CRITIQUE OF GANDHI ON MAPPILA REBELLION

The Mappila Rebellion, 1921: Critiques Rise From The Flames

The idea of ahimsa as a policy that could be adopted and discarded left the door open for local Muslim interpretation. The Mappila Rebellion illustrated how far grassroots Muslims were from accepting it as a controlling principle. The rebellion, however, also revealed Gandhi’s selective utilitarianism in relation to Muslims, a critique that continues to be alive. In 1918 Gandhi had written to Mohamed Ali: “My interest in your release is quite selfish. We have a common goal and I want to utilize your services to the uttermost in order to reach that goal. In the proper solution of the Mohammedan question lies the realization of Swaraj.” In the case of the Mappilas there is a sense that Gandhi first aroused them and then abandoned them. On November 25, 2000, 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.

The Mappilas of Kerala, now constituting approximately 7.6 million and approximately 21.5 percent of the state, had experienced the negative impact of foreign rule long before the British arrived. Vasco da Gama, landing in Calicut, Malabar, in 1498, had led the Portuguese incursion, introducing the age of European dominance. The Portuguese distorted a centuries-long period of harmony among Hindus, Christians, and Muslims, a process that I have described elsewhere. The end result was a disaffected and volatile Mappila community, whose members were the victims of a repressive landownership system, were suffering from impoverishment, and were given to frequent violent uprisings against what they deemed to be oppression. The noncooperation movement in its Khilafat aspect dropped like a spark into this tinderbox. A key event was a conference of the Kerala Congress in Manjeri, Malabar, April 28, 1920.

The conference brought the Khilafat movement to the attention of the Mappilas. In an action that some have regarded as the seed of the rebellion activists passed a resolution supporting that movement, a decision opposed by Annie Besant and other moderates. In the short run it resulted in many startling expressions of Muslim–Hindu amity, but in the longer run the Khilafat agitation aroused the religious and emotional fervor of the Mappilas to a high degree. On August 18, 1920, Mahatma Gandhi and Shaukat Ali addressed a large public meeting at Calicut. Exhortations to join action against the British and rosy promises of quick results were in the air. While Gandhi urged Hindus to support Muslim demands for justice within the context of appropriate means, Shaukat Ali was not so restrained, and those who were there recalled the stirring impact of his words.

Shaukat Ali (1873–1938), the first secretary of the Khilafat Committee, who operated in the shadow of his younger brother Mohamed Ali, deserves greater notice than he ordinarily receives for his leadership role. He was a bluff and hearty man rather than a reflective type, and was able to rouse people easily. Moved by his pro-Turkish sentiments and by governmental tardiness in granting Aligarh, his alma mater, university status, he left government service and went into opposition. Gandhi traveled extensively with him after his release from prison in 1919, and became very fond of him. He said of his companion: “There are many good and stalwart Muslims I know. But no Muslim knows me through and through as Shaukat Ali does.” Shaukat Ali, on the other hand, was quite outspoken on his disagreement with Gandhi in regard to ahimsa. 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.”

We must assume that Gandhi realized that the basic Muslim view of violence differed from his own. Did he think that the experience of working together would modify the Muslim opinion and bring it into closer harmony with his own? Or, as is more likely, did he simply accept the limited possibilities, taking the practical approach? He seemed to recognize his own utilitarianism. Peter Hardy quotes him as saying, “I have been telling Maulana Shaukat Ali all along that I was helping to save his cow [i.e., the caliphate] because I hoped to save my cow thereby.”

There is no need to go into the details of the Mappila Rebellion and the suffering that it entailed for both Hindus and Muslims. The events came like a pail of cold water on the flame of Muslim–Hindu harmony. The Mappilas not only turned violently against their British overlords, but also against the landowning Hindu establishment in a six-month uprising beginning August 20, 1921. Hindu leaders shocked by the Mappila militance drew back from what had been initially regarded as a joint effort. The Mappila sense of betrayal was a major factor in the anti-Hindu nature of the rebellion in its latter stages. As some Hindus even aided British forces, Mappilas responded with killings, arson, robberies, and forced conversion. While the rebellion did not begin as a communal outbreak it ended as one. After six months the Mappilas were severely repressed, and suffered most with 2,266 slain, 252 executed, 502 sentenced to life imprisonment, thousands jailed in different parts of India, and many exiled to the Andaman Islands. The fact that the Mappilas later rose like a phoenix from the ashes to become a changed community that has become positively and dynamically involved in societal development is a marvel of Indian Muslim history. At the close of the rebellion though, they were stunned and silent. There were others, however, who were not silent.

Some of them were Muslims. The cultured and educated northern leaders of Indian Muslims felt trapped by the situation, damned if they did, and damned if they didn’t. Hakim Ajmal Khan took the middle ground, as the majority of Muslims did, in his 1921 presidential address to the Congress Assembly in Ahmedabad. He said, “I cannot close without referring to the tragic events that are daily taking place in Malabar and the prolonged agonies of our unfortunate Moplah brethren.” He blamed the government for provoking the disturbances and denounced the British “pacification,” but he also condemned the forcible conversion of Hindus. “There will be no Muslim worthy of the name who will not condemn the entire un-Islamic act in the strongest possible terms.” But the opinion that Gandhi had to deal with directly was that of Hasrat Mohani (1878–1951), the pen name of Syed Fazlul Hasan. An Aligarh graduate, Urdu poet, fiery worker for the Freedom movement, advocate of a forceful approach, and critic of ahimsa, he found no fault in the essential Mappila approach. As to their attack on the Hindus he argued that it occurred because of Hindu support for the British.

Gandhi made frequent references to the Mappilas in his letters and speeches between 1921 and 1924. His reaction ranged from criticizing some Mappilas to blaming the British to pointing to Hindu failure to a bare recognition of possible responsibility on the part of the Non-cooperation movement. In a Madras speech in the middle of the rebellion he had said, “I would like you to swear before God that we shall not resort to violence for the freedom of our country or for settling quarrels between Hindus and Mussulmans . . . that in spite of the madness shown by some of our Moplah brethren we Hindus and Mussulmans shall remain united forever.” He repeated the phrase “Moplah madness” frequently, and he advised Hasrat Mohani not to defend their actions. But he also blamed the British saying, “They have punished the entire Moplah community for the madness of a few individuals and have incited Hindus by exaggerating the facts.” As for the Hindu responsibility he declared, “The Moplahs have sinned against God and have suffered grievously for it. Let the Hindus also remember that they have not allowed the opportunity for revenge to pass by.” He gave the following advice to Hindus: “We must do away with the communal spirit. The majority must therefore make a beginning and thus inspire the minorities with confidence. . . . Adjustment is possible only when the more powerful take the initiative without waiting for response from the weaker.”

