If I seem to take part in politics, it is only because politics to-day
encircle us like the coils of a snake from which one cannot get out no
matter how one tries. I wish to wrestle with the snake.... I am trying
to introduce religion into politics.
But this Tagore deplores. Writing September 7, 1920, he says, "We need
all the moral force which Mahatma Gandhi represents, and which he alone
in the world can represent." That such a precious treasure should be
cast out on the frail bark of politics and subjected to the incessant
lashing of the waves of conflicting and irritated passions is a serious
misfortune for India, whose mission, says Tagore, "is to awaken the dead
to life by soul-fire." The wasting of spiritual resources in problems
which, when considered in the light of abstract moral truth, are
unworthy, is to be regretted. "It is criminal to transform moral force
into force."
This is what Tagore felt at the spectacular launching of the
non-coöperation campaign and at the unrest stirred up in the name of
the Khilafat cause and the massacres of the Punjab. He feared the
results of the campaign on an easily excitable mob subject to attacks of
hysterical fury. He would have liked to turn people's minds away from
vengeance and dreams of impossible redress; he would have had them
forget the irreparable and devote all efforts to constructing and
fashioning a new soul for India. And although he admired Gandhi's
doctrines and the ardent fire of his spirit of self-sacrifice, he hated
the element of negation contained in non-coöperation. Tagore
instinctively recoiled from everything that stood for "No."
And this conviction leads him to compare the positive ideal of
Brahmanism, which demands that the joys of life be welcomed but
purified, to the negative ideal of Buddhism, which demands their
suppression.[98] To this Gandhi replies that the art of eliminating is
as vital as that of accepting.[99] Human progress consists in a
combination of the two. The final word in the Upanishads is a negation.
The definition of Brahman by the authors of the Upanishads is _neti_,
not this! India had lost the power of saying "No." Gandhi has given it
back to her. Weeding is as essential as sowing.
But Tagore, apparently, does not believe in weeding. In his poetic
contemplation of life he is satisfied with things as they are, and he
finds his delight in admiring their harmony. He explains his point of
view in lines of great beauty, but detached from real life. His words
are like the dance of Nataraja, a play of illusions. Tagore says he
tries to tune his spirit up to the great exaltation that is sweeping
over the country. But he cannot do so, for in his heart, despite
himself, is a spirit of resistance. "In the darkness of my despair," he
says, "I see a smile and hear a voice that says, 'Your place is with the
children, playing on the beaches of the world, and there I am with
you.'" Tagore plays with harmonies, invents new rhythms, "strung out
through the hours, like children dancing in the sun and laughing as they
disappear." All creation is happy, with Tagore; flowers and leaves are
merely rhythms that never cease. God Himself is the supreme juggler, who
plays with Time, tossing stars and planets out upon the torrent of
appearances, and dropping paper boats filled with dreams into the river
of the ages. "When I beg Him to let me be His disciple and to let me
place some of the toys of my invention into one of his merry barks. He
smiles, and I follow Him, clutching the hem of his gown." Here Tagore
feels he is in his place. "But where am I, in a great crowd, squeezed in
at all sides? And who can understand the noise I hear? If I hear a song,
my sitar can catch the melody, and I can join the chorus, for I am a
singer. But in the mad clamor of the crowd, my voice is lost, and I
become dizzy." Tagore has tried, in the clamor of non-coöperation, to
find a melody, but to no avail. And he says to himself: "If you can't
march in step with your compatriots in the greatest crisis of their
history, beware of saying they are in the wrong, and you in the right!
But give up your place in the ranks, go back to your poet's corner, and
be prepared to meet with ridicule and public disgrace."[100]
So would a Goethe speak, an Indian Goethe, Bacchus. And it would seem as
if Tagore's mind is made up from now on. The poet bids action farewell,
since this action implies a negation, and he withdraws back into the
spell of creative enchantment he weaves around himself. But Tagore does
not only withdraw. As he says, Fate had decided that he should steer his
bark against the current. At the time he was not only the "poet" but the
spiritual ambassador of Asia to Europe; he had just returned from
Europe, where he had asked people to coöperate in creating a world
university at Santiniketan. What an irony of destiny that he should be
preaching cooperation between Occident and Orient at one end of the
world, when at that very moment non-coöperation was being preached at
the other end![101]
Non-coöperation wounded him doubly, therefore, in his work as well as
in his conception of life. "I believe," he says, "in the real union of
Orient and Occident."
