Indian Critiques of Gandhi

I recently read Indian Critiques of Gandhi (State University of New York Press, 2003). I loved this book, especially the following chapters:

-Gandhi, Ambedkar, and Untouchability

-Sri Aurobindo’s Dismissal of Gandhi and His Nonviolence

-The Hindu Mahasabha and Gandhi

-Indian Muslim Critiques of Gandhi,

That said, here are some of my favorite quotes from the chapter- Indian Muslim Critiques of Gandhi by Roland E. Miller (Author of Mappila Muslims Of Kerala).

… Indian Muslim views of Gandhi were marked by a “stutter-step,” even a “flip-flop” quality, rather than by an even flow.

“I consider the satyagraha movement to be practically impossible and wholly unprofitable. . . . Except some isolated people, I consider Mussalmans generally absolutely unfit to act on the principles of satyagraha.” MukhtarAhmad Ansari

...P. C. Chaudhury summarizes Ansari’s influence in these words: “It was practically through Dr. Ansari and Hakim Ajmal Khan that Gandhiji could get into the inner enclave of the orthodox and cultured Muslims of Delhi, and through them of Northern India.

...Yet we know that Azad disagreed with Gandhi, most notably in the final acceptance of India’s division, a moment when Azad’s silence spoke louder than words.

....Azad did not accept Gandhi’s ahilsa as “an absolute value.” He held to the validity of defensive force and the idea of just war, and believed that the Prophet Muhammad provided the true example for the appropriate use of force.

…when I interviewed a revered leader of the Mappila intellectual renaissance and a former university vice chancellor he stated that there were three things that bothered Kerala Muslims about Gandhi: his stubbornness, his religious revivalism, and his virtual abandonment of the Mappilas.

Before coming to Calicut, in a speech at Shajahanpur on May 5, 1920, Shaukat Ali stated, “I tell you that to kill and to be killed in the way of God are both satyagraha. To lay down our lives in the way of God for righteousness and to destroy the life of the tyrant who stands in the way of righteousness, are both very great service to God. But we have promised to co-operate with Mr.Gandhi who is with us. . . . If this fails, the Mussalmans will decide what to do.”

Shivaji's Utsav by Rabindranath Tagore

Rabindranath composed the poem “Shivaji’s Utsav”, inspired by the Shivaji festival introduced by Balgangadhar Tilak in Bengal. In Shivaji’s Utsav, he glorified Shivaji’s aim and ideal as eternal truth of freedom and priceless heritage of India. 

Shivaji has been a favorite of Vishwaguru. In 1897, he wrote a poem “Pratinidhi” where he sand paean to the idealized form of kingship which was preached by saint Ramdas to his disciple Shivaji.

In the introduction to “Shivaji o Maratha jati” (1908) written by Sarat kumar Roy, Rabindranth wrote, “the whole Maharashtra was deeply plunged in intense religious fervor and Shivaji emerged out of that movement. For this reason while he was blessed by the united power of his nation, it becomes true in viceversa. If shivaji was a mere genius in robbery and used his powers  for his self-interest, it  could never unite the whole Maratha nation."

Following  are the excerpts from the poem Sivaji's Utsav:

In what far away century on what unmarked day

I no longer know today

Upon what mountain peak, in darkened forests,

Oh King Shivaji,

Did this thought light up your brow as a touch of lightning

As it came to thee –

“The scattered parts of this land with one religion

‘ Shall I bind for eternity.”

Bengal did not stir that day in the midst of a dream,

It had not received the word –

It did not answer thy call, nor heralded it

With the blowing of the sacred conch –

Instead it spread its shielding veil

Its robes of verdant green

Over the slumbering village folk at night

Gathering them to her breast.

Then one day from the fields of Mahrattha

Your thunderous flame

Painted the horizons all about with flames of violent change

Imbued with a great clarion call.

The crown upon the Mughal’s brow was shaken by storm

As is a ripening leaf –

Even that day Bengal did not hear that thunderous Marattha call

Nor heed the message within.

