GANDHI AND GANDHISM

PROF. SUDHANSU BIMAL MOOKHERJI

An explanation is necessary. There is nothing that may be called GandHism. ‘Isms’ are always dogmatic, fanatical, intolerant, narrow in outlook and one-sided. But Gandhi had a broad and open mind. He on the one hand and dogmatism, fanaticism, intolerance, narrowness and one-sidedness on the other were as far apart as the poles. Gandhi is on record as having said that he would leave no sect behind him, that he aspired after something much greater and nobler. He was not to have any successor. But then how was his work to be carried on after his death? He answered the question himself: “After I am gone, no single person will be able to take my place completely, but a part of me will live in every one of you (his close associates and staunch followers to whom he was talking). If each will place the cause first and himself last, the vacuum to a large extent will be filled.” We use the word Gandhism in the absence of a better expression.

Great men differ from others in that they alone add their “bundles to the granary of human spirit” and say their words in civilization. They make an impact on their contemporaries as well as on the posterity. The golden harvest of their lives becomes the common heritage of humanity in general and enriches its life. They leave behind them “footprints on the sand of time” for others to follow.

So have the Buddha and Christ done. Centuries after their death, their influence is still traceable on the life and thought of millions in the East and the West. They have made the life of man richer, nobler, purer and better. Much of their teachings, it must be borne in mind at the same time, has been misunderstood, misinterpreted and distorted by those for whom they are meant.

Whether we admit it or not, the life and teachings of Gandhi, the Great Contemporary (October 2, 1869–January 30, 1948), have acted as a leaven on our lives and we in India have been “raised out of dust by the Mahatma (Gandhi) and made into men.”¹ Gandhi’s was a fearless, life-long quest for Truth by non-violent means. Fearlessness, indeed, plays so large a part in Gandhi’s scheme that some hold it to be his “greatest contribution to Indian life.”² Gandhi wanted his countrymen to be fearless so that they might break the shackles of centuries-old political thraldom, economic exploitation and social tyranny and injustice. His insistence on fearlessness sowed the seeds of what is perhaps the most formidable revolution of our age–the Revolution of Rising Expectations, which is shaping today the attitudes and aspirations of billions of people of the developing countries of the world. Three Revolutions in one, it seeks to emancipate countless millions hold down in slavery or near-slavery from alien political and economic tutelage and domination, to attain a full measure of human dignity irrespective of race, religion and colour and to pave the path of broadly shared economic opportunities.³

To an overwhelming majority of his Indian and foreign admirers Gandhi is, however, known as the apostle of non-violence par excellence, the greatest the world has seen since the days of Jesus Nazareth. As an exponent of Truth and non-violence Gandhi has no peer, far less a superior in modern history. The quest for the twin ideal was to be carried on with the help of the constructive programme chalked out by him. The programme includes “Swadesi” or the use of indigenous goods, physical labour which may be compared with the bread-labour of Tolstoy, spinning and weaving work for communal unity, the removal of untouchability and the revival of cottage industries, among others and the resuscitation thereby of the seven hundred thousand villages of (undivided) India. Gandhi’s admirers also know him as the inventor of Satyagraha and also as the man who perfected it. Satyagraha generally means the application of the principles of truth and non-violence on a mass scale for the realisation of specific objectives–social, political and economic. It may also be individual, however. Satyagraha became a matchless weapon in the hand of Gandhi. Satyagraha and constructive programme cannot be isolated from each other. One is the struggle, the other the preparation for it. The latter gives the necessary training to the non-violent army of Satyagrahis-to-be.

A champion of truth and non-violence that Gandhi was, he did not invent either. Nor does he claim to have done so. He declared in unambiguous terms that truth and non-violence are “as old as the hills.” He used to say, “I have not discovered any new principle or Philosophy. All that can be claimed with all humility I have tried to discover a practical way or path of translating the ancient and eternal verities–as firm and unshakable as the Himalayas–into action and in our daily existence.”⁴ Millennia before Gandhi, the Buddha of Kapilavastu, India, and Jesus, the Prince of Peace of Nazareth, among them had propagated love, amity and non-violence. Gandhi’s originality lies in that he is so far perhaps the only man in history, who made them not only a part of his own life, but sought to make them a part of the life of humanity at large. His was the ideal of complete non-violence-non-violence in action, thought and speech (Kaayena, manasaa, vaachaa.)