In regard to the crucial question of whether there was responsibility on his own part, or on the part of the Non-cooperation movement or whether his theory was at fault, Gandhi was not very forthcoming. He acknowledged the critiques saying, “Many letters have been received by me, some from wellknown friends telling me that I was responsible even for the alleged Moplah atrocities in fact, for all the riots which Hindus have or are said to have suffered since the Khilafat agitation.” Yet he felt that the significance of the Mappilas should not be overstated because they constitute a special case. Their response cannot undermine the validity or cause of nonviolence. He declared, “The Moplahs themselves had not been touched by the noncooperation spirit. They are not like other Indians nor even like other Mussalmans. I am prepared to admit that the movement had an indirect effect upon them. The Moplah revolt was so different in kind that it did not affect the other parts of India.” A Muslim historian, I. H. Qureshi, gives a less sanguine perspective: “The Moplah rebellion confirmed Hindu fears and provided the first nail in the coffin of Hindu amity.”

-Roland E Miller /  Indian Critiques of Mahatma Gandhi

VARIYANKUNNAN, THE FANATIC GANGSTER

He Had Planned Mass Conversion of Hindus

Chakkiparamban Variyankunnathu Kunjahammed Haji (1877- 20 January 1922 ) was a Muslim gangster who led the Malabar Rebellion,culminating in the first Hindu pogrom in India,which was criticized by leaders like Ambedkar and Annie Besant.Subsequently he was executed by the British.He ran a parallel government, for more than six months in most parts of the then Eranadu and Valluvanadu taluks. He  raised an army of illiterate Mappilas,seized control of a large area,killed umpteen number of Hindus and looted their homes,alongwith his long term mentor, friend and Islamic fundamentalist,Ali Musliyar.

Haji was an illiterate bullock cart driver.

Haji was born in a Muslim  family with a history of criminal activities;later on moved to Nellikuth village, near Manjeri, Malappuram district. He was the second child of his parents, Chakkiparamban Moideenkutty Haji and Kunjaisha Hajjumma. Moideenkutty Haji,apart from being a criminal, was a small time farmer as well, one among those who had been deported and imprisoned in Jails of Andaman for taking part in the 1894 Manjeri Hindu massacre.32 mappilas were involved in the evolot.They set fire to Hindu houses and killed all the hindus whom they met.Finally they hid inside the temple,where they were confronted and killed.Variyankunnan's father escaped to Erattupetta;he was declared a fugitive.

He pursued his basic religious education from village Madrasa;He is said to have studied some Arabic texts from Mammad Kutty Musliyar. After his father was deported to Andaman, Haji was brought up in his mother's family. His grandfather was also a criminal, who asked a teacher named Balakrishnan Ezhuthachan, to teach Malayalam to Haji along with other grandchildren .

The Dorcett Regiment

The deportation of his father and other criminals was followed by the seizure of their properties, and Haji harboured hostility towards the British as wells as the Hindus.

In 1896 Haji turned against Manjeri Kovilakam. He and his followers seized land and properties of the Kovilakam. British army came to help the landlords. After the revolt, the mappilas took shelter in the Manjeri temple. In the fight that followed with the British forces, 94 mappilas lost their lives. Among them, 20 mappilas were beheaded by the mappilas themselves. Inspector Khan Bahadhur Chekkutty tried to arrest Haji but C I Kurikkal, a Muslim friend, helped him. Haji came under constant surveillance of the British. His friends and family insisted him to leave for Mecca when they smelt that Chekkutty was planning to arrest him. He left to Bombay, anf then to Mecca. During the  exile, he visited home several times but was compelled to go back due to the continued surveillance. Haji returned from Mecca in 1905 and married Ruqiyya, daughter of Unni Muhammed. After her death in 1908, he married Sainaba , sister of one of his friends. In 1920 Haji married his cousin Malu (Paravetti Fathima), daughter of his uncle Paravetti Koyamu Haji. They have been brought up in same home and this was the third marriage for both of them. Fed up with the aged Variyankunnan, Malu later fled with Variyankunnan's younger brother Moideenkutty.

There were 83 Mappila revolts against the Hindus, before 1921; after each revolt, the Hindus used to flee the area and their land and property were seized by the Muslim criminals. When the Hindus returned and reclaimed the properties, further attacks by Muslim fundamentalists happened.This was the reason for continued Mappila rebellions.

In 1920, Gandhi visited Calicut, after  inadvertently tying up the unwarranted Khilafat movement with the non co-operation movement of the Congress.The Congress leaders of Malabar like K P Kesava Menon and K Madhavan Nair had no other option than to join it. Thus the ignorant muslim fundamentalists like Ali Musaliyar and Haji began to bask in the reflected glory of being becoming part of the Congress band wagon. Some of these Muslims were made Khilafat committe chiefs; they shared the same platforms with Congress leaders. The Ali brothers, Muhammad and Shaukath, hijacked Gandhi at the national level and Gandhi became a hostage of Muslim fundamentalists. Haji was under the impression that India will come under the Turkey Caliphate, after the Khalifa was put back in his throne. He did not know that the people of Turkey never wanted the Khalifa.

By this time, the Communist Party of India had taken shape in Tashkent under the leadership of M N Roy, who recruited Muhajirs to the Party. The Muhajirs were the band of muslims who had left India to fight for the Turkey califate-jihadis.

Few days before the rebellion, the British got wind of the fanaticism and had reinforced its Second Leinster Regiment at Calicut with three more platoons from Madras, of the same Regiment. It was planned to search the hidden weapons of the muslim fanatics at Tirurangadi.The Magistrate with these forces reached Tirurangadi on the early morning of Saturday, 20 August, 1921. Three people were arrested  by 10 am, after the search. Information came that 2000 Mappilas have reached Parappanangadi railway station from Tanur, and they were heading for Thirurangadi. By 12.30 this Mappila mob was confronted by Meinvering, District Police Supdt R H Hitchcok, and Dy S P Amu.The mob had held the Khilafat flag. The police bayonets were attacked with iron rods by the mob.One Constable's head got split into two.Nine in the mob were killed in the police firing.When the mob withdrew, the British caught Thanur Khilafat Committee Secretary Kunjikhadar and 40 Mappilas.

When the Forces left, a small band of the Force, under Lt W R Johnston and Rowley. Another 2000 strong Mappila mob that came from another direction attacked this small British force-Johnston, Rowley and the interpreter head constable Moideen were killed.The mutilated dead bodies lay on the road.

Thus, the 1921 Mappila Jihad began.The war ship HMS Comus reached the Malabar coast. On 26th morning, a Mappila mob attacked the British forces at Pookkottur and in the fight that lasted five hours, 400 Mappilas were killed. Two British army men got killed. A S P Lancaster, who was injured, breathed his last, later.