After that in the midst of turbulent darkness

The palace of Delhi was emptied –

In each of their great halls ravenous night

Began engulfing the brilliance of light.

The corpse craving vultures cackled in hideous tones

As the glory of the Mughals

Finally succumbed to the pyre- in handfuls of ashes

Are their remains retained.

That day in this Bengal by the side of the traders route

Upon silent steps

The merchants secretly smuggled in perfidy

The throne that had once housed kings.

And Bengal anointed that very same seat with the water of its own Ganges

In secretive silence –

The weighing scales that had once measured profit refashioned through that dark night

Till at dawn a sceptre was held in the hands of a new king.

Where were you that day, Oh thoughtful brave Mahrattha,

Why did we not hear thy name!

Where lay your saffron flag crushed to dust –

What a terrible end!

The foreigner tells your story laughing you off as a bandit king

Roaring with mirth at your fall –

Your devoted effort now seen as a thief’s fruitless quest,

This is how they know you today.

Silence your garrulous words, false account

Thou art filled with lies,

Your writ shall be erased by the truth the Creator scribes

That alone shall prevail.

For how will the truth that is for immortality bound

Be disguised by the avarice of your tongue?

The prayers that are true will never be stalled

In the three worlds this I know to be true.

Oh brave royal penitent, the greatness of thought

That you have left for fate to treasure

Not one grain of that will

Be lost to the undeserving.

The sacrifice you made at the altar of the goddess who guards our land

The truth that you strove for relentless,

Who would have thought that it will grace till the end of days

The coffers of this land of ours.

For long did you remain unknown to the world, ascetic king of mine,

Among the peaks

Just as a stream breaks through the rocks to awaken with rain

In full spate,

You too emerged – to the surprise of the world who thought,

This pennant that

Hides the skies, what shape had it sought

Where was it secreted away for so long.

Strategic Depth

How to define Strategic depth- the space a combatant can exploit beyond its core territories or the internal distance within a state from the frontline to its centre of gravity or Heartland, its core population areas or important cities or industrial installations.

For Russia, Caspian Sea could be about strategic depth as its launched long-range Kalibr cruise missiles from the sea to targets in Syria (more than 1000 miles away).

After World war II, the Soviet Union created the strategic depth it needed to guard against a western invasion by occupying Poland and the Baltic states. Fast forward to 2017, Sweden and Finland are coming together to create their own strategic depth to counter Russia. The Swedish Air Force could allow Finland to use its bases in case Finland have to withdraw its forces in the face of an invasion by Russia. 

Iran and activities of its proxies is another case of cultivation of strategic depth. The Iranian regime sees Syria and Lebanon as its strategic depth. It is funding a plethora of paramilitary proxies, which have become the primary agents of regional instability in countries like Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

Take Pakistan for example, well-known for its strategic depth play. For Pakistan, Afghanistan represents strategic depth against its enemy number one India. Pakistan thinks it must ensure a friendly government on its western border in the event of a military clash against India to gain space for retreat and reorganization. 

But Afghanistan has no such notion, to Quote former Afghan President Hamid Karzai, "India provides emotional strategic depth to the Afghan people".

In Africa Sudan and Eritrea are cases of strategic depth for Egypt. In the words of Ahmoud Diaa, national security counsellor (Egypt), "Sudan is an important country for Egypt and represents an important strategic depth for Egypt, and we are one nation". Eritrea is important player for security of the Red Sea.

Arab countries, historically a guarantor of strategic depth for Palestinian rejectionist forces while lack of strategic depth is a dominant narrative in Israel. 

Mr Ahmet Davutoglu in his book, “Strategic Depth”, advocates a new policy of rebuilding ties round the former Ottoman empire.

So Geography, no less than History, is equally important for prospects of viable peace.

Case of two Évolués

Wikipedia defines Évolué as a French label used during the colonial era to refer to a native African or Asian who had "evolved" by becoming Europeanised through education or assimilation and had accepted European values and patterns of behavior. Anglicized in case of Indians.