Non-violence and Satyagraha have been the prime factors in the liberation of India. They were not the only factors, however important in the national context, they are no less so in the international. They have fired the imagination of millions in other lands. It is perhaps through truth, Satyagraha and non-violence and through them alone that humanity can escape the annihilation that stares it in the face today.

We stand on the brink of the abyss. Two major blood-lettings–World Wars I and II–in one generation notwithstanding, nations and governments seem to be thirsting for more blood. They seem to be itching for more blood-baths. Super-Powers with their stockpiles of lethal nuclear weapons seem to be eager for a showdown. It is all touch and go. The world has known no peace since curtains were rung down on World War II more than a quarter of a century ago in early 1945. Hardly a year has passed since then without a war or wars. They have all been local and minor wars no doubt. But none can guarantee that a minor, local war will not develop into a major international conflagration. The war, in Vietnam has already engulfed Laos and Cambodia. The U. S. A. has long been deeply involved. China and the U.S.S.R. may be so before long. A war in which the three Super-Powers-the U.S.A., the U.S.S.R. and China–fight on opposite sides is sure to be fought with nuclear weapons and a nuclear war will mean the annihilation of our species and the possible disintegration of our planet itself. War has plagued humanity from the beginning of history. Inter-clan, inter-tribal, inter-class and inter-state suspicions, jealousies and rivalries have again and again led to conflicts, but they have all failed to solve the outstanding problems among the rivals and to create lasting friendship among them. These earlier wars were nothing but child’s plays in comparison with modern wars, which cause far more sufferings and far greater loss of life, limb and property and create more numerous and complicated problems than their earlier versions. Thus all the problems created by World War II, which ended more than a quarter of a century ago, still cry for solution. The problems created by wars, particularly modern wars, far out-number those solved by them. Some alternative to war has, therefore, to be thought of and it is against this background that a serious thought may be given to non-violence as conceived by Gandhi, and to Satyagraha, the weapon of the non-violent struggle devised by him.

Human good can be achieved through healthy thought, through healthy plans and programmes and through giving shape to these plans and programmes with patience, sacrifice, sincerity, love and labour. Fear must not unnerve us. Human emancipation cannot be achieved by fear, hatred, suspicion and frustration. They bring ruin.

The organization of the League of Nations, the United Nations, the meetings of the U.S.A. Ambassador with his Chinese counterpart at Warsaw, the Paris Conference for peace in Vietnam, the Sino-Soviet conferences for the solution of the border dispute between Red China and the U.S.S.R., the West German Chancellor Willy Brandt’s visit to his East German opposite number Willy Stoffe on March 17, 1970 and various other recent international conferences reflect a realization, however dim, that problems can better be solved round conference tables than on battlefields, through peace than through violence.

Violence leads one into a vicious circle. It leads to violence and a desire for revenge, which in their turn lead to still more violence and a still stronger desire for revenge. Violence thus leads one into blind alley or a whirlpool as it were and there is no getting out of either. Centuries-old blood feuds in the tribal areas of the Pak-Afghan borders and Sicily, for example, have not established inter-family and inter-tribal peace in these areas. Violence, in fact, starts a chain reaction, which harms its authors as well as its victims. That explains why Martin Luther King (Jr.) said that annihilation is the only alternative to non-violence. If we follow King Hammurabi’s savage and heartless injunction of ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’, we shall all be eyeless and toothless in the end. Not a very heartening prospect perhaps.

Non-violence and Satyagraha, applied in the right way and right spirit, will go a long way in curing many of the maladies, including wars, that afflict humanity today. But non-violence, to be fruitful, must be the non-violence of the brave, free from anger, hatred and malice. The brave alone can be truly non-violent. Non-violence is not a cover for cowardice for them. Gandhi realized this truth and it is why he prescribed violence “where there is only a choice between cowardice and non-violence.”