The incidents that led to Mappila Jihad of 1921. It began on 20 August with Ali Musaliyar and his gang, attacking the Tirurangadi Revenue Office. They killed some policemen and seized the police station. District Collector E F Thomas and other officials fled to Calicut. The criminals took shelter at the Tirurangadi mosque. After  evacuation of the Tirurangadi Mosque on 30 August 1921, fanatics were up in arms. Following the attack from the mosque, 34 Mappilas were killed. Musaliyar and Haji had mobilised the fanatic muslims. They attacked and seized police stations, treasuries, courts, registrar and other government offices. The rebellion soon spread to the nearby areas of Malappuram, Manjeri, Pandikad and Tirur under the leadership of Variyan Kunnath Kunjahammad Haji, Seethi Koya Thangal, Chembrassery Thangal and Ali Musliyar. Hindus, Police, army, and  British officials fled from areas like Malappuram, Manjeri, Tirurangadi and Perinthalmanna.  The Muslim rowdies destroyed railway and telephone lines, bridges and roads.

H M S Comus 

Ali Musaliyar had been anointed as the Caliph on 22 August. In Thekkekalam meeting held on the same day, Haji appointed commanders under these leaders, and it was the duty of these commanders to recruit soldiers, train them and collect weapons. Nayik Chekkutty was the commander of Kunjahammed Haji. Amakundan Mammad, Thaliyil Unnenkutty Haji, Vadakkuvettil Mammad were some other commanders among them. Since the police and other forces had fled from Eranad, Valluvanadu and Ponnani, Haji declared it as an independent state from British. According to R H Hitchcock, the name of this state was Doula; Arabic equivalent for state. Haji got few Muslim ex-military men who had fought for the British in First World War, as part of the Mappila infantry. Nayik Thaami, the commander of Variyan Kunnath Haji, wrote in his diary that Doula had almost 60,000 soldiers in its Army.

Variyan Kunnath Kunjahammad Haji took over command of the rebellion from Ali Musliyar, after Musaliyar was arrested after the Tirurangadi mosque incident. Public proclamations were issued by Haji to the effect that he is the Amir of Muslims, King of Hindus and Colonel of the forces. On 30 August 1921, the mob under Haji, killed Khan Bahadur Chekkutty, a former muslim British  police Inspector.While he was dying on the lap of his wife, his hands and legs were chopped off by Haji and his gangsters. The declaration of the founding of the new state, was done at Manjeri. By 28 August 1921, British administration had virtually come to a standstill in Malappuram, Tirurangadi, Manjeri, and Perinthalmanna, which then fell into the hands of the criminals who established complete domination over  Eranad and Valluvanad Taluks. Haji had blacksmiths to make weapons and the gangsters had weapons that they had seized from police stations.

On 25 August, Haji began armed training. He collected tax for goods from Wyanad to Tamilnadu. Hindus  were subjected to punishment, branding them informants of the British. He captured Pookkottur Kovilakam  and their properties were distributed among the Muslims. He came to Manjeri on the 24th, raided the Nambudiri Bank, and distributed the pledged gold, to its owners, freely.

One of the most notable attacks that British had to face was the Battle Of  Pookkottur on 26 August in which 400 mappilas lost their lives and the Battle Of Pandikkad, in which British sustained many casualties and had to retreat from the field. On 1 September,the  British declared Martial law in Malabar. Haji fled and started his suicidal attacks on 13 September. On 16 September,Haji declared Martial Law against the British, he appointed guards on the border of his territory, established courts for the trial and issued passport for those who were travelling to other areas. 

Hindus could heave a sigh of relief only after the Pookottur episode. Musaliyar and Haji had planned to catch all Hindus from Manjeri and neighbouring places on 26 August and convert them en masse, including K Madhavsan Nair, into Islam after the Jama namas.The caps and dresses were ready.

After fleeing on 16 October, Haji and his gang destroyed the Nellikuth bridge in Pandikkad. On 26 October, Haji's notorious and cruel hench man Kothampara Unithari was killed with 100 gangsters by the Chin Cachin Regiment.

By 1 January 1922, Haji's gang had been reduced to just 80.They were confronted on 30 December at Pandalur hill.

List of Dorcett soldiers Killed 

The British seized Unyan Musaliyar, Haji's right hand man, and told him that they are interested in signing a treaty if Haji was ready to surrender. According to this treaty Haji had to disperse his illegal administration, he had to surrender. The police promised that he will be deported to Mecca. Unyan went to Haji's hide out at Chokkad to inform him about the  offer. Haji had no other option since his days were numbered and his army had slimmed to just seven or eight men. Unyan went to meet Haji with S I Ramanatha Iyer. Iyer had brought Subedar Gopala Menon and the force along with him and they surrounded Haji and his gang. Haji and Unyan were unaware of the presence of the battalions; they arrested him on 5 January 1922. They captured all the illegal documents of his administration and confined all  gangsters with him. On 6 January they were taken to Manjeri. He was sent to Malappuram along with his commander Nayik Chekkutty.

C Gopalan Nair's book, Moplah Rebellion 1921 records:

7 January, '21 :Kunhamad Haji with 21 followers, one. 303 rifle, 10 police rifles, and four other B. L. firearms were captured by a specially organised Police Force under the leadership of Subadar Gopala Menon and Sub-Inspector Ramanatha Iyer at Chokad yesterday.

The British Court in its judgement recorded the killings of two Muslims by Haji thus:

These were the two of the most brutal murders in the rebellion which cost the lives of two loyal Government officers who were killed for doing their duty and for their services to the Crown. It is difficult to say which of the two was the more dreadful and the callous crime. In Chekutti's case the murderers had the decency to send away the women-folk before they finished the deceased off, but they were guilty of appalling barbarity in subsequently parading the head on a spear. In the case of Hydross the murder was carried out in the presence of his wife and children and in spite of the entreaties of the latter and the efforts of his wife to protect her husband.

He was sentenced to death by a British military court. Haji's death virtually ended the rebellion for a Caliphate, peace was restored in a few months from January. Gopalan Nair records:

20 January, '22:Variamkunnath Kunhamad Haji and six other Moplahs who were charged with waging war and tried by a Military court, were shot at Malappuram to-day.

Madras Mail, 23 January,1922:

The capture of the " Khilafat King ", Varian Kunnath Kunhamad Haji, marked the collapse of the rebellion. " There are only two bands of active rebels left to be dealt with. They are under the leadership of two minor leaders, Konnara Tangal and Moideen Kutty Haji. They are being vigorously pursued and are decreasing in numbers owing to surrenders and casualties. Various detachments of troops have already left the area and it is hoped that the two battalions will have left by the 25th instant, and the force will be reduced to approximately peace garrison by the middle of next month. The total approximate rebel casualties up to date are 2,266 killed, 1,615 wounded and 5,688 captured and 38,256 surrenders.