Non-coöperation clashed with his way of thinking, for his mentality,
his rich intelligence, had been nourished on all the cultures of the
world. "All humanity's greatest is mine," he says. "The _infinite
personality of man_ (as the Upanishads say) can only come from the
magnificent harmony of all human races. My prayer is that India may
represent the coöperation of all the peoples of the world. For India,
unity is truth, and division evil. Unity is that which embraces and
understands everything; consequently, it cannot be attained through
negation. The present attempt to separate our spirit from that of the
Occident is an attempt at spiritual suicide.... The present age has been
dominated by the Occident, because the Occident had a mission to
fulfill. We of the Orient should learn from the Occident. It is
regrettable, of course, that we had lost the power of appreciating our
own culture, and therefore did not know how to assign Western culture to
its right place. But to say that it is wrong to coöperate with the West
is to encourage the worst form of provincialism and can produce nothing
but intellectual indigence. The problem is a world problem. No nation
can find its own salvation by breaking away from others. We must all be
saved or we must all perish together."[102]
In other words, just as Goethe in 1818 refused to reject French
civilization and culture, Tagore refuses to banish Western civilization.
While Gandhi's doctrine does not really set a barrier up between the
East and West, Tagore knows it will be interpreted as doing so, once
Hindu nationalism is stirred. Tagore fears the development of the spirit
of exclusion, and he explains his feeling of doubt and anxiety when his
students at the beginning of the non-cooperation movement came to seek
his advice. What does the boycotting of schools and colleges mean? asks
Tagore. "That students shall make a sacrifice--for what? Not for a more
complete education, but for non-education." During the first _Swadeshi_
campaign[103] a group of young students told him that they would leave
their schools and colleges at once if he ordered them to do so. And when
he refused to do so, they left him, in much irritation, doubting his
patriotism.[104]
In the spring of 1921, when India began boycotting English schools,
Tagore had seen an aggressive example of intellectual nationalism in
London. During a lecture of one of Tagore's friends. Professor Pearson,
some Indian students gave vent to misplaced national manifestations.
Tagore became indignant, and in a letter addressed to the director of
Santiniketan he condemned this spirit of intolerance and held the
non-coöperation movement responsible for it. And to this accusation
Gandhi replies:
I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be
stuffed. I want the culture of all lands to be blown about my house as
freely as possible.... But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any of
them ... Mine is not a religion of the prison-house. It has room for the
least among God's creations. But it is proof against insolent pride of
race, religion, or color.
While expressing his doubts as to the merits of an English literary
education, which has nothing to do with the building up of character, an
education which, he said, has emasculated the youth of India, Gandhi
regretted the excesses mentioned and claimed that his attitude was not
narrow, as Tagore seemed to imply.
These were frank and noble words, but they did not disarm Tagore's
misgivings. Tagore did not doubt Gandhi, but he feared the Gandhists.
And from the first contact with his people, after his return from
Europe, he began to fear the blind faith which the people placed in the
Mahatma's words. Tagore saw the danger of mental despotism loom near,
and in the "Modern Review" of October, 1921, he published a real
manifesto, "An Appeal to Truth," which was a cry of revolt against this
blind obedience. The protest was particularly strong because it was
preceded by a beautiful homage to the Mahatma. After describing the
first Indian independence movement in 1907 and 1908, Tagore explained
that in those days the political leaders were inspired by a bookish
ideal, based on the traditions of Burke, Gladstone, Mazzini, and
Garibaldi, and their message could be understood only by the elite. They
advanced, in short, an English-speaking ideal. But then came Mahatma
Gandhi! He stopped at the thresholds of the thousands of disinherited,
dressed like one of their own. He spoke to them in their own language.