He declared, “I would rather see India freed by violence than enchained like a slave to her foreign oppressors.”⁵ It is thus evident that Gandhi was not a pacifist. He did never want non-violence to degenerate into impotent cowardice. A successful application of non-violence pre-supposes at least some sparks of humanity in the adversary, one who has a conscience to appeal to. But there is no guarantee that a soldier of non-violence will have such an adversary or adversaries in all cases. What is he to do when those whose hearts he seeks to change by soul-force are completely dehumanized? Non-violence has no doubt achieved a fair measure of success against the British Government in India and the U. S. A. Government. But it must be remembered that shortcomings notwithstanding, the British and the Americans are on the whole civilized peoples. But what would be the fate of non-violent non-co-operation against a totalitarian or military dictatorship, which does not tolerate disobedience or opposition in any shape or form. “Hundred flowers” are not allowed to “blossom” under them. A non-violent struggle could not, therefore, be any more successful in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy than it can be in the U.S.S.R., People’s China, Fidel Castro’s Cuba and against the military junta at Islamabad. Should the men of non-violence in these countries submit meekly to their tormentors whose hearts, if they have any, they (the men of non-violence) cannot melt? Gandhi says “No”. He contends that God has given a marvellous weapon to everyone of us and an undoubtedly formidable weapon it is. When all peaceful means to stop unjust deeds fail, we can at least say ‘no’ to them. If necessary, a man of non-violence should be prepared to lay down his life for the vindication of his faith. In extreme cases where there is no choice between violence and cowardice, Gandhi asserts that the one is preferable to the other. The apparent contradiction between the Mahatma’s profession and practice can be explained when this is borne in mind. The war of liberation raging in Bangladesh, which began as non-violent non-co-operation against Yahyashahi has assumed its present form when the Yahya regime sought to crush it by unleashing a reign of terror in Bangladesh that was East Pakistan till the other day. The non-violent non-co-operators there have retaliated by unfurling the banner of revolution. We have no doubt whatever that if Gandhiji were alive today, the freedom fighters of Bangladesh would have had his blessings. “Gandhi’s campaigns in South Africa, in Champaran, in Kheda, in Bardoli...This three-fold energy is expressed in the word Satyagraha.” ⁶

That Satyagraha was not mere passive resistance to Gandhi is also proved by his letter to a Swiss Pacifist friend Madame Edward Privat–“Europe mistook the bold resistance, full of wisdom, by Jesus of Nazareth for passive resistance, as if it was of the weak. Has not the West paid heavily in regarding Jesus as a Passive Resister? Christendom has been responsible for the wars which put to shame even those described in the Old Testament and other records, historical or semi-historical.” ⁷

(Twenty-five years earlier Gandhi had called Christ the “Prince of Passive Resisters.”⁸ This only shows the evolution of Gandhi’s thought on Satyagraha and how he grew from Truth to Truth.)

That Gandhi was no more Pacifist is further proved by the following episode. It was mid-1947. The Mountbatten formula for the partition of India had been published (June 3, 1947). The idea, first said to Sardar Patel, had been told to Nehru and others of the Congress High Command subsequently. Some of the Congress stalwarts, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad among them, however, refused to swallow the dangerous pill. Patel and others tried to win over Gandhi. They argued that if the formula was rejected and a fresh civil disobedience movement launched to win freedom for undivided India, the Muslim league might start Hindu-Muslim riots all over the country. Gandhi rejoined–“Issa dar gaye? Kitne log mare gaye hain–ek lakh, do lakh? Hindustan ki azadi keliye do, char, das lakha nahi marenge, aur azadi aa jayengi?” “Are you frightened by this prospect? How many have died so far–one lakh, two lakhs? Do you think that India will be free before two, four or even ten lakhs have died for freedom?” ⁹

It may further be recalled that almost the last political act of Gandhi’s life was his approval of the Indian army’s intervention in Kashmir in 1947.

Not a few today believe that non-violence, Satyagraha and the constructive programme may be profitably given a trial for the solution of the social, political and economic problems of our age, that they (non-violence, Satyagraha and the constructive programme) alone can save the world from the horrors of a nuclear war the shadow of which lengthens every day. But they must be rightly understood and like all weapons, properly used at the right moment. The mind and heart of the Satyagrahi must be free from all traces of ill-will for his adversary. There should be love and compassion for all–friends and foes–alike. The adversary should be convinced, not coerced. Constructive workers on their part must work in a spirit of detachment. They must not run after the limelight or publicity. Nor should they expect any material advantage from their work.

The ‘gheraos’, the ‘bundhs’, the sit-ins (and the ‘dharnas’ which are their Indian version), the hunger-strikes, mass deputations, which all owe their inspiration directly or indirectly to Gandh in one way or another and which have become almost a chronic feature, of the political, economic and educational life of contemporary India in general and or West Bengal in particular seldom achieve their objects. More often than not they result in much avoidable loss of life and limb, valuable property and man-hours of work: Far from drawing the adversaries closer, they drive them farther apart because the hearts and minds of those who have recourse to the above method’s are full of hatred, malice and violence, which have no place in the Satyagraha as conceived by Gandhi. These pseudo-Satyagrahis want to demoralise their adversaries by intimidation and what is worse by physical and mental torture. Thus a ‘gheraoed’ University Vice-Chancellor is denied food and drink, a ‘gheraoed’ College Principal is denied the use of the toilet or forced to write a letter of resignation under pressure, a ‘gheraoed’ business executive is kept standing in the blazing sun bare-headed and bare footed for long hours. Full-throated shouting of indecorous slogans in chorus all the while plays havoc with the victim’s nerves. These are, in fact, the travesty of Satyagraha.