Records show that Haji committed the following crimes:

Killing of Police Inspector Khan Bahadur Chekkutti, decapitating the head, and parading the head on a spike.

Collection of taxes; seizure of harvest directly from the Nilambur Tirumulpad's pookottur Estate.

Collection of money called Ayudha Fund, towards purchase of weapons for the uprising.
Issuance of passports to people to leave Malabar. Rs 5 Passes for transit from his area.
Warfare on British officers in various militant engagements with the officers in 1921.

Haji was sentenced to death by martial law Commander Colonel Humphrey and was shot dead on 20 January 1922 at Kottakkunnu, Malappuram. British officials burnt his dead body along with all records and documents relating to his five months long parallel government.

The Mappila Jihad was never a class war; the interpretation of it as a class war was the pervasive comments contained in the first Communist document of it by Abani Mukherji, handed over to Lenin in October 1921 and published in March 1922. It was titled Moplah Rebellion 1921.The Marxist historians of Kerala are keeping mum on this document, which I found in London in 2019. Mukherji, while trying to interpret it as class war, also highlighted the fanatic content of the rebellion. He observed that the Khilafat movement was coopted and subjugated by the fanatic Muslim clergy. He avows that the mullahs, forgetting the aim of the movement, diverted their rank and file, against their peace-loving Hindu neighbours. The Hindus were given the option," death or Islam". Thus, the Hindus were massacred, forcibly converted and if they refused, were hacked to death. They ransacked the military depot at Malappuram and looted treasury of 40,000 pounds.

Marxist historians have a pervasive tendency to infer first, distort facts and then theorize. Thus, Fazal Pookkoya Thangal, leader of the Malabar jihad , who had declared three fatwas against Hindus and hence deported to Arabia, has become an expert in class wars, in the eyes of Marxist historians like K N Panicker and K K N Kurup. When jihad becomes class war, fundamentalists become Marxists. Thus the fanatic Variyankunnan, has become a Marxist now!

The Hindu and the Variyankunnan Letter:

1. A family in Erattupetta now claims they are the descendants of Chakkiparamban Moideenkutty Haji,Variyamkunnan's father. K M Jaffar who belongs to it says that Haji escaped to Erattupetta, after being acquitted in the Mannarkkad revolt case. He lived there in disguise as an Islamic preacher for eight years, before being captured by the British police. He married Ummuhani Umma from Muttathuparambil Mather family and had a son named Muhiyuddinkutty Haji. This family didn't know of his earlier wife and the son Variyamkunnath Kunjahammad Haji ( The Hindu, 26 June 2020).

The problem with this claim is that Moideenkutty Haji was never acquitted, but was deported and was in Andaman jails.The Mappila Outrageous Act was in force. In European countries, such claims have to be proved by DNA tests.

The letter The Hindu published

2. The Hindu reprinted on 26 June 2020, a letter purported to be written by Variyankunnath Haji to the paper, on 7 October 1921. The head line of the new story was,"Reports of Hindu-Muslim strife in Malabar baseless".

There was no way to cross check for the paper then, whether the letter was actually written by him. The Hindu claims that the letter in Arabic-Malayalam was translated and printed. In the letter Haji makes a fantastic claim:" Report that Hindus are forcibly converted by my men are entirely untrue. Such conversions were done by the Government party and Reserve police men in mufti mingling themselves with the rebels ( masquerading as rebels)".

There is no question of an European mingling with the locals, because the colour will betray him. The only possibility is that Hindu local men masquerading as Muslims, which is impossible. Hindus in disguise, converting Hindus to Islam-it is an absurd fantasy,which suits The Hindu's fetish for pseudo secularism.

.

The issues of The Hindu in 1921 have reported the Muslim gangsters resorting to mass conversion, which is historically true. Abani Mukherji, founder of the Communist Party, who gave a note to Lenin on the Moplah Rebellion, had collected reports of The Hindu, probably from, Singaravelu Chettiar, his friend.

Here is a quote from The Times, 6 September 1921:

“The spark which kindled the flame was the resistance by a large and hostile crowd of Moplahs, armed with swords and knives, to a lawful attempt by the police to affect certain arrests in connection with a case of house-breaking. The police were powerless to effect the capture of the criminals, and the significance of the incident is that it was regarded as a defeat of the police, and therefore of the Government.”

Kunjahammad Haji has signed as Pandalur Commander, in the letter, published by The Hindu. He had anointed himself as "Amir of Muslims, King of Hindus and Colonel of the Forces. "By the time he is said to have written the letter, Haji had gone underground, fleeing from the British forces, as a war criminal. According to British records, he was in Pandikkad on 13 October, 1921, and had destroyed the Nellikkuth bridge that day. The letter suggests that, he was in Pandalur, a week earlier. He was caught on 6 January 1922 from Chokkad, between Nilambur and Kalikavu.

The pseudo secularist gang also has quoted Sardar Chandroth, to prove that a criminal like Haji was secular. Sardar Chandroth Kunjiraman Nair, who was a loyal follower of the Marxist, A K Gopalan, has no locus standi, being a native of Kannur.

The Hindu, so far has not published the so called original letter of Haji in Arabi Malayalam. The Hindu's then Editor, S Kasturi Ranga Iyengar, was a supporter of Variyankunnan, and Iyengar had presided over the Malabar Congress meet in April 1920, that had heckled the moderate Annie Besant, to silence. Both K Madhavan Nair and M P Narayana Menon had brought several mappilas from Eranad, to the meet, to gain majority.

© Ramachandran 

CHRISTIANITY,KERALA AND GANDHI

Jesus is Not the Only Son of God

Gandhi was dead against conversion.But umpteen number of Christian missionaries were after him,to convert him.He never gave them a chance.They were after Ambedkar too,who had a wavering mind.Ambedkar in a speech in Nasik had declared that he is leaving the Hindu fold.Gandhi instead of the Christian Kingdom,propounded the Rama Rajya.Though he studied in London,unlike many others.he was never a Eurocentric;he had his moorings in Hinduism.

Gandhi was one of those Hindus who had studied the scriptures of all the important religions with open mind and without prejudice. During his prayer meetings, parts of the Bible were read out and at times Psalms were sung along with 'bhajans'. The Sermon on the Mount "went straight to his heart", he used to say. During his life-time Gandhi had developed friendship with several Christians. Some of them had become his followers like C.F. Andrews, Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur; Madeleine Slade (Mirabehn), and J.C. Kumarappa. The French writer and philosopher Romain Rolland who  wrote Gandhi's biography,used to call Gandhi a 'second Christ'. In fact Gandhi had shocked the Christian world by living like Jesus without being a Christian.Rolland had written Sri Ramakrishna Paramahmsa's biography too.