Here was truth at last, and not only quotations from books! Mahatma, the
name given by the people of India to Gandhi, is his real name. For who
else had felt, like him, in communion with the people? Felt that they
are of his own flesh and blood? At the Mahatma's call the hidden forces
of the soul have blossomed forth, for the Mahatma has made the truth
into something concrete, visible. In the same way, thousands of years
ago, India blossomed forth to new greatness at Buddha's call, when he
made men understand that there must be compassion and fellow-feeling
among all living creatures. India, stirred to new life, expressed her
strength in science and wealth, spreading across oceans and deserts. No
commercial or military conquests ever spread so magnificently. For love
alone is truth.
But then Tagore's tone changed. The apotheosis stopped. Deception
followed. In Europe, across the seas, Tagore felt the quiver of India's
great revival. Thrilled, filled with joy at the thought of breathing in
the fluid breeze of the new freedom, he returned to his home land. But
on his arrival his elation fell. An oppressive atmosphere weighed on the
people. "An outside influence seemed to be bearing down on them,
grinding them and making one and all speak in the same tone, follow in
the same groove. Everywhere I was told that culture and reasoning power
should abdicate, and blind obedience only reign. So simple it is to
crush, in the name of some outward liberty, the real freedom of the
soul!"
We understand Tagore's misgivings and his appeal. They are of all times
and ages. The last free minds of a crumbling old world voiced them at
the dawn of the new Christianity. And whenever we ourselves encounter
the rising tide of some blind faith in a social or national ideal we
feel the same misgivings stir within us. Tagore's revolt is the revolt
of the free soul against the ages of faith which it has suscitated, for
while faith to a handful of chosen ones means supreme liberty, it means
only another form of slavery for the masses who are led by it.
Tagore's criticism is aimed above and beyond the fanaticism of the
crowd. Over the blind masses it strikes the Mahatma. No matter how great
Gandhi may be, isn't he taking upon himself more than a single man can
bear? A cause as great as India's should not be dependent on the will of
a single master. The Mahatma is the master of truth and love, but the
attainment of _Swaraj_ home rule, is vastly complicated. "The paths are
intricate and hard to explore. Emotion and enthusiasm are required, but
also science and meditation. All the moral forces of the nation must be
called upon. Economists must find practical solutions, educators must
teach, statesmen ponder, workers work.... Everywhere the desire to learn
must be kept up free and unhampered. No pressure, either open or hidden,
must weigh on the intelligence." ... "In older days, in our primeval
forests," says Tagore, "our sages, _gurus_, in the plenitude of their
vision, called on _all_ seekers of truth.... Why does not our _guru_,
who wants to lead us to action, make the same call?" But the only
command that _Guru Gandhi_ so far has launched is, "Spin and weave!" And
Tagore asks, "Is this the gospel of a new creative age? If large
machinery constitutes a danger for the West, will not small machines
constitute a greater danger for us?" The forces of a nation must
cooperate, not only with each other, but with other nations. "The
awakening of India is bound up in the awakening of the world. Every
nation that tries to shut itself in violates the spirit of the new age."
And Tagore, who has spent several years in Europe, speaks of some of the
men he met--men who have freed their hearts from the chains of
nationalism in order to serve humanity--men who constitute the
persecuted minority of world citizens, _cives totius orbis_--and he
classes them among the _sannyasins_, that is, "those who in their soul
have realized human unity."[105]
And should India alone, asks Tagore, recite the chapter of negation,
dwell eternally on the faults of others, and strive for _Swaraj_ on a
basis of hatred? When the bird is awakened by the dawn, it does not only
think of food. Its wings respond to the call of the sky. Its throat
fills with joyous songs to greet the coming day. A new humanity has sent
out its call. Let India reply in her own way! "Our first duty, at dawn,
is to remember _Him Who is One, who is indistinguishable through class or
color, and who, by his varied forces, provides, as is necessary, for the
needs of each class and of all. Let us pray Him, who gives wisdom, to
unite us all in understanding._"[106]
Tagore's noble words, some of the most beautiful ever addressed to a
nation, are a poem of sunlight, and plane above all human struggles. And
the only criticism one can make of them is that they plane too high.