The constructive programme, which was to make the people self-reliant and usher in an era of peace, happiness and caste and communal harmony have failed to achieve the desired result. The fault is not of the programme but of those in charge of implementing it. The people who were to be taught to stand on their own legs are today more dependent than ever on external help. The Government to which they look for help is almost as callous as and more corrupt and less efficient than their predecessor. A plethora of “All India Boards” have mushroomed for the ostensible purpose of the development of all sorts of cottage and small industries and none shows a sign of healthy development and almost all are running at a loss. Khadi and the Gandhi cap, which were “the livery of national service” during the days of India’s struggle for freedom have become positively unpopular and the use of them often invites opprobrious comments. The khadi industry is in its last gasps. Now and then we hear of “Sutra yagnas” (ceremonial mass spinning). But they leave no impression behind and the reason is not far to seek. The form is there, the animating spirit is not. The constructive programme, Satyagraha and non-violence are like ‘mantras’ (sacred formulae). To be effective, they must have life breathed into then by sincere ‘sadhana’ (earnest endeavour) and constant practice. They will remain meaningless jargons otherwise.

We in India are familiar with Gandhi in a twin role. For one thing, he gave unmistakable proofs of his consummate abilities as a fighter and organizer and as a leader of men during India’s struggle for freedom. He declared that what he aimed at was the spiritualization of politics. The wise lifted their eyebrows, but Gandhi did what he said. He almost succeeded in spiritualizing the Indian politics of his time and became a saint among statesmen and a statesman among saints in a very real sense. ¹⁰ For millions Indian politics came to mean “nothing but sacrifice, suffering and service.” This is not to forget how towards the end of Gandhi’s life and during the partition of India, our politics fell again into the dust and became utterly degraded. Gandhi died a martyr as he strove with all his might to redeem Indian politics once again.” ¹¹ For another, Gandhi was a seeker of Truth through non-violence. He wanted to train the rank and file of Congress workers for the pursuit of the ideal of non-violence. He worked assiduously for the achievement of his objective by following the path chalked out by him.

The weapon of Satyagraha was first applied in history on a large scale by Gandhi. Applied first in South Africa for the redress of the grievances of Indian settlers in that country and then in India on a much larger scale as it was, it was an object-lesson to the rest of the world and was meant for it as well. Satyagraha was evolved in South Africa in the opening years of the present century. As the late J. H. Hofmeyr, the well-known South African leader, points out: “Often there is justice in the working of history, India, though not of its own volition, has given South Africa one of its most difficult problems (the problem of Indian settlers). South Africa in its turn, likewise not of its own volition, gave to India the ideas of civil disobedience.” ¹² Devised in South Africa, the technique was perfected and first applied there. The experiment as successful and generated new forces. It taught the tortured and tormented Indian settlers in South Africa to walk with their heads erect and their chests out. Satyagraha was applied in the political struggle of India with results known to the whole world. What is more its repercussions crossed the geographical frontiers of India and roused the hopes of the downtrodden, disinherited humanity all over the world.

We in India have moved away from the path shown by the Father of the Nation. It has become fashionable to belittle his contribution to the nation and to the world, to detract and disown him. The more sophisticated openly declare–perhaps with pride–that have no “appetite” for Gandhi. “Intellectuals” pooh-pooh his ideas and ideology. But the fire lighted by Gandhi has not died out. The leaven is Working in India and abroad. Acharya Vinoba Bhave is carrying on in India the experiment with Truth in the forms of ‘Bhoodan’ (Land-gift), ‘Gramadan’ (Village-gift) and ‘Yajnas’ (sacrifices). The Czechs tried Satyagraha against the armed might of the U. S. S. R. when the latter launched a massive aggression against Czechoslovakia in 1968 to snuff out the flickers of liberalism there. Satyagraha in the United States under the leadership of the late Martin Luther King (Jr.) has already paid dividends and done good to the eighteen million oppressed American Negroes and their white oppressors.