Christian missionaries were greatly tempted to convert  Gandhi. They thought that if Gandhi was converted millions of his followers will automatically follow suit. Christian missionaries came from all parts of the world, to discuss with him matters religious but often with the sole aim of converting him to Christianity.  He listened to them patiently, argued with them and sometimes even rebuked them for mixing up social work with proselytising. What they had brought to sell did not appeal to Gandhi. He used to tell the missionaries that he refused to believe that Jesus was the only son of God and that the salvation of a person lay in accepting Jesus Christ as the Saviour.

Gandhi has described this incident in his Autobiography (1929):

"In those days Christian missionaries used to stand in a corner near the high school and hold forth, pouring abuse on Hindus and their gods. I could not endure this. I must have stood there to hear them once only, but that was enough to dissuade me from repeating the experiment. About the same time, I heard of a well-known Hindu having been converted to Christianity. It was the talk of the town that, when he was baptized, he had to eat beef and drink liquor, that he also had to change his clothes, and that thenceforth he began to go about in European costume including a hat. These things got on my nerves. Surely, thought I, a religion that compelled one to eat beef, drink liquor, and change one's own clothes did not deserve the name. I also heard that the new convert had already begun abusing the religion of his ancestors, their customs and their country. All these things created in me a dislike for Christianity."

His real confrontation with Christian missionaries started in 1893 while Gandhi was in South Africa. Gandhi has described these first attempts in detail in his Autobiography thus:

"The first to come in contact was one Mr. A.W. Baker. He, besides being an attorney, was a staunch lay preacher.

"He upholds the excellence of Christianity from various points of view, and contends that it is impossible to find eternal peace, unless one accepts Jesus as the only son of God and the Saviour of mankind.

"During the very first interview Mr. Baker ascertained my religious views. I said to him: "I am a Hindu by birth. And yet I do not know much of Hinduism, and I know less of other religions. In fact I do not know where I am, and what is and what should be my belief. I intend to make a careful study of my own religion and, as far as I can, of other religions as well."

He also gave some religious books to Gandhi to read, including the Holy Bible. Mr. Baker had invited Gandhi to a prayer meeting next day which Gandhi attended. Apart from the general prayer, Gandhi records:

"A prayer was now added for my welfare: Lord, show the path to the new brother who has come amongst us. Give him, Lord, the peace that thou has given us. May the Lord Jesus who has saved us save him too. We ask all this in the name of Jesus."

One of the group was a young man Mr. Coates, a Quaker. He had given Gandhi quite a few books on Christianity and had hoped that he would come round and embrace Christianity.

Gandhi continues in the Autobiography:

"He (Mr. Coates) was looking forward to delivering me from the abyss of ignorance. He wanted to convince me that, no matter whether there was some truth in other religions, salvation was impossible for me unless I accepted Christianity which represented the truth, and that my sins would not be washed away except by the intercession of Jesus, and that all good works were useless."

Gandhi was introduced to several other practicing Christians, including a family belonging to Plymouth Brethren, a Christian sect..One of the Plymouth Brethren confronted Gandhi with an argument for which he was not prepared. He said:

"How can this ceaseless cycle of action bring you redemption? You can never have peace. You admit that we are all sinners. Now look at the perfection of our belief. Our attempts at improvement and atonement are futile. And yet redemption we must have. How can we bear the burden of sin? We can but throw it on Jesus. He is the only sinless son of God. It is His word that those who believe in Him shall have everlasting life. Therein lies God's infinite mercy. And as we believe in the atonement of Jesus, our own sins do not bind us. Sin we must. It is impossible to five in this world sinless. And therefore Jesus suffered and atoned for all the sins of mankind. Only he who accepts His great redemption can have eternal peace. Think what a life of restless is yours, and what a promise of peace we have."

Gandhi's reaction to this offer is typical of him and is oft quoted by his western biographers like Erik Erikson and Geoffrey Ash:

"The argument utterly failed to convince me. I humbly replied: If this be the Christianity acknowledged by all Christians, I cannot accept it. I do not seek redemption from the consequences of my sin. I seek to be redeemed from sin itself or rather from the very thought of sin. Until I have attained that end, I shall be content to be restless."

Gandhi was troubled with what was written in the Bible itself after he started reading it. Gandhi narrates another experience:

"Mr. Baker was getting anxious about my future. He took me to the Wellington Convention. The Protestant Christian organize such gatherings every few years for religious enlightenment or, in other words, self-purification. --- Mr. Baker had hoped that the atmosphere of religious exaltation at the Convention, and the enthusiasm and earnestness of the people attending it, would inevitably lead me to embrace Christianity. --- The Convention lasted for three days. I could understand and appreciate the devoutness of those who attended it. But I saw no reason for changing my belief - my religion. It was impossible for me to believe that I could go to heaven or attain salvation only by becoming a Christian. When I frankly said so to some of the good Christian friends, they were shocked. But there was no help for it."

Gandhi continues:

"My difficulties lay deeper. It was more than I could believe that Jesus was the only incarnate son of God, and that only he who believed in him would have everlasting life. If God could have sons, all of us were His sons. If Jesus was like God or God himself, then all men were like God and could be God himself. My reason was not ready to believe literally that Jesus by his death and by his blood redeemed the sins of the world. Metaphorically there might be some truth in it. Again according to Christianity only human beings had souls, and not other living beings, for whom death meant complete extinction; while I held a contrary belief. I could accept Jesus as a martyr, an embodiment of sacrifice, and a divine teacher, but not as the most perfect man ever born. His death on the cross was a great example to the world, but that there was anything like a mysterious or miraculous virtue in it my heart could not accept. The pious lives of Christians did not give me anything that the lives of men of other faiths had failed to give. I had seen in other lives just the same reformation that I had heard of among Christians. Philosophically there was nothing extraordinary in Christian principles. From the point of view of sacrifice, it seemed to me that the Hindus greatly surpassed the Christians. It was impossible for me to regard Christianity as a perfect religion or the greatest of all religions.I shared this mental churning with my Christian friends whenever there was an opportunity, but their answers could not satisfy me."

Gandhi was only twenty-four when these skirmishes with Christian missionaries occurred. 

