M K Gandhi And The Gandhian Legacy

[Guest]

thats too important an article - so i am sticking it here, lest one day shulekha deletes it or something.



Independence was just around the corner, along with the prospect of an India divided into two nations, one becoming the homeland for Muslim Indians. It was the culmination of a rising Muslim awareness of a separate identity from the Kaffirs with whom they lived, manifesting in movements like the Khilafat and best exemplified when we consider that the majority of Muslims who remained in India after partition, supported the idea of Pakistan. Along with this growing Islamic consciousness came open displays of pride and aggression towards the Kaffir. Out of this aggression came Direct Action Day on August 16th 1946, where Muslim League leader H.S Suhrawardy urged Muslims to show their support for Pakistan by any means necessary. Islamic aggression led to four days of rioting in Calcutta, setting off a chain of events elsewhere, with rioting in Mumbai and other parts of the country, including Noakhali. It was the atrocities the Muslims committed here that led Gandhi to advise Hindu women to learn the “fearless” act of dying without killing, a glimpse of what was to come from him:

They were pained at the news of women’s sufferings in East Bengal, said Gandhi. ...He wanted our women to learn to be brave. His advice to them was to commit suicide rather than allow themselves to be dishonored had been much misunderstood. They could use the dagger for self-defence if they wished to. But a dagger was no use against overwhelming odds. He had advised them to take poison and end their lives rather than submit to dishonor…They had two ways of self-defense- to kill and be killed or to die without killing. He could teach them the latter, not the former.1

Who is to say that the woman using the dagger to kill, will necessary be killed herself? And would it not be a good thing for a woman, even while dying, to at least remove from Earth the assailant to prevent possible future attacks on other women? Gandhi assumed that death was inevitable, and it was this attitude of hopelessness that he brought to Noakhali, terming it “the gospel of love that he had come here to preach.2” During his stay in Bengal, Hindus in Bihar engaged in retaliatory riots Gandhi was critical towards. The Bihari rioting had not ceased by February of 1947, and Gandhi was motivated to travel and stop it after being urged by Muslim friends: “I had flattered myself with the belief that I would be able to affect the Bihar Hindus from my place in Bengal. But Dr. Syed Mahmud has sent his secretary to me with a long letter which showed me that I should go to Bihar for the sake of the Muslims of Bihar.3”

Of course, Gandhi did not go to Bihar with the same message of Noakhali, which was for Hindus – the victims – to die without killing, along with the usual ‘Hindu-Muslim Bhai Bhai.’ In Bihar, his message was not for Muslims – the victims – to die without killing; his focus was on the Hindus, whom he told to take the burden of not being hostile, whatever the Muslim attitude:

He then told them that they must not harbour ill will against their Muslim neighbors. He appealed to both the parties to live at peace with each other. But he held that even if the Hindus alone harbored no ill will against the Muslims, or vice versa, strife would abate. If however both harboured ill will...strifes were bound to be the result. 4

After all, the New Testament – well, “no religion” – teaches one to harm ones neighbors: “You will consider for yourselves why those who committed these crimes did so. Was it to save their religion? I would rather say that they did not thereby save their religion but harmed it. No religion teaches anyone to kill his neighbors. 5” More than helping the Muslims, Gandhi’s goal in Bihar was to change the mentality of the Hindu – gearing them towards suicide: “They must not antagonize Muslims but they must not also yield to threats. They should rather lay down their lives. Gandhiji emphatically said that he had decided to go to Bihar, not for the relief of Muslims, but to effect a change of mentality among the Hindus of Bihar.6”

Gandhi believed the Hindus were guilty of grievous sinning, and like a Christian Pastor to his flock he urged a March 14th crowd to confess all: “I shall not say that Bihar has ignored my past services. I do not want you to do anything for my sake. I want you to work in the name of God, our Father. Confess your sins and atone for them with God alone as witness. 7” Gandhi urge the Hindus to be brave – bravery meaning suffering without retaliation! “The speaker (Gandhi) said the one way to forget and forgive was to contemplate Bihar which had done much worse than Noakhali and Tipperah. They should be brave. And forgiveness was an attribute and adornment of bravery. Let them be truly brave. True bravery refused to strike; it would suffer all infliction with patient cheerfulness. That would be the truest way of disarming opposition. 8”

In a March 12th speech in Patna, Gandhi – characterizing Hindus as ‘idol worshippers’ when it is the Divine Force the idol symbolizes that is worshipped – urged Hindus to not retaliate against mosques. Instead they should “hug” the idols within the Temple, because this was sure to change the minds of Muslim rioters!

A mosque was also damaged in the village Kumarahar. This also I consider to be a devilish deed. It is no justification to argue that the Hindus damaged the mosque because the Muslims were desecrating the temples. Hindus worship idols, while the Muslims do not. ...I am as much an idol-worshipper as an idol-breaker. Still when I go to a temple, I am happy if I find it neat and clean. Those who desecrated the mosque were not men but devils; because mosques, temples or churches are all houses of the Lord. I have come here today to convey to you my grief. You may perhaps be smiling and thinking whatever happened was all very good. But I assert that this is potent injustice. I am grieved when I hear that Muslims have desecrated a temple. Should I retaliate by damaging a mosque? How can such damage save the temple or benefit the Hindu religion? If the Muslims are about to desecrate a temple, it becomes my duty to prevent them from their vandalism, irrespective of my not being an idol-worshipper. I should hug the idol and request them not to demolish the temple. I should lay down my life to protect the idol but refuse to hand it over to them. My entreaties will impress them, they will realize that I mean no harm to them and then they will become my friends.9

In a March 30th Harijan article, Gandhi would give similar advice on how to win the friendship of the Muslim:

A friend came to me eulogizing the sword. The Muslims came here, he said, hurling abuses and unfurling Muslim League flags. We tried to dissuade them, continues the friend, but they did not listen. When, however, we pulled out the swords, asserts the friend, they came to their senses and became our friends. I tell you this was no bravery. The persuasion was backed by the threat of the sword. Threats do not produce true friendship. If you were honest, you should have told the Muslims: "Look here, you are only a handful and we are in the vast majority. You are abusing us. You want to unfurl your flag. And yet we shall not say anything to you nor return your abuses. But we shall not allow you to unfurl the flag nor shall we salute the Pakistani flag." If the Muslims had seen that...you wish to be friendly with them, their conscience would have awakened and they would have become your true friends. 10