Gandhi told an Indian delegation from South Africa in the late forties: “One day the black races will rise like the avenging Atilla against their white oppressors unless someone presents to them the weapon of Satyagraha...It will be good if you can fire them with the spirit of non-violence. You will be their saviours. But if you allow yourselves to be overwhelmed and swept off your feet, it will be their and your ruin.”¹³ Martin Luther King took the cue from what Gandhi had said years ago. America’s Negro Civil Rights movement under his leadership “meant militant action, civil disobedience, sit-ins, and the heroic acceptance of physical suffering, hatred, loss and martyrdom.” ¹⁴

Three Graves for Mississipi by William Bradford Huei describes graphically how far some of the American Civil Rights workers had to go and went willingly in their zeal to convert their white rulers and to elicit a response from them. It was clearly proved that non-violent direct action “can maintain a revolutionary spirit, a pure intent, without weakening or compromising. It need not get blunted like, for example, Parliamentary Socialism. Hence Dr. King’s murder.” ¹⁵

The Civil Rights movement has two solid achievements to its credit so far. The props of the colour bar in the United States have been shaken by it. Thus ten years ago, Cleveland could not think of a coloured Mayor. But it has actually a Negro as its Mayor today. The pigmentation of a Mayor’s skin, however, does not mean much. But a black man in Cleveland’s Mayoral chair, a monopoly of the whites so long, is certainly significant. It shows the weakening of the colour prejudice for the removal of which American Negroes suffered and sacrificed.

American Negroes had to put up with injustice, inequality and indignities in the Montgomery buses. Schools and universities in the south would not admit Negro students. But much of these is a memory of the past today. Civil Rights measures placed on the statute book by the Federal legislature has done away with much of the anti-Negro discrimination. Middle class Negroes have started moving up the social ladder. These changes, however, do not represent even the beginning of a social revolution. But they certainly reflect “a certain shifting of attitudes, a certain success in putting issues on the map which were once off it.” ¹⁸ The non-violent Negro Civil Rights Movement has further given rise to Black Power with different methods and objectives, which were beyond the ken of Dr. King. But his non-violent Civil Rights Movement was the pre-condition of Black Power, which has brought about a Negro awakening and which could not have probably come in any other way.

The Gandhian doctrine of non-violent Satyagraha is today bearing fruits in other fields as well. Many of the American soldiers in Vietnam seem to be convinced of its soundness and suitability as an alternative to war. A law signed by Mr. Francis Sargent, the Governor of Massachussets, on April 1, 1970 allows members of the American armed forces to refuse to fight in Vietnam. ¹⁷ We hear of people elsewhere to have veered to the economic doctrines of Gandhi as an alternative to capitalism and industrialism. They have discarded the large-scale industry-based capitalistic way of life and are trying to attain self-sufficiency in the Gandhian way.

The world suffers from a war psychosis today. War is sought justified on various grounds. One of the arguments in favour of war is that war provides employment to thousands of unemployed whose numbers can be counted in thousands and millions in every country. Another argument, a very heartless argument no doubt, in support of war is that one of the three safety-valves of nature, famine and epidemic being the other two, it helps to keep down population. Not a few actually believe that to sacrifice the lives of some for the safety and well-being of many is just undesirable. These arguments, however, do not stand scrutiny. Besides, their exponents lose sight of the patent historical truth that violence has long been tried to solve the problems of humanity. But the problems are where they were. If anything, violence has added to their solution more difficult than ever. Under the circumstances what is the harm if non-violence is given a trial? If it succeeds, so far so good. If not, we do not stand to lose anything new.

Strangely enough, war mongers and “death merchants” (manufacturers of arms and ammunition) too occasionally loose their purse-strings for the propagation of Gandhian doctrines. The Pentagon itself encourages and finances Gandhian studies in the American Universities. The Government of India too is in the same boat and tries to juxtapose the machine-gun and the spinning wheel. It spends money on the Gandhi centenary celebrations as well as on the defence preparations of the country. Such inconsistency is, to say the least stultifying. The man in the street is confused and does not know what to do.

All countries of the world–large and small–are building up their armed strength on the pretext of defence against enemies ignoring the fact that the possession of arms itself is one of the most potent causes of militancy. They are thus actually sowing the seeds of violence and laying the trap for the destruction of man and his civilization. What they regard as a measure of self-defence is suicidal and will boomerang on them in the long run.