Tagore is right, from the point of view of eternity. The bird-poet, the
eagle-sized lark, as Heine called a master of our music, sits and sings
on the ruins of time. He lives in eternity. But the demands of the
present are imperious. The hour that passes demands immediate, if
imperfect, relief; but clamors for it. And in this respect Gandhi, who
lacks Tagore's poetic flight (or who, perhaps, as a _Boddhisattva_ of
pity has given it up in order to live among the disinherited) finds it
child's play to reply.
In his answer to Tagore Gandhi displays more passion than he has so far
shown in the controversy. On October 13, 1921, in "Young India," his
stirring rejoinder appears. Gandhi thanks the "Great Sentinel"[107] for
having warned India as to the pitfalls ahead. He agrees with Tagore that
most essential of all is the maintenance of a free spirit.
We must not surrender our reason into anybody's keeping. Blind surrender
to love is often more mischievous than forced surrender to the lash of
the tyrant. There is hope for the slave of the brute, none for that of
love.
Tagore is the sentinel who warns of the approach of the enemies called
Bigotry, Lethargy, Intolerance, Ignorance, and Inertia. But Gandhi does
not feel that Tagore's misgivings are justified. The Mahatma always
appeals to reason. It is not true that India is moved by blind obedience
only. If the country decided to adopt the spinning-wheel, this has been
only after considerable reflection. Tagore speaks of patience and is
satisfied with beautiful songs. But there is war. Let the poet lay down
his lyre! Let him sing when it is over! When a house is on fire, _all_
must go out and take up a bucket to quench the fire.
When all about me are dying for want of food, the only occupation
permissible for me is to feed the hungry. India is a house on fire. It
is dying of hunger because it has no work to buy food with. Khulna is
starving. The Ceded Districts are passing successively through a fourth
famine. Orissa is a land suffering from chronic famine. India is growing
daily poorer. The circulation about her feet and legs has almost
stopped. And if we do not take care she will collapse altogether....
To a people famishing and idle the only acceptable form in which God can
dare appear is work and promise of food as wages. God created man to
work for his food and said that those who ate without work were thieves.
We must think of millions who to-day are less than animals, almost in a
dying state. Hunger is the argument that is drawing India to the
spinning-wheel.
The poet lives for the morrow, and would have us do likewise. He
presents to our admiring gaze the beautiful picture of the birds in the
early morning singing hymns of praise as they soar into the sky. Those
birds had their day's food and soared with rested wings in whose veins
new blood had flown the previous night. But I have had the pain of
watching birds who for want of strength could not be coaxed even into a
flutter of their wings. The human bird under the Indian sky gets up
weaker than when he pretended to retire. For millions it is an eternal
vigil or an eternal trance. I have found it impossible to soothe
suffering patients with a song from Kabir....
Give them work that they may eat! "Why should I, who have no need to
work for food, spin?" may be the question asked. Because I am eating
what does not belong to me. I am living on the spoliation of my
countrymen. Trace the course of every coin that finds its way into your
pocket, and you will realize the truth of what I write. Every one must
spin. Let Tagore spin, like the others. Let him burn his foreign
clothes; that is the duty to-day. God will take care of the morrow. As
it says in the Gitâ, Do _right!_
Dark and tragic words these! Here we have the misery of the world rising
up before the dream of art and crying, "Dare deny me existence!" Who
does not sympathize with Gandhi's passionate emotion and share it?
And yet, in his reply so proud and so poignant, there is nevertheless
something that justifies Tagore's misgivings: _sileat poeta_, imposing
silence on the person who is called upon to obey the imperious
discipline of the cause. Obey without discussion the law of _Swadeshi_,
the first command of which is, Spin!