At best we can call Gandhi a dreamer, for to have a raging Islamic mob acquiesce to pathetic displays of hugging an idol or a stern lecture not to hurl the Pakistani flag can only be described as a fantasy! The same article relates another dream – of the past – held by Gandhi. It was his idea that Hindus had long shed their blood in the name of ahimsa. One wonders how the ancient Hindu Kings were able to juggle the task of dying for ahimsa with conquering land for their Kingdoms. And it is unlikely that the Sadhus of the past had Gandhi’s ahimsa in mind when they retreated from earthly life. Their nonviolence did not extend into the life of the nation; it was for the individual seeker:

The lesson of nonviolence was present in every religion but Gandhiji believed that perhaps it was here in India that its practice had been reduced to a science. Hindu religions prescribe great tapaschcharya for the realization of ahimsa. It is said that innumerable Hindus had shed their blood in the cause of ahimsa until the Himalayas became purified in their snowy whiteness by means of that sacrifice. The Hindus of today pay only lip service to ahimsa. You must demonstrate true ahimsa in this land of Ramachandra and King Janaka. True bravery consists in true ahimsa. At the moment you are guilty of committing very cowardly acts. 11

Support for these fantastic claims was of no importance to Gandhi, who never understood that some fantasies ought to remain as fantasies. Especially his vision of genocide, one he brought with him on his return to Delhi. In an April 1st speech, Gandhi would continue to urge Hindus that dying, and not retaliating, was appropriate, especially since they would be dying at the hands of their Muslim brothers:

Let us not be afraid of dying. If we are to be killed, would we not rather be killed by our Muslim brothers? Would a brother cease to be a brother because he has changed his religion? 12

In courting death, Gandhi gave justification in the idea that one should not fear things like birth and death, telling an April 6th audience in Delhi that “None should fear death. Birth and death are inevitable for every human being. Why should we then rejoice or grieve? If we die with a smile we shall enter into a new life, we shall be ushering in a new India.13” But Gandhi’s advice to Hindus was the ultimate denial of life, a complete negation. While it is true that the Hindu view of birth and death is that the soul reincarnates into different bodies, it does not consider life to be so insignificant that one should allow oneself to be sacrificed like a lamb. Such deaths do nothing for the spiritual growth of the individual Soul, this being the true purpose of reincarnation, culminating in the Soul becoming Master of the mind and body. Life is pivotal towards this goal, because it is within life that the Soul gathers the experiences necessary to help it achieve full command. Life having such significance means that death – while necessary - is not something to be feted, which is what Gandhi did, when saying, “Man after all is mortal. We are born only to die. Death alone is the true friend of man. 14” His obsession with suffering and death led him to not think twice about urging Hindus to walk into their own execution.

While Hinduism speaks of deaths as a simple necessity for the growth of the Soul in man, Gandhi viewed the deaths of Hindus as something bold and exciting to take part in, a means for the creation of a brave new world – one where Islam reigned supreme:

Hindus should not harbor anger in their hearts against Muslims even if the latter wanted to destroy them. Even if the Muslims want to kill us all we should face death bravely. If they established their rule after killing Hindus we would be ushering in a new world by sacrificing our lives. 15

If only the Hindus were to have listened and allowed themselves to be killed, they would have gone down in history not only as creators of a new world, but as the glorious saviors of Islam…and Hinduism…and the whole world!

Today a Hindu from Rawalpindi narrated the tragic events that had taken place there. ...The villages around Rawalpindi have been reduced to ashes. ...The Hindus of the Punjab are seething with anger. The Sikhs say that they are the followers of Guru Gobind Singh who has taught them how to wield the sword. But I would exhort the Hindus and Sikhs again and again not to retaliate. I make bold to say that if Hindus and Sikhs sacrifice their lives at the hands of Muslims without rancor or retaliation they will become the saviors not only of their own religions but also of Islam and the whole world. 16

Just like with the Khilafat movement, Gandhi wished to save Islam. Except this time it was not from the geopolitics of the British Empire, it was from the hands of Hindus in a battle for their lives. Little wonder that many Hindus were becoming furious with him. Gandhi, aware of the anger when – in an April 4th discussion - facing Hindu refugees from Pakistan areas, gave rare sensible advice to go along with his usual call for submission:

Q: You tell people to discard arms, but in the Punjab the Muslims kill the Hindus at sight. You have no time even to go to the Punjab. Do you want us to be butchered like sheep?

G: If all the Punjabis were to die to the last man without killing, the Punjab would become immortal. It is more valiant to get killed than to kill. Of course my condition is that even if we are facing death we must not take up arms against them. But you take up arms and when you are defeated you come to me. Of what help can I be to you in these circumstances? If you cared to listen to me, I could restore calm in the Punjab even from here. One thousand lost their lives of course, but not like brave men. I would have liked the sixteen who escaped by hiding to have come into the open and courted death. More is the pity. What a difference it would have made if they had bravely offered themselves as a nonviolent, willing sacrifice! Oppose with ahimsa if you can, but go down fighting by all means if you have not the nonviolence of the brave. Do not turn cowards. 17

Understanding the rage of the refugees he was talking too is what made Gandhi placate them by advising to fight only if they were not up to the task of using his ahimsa. It was the belief that his ahimsa ideally should be used at all times, that made him continually stress mass suicide to the Hindus. Gandhi desired mass suicide because he abhorred violence, because he thought the spiritual thing to do was to reject violence in all situations. While we can compliment Gandhi for his wish to remove himself from violence, he was approaching it in the wrong manner. In Hinduism, the idea was to detach oneself from the results (and the act itself even while performing it) of the action (in this case violence) by surrendering said action and subsequent results to God; as opposed to simply refusing to partake in the act. Thus there was not to be any sort of malicious pleasure or despair (modes of rajas) to be taken from violent acts; it was simply action to be undertaken with a Sattvic temperament, based on the knowledge that such killing were only transient deaths. This detachment from the action of killing is of a different nature to Gandhi’s wish for the Hindus to remain inert, which is not the same as detachment; Gandhi’s advice is instead the practice of inaction or Tamas. Because to fight back and to run away are two forms of action, the latter of which should not always be confused with cowardice, because choosing to remain and be slaughtered when the possibility of escape appears is the lowest form of Ignorance, of Ego. Usually we associate the Ego with attachment to modes of rajas, but the ego also attaches itself to modes of Tamas or inaction. It is through concentration and surrender – not callous indifference and refusal to engage - that one removes oneself from attachment, even during warfare.

