Manoranjan Babu and other friends from Noakhali came to see
me during my stay in Malikanda about the difficulties of the Hindus
in their locality. Manoranjan Babu has been in correspondence with
me in the matter for some time. I have not examined the grievances. I
had neither the time nor the wish to do so. That is the special province
of the Provincial Congress Committee and finally the central body.
But I had no difficulty in giving general advice. Their case is more or
less like the Sukkur case.2 There is a great difference in degree. But I
feel sure that no popularly elected Government can successfully cope
with widespread goondaism as it is alleged to be in Noakhali. It is
essentially a case of self-defence. Self-respect and honour cannot be
protected by others. They are for each individual himself or herself to
guard. Governments can at best punish offenders after the offence has
been committed. They cannot assure prevention except in so far as
punishment acts as a deterrent. Self-defence can be violent or nonviolent.
I have always advised and insisted on non-violent defence.
But I recognize that it has to be learnt like violent defence. It requires
a different training from that which is required for violent defence.
Therefore, if the capacity for non-violent self-defence is lacking, there
need be no hesitation in using violent means. But Manoranjan Babu
being an old Congressman said, “You say I cannot retaliate even in
self-defence ?” “That is certainly my view, “I replied.“There was,
however, a resolution passed by the Gaya Congress3 that the use of
force in self-defence was permissible to Congressmen. I have never
justified the resolution. Non-violence becomes meaningless if violence
is permitted for self-defence. What is it but self-defence in national
resistance against an aggressor nation?
I would therefore advise secession from the Congress, if you contemplate the use of force in defending yourselves in the circumstances described by you.”
“But,” said Manoranjan Babu, “supposing I adopt the Gaya
resolution, would I be accused of communalism if I defended the
aggrieved Hindu ?” “Certainly not,” I replied. “In the first place,
you do not cease to be Hindu because you are a Congressman. You
will, however, be guilty of communalism, if you sided with Hindus
right or wrong. In the case in point you will defend Hindus not
because they are Hindus but because they are afflicted. I would expect
you to defend Muslims if you found them molested by Hindus. A
Congressman recognizes or should recognize [no] communal
distinction.”
The interviewers then discussed the Congress dissensions and
told me that many Hindus despairing of Congress aid had joined the
Hindu Mahasabha, and asked whether they could do likewise. I told
them that in theory I could see no objection. Whether the local
circumstances justified the step or not I could not judge. But if I was
a Congressman and found that as such I could not act effectively, I
should not hesitate to join an organization which could render
effective assistance. I added, however, that no responsible Congressman
could hold office in a Congress organization and yet be a member of
the Hindu Mahasabha which is frankly a communal organization.
The whole question bristles with difficulties. The occasion demands
calmness, truthfulness and boldness. Communalism is bound to win, if
the Congress cannot become effectively non-violent. It will itself
become communal in action if it plays with non-violence. For the
majority of Congressmen who are Hindus are bound to drift into
violence, if they do not know the effective use of non-violence. I am
quite clear in my mind that the Congress can remain non communal
only if it becomes truly non-violent in all matters. It cannot be non-violent only towards the rulers and violent towards others. That way lie disgrace and disaster.
CALCUTTA, February 26, 1940
Harijan, 2-3-1940
No comments:
Post a Comment