Patricia Crone in "The Nativist Prophets of Early Islamic Iran" talks about two Évolués- 1.Non-Arabs like Iranians or Berbers (conquered and ruled by Arabs in seventh and early eighth centuries) and 2. Indians (ruled by British, a proxy for Europeans). She raises  a pertinent question:

 "Why did the Arab and European expansions have such different effects on the conquered peoples? Both provoked nativist revolts, but the frequency seems to have been greater on the European than the Muslim side. Also both had to cope with angry évolués, but it was only on the European side that these évolués aimed at secession with reference to their own separate identity.

Non-Arab évolués accepted Islam and the political unity it had brought while évolués of the European empires accepted the secular culture brought by the Europeans, but not the political unity they had established. Why this difference?"

Firstly, Arabs propounded Imamate while Europeans offered Nation State. Nationalism links political organisation with people’s separate identities, emphasizing ethnic or racial differences. On the contrary, the Imamate links political organisation with shared convictions, emphasizing faith that transcends such distinctions, having supranational connotation. For example, Muslim rulers continued to get the certificate, banner and robe of honour from Caliphs which sanctified their rule over infidels unlike British who viewed Indian as a distinct nation; albeit an inferior one.

Secondly, unlike the converts to the secular culture of the Europeans the many who converted to Islam became members of the same political and moral community as the conquerors (ummah). A non-Arab Muslim was not just an évolué but also a citizen. Conversion admitted vanquished natives to the ranks of the imperial elite more or less at will. Say a convert could found a Islamic kingdom and get certificate from Caliph. Say a Bahmani Kingdom and or a Malik Kafur.

As the Author says- "Westernisation did not confer membership of the conquerors’ polity. Nehru may have been the last Englishman to rule India, as he told Galbraith with reference to his thoroughly English culture; but he ruled India precisely because he had participated in the eviction of the British, not because he had received British citizenship or appointment as viceroy of India from them. Westernisation never amounted to membership of the imperial elite."

Évolués like Nehru (or most of the Indian Middle class for that matter) did not belong anywhere; they were politically homeless. 

Graham Allison’s book, ‘Destined for War: Can American and China escape Thucydides’s Trap?

I have written my work, not as an essay to win the applause of the moment, but as a

possession for all time.

—Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War

Here we are on top of the world. We have arrived at this peak to stay there forever. There

is, of course, this thing called history. But history is something unpleasant that happens to

other people.

—Arnold Toynbee

The book depicts whether war can be averted when an aggressive rising nation (China in 21st century) threatens a dominant power (USA). He studied 16 such cases, twelve of those rivalries ended in war and four did not. Both USA and China believe in their exceptionalism and are probably on a collision course for war. USA hegemony will be challenged by China, as the UK's was threatened by an emerging Germany. UK-Germany rivalry resulted in World war one. This is in contrast to USA-Soviet rivalry where war was averted before the Soviet Union collapsed.

There are many plausible scenarios of how conflicts between these two superpowers could break out. Taiwan, North Korea. (Vietnam and India are regional conflicts,might not attract USA intervention).

Allison asks the most pertinent question, "Will the impending clash between these two great nations lead to war? Will Presidents Trump and Xi, or their successors, follow in the tragic footsteps of the leaders of Athens and Sparta or Britain and Germany? Or will they find a way to avoid war as effectively as Britain and the US did a century ago or the US and the Soviet Union did through four decades of Cold War?"

What is then the central idea expounded by Thucydides as mentioned by Allison- "when a rising power threatens to displace a ruling power, the resulting structural stress makes a violent clash the rule, not the exception. It happened between Athens and Sparta in the fifth century BCE, between Germany and Britain a century ago, and almost led to war between the Soviet Union and the United States in the 1950s and 1960s."

