Gandhi and Nehru: The co-architects of the freedom movement II

 

 

Gandhi and Nehru: The co-architects of the freedom movement II

The Congress at its Lucknow Session held in April 1936, under the Presidency of Jawaharlal Nehru, passed a resolution rejecting the Government of India Act, 1935, and demanded constitution of a Constituent Assembly to draft Constitution for India.  However, it decided to participate in the Elections due in 1937. Nehru emerged as a liberal secular socialist leader and an undisputed authority and spokesman of the Congress on world affairs, Gandhi calling him his guru on world affairs.  He had strong views on elevation of poverty and equal rights for women. The old guards in the Congress Working Committee (CWC)-traditional and conservative-were opposed to his line of thinking. In a calculated move, seven of them – Rajendra Prasad, C.Rajagopalachari, Vallabhbhai Patel, J.B.Kripalani, S.D.Dev, Jairamdas Doulatram and Jamnalal Bajaj- had revolted against him and resigned from the CWC, causing tremors in the Congress.

  In their letter to Nehru, June 29, 1936, they said:

"When you appointed us members of the Working Committee… in spite of known differences of opinion and outlooks, we hoped it would be possible to evolve…We have been trying our best to accommodate ourselves but unfortunately we find that has not been possible to secure an adjustment that can enable the two differing elements to work harmoniously… a common line of action...We feel that the preaching and emphasizing of socialism…by the President and other socialist members of the Working Committee while the Congress has not adopted it is prejudicial to the best interest of the country and to the success of the national struggle for freedom…It is not without much reluctance that we have decided to tender our resignation from the Working Committee.”

The Congress was heading for a split. Gandhi intervened and the resignation was withdrawn and the split was averted fortunately for India.

However, Rajendra Prasad in another letter July 1, marked ‘private’, made serious charges against Nehru:

“Since we are withdrawing the resignation you will permit us to make it clear in this private communication with a somewhat greater elaboration our feelings…Thee is a regular continuous campaign against us treating us as persons whose time is over, who represent and stand for ideas that are worn out and that have no present value, who are only obstructing the progress of the country and who deserve to be cast out of the position which they undeservedly hold… We think that your handling of the situation in the country is doing damage to the constructive programme which we consider to be an essential and vital part of the Congress programme. This naturally lessens the chances of Congress success at the next elections. “

Nehru in his letter July 5 to Gandhi conveyed how deeply hurt he was:

"I am grateful to you for all the trouble you took in smoothing over matters and in helping to avoid a crisis. I was convinced then and I am convinced now that a break of the kind suggested would have had serious consequences for all our work, including the elections…I read again Rajendra Babu's letter to me and his formidable indictment of me...That indictment...has nothing to do with any wider issue. The main thing is that my activities are harmful to the Congress cause… if there is any truth in this charge it must be faced. The matter is too serious to be glossed over…For however tenderly the fact may be stated, it amounts to this: that I am an intolerable nuisance and the very qualities I possess- a measure of ability, energy, earnestness, some personality which has a vague appeal- become dangerous for they are harnessed to a wrong chariot...The fact remains, and today there is no loyalty of the spirit which binds our group together. When I reached Bombay this time many people stared hard at me finding it difficult to believe how I had survived. It seems to be a common knowledge there (as reported in the Times of India) that a peaceful end awaited me- politically of course. All had been fixed up except the cremation… I was even told that my laying stress always on the poverty and unemployment in India was unwise… I am inclined to think that the right thing for us to do will be to put the matter briefly before the AICC at its next meeting and take its direction in the matter...So far as I am concerned there will be little argument…Presumably the result of this will be that I shall retire and a more homogeneous Committee will be formed.”

Nehru -a very sensitive person, finding his colleagues attempting to isolate him, was prepared to ‘retire’.  Gandhi in his letter July 8, tried to pacify him:

 “Why should you not allow your humor to play upon the meetings of the W.C.? Why should it be so difficult for you to get on with those with whom you have worked without a jar for years? If they are guilty of intolerance, you have more than your share of it. The country should not be made to suffer for your mutual intolerance.”  

In another letter Gandhi felt that his colleagues lacked frankness and courage of Nehru. What would have been the course of the freedom movement had Gandhi not stood by him at that critical juncture and Nehru  stepped down as the Congress President?

