A STUDY OF MR. GANDHI
By WILLIAM PATON* Many of those who discuss Mr. Gandhi, whether as friends or foes, make the mistake of over-simplifying him. He cannot be subsumed under any one category ; he is not just George Fox, or George Washington, or St. Francis of Assisi, nor is he adequately described as a disloyal agitator. People who know him much better than I have had the privilege of doing might add other items to the list, but I should venture to suggest, as main ingredients in the mixture, personal goodness, keen nationalism, a deeply Hindu understanding of man and the world, dietetic faddiness, a passion for social reform, and an extremely astute political sense, all com- bined with a fundamental distaste for the routine business of carrying on government from day to day.
It is perhaps this 'inability of his to fit into any accepted cate- gories that has caused a good many British people who do not know him well to underrate his power, which has been much greater for a long time than that of anybody else in India. I have been told at intervals ever since about 1922 by persons of standing that " Gandhi was a spent force." The truth has always been that no Indian public man has had anything like his influence ; C. R. Das had more in Bengal, the Mahratta Brahmins had reservations about him, the younger intelligentsia perhaps find in Jawaharlal Nehru a more congenial idol (though Nehru never wavered in his loyalty and affection for Gandhi), but with the mass of the people it is Gandhi first and the rest nowhere. I got something of the feel of this on my first visit to him, just after his operation and release from prison in 1922 ; the interview, I was dismayed to find, was to be carried on in the presence of a mass of persons seated all round us on the ground, but it did not matter, for all they wanted was to be able to sit and look at the Mahatma. You could see the same thing when -his train stopped at a station. With all his subtlety and political finesse, he knew how to appeal to the ordinary villager as no other man in political India did.
Of his personal goodness (I prefer to use that term rather than the overworked " saint ") no one could have any doubt, even when his political actions were somewhat dubious. I think of two evidences of it. One was that, at least in my small experience of him, both women and children found him always simple, approach- able and charming. The other was the quality of the young men immediately around him. They might have some odd political notions, but when contrasted with the usual run of politicians in India (or indeed in many other countries) they were remarkable for a certain mqtal keenness and austerity. One could not but feel that a moral force of considerable quality had shaped them. In writing this I do not forget that Mr. Gandhi can be absolutely ruthless when roused, as when he smashed Subhas Chandra Bose a few years ago, although Bose had been elected President of the Indian National Congress.
His social ideas are partly conservative and partly revolutionary. On the one hand, he abhors the machine age and all its works and tries himself to live, so far as a man of such importance can live, with the utmost simplicity. On the other hand, it is impossible not to feel the reality of his challenge to the whole idea of untouch- * Dr. Paton was for five years secretary of the National Christian Council of India. ability. Dr. Ambedkar may well be right in his feeling that orthodox Hinduism is irrevocability *committed to untouchability, and that consequently nothing is to be hoped by the depressed classes from Hinduism. That ought not to weaken our appreciation of the passion which Mr. Gandhi puts into his fight against the evil. He said to me in one talk I had with him on the subject, " If I were
convinced that untouchability was a necessary part of Hinduism, I would cease to be a Hindu tomorrow." And I doubt if anyone will really question the view that it is the work of Mr. Gandhi which, allied no doubt to certain deep tendencies of our time, has put the removal of untouchability high up on the list of Indian priorities.
• His nationalism and his religion I felt to be very closely allied. No one should speak of Mr. Gandhi's religion who does not know him better than I had the chance to do ; in such talks as I had with him on that subject he left me•with the feeling that he was a profoundly reverent agnostic ; that is to say, one with an intensely religious nature who yet had little content of certainty in his religious life. He seemed to find the substance of Indian life in Hinduism, and he gave one something of the impression, which was much stronger in men like Mr.. Birla, of regarding the old Hindu tradition as the genuine, authentic India. This comes out very strongly indeed in his almost violent apathy to what he regards as the proselytism of the missionaries. He, has many friends among them, but he moved farther and farther away from the Christian position. He would carry the idea of " swadeshi " to the length, so it seemed, of almost denying that in religion truth could mean anything other than fidelity to that in which one was born. (And yet, at the end of a long talk, he said to me, " Of course, if conversion is of the heart, no one can possibly object.") Christianity he understands by no means well ; the narrow theological views of some missionaries in Africa who greatly attracted him by their personal lives seem to have obsessed him permanently, and when he would equate Christ, Muhammad and Krishna, it is difficult not to feel that nationalism was colouring judgement.
His doctrine of non-violence is undoubtedly the element in his work and teaching which will be associated with him always. That he is passionately absorbei in the practice and principles of it no one can doubt. It is not for him a negative thing, nor is it, as some have said, the chosen weapon of the weak. t He conceives of it as positive and aggressive, a combination of sincerity and love. British opinion has never done justice to the astonishing degree to which Indian nationalist agitation, even when the deepest feelings were aroused, has been non-violent. That is due, in the main, to Mt. Gandhi.
But it is a doctrine which almost completely prevents Mr. Gandhi from comprehending the task of government or helping his beloved India to a concrete achievement of freedom. This strain in his complex personality was most plainly shown in the negotiations which ended in the rejection of the proposals taken to India by Sir Stafford Cripps. What was needed then was a realistic grap- pling with the actual problems of Indian freedom, both those of transition from the status quo to a freedom quite explicitly pledged, and those of reconciling the conflicting communal claims, especially those of the Moslems, who saw themselves coming under Hindu rule for the first time for nearly a thousand years. Instead, rejec- tion was followed by the "quit India" resolution, the talk about leaving India " to chaos Or to God," and then the threat of civil disobedience and " open rebellion." Mr. Gandhi might have been of incalculable value to an Indian Government as the voice of conscience and the embodiment of an austere morality, rebuking venality and incompetence. He would have had to leave the re- sponsibility of action to others, for no government can operate on the lines of " non-violmce."
Yet, even in spite of these last months; Mr. Gandhi is the greatest Indian of his time and one of the greatest of all the sons of Asia. I can put most simply (and I hope without any offence) what I feel him to have done by saying that it is he more than any other who has restored to India and to Indians their self-respect. In him they feel that they have a representative of whom the whole world is aware and whom the world respects, whatever it is able to make of him. All India (including many Muslims) rejoices and is proud of that,
Previous page