Gandhi not only preached Tamas to Hindus, he told them to enjoy their fate, to enjoy being killed by Muslims (again the sattvic temperament would not take perverse pleasure in an action):

But Jinnah Saheb presides over a great organization. Once he has affixed his signature to the appeal, how can even one Hindu be killed at the hands of the Muslims? I would tell the Hindus to face death cheerfully if the Muslims are out to kill them. I would be a real sinner if after being stabbed I wished in my last moment that my son should seek revenge. I must die without rancor. 18

In the same speech, Gandhi made it clear that inertia would reap the Hindus a reward he cherished – that of martyrdom:

There is nothing brave about dying while killing. It is an illusion of bravery. The true martyr is one who lays down his life without killing. You may turn round and ask whether all Hindus and all Sikhs should die. Yes, I would say. Such martyrdom will not be in vain. You may compliment me or curse me for talking in this manner; but I shall only say what I feel in my heart. 19

Even though it was Gandhi’s heartfelt wish to see all Hindus killed, the possibility of martyrdom or even canonization did not appeal to them. Many remained angry. In a May 28th speech Gandhi related a question he was asked – of which he did not understand the implication – that was a hint of the future: “Yesterday I was asked what we should do with a mad dog, whether we should not kill it. This is an odd question. He should have asked what should be done when a man went mad. 20”

During the same speech he gave the usual advice to Hindus who were afraid of rumored June 2nd Islamic plans of attack on them in Pakistan areas:

We hear from all sides speculations about June 2. ...Now there is talk of killing all the Hindus. And the Hindus would ask why, if the Muslims kill us, we should not kill them in return. They too would want to spill blood. If this is not madness, what else is it? I trust that you, who are seated here so peacefully, would not give in to such frenzy. If the people who are caught in the frenzy are bent upon killing us, we would let them do so. Would they be cured of their madness if we let ourselves be killed? The prevailing madness is not such as would blind us to all reason. Even when a really mad person rushes toward us with a knife in his hand, we should face the danger. We do not panic. Similarly, if the Muslims come with raised swords screaming for Pakistan, I would tell them that they cannot have Pakistan at the point of the sword. They must first cut me to pieces before they vivisect the country. 21

Saying that Pakistan would only be created over his mutilated body showed an exaggerated belief in his own importance. As a politician Gandhi had some amount of power to determine the outcome of partition, but if the Muslims of Pakistan killed or made the Hindus of those lands flee, then the goal of partition would have been achieved without any concern for Gandhi’s proclamations from the confines of Delhi. By telling the Hindus of Pakistan to sacrifice their lives, he was aiding in the Islamic goal of Pakistan that he claimed to be against.

Hindus remaining in Pakistani territory knew of the potential danger facing them, and they wrote Gandhi urging him to go to Sindh. They actually thought he might protect them:

Why should the Hindus in Sind be afraid? Why should they panic? I have a letter from there saying that the Hindus are overcome with fear. But instead of being frightened, why do they not take the name of Rama? The people of Sind want me to go to them. I have not been to Sind for many years but I have maintained such close relations with the people of Sind that at one time I used to call myself a Sindhi. I used to have Sindhi companions also in South Africa. Sindhis, Marwaris, Punjabis, all have co-operated with me. Some of them even drank and ate nonvegitarian food. In spite of their inability to give up these things they called themselves Hindus. I was friends with all of them. One of them asks me in a letter if I have forgotten him and Sind? But how can I forget? 22

It may be true that Gandhi did not forget Sindh, but he preferred Hindus remain there and die. He did not feel the need to travel to Sindh to deliver the message in person. A similar situation arose in April of that year when he was asked why he did not go to the Punjab to help Hindus under attack. To justify his decision, Gandhi misrepresented a couple of Hindu ideas. He first claimed that it was his “Svadharma to go to Bihar. I worship the Gita. The Gita ordains that one should perform one's own duty and stick to one's own field of action. The Gita clearly states that better is death in the discharge of one's own duty and in one's own field. Running after another's function is fraught with danger. Hence, staying in a place like Delhi which is another's domain is for me fraught with danger. 23” Svadharma is in relation to ones inner nature and abilities, not to a particular place, and so would have nothing to do with Delhi or Punjab or Bihar. Following ones Svadharma is best defined as living towards the highest ideals of ones deepest nature, ideals not always in unison with others or external concepts, because their origin is from an inner law.

The next justification he gave in the same April 11th speech was that he had received no inner voice regarding Punjab: “If I had had a call from God directing me to go to the Punjab I would have certainly gone there. You may well ask me if it is God who prompts me. That way, God does not come to me in person. But I do hear an inner voice. One who becomes a devotee of God hears His voice from within. I did not hear such a voice with regard to the Punjab.24”

It is true that many devotees are guided by an Adesh, but in Gandhi’s case it is doubtful since he admitted not coming close to gaining Self-realization25, and because - in the same speech - he admitted mentally debating whether or not to go to Punjab: “But let me tell you that I have thought enough about going to the Punjab, and have come to the conclusion that my going there now would not serve any particular purpose, because we do not rule the Province.26”

One who receives an Adesh does not need to sit and back and think about a decision. The devotee waits in silence until he hears a command.

For Gandhi, such thinking on the merits of going to Punjab likely included the idea that Bihar offered more potential benefits to his goals. In Punjab, Hindus were on the defensive and were most likely to be killed even if fighting back, but in Bihar, Hindus were on the attack. Gandhi disapproved the later more. Thus his choice to travel to Bihar. Of course that did not stop him from conveying his suicidal message to the Punjabis:

But whether I go to the Punjab or not, I shall certainly work for it. Whatever I want to tell the people after going there can as well be conveyed to them from outside the Punjab. I want to teach only one thing which I shall never tire of repeating. And it is that every Hindu and every Sikh should resolve that he would die, but would never kill. Master Tara Singh says that Sikhs shall kill. In my view what he says is not proper. He should say that if they do not get what they want they would die for it, even if they may be only a handful, and rest only when they had achieved their goal. He should not talk in terms of killing. I need not go all the way to the Punjab to say this. 27

He would deliver his message directly to Tara Singh, describing the meeting to a June 4th audience: “Master Tara Singh came to see me today. I told him that he should not remain a lone soldier, but become equal to one and a quarter lakh. The Sikhs should learn to die without killing and then the history of the Punjab would be completely changed. With it the history of India would change too.28” Of course the history of Punjab and India would have changed if Gandhi’s ideas had come to fruition – both would have become completely Islamic!