Nonetheless, India’s destiny seems to have been tied up with Nehru. He was elected as the Congress President for a second consecutive term in 1937. The Congress thought he was the right person to campaign for the party during the elections due in July. He traveled the length and breadth of the country and campaigned extensively, drawing huge crowds wherever he went. No other Congress leader could match his energy and mass appeal. Nehru’s idea of a socialist secular India was validated when the Congress swept the Provincial elections, forming the governments in eight out of eleven British Provinces, including the Madras Province where Rajagopalachari became the Prime Minister.

With the World War II nearing to end, all the nationalist leaders were released from jail in 1945. It was now evident that India would gain independence. Gandhi started thinking seriously about the shape of independent India. Having named Nehru as his political heir, he wanted to know his views on the fundamentals of governance.The following letters exchanged between them show how Gandhi reconciled with Nehru’s approach to issues plaguing the country.

This is how Gandhi expressed his concerns in his letter to Nehru, October 5, 1945:

"I have been desirous of writing to you for many days…The first thing I want to write about is the difference of outlook between us. If the difference is fundamental then I feel the public should also be made aware of it. It would be detrimental to our work for Swaraj to keep them in the dark. I still stand by the system of Government envisaged in Hind Swaraj…All the experience gained by me since 1908 when I wrote the booklet has confirmed the truth of my belief. I am convinced that if India is to attain true freedom and through India the world also, then sooner or later the fact must be recognized that people will have to live in villages, not in towns, in huts, not in palaces...I hold that without truth and non-violence there can be nothing but destruction for humanity… My ideal village will contain intelligent human beings. They will not live in dirt and darkness as animals. Men and women will be free and able to hold their own against anyone in the world. There will be neither plague, nor cholera nor small pox, no one will be idle, no one will wallow in luxury. I want our position vis a vis each other to be clearly understood by us for two reason. Firstly, the bond that unites us is not only political work. It is immeasurably deeper and quite unbreakable. Therefore, it is that I earnestly desire that in the political field also we should understand each other clearly. Secondly, neither of us thinks himself useless. We both live for the cause of India’s freedom and we would both gladly die for it. We are not in need of the world’s praise. Whether we get praise or blame is immaterial to us... I have named you as my heir. I must however understand my heir and my heir should understand me. Then alone shall I be content.”

Nehru in his letter October 9 to Mahatma was equally forthright in placing his views:

“… the question before us is not one of truth versus untruth or non-violence versus violence…I do not understand why a village should necessarily embody truth and non-violence. A village, normally speaking, is backward intellectually and culturally and no progress can be made from a backward environment. Narrow-minded people are much more likely to be untruthful and violent…we have to put down certain objectives like a sufficiency of food, clothing, housing, education, sanitation etc. which should be the minimum requirements for the country and for everyone…If that is so inevitably a measure of heavy industry exists … I do not think it is possible for India to be really independent unless she is a technically advanced country...In the preset context of the world we cannot even advance culturally without a strong background of scientific research in every department...It is 38 years since Hind Swaraj was written.  The world has completely changed since then, possibly in a wrong direction. In any event any consideration of these questions must keep present facts, forces and the human material we have today in view, otherwise it will be divorced from reality. You are right in saying that the world… appears to be bent on committing suicide. That may be an inevitable development of an evil seed in civilization that has grown…How to get rid of this evil, and yet how to keep the good in the present as in the past is our problem.”

Nehru subsequently met Gandhi and they discussed the issues thread bear. They were satisfied with the outcome. And Gandhi was convinced that Independent India would be safe in the hands of his political heir. He wrote to Nehru on November 13, indicating a common meeting ground between the co-architects of the freedom movement.

“Our talk of yesterday’s made me glad …I put down below the gist of what I have understood: The real question, according to you, is how to bring about man’s highest intellectual, economic, political and moral development. I agree entirely. In this there should be an equal right and opportunity for all… there should be equality between the town dwellers and the villagers in the standard of food and drink, clothing and other living condition…Man is not born to live in isolation but is essentially a social animal independent and interdependent. No one can or should ride on another's back.”

The correspondence between Nehru and Gandhi offers lessons in statecraft, revealing the fundamental principles of governance, ensuring a just social order. No one could have conceived ‘the idea of India’ so succinctly than these two great men, deeply rooted in Indian tradition and culture, raising moral edifice.