No doubt, in the human battle, discipline is a duty. But, unfortunately,
those who are intrusted with enforcing this discipline, the master's
lieutenants, may be narrow-minded men. They may mistake the discipline
chosen to attain the ideal for the ideal itself. Discipline fascinates
them by its rigidity, for they are of the kind who feel at ease only on
the narrow path. They look upon _Swadeshi_ as essential, not as a means
to an end, but in itself. In their eyes it acquires an almost sacred
character. One of Gandhi's disciples, professor at the school that lies
nearest his heart, the _Satyagraha Ashram_ of Sarbarmati at Ahmedabad,
Mr. D. B. Kalelkar, writes a "Gospel of Swadeshi," which Gandhi, in a
preface, stamps with his approval.[108] This book, or pamphlet, is
addressed to the man in the street. Let us examine the creed as it is
taught by one of those who drink at the very source of the unpolluted
doctrine:
Now and then God is incarnated on earth to redeem the world. His
incarnation need not necessarily be in human form.... He may be manifest
in an abstract principle or in an ideal which uplifts the world.... His
latest incarnation is in the "Gospel of Swadeshi"...
The apostle realizes that this statement may cause a smile if _Swadeshi_
is to be interpreted as meaning the boycott of foreign goods only. This
is only a partial application of _Swadeshi_, which is a "vast religious
principle that will rid the world of strife and hatred and liberate
humanity." Its quintessence may be found in the Indian scriptures:
Your own religious _Dharma_--that is to say, your own religious destiny
or salvation--though imperfect, is the best. The fulfilment of _Dharma_
for which you were not intended is always fraught with danger. He alone
attains happiness who fulfils the task laid out for him.
The fundamental law of _Swadeshi_ springs from faith in God, "who has
provided, in all eternity, for the happiness of the world. This God has
placed each human being in the environment best suited for the
fulfilment of his task. A man's work and his aspirations should be
suited to his position in the world. We cannot choose our culture any
more than our birth, family, or country. We must accept what God has
given us; we must accept tradition as coming from God and regard it as a
strict duty to live up to it. To renounce tradition would be sinful."
From these premises it follows that the inhabitant of one country should
not concern himself with other countries.
The follower of _Swadeshi_ never takes upon himself the vain task of
trying to reform the world, for he believes that the world is moved and
always will be moved according to rules set by God.... One must not
expect the people of one country to provide for the needs of another,
even for philanthropic reasons, and if it were possible, it would not be
desirable.... The true follower of _Swadeshi_ does not forget that every
human being is his brother, but that it is incumbent on him to fulfil
the task his particular environment has laid down for him. Just as we
must work out our salvation in the century in which we are born, we
should serve the country in which we are born. The emancipation of our
soul should be sought through religion and our own culture.
Is it, however, permissible for a nation to take advantage of all
opportunities to develop its resources of commerce and industry? Indeed
not. An unworthy ambition to wish to develop India's manufactures! It
would be asking people to violate their _Dharmas!_ It is as criminal to
export one's products as to import those of others. "For proselytism is
repellent to the spirit of _Swadeshi._" And the logical conclusion of
this theory, rather startling to a European, is that it is as sinful to
export goods as ideas. If India has been bitterly humiliated in history,
it is as punishment for the crimes of ancestors who traded with ancient
Egypt and Rome, a crime deliberately repeated by all succeeding
generations. Every nation, every class, should remain true to its own
duty, live on its own resources, and be inspired by its own traditions.
We should avoid being intimate with those whose social customs are
different from ours. We should not mingle in the lives of men or peoples
whose ideals are different from ours.... Every man is a brook. Every
nation is a river. They must follow their course, clear and pure, till
they reach the Sea of Salvation, where all will blend.
What is this but the triumph of nationalism? The narrowest and most
unpolluted? Stay at home, shut all doors, change nothing, hold on to
everything, export nothing, buy nothing, uplift and purify body and
spirit! A gospel, indeed, of medieval monks![109] And Gandhi, of the
broad mind, lets his name be associated with it!
