1. LETTER TO INDIRA NEHRU [After October 15, 1939]1 CHI. INDU, You must have now lost the habit of writing Hindi. But I must write, mustn’t I, in the rashtrabhasha ? Have you gone there for studies or for falling ill? How did you contract pleurisy? I have suffered the pangs of pleurisy. May God restore you soon to health. Blessings from BAPU From a photostat of the Hindi: C. W. 9805. Courtesy: Nehru Memorial Museum and Library 2. NOTES A POSER A Britisher has written to Deenabandhu Andrews a letter on the war expounding his own views. He is an ardent pacifist. Deenabandhu has shared the letter with me. In it occur the following paragraphs: For India too I think that this is a very critical time. The danger I see is that Britain may promise full Dominion Status or something of the kind, and as a result India will raise an army and become one more military-minded nation. Her witness for the way of non-violence and soul-force would then be largely discounted. How can Gandhiji as a believer in non-violence ask for clarification of war aims with a view to getting India’s support for Britain in this way of war? The only thing that he can do and that we should all be doing is to build up an army of men and women who are committed to the way of love and forgiveness and to receive but never to return violence. We have to work this out to see how it will alter our daily life as well as all our thinking and acting towards other communities and nations. We have to be disciplined in this and also to 1 In her book, With No Regrets, Krishna Hutheesing explains that the addressee went hiking during the autumn of 1939, got soaked and caught a chill which developed into pleurisy. In a letter dated November 6, 1939, Jawaharlal Nehru had written to the addressee that he had a joint cable “from Agatha and Bhandari that you are going to Europe”. She went to Leysin (in Switzerland) after having spent some time in Middlesex Hospital. Vide also the preceding item and “Letter to Jawaharlal Nehru”. 25-10-1939. VOL. 77 : 16 OCTOBER, 1939 - 22 FEBRUARY, 1940 1 learn to act together as one man. Along this line I see tremendous possibilities. Of course we should also use all the influence we can to urge Britain to acknowledge and put into practice full democracy in India as it is a high principle quite apart from whether India helps Britain in the war or not. The danger that the writer senses is real. I dealt with it last week.1 The writer cavils at my sympathy with the Allies. I have shown it as an out-and-out believer in non-violence, even because of my belief. Whilst all violence is bad and must be condemned in the abstract, it is permissible for, it is even the duty of, a believer in ahimsa to distinguish between the aggressor and the defender. Having done so, he will side with the defender in a non-violent manner, i.e., give his life in saving him. His intervention is likely to bring a speedier end to the duel and may even result in bringing about peace between the combatants. Applying the argument to the present war, if the Congress actively sides with the Allies in a non-violent way, the Congress assistance will lift the Allied cause to a high moral plane and the Congress influence will be effectively used in the cause of peace. What is more it will be the special business of the Congress to see that, if the war is fought to a finish, no humiliation is heaped upon the vanquished. That is the role I have conceived for the Congress. The declaration of independence has become a necessity. The question having been raised, the Congress cannot help Britain if Britain is secretly fighting for imperialism while it declares to the world that the fight is for saving democracies. For Britain to be in the right a clear declaration of her war aim is a necessity, irrespective of the Congress policy. SEGAON, October 16, 1939 Harijan, 21-10-1939 3. THE FICTION OF MAJORITY It is painful to find the British Press and Britishers advancing the minority claim to prevent the declaration suggested2 by the Congress, if I may say so, in the common interest. If the force of the Congress suggestion has not been overwhelmingly felt, the declaration will not 1 Vide “On Trial”, 10-10-1939. 2 Vide Appendices “Working Committee’s Manifesto”, 14-9-1939 and “A.I.C.C. Resolution”, 14-10-1939. 2 THE COLLECTED WORKS OF MAHATMA GANDHI come. There need be no dejection among Congressmen if it does not. We shall get our independence when it is deserved. But it would be well for the British Government and the Allied cause, if the minority argument were not flung in the face of a credulous world. It would be honest to say that the British desire to hold India yet awhile. There will be nothing wrong in such a desire. India is a conquest. Conquests are not surrendered except when the conquered successfully rebel, or under an awakened conscience the conqueror repents of the conquest, or when the conquered territory ceases to be a profitable concern. I had hoped and still hope that the British, having become war-weary and sickened over the mad slaughter involved in the present war, would want to close it at the earliest possible moment by being above board in every respect and therefore in respect of India. This they can never be, so long as they hold India in bondage. I know that many have been angry with me for claiming an exclusive right for the Congress to speak for the people of India as a whole. It is not an arrogant pretension. It is explicit in the first article of the Congress. It wants and works for independence for the whole of India. It speaks neither for majority nor minority. It seeks to represent all Indians without any distinction. Therefore those who oppose it should not count, if the claim for independence is admitted. Those who support the claim simply give added strength to the Congress claim. Britain has hitherto held India by producing before the world Indians who want Britain to remain in India as ruler and arbiter between rival claimants. These will always exist. The question is whether it is right for Britain to plead these rivalries in defence of holding India under subjection or whether she should now recognize the mistake and leave India to decide upon the method of her own government. And who are the minorities? They are religious, political and social: thus Mussalmans (religious), Depressed Classes (social), Liberals (political), Princes (social), Brahmins (social), non-Brahmins (social), Lingayats (social), Sikhs (social?), Christians—Protestants and Catholics (religious), Jains (Social?), Zamindars (political?). I have a letter from the Secretary of the All-India Shia Conference registering their claim for separate existence. Who are the majority in this medley? Unfortunately for unhappy India even Muslims are somewhat divided and so are the Christians. It is the policy of the VOL. 77 : 16 OCTOBER, 1939 - 22 FEBRUARY, 1940 3 British Government to recognize every group that becomes sufficiently vocal and troublesome. I have drawn no fanciful picture of the minorities. It is true to life. The Congress itself has been obliged to deal with every one of the groups I have mentioned. My list is not exhaustive. It is illustrative. It can be increased ad libitum. I know that the fashion is to talk of the Hindus forming the majority community. But Hinduism is an elastic, indefinable term, and Hindus are not a homogeneous whole like Muslims and Christians. And when one analyses the majority in any provincial legislature it will be found to consist of a combination of the so-called minorities. In other words and in reality so far as India is concerned, there can only be political parties and no majority or minority communities. The cry of the tyranny of the majority is a fictitious cry. I observe that Janab Jinnah Saheb has said, in reply1 to Rajen Babu’s letter2 offering to refer the League’s grievances against the Congress Governments to an arbitration tribunal, that he has already placed the whole case before the Viceroy and Governor-General and requested him to take up the matter without delay as he and the Governors of the Provinces have been expressly authorised under the Constitution and entrusted with the responsibility to protect the rights and the interests of the minorities. The matter is now under His Excellency’s consideration, and he is the proper authority to take such action and adopt such measures as would meet our requirements and would restore complete sense of security and satisfaction amongst the Mussalmans in those Provinces where the Congress Ministries are in charge of the administration. It is unfortunate that he had rejected Rajendra Babu’s reasonable proposal. Is it rejection of the proffered hand of friendship? Be that as it may, nobody can have anything to say against the Viceroy investigating and adjudicating upon the charges brought against Congress Ministries. Let us hope he will soon conduct the investigation. Whether the Muslims are regarded as minorities or otherwise, their as well as any other community’s rights and privileges, religious, social, cultural and political, must be regarded as a sacred trust to be jealously guarded.