Hindus and Sikhs, if for the simple reason that they wanted to defend their lives using violence when necessary, sent letter after letter in the hope he might understand their plight, and speak common sense. But they were talking to the wrong man; Gandhi was not the type to easily lose attachment to his web of ideas or emphasize with the position of others opposing his views:

What pricks them the most is the fact that I keep calling upon them to lay down their lives instead of rousing them to kill. They want me to call upon the Hindus to avenge violence by violence, arson by arson. But I cannot deny my whole life and be guilty of advocating the rule of the jungle instead of the law of humanity. If someone comes to kill me I would die imploring God to have mercy on him. Instead, these people insist that I should first ask you to kill and then die if need be. They tell me that if I am not prepared to say such a thing, I should keep my courage to myself and retire to the forest. 29

Outsiders were not the only ones to differ with Gandhi. One of his oldest co-workers, Purushottamdas Tandon, came to support the use of violence for self-defense: “Shri Purushottamdas Tandon paid me a visit. I have told you how I was pained by Tandonji's statement that every man and woman should carry arms…Tandonji explained that although he did not believe in...tit for tat, he certainly believed that everyone should carry arms for self-defence....Tandonji said we might not adopt the principle of tit for tat...But if we did not take up arms and show our strength how were we to defend ourselves?30” Gandhi’s answer to Tandon was that he agreed that self-defense was necessary. Of course, Gandhi had his own ideas as to what constituted self-defense:

My answer is self-defence is necessary, but how does one defend oneself? If someone comes to me and says, "Will you or will you not utter Ramanama? if you do not, look at this sword." Then I shall say that although I am uttering Ramanama every moment I will not do so at the point of the sword. Thus I shall risk my life in self-defence.31

Defending oneself in such a situation should naturally mean to save your life; simply denying the wish of the attacker can in some instances be a noble thing, but should be considered as defiance rather than defense. His twisted view on defense was one of many reasons he continued to receive strongly worded letters: “I am being inundated with abusive letters and telegrams. This shows how grossly some people misunderstand my ideas. Some think I consider myself too big even to reply to their letters while others think I am enjoying myself in Delhi while Punjab is in flames.32” One letter went further and accused him of not living up to the ideals of the Gita that he preached:

A friend has written me a harsh letter asking me if I must still persist in my madness. "In a few days you will be leaving this world," he says, "Will you never learn? If Purushottamdas Tandon says that everyone should take up the sword, become a soldier and defend himself, why do you feel hurt? You are a votary of the Gita. You should be beyond dualism. You should not feel grief or joy over every little thing. You talk like the foolish Sadhu who again and again tried to save a scorpion from drowning while it went on stinging him. If you cannot give up your refrain of ahimsa you can at least allow others to take their path of choosing. Why do you become a hindrance? 33

Gandhi, to his credit, acknowledged that he was not beyond the sufferings of the ego, in this case a close co-worker merely differing in opinion: “When I heard that he was saying the things he did I was grieved…If I had perfect steadfastness of intellect I would never have felt hurt. Even as it is I am trying not to feel hurt. But each day I advance a little further.34” In response to the example of the Sadhu and the scorpion, Gandhi showed an ignorance of basic human nature:

The example of the Sadhu and the scorpion is a good one. When some person without faith asked him why he was so set on saving the scorpion, whose very nature it was to sting, he answered: "If it is in the nature of the scorpion to sting it is in the nature of man to put up with the sting. If the scorpion cannot give up its nature, how can I give up mine? Do I have to become a scorpion that stings and kills it?" 35

To begin, unusual is the motive for a man to save a scorpion from drowning. It is even less likely for a man to put up with such a stinging, for the basic human – and animal – response to such painful stinging would be either to kill or at least to remove the scorpion from the body. Only someone numb to stimuli – or some plant species - would be of the nature to receive a sting without any response. Tandon, arriving at an opposing viewpoint, had thus taken the nature of a scorpion, leading Gandhi to slander a man who committed no crime:

In the end the learned friend counsels that if I cannot give up being stubborn and must persist in ahimsa I should at least not stand in the ways of others. Shall I then be a hypocrite. Shall I deceive the world? The world then will only say that there is a so-called Mahatma in India who mouths sweet phrases about ahimsa while his coworkers indulge in killing. 36

The international opinion of him was not his only concern; of higher priority was to make the Hindu listen to him, to make the Hindu do what he said:

If I can thus make myself heard by even the Hindus alone, you will see that India holds her head high in the world. I say nothing of the Muslims. They think I am their enemy but the Hindus and the Sikhs do not consider me their enemy. If the Hindus will heed my advice regarding the nonviolence of the brave I shall tell them to throw their arms into the sea; I shall show them how the brave can rely on nonviolence. 37

Gandhi faced an uphill battle to make the Hindu heed his call for mass suicide, because as he realized, his influence had waned: “There was a time when the most casual remark from me was honored as a command. Such is not the case today.38” For Gandhi was no longer the inspirational religious figure the media portrayed him to be. To the audiences that came to see him, he belonged to the cult of celebrity: “The gatherings in Bihar tended to be larger than those in Bengal...People are always eager to see me. They wonder what Gandhi looks like. They want to see if he is a creature with a tail and horns. Thus people used to gather in huge numbers.39” The loss of previous power gave only more grief to the votary of the Gita, a grief he shared in response to compliments from a co-worker:

COWORKER: You have declared that you won't mind if the whole of India is turned into Pakistan by appeal to reason but not an inch would be yielded to force. You have stood firm by your declaration. But is the Working Committee acting on this principle? They are yielding to force. You gave us the battle-cry of Quit India; you fought our battles; but in the hour of decision, I find you are not in the picture. You and your ideals have been given the go-by.

Gandhiji: Who listens to me today?

Coworker: Leaders may not, but the people are behind you

Gandhi: Even they are not. I am being told to retire to the Himalayas. Everybody is eager to garland my photos and statues. Nobody really wants to follow my advice.