Gandhi's prayer meeting at Juhu,Mumbai,1944

Gandhi wrote the following article on Jesus in Ramanand Chatterji's Modern Review in October 1941:

What Jesus Means to me

Although I have devoted a large part of my life to the study of religion and to discussion with religious leaders of all faiths, I know very well that I cannot but seem presumptuous in writing about Jesus Christ and trying to explain what He means to me. I do so only because my Christian friends have told me on more than a few occasions that for the very reason that I am not a Christian and that (I shall quote their words exactly) "I do not accept Christ in the bottom of my heart as the only Son of God", it is impossible for me to understand the profound significance of His teachings, or to know and interpret the greatest source of spiritual strength that man has ever known.

Although this may or may not be true in my case, I have reasons to believe that it is an erroneous point of view. I believe that such an estimate is incompatible with the message that Jesus Christ gave to the world. For He was, certainly, the highest example of one who wished to give everything asking nothing in return, and not caring what creed might happen to be professed by the recipient. I am sure that if He were living here now among men, He would bless the lives of many who perhaps have never even heard His name, if only their lives embodied the virtues of which He was a living example on earth; the virtues of loving one's neighbour as oneself and of doing good and charitable works among one's fellow-men.

What, then, does Jesus mean to me? To me He was one of the greatest teachers humanity has ever had. To His believers He was God's only begotten Son. Could the fact that I do or do not accept this belief make Jesus have any more or less influence in my life? Is all the grandeur of His teaching and of His doctrine to be forbidden to me? I cannot believe so.

Collected Works,Vol. 75 p. 69-70

During his life several Christian missionaries met him and tried relentlessly to convince him about the uniqueness of Christianity and the infallibility of the Bible. Gandhi was frank enough to tell them about their folly and the absurdity of their beliefs. Given below is confrontation of Gandhi with Christians in Kerala.

From John R Mott's discussion with Gandhi,13/14 November 1936,Vol.64 p.35-41 (Harijan, 19-12-1936 and 26-12-1936):

J.M.: But there is a deplorable confusion of thought and divided counsel even amongst friends. The Devil would like nothing better. My life has been mostly spent for the intellectual classes, and I feel very much conscience-moved to help in this movement.

Gandhiji cited the example of good Christians helping by working under the Hindu banner. There was Mr. Keithahn who was trying hard to smooth the path of the untouchables. There were Miss Barr and Miss Madden who had thrown themselves into the rural reconstruction movement. He then adverted to the problem in Travancore where an indecent competition was going on for enticing away the Ezhavas from the Hindu fold.

The Ezhavas in Travancore want temple-entry. But it is no use your asking me whether they want temple-entry. Even if they do not want it, I must see that they enjoy the same rights as I enjoy, and so the reformers there are straining every nerve to open the temple doors.

J.M. But must we not serve them?

G. Of course you will, but not make conversion the price of your service.

J.M. I agree that we ought to serve them whether they become Christians or not. Christ offered no inducements. He offered service and sacrifice.

G. If Christians want to associate themselves with this reform movement they should do so without any idea of conversion.

J.M. Apart from this unseemly competition, should they not preach the Gospel with reference to its acceptance?

G. Would you, Dr. Mott, preach the Gospel to a cow? Well, some of the untouchables are worse than cows in understanding. I mean they can no more distinguish between the relative merits of Islam and Hinduism and Christianity than a cow. You can only preach through your life. The rose does not say: 'Come and smell me.'

John Mott was an American evangelist, a prominent Y.M.C.A. leader and Chairman, International Missionary Council.

Extravagant Statements By Missionaries

Interview to Bishop Moore, Bishop Abraham and Others on 19 January 1937 at Kottayam

Bishop Edward Alfterd Livingstone Moore,fourth Anglican Bishop of Travancore-Kochi received Gandhi cordially and welcomed the Temple-entry Proclamation (in Travancore) as an important event. He inquired if the savarnas and Brahmins also welcomed it, or if there was any opposition on their part.

Gandhi said he had seen no signs of opposition. He had met several thousands of people, visited several temples, and had found savarnas and avarnas entering the temples in perfect friendliness.

Bishop Abraham asked if the Ezhavas were ready to treat the Depressed Classes of lower castes on terms of equality.

Gandhi said he could not reply with confidence but he was striving to emphasize that point everywhere, and he hoped that the Proclamation would be carried out in that spirit.

Bishop Moore said that he had heard that Mr Gandhi was disturbed over reports of Christian missionary work in Travancore, and that he was ready to remove any misunderstanding that it was possible for him to remove.

Gandhi said that he was indeed surprised at the report of conversions of thousands of people in the Telugu country and in Travancore made in Bishop Pickett's speech in England and in a statement of the Church Missionary Society appealing for funds over the signature of Prebendary Cash. He could not understand how responsible Christians could make extravagant statements to the effect that thousands had experienced a spiritual awakening and accepted the Gospel. The Bishop of Dornakal had even stated that those thousands included not only the Depressed Classes but a large number of so-called high-caste Hindus. Gandhiji said he had challenged the truth of these statements in the columns of Harijan and had invited them to prove that he was wrong. He had also met leaders working in Andhra and asked them to make inquiries into the truth of these extravagant statements.

Bishop Moore

Bishop Moore confessed that he had trot read either the appeal for funds or Bishop Pickett's speech and could not, therefore, express any opinion thereon. He was quite sure, however, that no responsible missionary journal should ever publish statements that were not based on actual facts, and he wanted to assure Mr. Gandhi that no wrong information had ever been supplied from his diocese for which alone he could speak. During the last year they could record 530 persons as having been baptized into the Anglican faith.

Bishop Abraham said he had been to the Andhra country and had seen with his won eyes that there was a tremendous awakening there even among the middle-class savarnas he had addressed meetings which were attended by many of the high-caste people.

Gandhi: But that means nothing. Hundreds of students attend meetings addressed by Dr. Stanley Jones, but they cannot be said to seek conversion to Christianity. To say that hundreds attended meetings addressed by Christian preachers is very different from saying that hundreds have accepted the message of Jesus and from making an appeal for money in anticipation of people becoming Christian in large numbers.

Mr. Kuruvilla here put in whether Mr. Gandhi had any objection to their stimulating and responding to the spiritual hunger of people.

Gandhi said it was wholly irrelevant to the issue.

Bishop Abraham said they were responding to the spiritual hunger of the people. Mr. Gandhi could have no objection to that?

Gandhi said he could have no objection to responding to spiritual hunger, provided it was genuinely felt and expressed. But the matter was quite irrelevant to the discussion which was entirely about extravagant statements made by responsible people. He said to Bishop Moore that he would furnish him with a copy of the C. M. S. statement and he would like to know what Bishop Moore would have to say regarding it.
 

Vol.64 p.285-86. (Harijan, 13-3-1937)

Note: The interview took place at Bishop Moore's house at Kottayam. The object was to clear up misunderstandings.

