| by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar
( October 1, 2012, New Delhi, Sri
Lanka Guardian) Is Gandhi a Mahatma? I am sick of this question. There are two
reasons why this question annoys me. Firstly, I hate all the Mahatmas and
firmly believe that they should be done away with. I am of the opinion that
existence is a curse to the nation in which they are born.
The reason why I say so is
because they try to perpetuate blind faith in place of intelligence and reason.
Secondly I do not know what
exactly people understand by the word Mahatma.
Even then since the Editor of the
‘Chhitra’ seems to be so adamant on getting- a reply from me, i have decided to
make earnest efforts to answer this question.
Generally speaking according to
an ordinary Hindu in order to pass as a Mahatma a person must have three
things, namely his robe, his character and his particular doctrine. If these
qualities are taken as a criterion for judging a Mahatma then in the eyes of
ignorant and uneducated persons who took to wards others for salvation Mohandas
Karamchand Gandhi can be called as a Mahatma. It is very easy for anybody to
become a Mahatma in India by merely changing his dress. If you are wearing an
ordinary dress and leading an ordinary life even if you perform extraordinary
noble deeds, nobody takes, any notice of you. But a person who does not behave
in normal manner and shows some peculiar trends and abnormalities in his
character he becomes a saint or a Mahatma.
If you put on a suit or ordinary
dress and do something, people would not even like to look at you. But if the
same person discards his clothes, runs about naked, grows long hair, abuses
people and drinks dirty water from the gutters, people fall at his feet and
begin to worship him. In these circumstances if Gandhi becomes Mahatma in India
there is nothing surprising. Had these things been practiced in any other
civilized country people, would have laughed at him. To a casual observer
Gandhi’s teachings appear to be” very sweet and appealing. Truth and
Non-violence are very noble principles. Gandhi claims to preach ‘Satya’ (Truth)
and ‘Ahimsa’ (non-violence) and people have so much liked it that they flock
around him in thousands. I fail to understand why they do so. Is it not a fact
that thousands of years ago Lord Buddha gave the message of truth and
non-violence to the world? Nobody excepting an ignorant fool or congenital
idiot would give credit to Gandhi for originality in this matter.
There is nothing new in the
pronouncement that Truth and non-violence’ are necessary for the preservation
of human civilization. There is nothing new that Gandhi has added to/the maxim.
As I have already stated that earlier Lord Buddha taught these principles
thousands of years ago. Had Gandhi thrown some light over the intricate
problems arising from the experiment of ‘Truth and non-violence’ this would
have added luster to his Mahatma ship and the world would have remained under
gratitude for ever. World is anxiously waiting for the solution of the two
riddles, namely how to uphold the noble principle, of ‘truth’ and under what
circumstances should violence be considered as ‘right action’.
Lord Buddha preached that
attitude towards ‘Truth’ and ‘Non-violence’ should be pragmatic. What answer
Jesus Christ would have given to this question; unfortunately we have no means
to know. Perhaps Pilate did not allow him time enough to answer this question.
Has Gandhi answered this question? I do not find it anywhere. If we study his
teachings and sermons we find that he is trading on other people’s capital.
Truth’ and ‘Non-violence’ are not his original discoveries. When I seriously
study Gandhi’s character I become exceedingly convinced that cunningness is
more evident in his character than the seriousness or sincerity.
According to me his actions can
be likened to a base coin. His politeness is like the politeness of Ura Heap,
one of the characters in the famous English novel ‘David Copperfield’. He has
managed to keep himself in the fore front by means of cunning and inherent
shrewdness. A person who has faith in his capacity and character faces the
reality of life in a bold and manly manner. He has no need to keep a dagger up
his sleeve. Napoleon always charged from the, front. He did not believe in
treachery and never attacked from behind. Treachery and deceit are weapons of
the weak. Gandhi has always used these weapons. For many years he had been
declaring himself to be a humble disciple of Gokhale. Thereafter he had been
admiring Tilak for many years. Afterwards he hated Tilak also. Everybody knows
this. Everybody knows that unless he used the name of Tilak for raising funds
he could not have collected 10000000 for Swarajya Fund. Forgetting his personal
relation and leaving aside other considerations, like a shrewd politician he
attached the name of Tilak to the Fund.
Gandhi was a staunch opponent of
Christian religion. In order to please the Western world he often quoted from
the Bible in times of crisis. In order to understand the working of his mind I
have two other instances to quote.
During the Round Table Conference
he told people, I shall not raise any objection against the demands presented
by the representatives of the Depressed Classes. But, as soon as the
representatives of the Depressed Classes people placed their demands, Gandhi
quietly forgot about the assurances given by him. I call it a betrayal of the
people belonging to the Depressed Classes. He went to the Moslems and told them
that he would support their 14 Demands if they in turn opposed the demands
placed by the representatives of the Depressed Classes. Even a scoundrel would
not have done this. This is only one instance of Gandhi’s treachery.