Coworker: They may not today, but they will have to before long

Gandhi: What is the good? Who knows whether I shall then be alive? The question is: What can we do today? On the eve of independence we are as divided as we were united when we were engaged in freedom's battle. The prospect of power has demoralized us. 40

The self-pity his ego felt - due to having his message ignored - in many instances transformed into anger. It was this rage that led Gandhi to threaten a March audience in Bihar that they would regret not listening to him:

I wish to give vent to the fire that is raging within me in the course of my answers to your questions. Why should we behave in this manner? Neither you nor I have a correct picture of what is happening in the Punjab. Anyway, whatever it may be, it is indeed deplorable. But we have to keep our houses clean. We need not make our houses filthy because another person fills his house with filth. If you [do not] act according [to my advice], remember you will be sorry for it. You will regret that you did not listen to this old man's advice. … I remind you again that those who hurt Muslims will be hurting me. I am camping here simply to put an end to this fratricide or die in the effort. 41

Gandhi’s ego demanded its satisfaction above the elementary needs of the Hindu masses; only an ego of Titanic proportions would demand of Hindus to not defend their lives with violence, simply to alleviate its illogical grief. His ego would continue to extend itself, attaching to each Muslim death:

If the Hindus of Bihar slaughter the Muslims, they would be killing me. I say the Muslims of Bihar are like my blood-brothers. They are glad to see me. They are convinced that at least this one man belongs to them. Anyone who kills them kills me. If they insult their sisters and daughters, it is insulting me. From this platform I want to convey this to all the Hindus of Bihar. ...It is being rumored these days that Gandhi wants to go to Bihar and get the Hindus slaughtered. But I would like to proclaim at the top of my voice that even if all the Muslims lose their heads not a single Hindu should follow suit. 42

If he really had lived according to the principles of the Gita, he would not have attached himself to the physical lives of each Muslim, for he would have known the eternal Truth that, “The wise grieves neither for the living nor for the dead…Just as the soul acquires a childhood body, a youth body, and an old age body during this life; similarly, the soul acquires another body after death. This should not delude the wise.43” Instead of the eternal view of physical death being transient in Nature, Gandhi had an unusual mixture of grieving over the death of the individual Muslim, yet lusting after the deaths of Hindus at the hands of Muslims. Naturally, Hindus and Sikhs continued to ignore his advice. This was the case during his trip to Bihar in March, where the Hindus – instead of abusing him through letters and telegrams – choose to lay low until he had finished his circuit:

Again Gandhiji referred to a report that he had heard of the Hindus threatening the Mussalmans that they would wreak vengeance on them when he (Gandhiji) was gone. It ill became the votaries of the Ramayana to try to suppress the fourteen or fifteen per cent of the Muslims in their midst. Men aspiring to be free could hardly think of enslaving others. If they tried to do so, they would only be binding their own chains of slavery tighter. It became their duty to go and beg forgiveness of the Mussalmans, and by their true repentance they should try to persuade them to go back to their homes. They should rebuild their houses. They should make their sorrow their own. 44

Having failed in Bihar, Gandhi decided to make a brief and solitary visit to Punjab (or maybe he finally received an Adesh!), and was greeted with hostility in Amritsar:

In the letter written in English, the writer had asked him to spend at least a week in Rawalpindi and see with his own eyes what the Hindus had suffered. Why should he choose to go to Kashmir? His reply was that ever since he had gone to Delhi he had wanted to come to the Punjab. He wanted to visit Lahore, Amritsar and Rawalpindi. But he believed that he was in God's hands. God was the Master of all the universe and He could upset the plans of men. …He referred to the black flag demonstration that Hindu young men had arranged at the Amritsar railway station. All the time the train stopped they kept shouting "Gandhi, Go Back" in English. He had to cover his ears as he could not stand the noise. He closed his eyes also and kept on repeating God's name. They were too noisy and excited, else he would have liked to get down and ask them what harm he had done to them to deserve such noisy hostility. 45

Similar protests awaited him in Calcutta during the month of August, when rioting emerged between Hindu’s and Muslims. This time, the Muslims were taking serious losses, and Suhrawardy sought Gandhi’s help. Gandhi was only eager to help Suhrawardy and his Muslim constituency, as long as Suhrawardy would come and live with Gandhi. Calcutta was the next stop on Gandhi’s mission to prove himself the savior of Muslims. Indeed earlier he had told a group of Bihari Muslims that aiding Muslims was his “one aim in life”:

Gandhiji reaffirmed that he was not disloyal or unfaithful to the Muslims and that his one aim in life was to help the Muslims as long as he was alive and he would try to help them even by dying. 46

The odd couple would reside in “"an old abandoned Muslim house in an indescribably filthy locality, which had hastily been cleaned up for Gandhiji's residence. It was open on all sides.47” On the thirteenth, a group of Hindus came and basically accused him of favoring the Muslims:

An excited crowd of young men stood at the gate as Gandhiji's car arrived. They shouted: ‘Why have you come here? You did not come when we were in trouble. Now that the Muslims have complained all this fuss is being made over it. Why did you not go to places from where Hindus have fled?’...The situation threatened to take an ugly turn. Gandhiji sent some of his men outside to expostulate with the demonstrators and tell them to send their representatives to meet him.48

Once inside, the demonstrators remained blunt in their appraisal: “Last year when Direct Action was launched on the Hindus on August 16, you did not come to our rescue. Now that there has been just a little trouble in the Muslim quarters, you have come running to their succour. We don't want you here.49”

Gandhi as usual twisted the words of his criticizers, accusing them of trying to avenge 1946 when the present riots were for recent provocations: “Much water has flown under the bridge since August 1946. What the Muslims did then was utterly wrong. But what is the use of avenging the year 1946 on 1947?50” At any rate, Gandhi claimed that his solitary journey to protect the Hindus of Noakhali had “earned” him the right to take similar actions against Muslims: “But let me tell you that if you again go mad, I will not be a living witness to it. I have gained the same ultimatum to the Muslims of Noakhali also; I have earned the right. Before there is another outbreak of Muslim madness in Noakhali, they will find me dead. Why cannot you see that by taking this step I have put the burden of the peace of Noakhali on the shoulders of Shaheed Suhrawardy and his friends-including men like Mian Ghulam Sarwar and the rest? This is no small gain.51”

To begin, Noakhali was only one place on the map where Hindus had suffered under Muslim rioting. And it was not Noakhali that the Hindus of Calcutta were angry about (unlike the Hindu rioters in Bihar). Their anger was towards fresh actions assuredly directed by the likes of Suhrawardy. While Gandhi’s ego may have wanted to take credit for forcing the “burden of peace” on Suhrawardy, the real facts point to a time-honored method – the use of violence. A man like Suhrawardy, initiator of the violence, would only desire ‘peace’ when it was clear that he was losing such a physical battle. It was not because he felt a sudden impulse towards ahimsa that he sought out Gandhi, it was because the Muslims were in grave trouble! Knowing that he could not win was what forced Suhrawardy to move from violence.