Tagore's bewilderment, when met with these visionaries of reactionary
nationalism, is comprehensible. No wonder he was taken back by these
apostles, who would reverse the march of centuries, shut the free soul
in a cage, and burn all bridges communicating with the West.[110] As a
matter of fact, Gandhi's doctrine really implies nothing of the sort. As
may be seen from his reply to Tagore, he says, "_Swadeshi_ is a message
to the world." The world exists; therefore, Gandhi reckons with it, and
does not repudiate "proselyting. Non-coöperation," he says, "is not
directed against the English or the West. Our non-coöperation is
directed against material civilization and its attendant greed and
exploitation of the weak." In other words, it combats the errors of the
West and would therefore be beneficial to the West also. "Our
non-coöperation is a retirement within ourselves." A temporary
retirement to enable India to gather up her forces before placing them
at the services of humanity. "India must learn to live before she can
aspire to die for humanity." Gandhi does not forbid coöperation with
Europe provided the sound ideal which he sets up for all men is adhered
to.
Gandhi's real doctrine is much broader, much more human, much more
universal[111] than that expressed in the "Gospel" which he has
approved. Why did Gandhi lend his name to this "Gospel"? Why does he let
his magnificent ideal, a message for the whole world, be imprisoned
within the narrow bonds of an Indian theocracy? Beware of disciples! The
purer they are, the more pernicious. God preserve a great man from
friends who only grasp part of his ideal! In codifying it, they destroy
the harmony which is the real blessing of his living soul.
But this is not all. While the disciples who live near the master are at
least tinged by his noble spirituality, what about the disciples of his
disciples, and the others, the masses to whom the doctrine comes merely
as vague and broken echoes? How much and what do they absorb of the
gospel of spiritual purification and creative renouncement?
Unfortunately, to them the doctrine appears in its most rudimentary and
material form, in a sort of Messianic waiting for the advent of
_Swaraj_, home rule, by the spinning-wheel! This is the negation of all
progress. It's the old _fuori Barbari._ Tagore is alarmed, and not
without reason, at the violence of the apostles of non-violence, and
even Gandhi is not absolutely free from it. Gandhi says that he would
"withdraw from the field if he felt hatred for the English," for one
must love one's enemies while hating their deeds, "hate Satanism while
loving Satan." The distinction, however, is a little too subtle for the
average man to grasp. And when at each session of the congress the
leaders dwell with fiery eloquence on the crimes and treachery of the
English, anger and rancor pile up behind the sluices; and beware when
the sluices burst! When Gandhi, explaining why he advocates the burning
of precious stuffs in Bombay in August, 1921, says to Andrews, Tagore's
friend, that "He is transferring ill will from men to things,"[112] he
does not realize that the fury of the masses is gathering impetus, and
that instinctively these masses reason, "Things first, men next!" He
does not foresee that in this same Bombay, less than three months
afterward, _men_ will be killing _men._ Gandhi is too much of a saint;
he is too pure, top free from the animal passions that lie dormant in
man. He does not dream that they lie there, crouching within the people,
devouring his words and thriving on them. Tagore, more clear-sighted,
realizes the danger the non-coöperators are skirting when they
innocently lay bare the crimes of Europe, profess non-violence, and
simultaneously plant in people's minds the virus which will inevitably
break in violence! But this they do not realize, these apostles whose
hearts are free from hatred. But he who would lead men in action must
know the heart-beats of the others, not merely his own. Beware the mob!
_Cave canem!_ The moral precepts of a Gandhi will not be able to curb
it. The only way, perhaps, to prevent it from running wild, the only
way, perhaps, of making it yield docilely to the austere discipline of
the master, would be for him to pose as an incarnated god, as those who
paint him as Sri-Krishna secretly hope he will do. But Gandhi's
sincerity and his humility prevent him from playing the role.
And then, planing above the roaring human ocean alone, remains the
single voice of the purest of men, but only a man. How long will it be
heard? Grandiose and tragic waiting!
[Footnote 67: Etymologically, _swa_, self, oneself; _deshi_, country.
Hence, national independence. The non-coöperators usually interpret it
in the narrower sense of economic independence. It will be seen, further
on, the sort of social gospel which Gandhi's followers make out of the
idea. ("Gospel of Swadeshi.")]
[Footnote 68: September 8 and 24, October 20, 1920.]
[Footnote 69: August 11 and 25, 1920.]
[Footnote 70: At least so Gandhi interprets the texts. Dare a European
venture that he finds in the Bhagavad Gitâ serene indifference to
violence perpetrated and suffered?]
