Hindu-Muslim Unity and Its Demise
The idea of Hindu-Muslim unity, which Gandhiji had espoused when he entered Indian politics, met its tragic end with the creation of Pakistan. The Muslim League had been opposed to recognizing India as a united nation. Time and again, they made it clear that they did not consider themselves Indian, and this division intensified after the establishment of Pakistan. Gandhiji's concept of Hindu-Muslim unity was based on both communities participating together in the freedom struggle. The Hindus adhered to his vision, but the Muslims consistently rejected it, ultimately resulting in the painful partition of the country.
The Relationship Between Gandhiji and Mr. Jinnah
A crucial aspect of the political landscape during the freedom struggle was the evolving relationship between Gandhiji and Mr. Jinnah. Once an ardent nationalist, Jinnah became a vocal proponent of Muslim separatism after 1920. He emphasized that the Muslim community's interests were different from the national struggle led by Congress. He openly advocated for the creation of Pakistan and made no secret of his position. Jinnah's principles were clear and consistent. On the other hand, Gandhiji, despite his repeated attempts to reach out to Jinnah, was met with firm resistance. Gandhiji even offered Jinnah the premiership of India, but Jinnah showed no inclination to cooperate. This steadfastness from Jinnah left Gandhiji's spiritual power and his doctrine of non-violence ineffective in resolving the issue.
Gandhiji's Political Inconsistencies
Despite seeing that his spiritual methods were ineffective with Jinnah, Gandhiji did not adjust his political stance. He could have changed his approach or stepped aside to allow others with differing views to handle the situation with the Muslim League. However, Gandhiji's inability to let go of his political ego meant that he continued to push a failed policy, leading to a series of blunders. His pride and reluctance to admit defeat only worsened the situation.
The Noakhali Massacre and Its Impact
The Noakhali massacre of 1946 had a profound impact on the relationship between Hindus and Muslims. For nearly a year, the country was engulfed in bloodshed as Muslims carried out violent attacks on Hindus, especially in the East Punjab, Bihar, and Delhi. Hindus, in retaliation, targeted Muslims, though these attacks were often acts of self-defense. Despite knowing that the violence was a response to Muslim aggression, Gandhiji's focus remained on condemning the reactions of Hindus alone. He ignored the underlying causes of the violence, namely the atrocities committed by Muslims. The Congress government even considered bombarding Hindus in Bihar to suppress their reactions, reflecting the one-sided nature of the response to the crisis.
Gandhiji, however, maintained his call for Hindus to remain non-violent, even when their own lives and dignity were at risk. He continued to preach patience and forgiveness, advocating for Hindus to face death bravely, without anger. His words during this period reflect his unwavering belief in non-violence, despite the overwhelming provocation. In his speeches on April 6, 1947, and September 23, 1947, Gandhiji urged Hindus to accept death with a smile on their lips, calling it a new beginning for India.
The Reaction of Hindus and the Need for Retaliation
Gandhiji's teachings overlooked the natural human response to violence—retaliation. Hindus, witnessing the massacres of their fellow community members in Pakistan, understandably reacted. The retaliatory violence in places like Bihar was not an unwarranted act of aggression but a deeply emotional response to the horrors they were witnessing. Gandhiji's insistence on condemning Hindu retaliation without addressing the root cause of their anger was a grave oversight. The retaliatory actions were driven by a deep sense of grief and helplessness as Hindus saw their brothers and sisters massacred without protection from the government.
This emotional and human response was not unnatural. It mirrored the reaction that often sparks great revolutions throughout history. Revolts and resistance movements, as seen in ancient texts like the Ramayana and Mahabharata, often grew out of retaliation against injustice. The same spirit of retaliation emerged in response to the atrocities being committed in the name of religious hatred.
Gandhiji and the Second World War
Gandhiji's position during the Second World War was marked by inconsistency. Initially, he declared that India should not support the war, as it involved violence. However, his Congress colleagues, including wealthy business figures like Birla, Dalmia, and Walchand Hirachand, profited immensely from war contracts. Gandhiji did not oppose their participation in the war effort, nor did he prevent Congress members from benefitting financially. Even more surprising, after his release from jail in 1944, Gandhiji supported the government's proposal to assist the British war effort against Japan. This was a clear contradiction of his stance against violence, revealing the political compromises that were taking place.
The Kashmir Conflict and Gandhiji's Response
The Kashmir conflict presented another challenge to Gandhiji's ideology of non-violence. When Pakistan's raiders invaded Kashmir in 1947, the Maharaja of Kashmir sought military help from India. Nehru, consulting Gandhiji, received approval to send troops to Kashmir for its defense. This was a direct contradiction to Gandhiji's repeated assertions against war. If Gandhiji truly believed in non-violence, he could have proposed sending Satyagrahis instead of military forces. However, he did not.
By consenting to the military intervention in Kashmir, Gandhiji compromised his principles. His refusal to apply non-violence in such a crucial situation raises questions about the sincerity of his beliefs in non-violence. The war in Kashmir, fought with guns and soldiers, marked the beginning of a new conflict under the newly independent India, contradicting Gandhiji's doctrine of peace.
Congress, the Hindu Mahasabha, and the Muslim League
Gandhiji's political policies towards the Muslim League and the Hindu Mahasabha were deeply problematic. The Congress Party, under his leadership, consistently appeased the Muslim League, conceding to their demands, even while failing to represent Hindu interests. The Congress, instead of recognizing the Hindu Mahasabha as the legitimate representative of Hindus, chose to belittle it and label it as a "communal" organization. Meanwhile, the Congress made multiple concessions to the Muslim League, even accepting the principle of 50% Muslim representation in the government.
The lack of representation for Hindus in the post-independence political structure was a significant issue. The Congress never openly recognized that it should represent the interests of Hindus, leaving the Hindu Mahasabha to fill that role. The Congress's appeasement of the Muslim League while ignoring the Hindu community's concerns laid the foundation for the later divisions in the country.
The Tragedy of Partition and Its Aftermath
The creation of Pakistan was a bitter blow to Gandhiji's ideal of a united India. His vision of a free and united nation was shattered by the partition, which not only divided the country but also led to the displacement and deaths of millions. The sacrifices made by countless freedom fighters, many of whom had envisioned a united India, seemed in vain as the country was torn apart along religious lines.
Despite this, Congress, under Gandhiji's leadership, celebrated the establishment of independence in India while also acknowledging the painful reality of partition. Gandhiji's inability to prevent or even reconcile with the creation of Pakistan signaled the failure of his idealism. The vision of a united India, where communities could live in harmony, was destroyed by the harsh reality of religious division.
Conclusion: The Cost of Idealism
The partition of India and the subsequent violence between Hindus and Muslims led to the loss of many lives and deepened the wounds of the nation. Gandhiji's failure to adapt to the evolving political landscape and his inconsistency in applying his principles of non-violence played a significant role in these events. His idealism, though noble, proved ineffective in the face of the political realities and the growing communal divide.
Gandhiji's efforts to promote Hindu-Muslim unity ultimately fell short, and his refusal to adjust his policies to the changing times contributed to the partition of India. The country was left to grapple with the aftermath of these decisions, facing a fractured identity and the deep scars of religious division.