The demonstrators remained unconvinced by Gandhi’s arguments, telling him, “We do not want your sermons on ahimsa. You go away from here. We won’t allow the Muslims to live here. 52” An eighteen-year old put in the comment, “History shows that Hindus and Muslims can never be friends. Anyway, ever since I was born I have seen them only fighting each other. 53” Gandhi quickly rejected this, using his knowledge of a few Hindu boys referring to Muslims as ‘uncle’ and the mingling during festivals to bolster his case! Obviously, the genocidal invasions of Gaznavi, Ghori, Babur and Timur, the murderous rule of the Delhi Sultanate and Aurangazeb, the – closer to the present – frequent rioting between the two communities, were all aberrations: “Well, I have seen more of history than anyone of you, and I tell you that I have known Hindu boys who call Muslims 'uncle'. Hindus and Muslims used to participate in each others festivals and other auspicious occasions. 54”

Gandhi would continue, telling the demonstrators that it was fruitless to try and get him to change his mind: “You want to force me to leave this place but you should know that I never submitted to force. It is contrary to my nature. You can obstruct my work, even kill me. I won’t invoke the help of the police. You can prevent me from leaving this house, but what is the use of your dubbing me an enemy of the Hindus? I will not accept the label. ...I put it to you, young men, how can I, who am a Hindu by birth, a Hindu by creed and a Hindu of Hindus in my way of living, be an 'enemy' of Hindus? Does this not show narrow intolerance on your part? 55” According to the account, these last “Words had a profound effect. Slowly and imperceptibly the opposition began to soften. Still they were not completely converted. One of the said ‘perhaps we should now go.’” 56

That sort of effect was understandable, because Gandhi had used a – at least on the surface – plausible argument. While instinct led the demonstrators to consider Gandhi an enemy – for how can you not be considered an enemy of a particular group when you are calling for that group to let themselves be slaughtered – it was not surprising that their protests stopped when he recounted his Hindu origin. Doubtful would the demonstrators have known that Gandhi as a youth nearly converted to Christianity57, or that his obsessions with suffering and nonviolence was closer to the New Testament doctrine of “turning the other cheek” than it was to Sri Krishna’s injunction to fight the righteous war. Even not knowing this, they would have clearly sensed that – to go along with his not submitting to force – obstinacy was central to Gandhi’s nature. Neither force nor reason would change Gandhi’s stubborn views.

Gandhi’s arrival, and his threat of killing himself through fasting, helped bring peace to the city for little over a week. However, the last few days of August experienced a revival of communal rioting, disturbing Gandhi greatly. On September 1st he decided to launch a fast, for the apparent purpose of ending the violence. Yet this outward rational hid from view other reasons for his fast. As was clear in his speeches in Bihar, Gandhi was increasingly upset that Hindus were not following his advice, were not obeying his directions as in the past. Even though he was internationally known, lauded as a man of peace, he could not get members of his own community to listen to his dictates! For an ego used to being the center of attention, having experienced the power of millions obeying his word, this was a humiliation.

If the Hindus were not going to listen to him under normal conditions, he would create the conditions for them to obey. Naturally, he chose to color the reasons for his fast in the language of a crusader on a mission. For as a votary of ahimsa it was his duty to protest, his duty to show society it was wrong, and that his way was right: “One fasts for health's sake under laws governing health or fasts as a penance for a wrong done and felt as such. In these fasts, the fasting one need not believe in ahimsa. There is, however, a fast which a votary of nonviolence sometimes feels impelled to undertake by way of protest against some wrong by society and this he does when he, a votary of ahimsa, has no other remedy left.58” It was this feeling of helplessness, this rage at not having his words heeded, that ate at Gandhi prior to his fasts, as he admitted in January 1948: “I have no answer to return to the Muslim friends who see from day to day as to what they should do. My impotence has been gnawing at me of late. It will go immediately the fast is undertaken. I have been brooding over it for the last three days.59”

Here then was the admission of his desire for the power previously held, a craving now only satisfied after he used his last option, the fast: “Though the voice within has been beckoning for a long time, I have been shutting my ears to it lest it might be the voice of Satan, otherwise called my weakness. I never like to feel resourceless; a satyagrahi never should. Fasting is his last resort in the place of the sword-his or others.60” One who truly heard an Inner Voice would never think it to be from “Satan,” because one who knows and hears from the inner Soul never associates doubt with an Adesh.

Besides the egotistical motives behind the fasts, was the questionable nature of the fasts. For they were not pure fasts to the death. In describing a 21-day fast undertook while imprisoned in the opulent palace of Aga Khan, Gandhi mentions the drinking of water and orange juice, and the doctors at hand: “I would like to mention only one thing in that connection, and it is that I survived for 21 days not because of the amount of water I used to drink, or the orange juice which I took for some days, or the extraordinary medical care, but because I had installed in my heart God whom I call Rama.61” Well if Rama was the reason behind Gandhi’s survival, his instruments were the water and orange juice and physicians, water alone being enough to live on for 30 days. The physicians at hand –not only were Gandhi’s living arrangements looked after, his fasts were contrived – would have known this.

If the fasts were farcical so were the results, as noted by many of his detractors: “Critics have regarded some of my previous fasts as coercive and held that on merits the verdict would have gone against my stand but for the pressure exerted by the fasts.62” Any peace resulting from his fasts was a façade sustained by the Hindu only to prevent Gandhi from dying, thus sparing them international condemnation, not because of any true harmony generated between the communities. Gandhi, ironically, claimed prior to a January 1948 fast that he wished the violence to end without outside pressure: “It will end when and if I am satisfied that there is a reunion of hearts of all communities brought about without any outside pressure, but from an awakened sense of duty.63” Here we have him applying outside pressure, yet continually under the delusion – as he had to have done each time he ended his fasts – that the two communities had organically ended not only their current violence but centuries of hostility to go along with.

The burden of ending both the violence and hostility was placed primarily on the Hindus, leading many to move from being angry with him to viewing him as an enemy, as Bengal Congressman PC Ghosh told him in a September 2nd meeting during the Calcutta fast:

One thing, however, strikes me. You have launched your fast at a time when a section of the Hindus have begun to look upon you as their enemy. They foolishly feel that by asking them to practice nonviolence, when the other side has shed all scruples, you are being very unfair to them. I would have had nothing to say if you had declared a fast for anything wrong that the Ministry did. 64

In response, Gandhi claimed that he could now fast against the Muslims: “All this is wide of the mark. Don’t you see, this now gives me the right to fast against the Muslims, too. My fast is intended to serve both the communities. The moment the Hindus realize that they cannot keep me alive on any other terms, peace will return to Calcutta.65” Even if he could now rationalize a fast versus the Muslims, he never undertook one, no matter the terrible violence Hindus suffered in Pakistani areas. The beneficiaries of his fasts were the Muslims, who were otherwise in serious danger since they were – just like the Hindus of Pakistan - the minority in the areas he fasted in. Subconsciously he knew which group was truly benefiting from his intervention, which is why he directed his “terms” to the Hindu, burdening them with the life of the city, the implication being that if they failed, the responsibility for his death would forever mark them. It was this blackmail that he brought to Calcutta.