Racial Sinicisation- Han Power and Racial and Ethnic Domination in China

“Unlike the exterminationist logics of Nazi Germany, the segregationist logics of South African apartheid and the expulsionist logics of racial palestinianisation, the logic of Chinese racial domination involves assimilation by coercion and is akin to post-racial positions in its denial of any shred of raciality.”

Ian Law in Red Racisms: Racism in Communist and Post-Communist Contexts

China, like most other Communist regimes claimed to have ended racism by the mere fact of its triumph. Most of the communist governments denied any racism either towards outsiders or ethnic minorities within the country. Racism might not come as a surprise to someone who is familiar with the language of how minorities are treated in China. Few samples- , “modernising” minorities, “bringing “development”, ending “primitivism” and “feudal practices” or bringing “civilisation” like British did in India (we are grateful of course !!).

Ian Law has exposed this fallacy in his book "Red Racisms: Racism in Communist and Post-Communist Contexts". Following are my favorites from the book-

..Racial sinicisation is primarily driven by the use of migration as a tool of domination, patriotic ‘re-education’ and the use of military power.

.....Sinicisation involves the aggressive, state-led, promotion of Han culture, language and identity, and the concomitant dissolving of the culture, language and identity of non-Han groups and the social disappearing of those groups into the mass of the Chinese nation.

......The civilising mission of Russia and the Soviet Union particularly in relation to territories in its Eastern borderlands parallels China’s civilising mission in its Western borderlands.

..In scores of official policies and regulations, there is an open attitude of superiority and paternalism, which is sometimes officially recognised as ‘Han chauvinism’ (dà Hànzúzhuyì ˇ ) but which masks a reality that exists in countries all over the world – racism.

...........The sino-centric view of a superior central state and associated civilisation and culture provided a hierarchial world view within which core concepts of racial difference led to a logic of incorporation and assimilation of those other ‘barbarian peoples’ on the part of the Chinese civilisation state.

..Chinese nationalism has been shaped by successive imperialist, Republican and Communist regimes and comprises a mixture of ethnic Han identity and a culturalist pride. 

...A Han Chinese nation came into being with the imperial unification of the Qin-Han period, and with the development of political centralisation and cultural standardisation, such as the decision to designate one national language to be used for all official purposes. Despite internal divisions, alien conquests, elite culturalism, peasant particularism and movements of peoples this nation evolved and defined itself in terms of a common myth of origin and descent, common lifestyles, rituals, a political elite and an imperial bureaucracy.

.....At the heart of China’s first twentieth-century revolution, the Xinhai Revolution in 1911/12, were ideologies of racial hierarchy, race war and the need for racial domination by the Han. Initial uncertainty over how to address the identities and demands of non-Han Chinese was resolved through the vision of post-imperial China as a ‘Republic of Five Nationalities’ (wuzú gònghé ˇ ).

Something recently published on mass internment camps, here.

1st amendment (India & USA)

On May 10, 1951: Jawaharlal Nehru scripted the First Amendment to the Indian Constitution (which was passed into law within a few weeks). It introduced many restrictions on our fundamental rights, also restricted freedom of expression.

In 1950, Crossroad, a pro-communist weekly journal in English,was banned by the Madras State for publishing critical views on Nehruvian policy. The publisher petitioned the Supreme Court, which led to the landmark judgment in "Romesh Thappar vs The State Of Madras" on 26 May 1950. This led Nehru administration make the Amendment to 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India against "abuse of freedom of speech and expression".

It states “interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence” will be paramount and freedom of expression will not be unconditional.

This amendment set the precedent for amending the Constitution to overcome judicial judgments which purportedly impeded the fulfilment of the government’s responsibilities to particular policies and programmes. The amendment’s language gave it retrospective and prospective effect which feature was used by Indira Gandhi to render constitutional, the actions that had been both illegal and unconstitutional during emergency.

Now compare this to what happened in USA?

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or to petition for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

Now these are two different stories of  freedom of expression, not a difficult one to see which one follows liberalism to the core.