the stipulated period was five years. However, the Government periodically extended this term so that Savarkar was finally unconditionally released only in 1937. Separation of the two brothers The steamship Maharaja carrying the two Savarkar brothers Babarao and Tatyarao (Savarkars nickname) from the Andamans landed in Calcutta on 06 May 1921. From here, the two brothers were separated. Tatyarao was sent to Alipore Jail and then in utmost secrecy taken to Bombay. From there, he was lodged first in Ratnagiri Jail where he was made to undergo rigorous imprisonment (It was in Ratnagiri Jail that Savarkar wrote his immortal and seminal book Essentials of Hindutva; he also organized the shuddhi of a Christian officer and his wife while in Ratnagiri Jail) and then in Yerwada Jail, Pune. Babarao was initially lodged in Alipore Jail for a day or two. From there, the two brothers were separated. Babarao was sent to solitary confinement in the Belgaum Jail (May 1921 to January 1922). From there, he was lodged in Sabarmati jail. It was only when the Government was convinced that Babarao would surely die (they did not want a martyr on their hands) that he was released in September 1922 (Babarao Savarkar was thus in jail from June 1909 to September 1922). Savarkar spent 11 years in prison in the Andamans, another three years in Indian jails followed by over thirteen years interned in Ratnagiri. *****