The evils of both violence and of the mastery of machine over man were visualized by Gandhi more than half a century ago. He raised his voice against both. He prescribed Satyagraha and constructive programme to counteract the evils of violence as well as machines. But his was a voice in the wilderness and we see the results today. We see before our very eyes how machine has dehumanized man, how it has made men brutes without brains in many cases. Gandhi was no obscurantist, however. He was not against machines as such. What he wanted was that the machine must be harnessed to the service of man. Man must be in the centre of the picture and everything must revolve round man and his welfare. He sincerely believed that machines can be truly useful to man and helpful to his evolution.

Gandhi modernised non-violence to meet the modern situation. We stand at the cross-roads of history today and non-violence and Satyagraha alone can show us the right path. That way lies salvation. Truth and non-violence must be made a part of our very being in our own interest. Routine spinning, wearing of khadi and shouting pro-Gandhi slogans will not help.

It is an irony of fate that we have dropped the pilot after the ship has been brought to the port, i.e., after the country has been liberated. Outlandish leaders–they are great in their own ways no doubt–and their heartless ideologies which go against the very grains of our own culture and tradition, have pushed Gandhi out of our minds. We have all but forgotten him. Like Christ and the Buddha, Gandhi is about to be forgotten in the land of his birth, the land which he has liberated from political bondage and for which he lived, worked, suffered and died. His own people have disowned him. “The manner of his death, On January 30, 1948,” writes a biographer, “was in keeping with his life. Greater love hath no man than this that he lays down his life for his people, and he did so in harness, unto the last.” ¹⁸

History, it must be remembered, has a Nemesis for every sin. It was Plato perhaps who said that the man who brings the traditions of his own nation in contempt is the “deepest of criminals” and that he “deserves death and nothing else.”

Marxism is more popular and fashionable today than the teachings of Gandhi and the reasons are not far to seek. Marxist workers are close to the people and outwardly at least share their hopes and fears and their joys and sorrows. They supply ready-made solutions of the problems of the masses and promise quick results. They stir up envy, anger and hatred of the masses against those whom they label as class-enemies. They prescribe the liquidation of the class-enemies as the panacea of all the sufferings of the masses and get quick response in consequence. They sing hymns of hatred against their opponents and breathe fire and brimstone against them. Gandhian workers by and large have moved away from the people on the other hand and are in most cases out of such with them. Besides, appeal to the nobler instincts of man, to his moderation and sense of justice, cannot elicit as quick a response as that to his baser, primeval instincts, viz., fear, ire, jealousy and the like.

Active, sincere participation in the Gandhian constructive programme, and adherence to truth and non-violence are the essential pre-conditions of the realization of Gandhi’s dream, which is necessary for our very survival. Insincere or half-hearted lip-service, dependence on extraneous aid won’t help. Gandhi and all that he stood for must not be confined to khadi, the Gandhi cap, the spinning wheel and cheap slogans like ‘Gandhi ki jai’ and ‘Bapuji amar rahe’. The spirit behind Gandhi’s words must be imbibed and made a reality in our lives.

¹ D. F. Karaka–Out of Dust, p. 192.

² Hiren Mookherjee–Ghundhiji: A Study, p. 19.

³ Chester Bowles–Africa’s Challenge to America. p. 41.

⁴ M. P. Desai–“Gandhi’s Way of Life” (Article in Quest for Gandhi. Published by Gandhi Peace Foundation, New Delhi. pp. 6.7-68).

⁵ Romain Rolland–Mahatma Gandhi (Quoted)

⁶ Romain Rolland–Mahatma Gandhi (Quoted)

⁷ Harijan, December 7, 1947, p. 543.

⁸ Young India, August 4, 1922.

⁹ N. K. Bose and P. S. Patwardhan, Gandhi in Indian Politics, p. 52. (Quoted)

¹⁰ R. G. Casey. An Australian in India, p. 61.

¹¹ Quest For Gandhi (Published by Gandhi Peace Foundation)

¹² S. B. Mookherji -India Minority in South Africa, p. 45.

¹³ Pyarelal-Mathama Gandhi-The Last Phase, Vol. 1. p. 247.

¹⁴ Geoffrey Ashe-Can Non-violence Change Society?–Article in Quest For Gandhi (Published by Gandhi Peace Foundation) p. 1.

¹⁵ Ibid pp. 1-2.

¹⁶ Geofery Ashe–Can Non-violence Change Society?–Article in Quest For Gandhi (Published by Gandhi Peace Foundation), p 1.

¹⁷ The Statesman, Calcutta, 4-4- 70.

¹⁸ Hiren Mookherjee op. cit. p. 184.

Back