[Footnote 71: August 25, 1920.]
[Footnote 72: May 12, 1920.]
[Footnote 73: "To All the English in India," October 27, 1920.]
[Footnote 74: April 28, 1920; June 8, September 1, 1921. In his "Letter
to the Parsees," the business people, he begs them to stop selling
alcohol (March 23, 1921). In his "Letter to the Moderates," June 8,
1921, he asks them to help him carry this point, even if they do not
agree with the other points of his program. He also wages war on drugs,
narcotics, and opium dens.]
[Footnote 75: Gandhi himself realizes that many will jeer. But, he asks,
did the sewing-machine do away with the needle? The spinning-wheel's
utility has not been lost. On the contrary, nothing is more useful at
the present moment. Spinning is a national necessity, and constitutes
the only possible means of subsistence for millions of starving people.
(July 21, 1920.)]
[Footnote 76: February 2, 1921.]
[Footnote 77: July 21, 1920.]
[Footnote 78: November 17, 1920.]
[Footnote 79: English is not excluded, nor any other European language,
but it is reserved for the higher grades, at the end of the school
program. In all grades, however, Indian dialects are used. Gandhi dreams
of a higher state of universal existence where all differences will
persist, not as divisions but as different facets.]
[Footnote 80: _Ashram_, place of discipline, hermitage.]
[Footnote 81: At the Nagpur session of the congress some 4726 delegates
were present, and among them were 469 Mohammedans, 65 Sikhs, 5 Parsees,
2 Untouchables, 4079 Hindus and 106 women.
The new constitution provided that a delegate should be chosen for every
5000 inhabitants, which would make a total of 6175 delegates. The
National Indian Congress was to meet once a year, round Christmas. The
committee of the congress consisting of 850 members would act as
executive body, enforcing the resolutions of the congress and carrying
out its policies. Between the sessions of the congress the committee was
to have the same authority as the congress. Within the committee an
executive board of fifteen members was to bear the same relation to the
congress committee that a ministerial cabinet bears to parliament. This
board could be dissolved by the congress committee.
The Congress of Nagpur drew up the plans for a hierarchy of committees
of provincial congresses, representing twenty-one provinces and twelve
languages, and placed under them local committees in each village or
group of villages. It advised the formation of a band of national
workers to be called the Indian National Service to be financed out of
funds called the All-India Tilak Memorial Swaraja Fund.
Every adult, male or female, possessing 4 annas was given the right to
vote, provided he had signed the credo of the constitution. Whoever has
attained the age of twenty-one and has sworn adherence to Article I of
the Constitution and agreed to uphold the rules and by-laws of the
constitution is eligible.]
[Footnote 82: March 23, 1921.]
[Footnote 83: October 6, 1920; May 11 and 18, July 28, October
20, 1921.]
[Footnote 84: In citing his friendship with the Mussulman Maulana
Mohamed Ali, Gandhi claims that both men remain true to their respective
faiths.
Gandhi would not give his daughter in marriage to one of Ali's sons, nor
would he share the meals of his friend; and the same is true of Maulana
Mohamed Ali. But this does not prevent both men from being fond of each
other, respecting each other, and relying on each other.
Gandhi does not say that intermarriage between Hindus and Mussulmans,
and the fact of eating together, should necessarily be condemned, but he
says they are impossible at the present time. It will take at least a
century for the two peoples to reach such a stage of fusion. A policy
purported practical should not attempt to carry such a reform. Gandhi
does not object to it but considers it premature. The only important
thing, for the present, is for the two peoples to respect each other and
remain loyal to each other. Here, too, Gandhi shows his sense of
realities. (October 20, 1921.)]
[Footnote 85: Speech made April 27, 1921.]
[Footnote 86: October 27, 1920.]
[Footnote 87: In the end of April, 1921, untouchability begins to
diminish. In many villages the pariahs are allowed to live among other
Hindus and to enjoy the same rights. (April 27, 1921.) In other regions,
however, their condition remains deplorable, particularly in Madras.