***

Having returned from Calcutta to Delhi, Gandhi could have continued into Pakistani areas to fast and prevent the deaths of the Hindus there. Instead he chose to remain in Delhi, at the same time urging Hindus and Sikhs fleeing from Pakistan to return to meet their deaths:

I am grieved to learn that people are running away from the West Punjab and I am told that Lahore is being evacuated by the non-Muslims. I must say that this is what it should not be. If you think Lahore is dead or is dying, do not run away from it, but die with what you think is the dying Lahore. When you suffer from fear you die before death comes to you. That is not glorious. I will not feel sorry if I hear that people in the Punjab have died not as cowards but as brave men...If in that act I am murdered I would bear no ill will against anyone and would rather pray for better sense for the person or persons who murder me. 66

Gandhi would tell a September audience of Hindu refugees that they should take his message of death back to other refugees, and try and get them to voluntarily return to Pakistan, to face sure death, just so they could perfect the “art of dying,” the only way to live!

Some people who came to me from Rawalpindi were strong, sturdy, brave...They asked me what we should do about those who are in Pakistan. But I in turn asked them why they came here instead of laying down their lives there. I am firm in my belief that in spite of atrocities being committed we should remain where we are and die. But let us die with courage, repeating the name of God. I have taught the same thing to the girls. I have told them to learn the art of dying with the name of God on their lips. ...I do not wish to forget God. That is why I am telling all that the greatest courage and understanding lie in learning the art of dying. Then alone they can live. If they do not learn the art of dying, they will die before their time. I do not wish that anybody should die before his time. The greatest bravery lies in having the courage to die. If our people have to die in this manner, let us not be angry with anybody. You must admire those people for dying and pray to God that He grant a similar opportunity to all of us. Let this be our sincere prayer. I would tell you what I told those people from Rawalpindi. I told them that they should go there and meet the Hindu and Sikh refugees. They should request them to return on their own, not under police or military protection. 67

Sometimes, individual refugees would come to visit Gandhi hoping that housing provisions would be made for them. One particular refugee was upset that Muslim houses in Delhi were not available for accommodation. Understandable was such a view, since the Hindus and Sikhs of Pakistan had to leave their homes, subsequently to be occupied by Muslims. Considering that Pakistan was supposed to be the nation for all the Muslims of the subcontinent, the refugee would have expected empty houses on his arrival. Predictably, Gandhi was upset the refugee had dared to even think about laying his hands on Muslim houses, including vacated ones:

The person had a big joint family in Lahore...He did not bring all the family members here...he narrated everything to me and requested me to find accommodation for him. I told him that I had no authority, and even if I had, I would not fix any accommodation for him. As it was, there was a housing shortage in Delhi. ...He told me that he had come here after losing seventeen members of his family. I told him that at least he had seventeen members in his family. ...I told him that if he believed that he belonged to the whole of India, even after the loss of seventeen family members who were dead and gone, the rest of India was there for him. Well, this is just philosophizing, so let us leave it there. ...He asked me: "Why should the Muslims living here not vacate their houses and go away? Why are they still here?" I was deeply pained to hear this...It is deplorable that you should have designs on the houses of the Muslims who have fled or have been killed or arrested by police. 68

Gandhi then blatantly revealed the arrogant side to his personality, one he would have denied if accused. What is it but arrogance, for a man like Gandhi, living in fantastic dwellings and taken care of by the government, to boast – under little instigation – of the difference in status between the Mahatma and a refugee who had lost his family and possessions, humiliating the refugee in the process?

If at all, you can say that to me because the house in which I stay is like a palace. You can ask me to leave this place and go and live in a camp. You can say that it would make no difference to me, for I have no wife, no sons...I would listen to you if you said that to me. I would certainly feel amused, for, even if I ran away, would you stay here? This house belongs to someone else. It is not mine. Of course the owner of this house has made me the owner and insisted that I should keep or prevent anyone from staying here as I please. How can the Muslims leave their houses? Only Gandhi is in a position to do that. If he is removed from here and dumped somewhere no one is going to leave him unattended. Somebody would give him milk, fruits, dates, and somehow his things would be managed. He is not going to remain unclothed. For even clothes would be provided for him. When I talked like this to that gentleman he felt ashamed. 69

Gandhi’s refusal to understand the nature behind the actions of Hindu’s – many of whom were fleeing of fighting to protect their wives and daughters from abduction and rape – led one refugee to remark that “Unfortunately Kasturba is not alive today. Had she been alive and had she been abducted, you would have understood our feelings.70" What the refugee did not know was that Gandhi had his own queer ideas on how to prevent rape. Gandhi believed that one must not resort to violence or flight to prevent rape or kidnapping; instead a show of self-sacrifice is called for, so it might convince the rapist and his depraved animal consciousness71! Gandhi, whose lips proclaimed devotion to Rama, followed a philosophy much different than the heroic life of Rama. Rama did not reject the call of vital action when faced with Sita’s abduction. Instead he displayed the characteristics of strength, fearlessness and valor associated with a higher form of human life, a higher form of ego (if we consider the Divine to be beyond – even while containing within – human forms of bravery and cowardice, happiness and grief, anger and tranquility, etc). While Rama’s legendary heroism knew no earthly boundaries to prevent him saving his wife, Gandhi’s ‘bravery’ consisted of meek acts of defiance and a perverse pleasure in death and inertia. Rama, knowing the Divine within, did not take refuge in the piteous belief that the odds were insurmountable, and was not deluded into thinking that avoidance of action was the proper spiritual course. Gandhi would have remained stationary, expecting Kasturba to immolate herself.