Nehru Committee’s Report was
presented in the open session of the Congress for discussion. Some amendments
were to be made in the Report. All of you must know about it. Mr.Jayakar was
hired by Mr. Gandhi to oppose these amendments. These amendments were very
vehemently opposed by Mr. Jayakar and his supporters. This is known to many
people. But what were these amendments and why so were these forcefully
opposed? Not many people know the background of these amendments. I came to
know about the opposition of Jayakar (it is a fact I have no reason to question
the truth about it) from people who had opposed the amendments.
All this was made known by Pandit
Motilal Nehru, and Mr. Jinnah who was betrayed by Mr. Gandhi. The corrections
which were proposed to be made in the Nehru Committee Report were suggested by
Mr. Jinnah for the benefit of his community. But when Gandhi came to know about
it he thought a great deal more had been given to the Muslims by Pandit Motilal
Nehru than what he wanted to give originally.
In order to humiliate Pt. Motilal
Nehru he vehemently opposed these proposals. Hindu Muslim hostility is the
result of this deceitful action on the part of Gandhi.
The man who was considered to be
a friend of the Untouchables and the Muslims betrayed the cause of the very
same people whose cause he claimed to champion. This immensely pained me. There
is, an old saying which befits the occasion (Bagal men chhuri Munh men Ram
Ram); ‘God’s name on the lips and dagger under the arm’. If such a person can
be called a Mahatma, by all means call Gandhi a Mahatma. According to me he is
no more than a simple Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.
I have given more than what the
Editor of the ‘Chittra’ demanded. I must have told a great deal more than what
the readers of the Chittra can digest.
Apart from the incidents quoted
herein there are two more things that I shall tell and then close. Gandhi’s age
can be called as the Tamo Yug’ of India. Gandhi was the man responsible for
eliminating morality from politics and instead introduced commercialism in
Indian politics. Politics has been denuded of its virtue. “When the salt has
lost its savor, wherewith ye shall salt it” asked Jesus Christ of the
Pharisees. How to get rid of the pernicious saintly idiosyncrasies of Gandhiji
in Indian public life is the second and most important question. If the Hindu
India does not realize it today it will take a long time to retrace its steps.
Majority of the Indian population is illiterate, ignorant and uncivilized. This
may not be the fault of the people.
The privileged few of the society
have deliberately kept the masses ignorant and illiterate. As a matter of fact
it is impossible to fight against the Mahatma on the strength purely of logic
and rationalism. It is fight between intellectualism against miracles and
idiosyncrasies. Reason alone cannot wipe off the hypnotic effect of Mahatmic
miracles. In these circumstances I would like to offer some suggestions. In
order to put an end to the activities of the Mahatma other Mahatmas should come
forward to take active part in Indian public life and set up a political wing
of their own. There is no dearth of the Mahatmas in India. Upasani Buva, Dada
Maharaj, Mehar Baba, Narayan Buva Kedgaonkar are some of the famous names.
Numerous saints and ‘Mahatmas’ are present in India. They know the art of
befooling and ensnaring the innocent people. True, the number of their
followers is far less than the followers of Gandhi but their incapacity or lack
of ability alone cannot be the reason for that. They have the ability and the
strength to attain freedom along with the Salvation for their Hindu masses.
There are many reasons why they
have not been able to know this. Owing to his dual policy and duplicity of
character Gandhiji was able to succeed in creating a following by promising to
attain spiritual and political liberation for all. I believe that if Upasani
Baba, Narayan Maharaj etcetra adopt the methods of Gandhiji undoubtedly they
too would be able to establish the wing which can effectively face the blind
followers of Gandhi. In this lies India’s salvation. Having a number of parties
in the country will be beneficial to this country at least for the time being.
If an organization is set up with
these aims and objects it would be able to serve the same purpose as was served
by the Apsaras of the Puranas namely the annihilation of their adversaries. And
if this does not happen and this organization remains reactionary even then its
existence would be useful. In this way at least the pernicious creed of Fascism
which is spreading its tentacles all around will be stalled. I believe that if
a Mahatma comes and places his Manifesto stating in a straight forward manner
that he can achieve Salvation perhaps India will attain intellectual
liberation. This is not a joke. This is no vilification or criticism of
anybody. I am writing it with all the seriousness that I can command.
Will the Hindus by changing the
minds of the Mahatmas like Dada Maharaj, Mehar Bawa or Narayan Bawa try to
serve India?
Chittra (Marathi) Dipavali
Special Issue