(September 29, 1921.) The question is included in the program of the
National Assemblies of India from this time on. The Congress of Nagpur,
in December, 1920, had already expressed the desire of seeing
untouchability wiped out.]
[Footnote 88: April 27, 1921.]
[Footnote 89: July 21, 1921, and October 6, 1920.]
[Footnote 90: July 21, August 11, December 16, 1921.]
[Footnote 91: Gandhi protests against this in "Young India"
of June, 1921.]
[Footnote 92: May 12, 1920; May 25, July 13, August 25, 1921.]
[Footnote 93: December 8, 1920.]
[Footnote 94: March 16, 1921.]
[Footnote 95: "Letters from Abroad." The three letters of March 2, 5,
and 13 were published in the "Modern Review" in May, 1921. The "Appeal
to Truth" was written after Tagore's return to India and published in
the "Modern Review" October 1, 1921. The two men, however, did not
discuss their views in polemical writings only. They met and had a long
interview, but neither has published any comment on their meeting. C. F.
Andrews, however, who was present, has told us what the talk was about
and referred to the arguments used by Tagore and Gandhi to back up their
different points of view.]
[Footnote 96: February 9, 1922. In this article, called "Too Sacred for
Publication," Gandhi dwells on his long friendship with Tagore. Gandhi
was a frequent visitor at Tagore's home at Santiniketan, and considered
it as a retreat. While he was in England his children had their home
there.]
[Footnote 97: May 12, 1920.]
[Footnote 98: March 5, 1921.]
[Footnote 99: June 1, 1921.]
[Footnote 100: March 5, 1921.]
[Footnote 101: March 6, 1921.]
[Footnote 102: March 13, 1921. Developed in article in the "Modern
Review" of November, 1921.]
[Footnote 103: The first Indian home rule campaign, in Bengal,
in 1907-08.]
[Footnote 104: March 5, 1921.]
[Footnote 105: Those who have renounced their personal life in
order to bring a unity to mankind.]
[Footnote 106: Paraphrase of the first stanza of the Upanishads.]
[Footnote 107: Title of the article of October 13, 1921.]
[Footnote 108: "The Gospel of Swadeshi," Madras, 1922.]
[Footnote 109: In this "Gospel," however, are words of great moral force
and beauty. Exert no vengeance. "That which is passed is passed. The
past cannot be called back; it is part of eternity and man has no
recourse against it. Do not try to exert reprisals as punishment for
past injustice and offence! Let the dead past bury its dead. Act in the
living present, heart within and God o'erhead."
The cold purity of the glaciers blows through the book, from one end
to the other.]
[Footnote 110: Tagore was particularly sensitive to such writings since
there had sprung up a sort of rivalry between Gandhi's _Ashram_ (where
this "Gospel" was written) and Tagore's _Santiniketan_, a rivalry which
both men tried to smooth out. In an article published February 9, 1922,
Gandhi, in "Young India," complains that a journalist misquoted him,
making him say things about his _Ashram_ which might be construed as
criticisms of Tagore's _Santiniketan._ Gandhi expresses his respect for
Tagore's school and adds, rather humorously, that if he had to determine
the superiority of one school over the other, he would vote for
_Santiniketan_, in spite of the discipline of _Ashram. Santiniketan_ is
the older brother, older in age as well as in wisdom, but, says Gandhi,
"Let the disciples of _Santiniketan_ beware the growth of little
_Ashram!_"]
[Footnote 111: To my mind Gandhi is as universal as Tagore, but in a
different way. Gandhi is a universalist through his religious feeling;
Tagore is intellectually universal. Gandhi does not exclude any one from
the communion of prayer and daily duties, just as the first apostles did
not differentiate between Jews and Gentiles but imposed the same moral
discipline on both. This is what Gandhi aspires to do, and herein lies
his narrowness; not in his heart, which is as large as that of a Christ,
but in his spirit of intellectual asceticism and renunciation. (And
this, too, is of a Christ!) Gandhi is a universalist of the Middle Ages.
While venerating him, we understand and approve Tagore.]
[Footnote 112: September 1, 1921.]