George Pennefather asked:
How do you mean that Ghandi did not keep to his own
principles of non-violence.
He not only gave his full backing to the British war effort in the
1st Imperialist War (1914-19) but also calling on young Indians to
follow his reactionary lead telling them to 'think imperially' and
'do their duty'
In a letter from himself and other Congress leaders in London at the
time to the British Secretary of State they wrote:
'It was thought desirable by many of us that during the crisis that
has overtaken the Empire... those Indians who are residing in the
United Kingdom and who can at all do so should place themselves
unconditionally at the service of the Authorities. On behalf of
ourselves and those whose names appear on the list appended hereto,
we beg to offer our services to the Authorities.'
This is hardly the position of a dedicated peace campaigner who is
committed to non-violent resolution to conflicts. This at a time when
the likes of Sylvia Pankhurst and John Maclean were campaigning
against the war effort and the revolutionary nationalist movement in
Ireland took the opportunity to further their aims rather than back
the Imperialist country that they had been fighting all that time.
Further to that, Ghandi made a personal offer of service in the
Mesopotamian campaign to the Viceroy on his return to India (who
excused him on health grounds, remarking that 'his very presence in
India itself would be of more service than any he might render
abroad'). Following the Viceroy's Delhi Conference of 1917 and right
up to July 1918 Ghandi was involved with a recruiting campaign urging
Gujarati peasants to win Swaraj by joining the army.
This was at a time of general unrest in India, crippling financial
contribution being extracted from the poor for the war, rising
prices, large scale profiteering and towards the close of the war the
mass toll of the influenza epidemic which killed 14 million Indians.
At the same time India saw the growth of revolutionary movements
in the Punab, the rise of a communist movement under the leadership
of M N Roy and mutinies in the army which in turn were followed by
ruthless suppressions, executions, sentences and new repressive
legislation.
As well as these 'mistakes' he made in contradicting his own position
I still cannot believe that any communism would offer support to this
most reactionary of bourgeois nationalist leaders as he was also a
rabid anti -communist who was committed to preventing the rise of the
'red ruin' of the fight of the workers and peasants. In 1932,
interviewed by Le Monde (20.2.1932) he stated, My social theory is
that although we are all born equal... it is natural that some of us
should be more fitted than others to acquire material gain. Those who
are capable wish to acquire more, and they bend their abilities to
this end, If they use their abilities in the best spirit they will be
working to the benefit of the people.'
There are more similar statement by this religious apologist for
capitalism. If anyone can think of a defence of this poor frail
little man (who makes such a good image for Western movies) who
peacefully and quietly lead the Indian nation to such a revolutionary
new society then please do let me know.
Regards,
John
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