Segaon, Wardha
January 30, 1937

Amrit Kaur's Views ( after Travancore)

Rajkumari Amrit Kaur was with me during the Travancore pilgrimage. Though she could not enter the temples, she followed the pilgrimage in all other respects. She has felt moved by what she observed during the pilgrimage, and has placed in my hands the following letter which I dare not withhold from the reader:

I am of opinion that the missionary with the best intention in the world - for we must credit him with honesty of purpose - has wronged Indian Christian in more ways than one. Many converts here have been denationalized, e.g., even their names have been changed in many instances to those of Europeans; they have been told that there is no true light to be found in the religion of their forefathers. The ancient scriptures of their ancestors are a closed book to them. At the same time, while there has been no conscious effort to purge the Indian Church of the taint of untouchability that exists within its own doors, the untouchability that exists in Hinduism has been exploited to the extent of so-called Christianity of the Depressed Classes. I say' so-called Christianity' advisedly, because I know that not one of these poor people to whom I have spoken and I have spoken to many - has been able to tell me anything of the spiritual implications of his change of faith. That he is equally ignorant of the faith of his forefathers and has been sadly neglected by his own community does not seem to me to be ample or any reason for transplanting him to an alien soil where he can find no root.

Your utterances during your pilgrimage of penitence in Travancore have been a great joy. In particular do I rejoice in your special message to the Christian community at Kottayam. In admitting once again the equality of all religions you have given Christians much food for thought, and I hope and pray that this will be the beginning of an era of self-purification for them no less than for the members of the Hindu fold. Are we not all Hindus inasmuch as we are the children of Hind? Is there not room for Jesus in Hinduism? There must be. I cannot believe that any who seek to worship God in spirit and in truth are outside the pale of any of the great religions which draw their inspiration from Him who is the fountain-head of all Truth. I am sure I am not the only Indian born in the Christian faith who holds these views, but I feel that if the teaching and example of Jesus are to enrich the life of our country, Indian Christians must turn the search-light inwards and seek to serve in that spirit of humility and tolerance which is the essence of all true religions and without which there can be no unity and no peace and goodwill on earth.Will you not help the Indian Christian to realize his mission? You can, because you have drawn inspiration from Jesus' undying teachings as embodied in the Sermon on the Mount. We assuredly stand in need of guidance.

Amrit Kaur

Owing to her close contact with me there was hesitation on my part over the publication. But the knowledge that she has very imperfectly voiced what other Christian friends have told me has overcome my hesitation. But I do not feel competent to guide Indian Christians. I can, however, appeal to them as I did at Kottayam and as I have done before then through these columns. I am on safer ground in responding to the Rajkumari's belief that there is in Hinduism room enough for Jesus, as there is for Mahomed, Zoroaster and Moses. For me the different religions are beautiful flowers from the same garden, or they are branches of the same majestic tree. Therefore they are equally true, though being received and interpreted through human instruments equally imperfect. It is impossible for me to reconcile myself to the idea of conversion after the style that goes on in India and elsewhere today. It is an error which is perhaps the greatest impediment to the world's progress towards peace. 'Warring creeds' is a blasphemous expression. And it fitly describes the state of things in India, the mother, as I believe her to be, of religion or religions. If she is truly the mother, the motherhood is on trial. Why should a Christian want to convert a Hindu to Christianity and vice versa? Why should he not be satisfied if the Hindu is a good or godly man? If the morals of a man are a matter of no concern, the form of worship in a particular manner in a church, a mosque or a temple is an empty formula, it may even be a hindrance to individual or social growth, and insistence on a particular form or repetition of a credo may be a potent cause of violent quarrels leading to bloodshed and ending in utter disbelief in religion, i.e., God Himself.

Rajkumari Amrit Kaur belonged to the royal family of Kapurthala (Punjab) and was daughter of Sir Harnam Singh who had embraced Christianity. Thus Amrit Kaur was a Christian though a devoted disciple of Gandhi like several other Christians.

Prof S K George from Thrissur was in the Inner circle of Gandhi.He lost his job in the Bishop's College,Calcutta in 1932 for supporting Gandhi.He wrote Gandhi's Challenge to Chrstianity ,in 1939.

To ALL CHRISTIANS IN INDIA

 Dear Fellow-Believers, 

The story of our Religion is nothing but the record of the appearances of Divinely inspired prophets, coming forward with compelling messages for their times, to lead their fellow men to fuller life and closer walk with God. But that story is also full of warnings to us, not to fail to discern the signs of the times, to know the day of our visitation; for it has been the lot of most of those prophets to be despised and rejected in their generation, though later ages have built their tombs and enshrined their memory. It is India's glory that in these latter days God has raised up a prophet, like unto these ancient men of God, from among her children. For it is my conviction that Mahatma Gandhi has been raised up by God in these days, as Moses of old, to lead his people out of the desolation of foreign domination and to set their feet on the path of selfrealization and world service. But the representatives of insolent might have, as of old, driven from before their faces the people's representative and God's. But what of the people? Will they too reject and disown him? We are persuaded better of the people of India as a whole.

For India has never stoned her prophets or rejected those that have been sent to her. But what of our Christian minority?

 India is on trial. We are confident that her people will come out vindicated and triumphant out of this trial. But Chistianity in India is also on its trial. We wish we could have been equally confident about that issue too. So far Indian Christians as a community have held aloof from the National struggle and allowed their inaction to be interpreted as acquiescence in reactionary measures and thus estranged themselves from their countrymen whom they seek to serve. But we trust they will not miss this last great opportunity to take their religion to the heart of the New Indi in the making. For this time the struggle will be swift and the issue decisive. We Christians ought to be devoutly thankful that that struggle is directed along strictly non-violent lines, enabling us to bear our part in it with a clear conscience. To us our Christian profession has already committed us to this struggle both as to its objective and its method. For as Christians we are bound to stand out against all injustice and oppression; and it needs no labouring the point at this time that British rule in India, in spite of all its seeming benefits, has in its totality done more harm than good to the country; and that in the interests both of India and Britain the present relation between the two countries must be radically altered. As to non-violence, it/is our Master's method, the Way of the Cross; and it is certainly up to us to be interpreters of its meaning and guardians of its integrity in the Holy War 4hat has already begun. If I appeal to Indian Christians, men and women, in all parts of the country to join in their thousands in the movement, it is because I believe that this movement under Mahatma Gandhi will lead to a partial realization at least of that great goal before mankind* the Kingdom of God, of which our prophets have seen visions and for which our Lord lived and died. It is our Christian duty, due both to God and country, to help in the realization of that ideal. May we not be found wanting in this hour of our trial! As to methods and programme, Mahatmaji in his last appeal to the community, issued through the Nationalist Christian Party of Bombay, has suggested two items in which Indian Christians can and ought to join. These are Khaddar and Prohibition. As he puts it, he has felt that the poor Indian Christian community needs Khaddar as much as any other community in the land for its economic salvation. So he expresses the hope, in his own inimitable language, that "every Indian Christian house will be adorned with the charkka and every Indian Christian body with Khaddar, spun and woven by the hands of their poor countrymen and countrywomen."