***

The plight of females in Pakistani areas led more refugees to vent their anger at him for not returning to Punjabi areas of Pakistan:

Why should the Hindus and the Sikhs get into such a frenzy that the Muslims are scared? You can turn around and tell me, many Hindus tell me in anger fixing their bloodshot eyes on me: "You were away in Bengal and Bihar. Just come to the Punjab and see the plight of the Hindus and the Sikhs and see the state of the girls there." 72

Perhaps due to being inundated with requests from refugees to go to Pakistan to help Hindus, Gandhi’s responses were sometimes curt: “A Hindu gentleman has asked me if I would go to the Punjab. I asked him if he would send me to the Punjab. Yes, if I went there I would fight with the people there also. You already know about my method of fighting. I would talk to them to my hearts content. Million of Hindus and Sikhs are coming here. Why do they not stay on in their homes? I shall have no peace till this happens.73” Gandhi did not need any random stranger to pay for him to go into Pakistan. The Birla’s, the Tata’s, the Government would have easily paid his way to go there. Gandhi, of course, tried to make out that his going into Pakistan constituted heroism, with all the forces supposedly opposed to his entry:

I want to go to the Punjab. I want to go to Lahore. I do not want to go with any police or military escort. I want to go alone, depending only on God. I want to go with faith and trust in the Muslims there. Let them kill me if they want. I would die smiling, and silently pray that God should be kind to them. And how can God be kind to them? By making them good. With God, the only way of making them good is by purifying their hearts. God will listen to me if I do not have a feeling of animosity even for one who regards me as his enemy. Then that man would ask himself what he would have gained by killing me. He would wonder what harm I had done to him. If they kill me they have a right to do so. That is why I want to go to Lahore. I want to go to Rawalpindi. Let the Government stop me if they will. But who can the Government stop me? They will have to kill me if they want to stop me. If they kill me, my death will leave a lesson to you. It will make me very happy. What will be that lesson? It will be that you may have to die but you will not wish evil on anybody. 74

Gandhi would reiterate the courageousness of such a move, that going into Pakistan meant risking death for him, although judging from his obsession with death, he would have derived a perverse pleasure:

Now I am being blamed for not letting Bengal be divided. It is true that I do not want the division. But then I also totally disprove of the whole country being divided into Hindustan and Pakistan. Even if I was the only Hindu remaining, I would still have the courage to go and live in the midst of the Muslim majority. What is the worst they could do? Kill me; could they do anything worse? But they would not kill me. They would protect one solitary individual. God would protect me. God always protects one who has no one to protect him. That is why the poet says, "God is the strength of the weak.”75

But Gandhi was no ordinary figure; he had the means and the power at his disposal that would protect him, directly or indirectly. As he mentioned, Gandhi had people to accommodate him, to take care of his basic needs and keep an eye out to threats on his person. These people would not disappear during a trip to Pakistan; they would follow him there even if he voiced otherwise, such was his fame. It is unlikely that – just like the Hindus in Calcutta –the Indian Government wished to bear the burden of Gandhi’s death. The Muslims, as well, would have wanted him alive, but for the positive reason of his benefit to their cause. His usefulness to them would prevent his death, not any miraculous act of the Divine. For Gandhi had spent his entire career appeasing Muslims, verbally opposing the cause of an Islamic homeland (Pakistan), yet supporting other causes (like the Khilafat) that only emboldened the Muslim League. And why would Muslims kill a man like Gandhi who was urging Hindus not to retaliate towards Muslims? They had seen how he saved the Muslims of Calcutta from harsher retribution, and sensed his utility.

No matter how much Hindus confronted Gandhi over this perceived unfairness, he would not budge from his position. He simply did not feel the need to go to Pakistan, because even though Gandhi proclaimed himself a follower of all the religions, he still made at least one crucial distinction between the Hindu and Muslim. This distinction was of a moral nature: Gandhian morality. Gandhi expected the Hindus alone to rise up to the moral challenge that Partition was offering them, by sacrificing themselves to the Islamic sword. After all, Muslims were their brothers:

But if one of my brothers gets into a mad fury and starts killing people, should I also go mad with rage like him? How is that possible? I claim to be a true Hindu and a sanatani Hindu at that. That is exactly why I am also a Muslim, a Parsi, a Christian and a Jew. For me all these are the branches of the same tree. Which of these branches should I keep and which should I discard? From which branch should I pick the leaves and which should I ignore? For me all are the same. 76

If all the religions were the same, then why did Gandhi place the burden of moral superiority on the Hindus? Should he not have toured the subcontinent urging the Muslims, also of the same tree, to display the same “bravery” of mass suicide? This would have been Gandhi’s course of action if only he truly believed the Muslims to be on par with the Hindu, at least in terms of receptiveness to his ideas. His belief to the contrary is why he spoke of the need for the Hindu majority to “enlighten” their Muslim brothers, even by laying down their lives:

The Hindus should not think that they have become a new community which cannot accommodate Muslims. We are in a majority in this part of India. We must enlighten the minority and work with courage. Courage does not reside in the sword. We will become truthful, we will become servants of God and, if need be, we will lay down our lives. When we do this India and Pakistan will not be two separate entities and the artificial partition would become meaningless. 77

Indeed, partition would have been rendered void if the Hindus had en masse laid down their lives, because there would be no Hindu left to constitute India, and then the whole subcontinent might as well have been called Pakistan! No Hindu left would also eliminate one branch from Gandhi’s special tree, at least according to a sane mind. Gandhi, remember, viewed mass suicide as a way of protecting ones religion! For the most part, he did not advise Muslims to protect their religion in such a suicidal manner. However, to be fair, there were a few times where he did give such an opinion to Muslims, describing his joy in the event of such deaths:

After hearing from Khwaja Abdul Majid, President, All India Muslim Majlis, about his experiences Gandhiji had remarked: "Had they killed you, I would have danced (with joy). And by dying you would have rendered a service to both Hindus and Muslims." 78

But the majority of his messages of joyous suicide were left for Hindu’s, because to Gandhi any sort of killing was heinous, the act of a primitive man, and he expected the Hindu to live according to his idea. This sort of philosophy is perhaps best described as a moral outlook on killing, for while it is true there are plenty of times when murder is heinous, it is also true that sometimes killing is necessary, especially in the time of war. It is for this reason that Lord Krishna told Arjuna to fight his own relations, because not only was Arjuna fighting in the cause of a higher Truth than that of the Kauravas, he also held the knowledge going into battle of the imperishable Soul amongst slain bodies. This plastic outlook on killing was not what Gandhi preached; he adhered to a rigid – and poorly developed –mental dictum of “killing bad, no killing good.” He said as much to a September 30th crowd:

I would tell them (Gandhi’s 4 sons) that if they were true Hindus they must have the courage to die for their religion, they could not save it by killing. ...I want to tell you only one thing and it is that we should not try to kill any Muslim. Let them kill if they want. If they kill it is bad. We should consider them bad. But if they are bad, why should we be bad in return? We can return their wickedness with goodness. 79
<