As for Prohibition, he could not understand, he says, how a Christian could take intoxicating drink. If we Christians have not been in the forefront of this work it is because we have been culpably indifferent to one of the curses that is ruining our country. The fullest co-operation with the country in these two items of constructive work seems to me the least the Indian Christian community as a whole can do at this juncture. But if individual Christians feel they ought to do more they ought to do so in the name of the Christ we serve; and I appeal to all Christian Churches and leaders to send them forth with their blessings and to uphold them with their prayers. 

YOURS IN THE SERVICE OF THE KINGDOM 

S. K. GEORGE, Lecturer (Resigned), Bishop's College, Calcutta.

A PERSONAL CONVICTION

 PERHAPS I owe it to my friends in different parts of the country to explain why it is that I felt it my duty to give up a place so congenial to me as Bishop's College, to wander into the wilderness, giving up for the time being even the care of my little family. To make my position fully clear I had better begin at the beginning of my 'spiritual pilgrimage'. It was during the great Non-cooperation days of 1921 that I began really to live. Up to that time I was merely the child of good parents, myself a good boy, which meant a harmless boy, though I had, all unsuspected by others, my own inner stormy life3 Mahatma Gandhi's life and message gripped me at that time and they have remained with me as an abiding influence, deepening and vitalizing as the years go by. Above all else they helped me to realize Christ and his message more than anything else. I realized with a distinctness, that has been blurred at times by considerations of safety and expediency, but which has never entirely faded out, that the central thing in Christianity is the hope of the Kingdom of God and that the Lord Jesus is inviting us to carry on the building up of that Kingdom with the devotion and in the spirit which characterized himself in his life on earth. Doctrinal affiliations have always seemed to me of less importance than devotion to the ideal of the Kingdom and it was in that belief that I came as a student and later as a member of the staff of Bishop's College. I shall ever be grateful to the Principal of Bishop's College for his understanding of my position and his uplifting faith in me, even though his own interpretation of Christianity differed in its emphasis from mine. 

But it was inevitable that my attitude should in the end clash with that of the authorities of the Church in India, especially at a time like this, when I believe that the Spirit of God is moving mightily to establish the foundations of the Kingdom of God in this land. For the Church with its commitments, its alliances with vested interests, its natural conservatism, and unfortunately in India its foreign leadership, was not to be expected to welcome such a radical thing as the Kingdom of God coming in power, particularly when God's chosen agent for it happens to be one outside its own fold. For it is my conviction that Mahatma Gandhi today is a worker for the Kingdom of God, perhaps the greatest force working for it here or anywhere else. I have for long felt it in my innermost being that he is a man of God and that the greatest duty of any Christian or any God-fearing man at this time is to stand with him for Truth and Justice, and true Brotherhood between men of all classes and creeds and races. This, ofcourse, is a personal conviction which no one can be argued into. But it made my own way clear. 

 My differences with the authorities of Bishop's College are of some years’ standing. During the last Civil Disobedience movement I had a little correspondence with the Metropolitan over his very unconvincing reply to Prof. Kumarappa. That time the Metropolitan had threatened to take action and the threat hung over me all through the next two years. When the struggle was renewed this year I could not remain indifferent to it. Believing as I do, that the Indian satyagraha is the Cross in action and that it gives Jesus Christ his greatest opportunity to enter the heart of a remade India, I held it to be my highest duty both towards the College and the Church in India to identify myself entirely with this non-violent movement, based absolutely on Truth and seeking solely to establish peace on earth and goodwill among men. But such an attitude on my part was regarded as disloyalty to the College and therefore I had no other alternative but to leave the College to follow my own conscience at this time of my country's need and my Lord's opportunity.

I fully trust that the Church in India will not long continue in its present apathy and will not finally miss this great opportunity to take her religion and her Lord right into the heart of the New India in the making and thus win for Him the devotion of this dear Mother of us all. May this consummation not long be delayed is the prayer of 

YOUR FRIEND AND COMRADE 

\S. K. GEORGE 

Calcutta, March 31, 1932

\

Gandi's letter to George

MY DEAR GEORGE, I was glad you were in the Ashram. I hope your fever has left you. For the time being only this note. Yes, Rama Raj is possible even with this mixture, if the workers are true. This does not exclude me. If I am true, there must be true coworkers, if false also. Do write whenever you feel like it.

 LOVE, Yeravda Mandir, 3-10-'32 BAPU

 S K George to Gandhi

The Ashram, Sabarmati, Oct. 5, 1932

 MY DEAR BAPU, 

I wonder whether my short note of September received your notice at all. As I said in that I have been striving to follow you for the last ten years, seeing in you God's chosen agent for bringing in His Kingdom on earth in this generation. Your life and your devotion to your ideal of Rama Raj made Christ and his Kingdom more real to me and I felt that in standing behind you I was helping to bring in Christ's Kingdom. It was this conviction of mine that brought me into conflict with the authorities of the Church in India and led to my resignation from Bishop's College, Calcutta, where I was a tutor. But having taken that step and having come to the Ashram for fuller identification with your cause, I find myself still perplexed as to my Christian duty. Before leaving the Ashram (I am going for a short stay at the Christa Seva Sangh, Poona) may I use my privilege as an ashrarmite of sharing my perplexities with you?

It is your ideal of Rama Raj that has won my allegiance. But my growing misgiving is whether it is possible to build up any Kingdom of God with people who have not seen the vision of it and do not accept its ideals as life-principles. The Congress does not share your ideal and is not working out your methods — for non-violence as a principle is poles apart from non-violence as a policy. I do not blame the Congress for it. It is a political organization, working for a political goal and for the realization of that it has adopted non-violence as the best policy — nonviolence in the sense of avoidance of violence — so as not to give a handle to its enemy, against whose organized violence it would otherwise have no chance. That, I believe, is all the non-violence that is in practice in the Congress campaign, though individuals may be found who carry it further. Undoubtedly even as a policy it is superior to violence and the only workable one in India; and I hope and pray that India will stick to it. But you will admit that non-violence as a policy cannot bring in the Kingdom of God. A worker for that Kingdom seeks no immediate and tangible success. He is content to wait till God's good time for its coming; indeed its coming means the perfecting of its methods and its workers. The goal of Indian Swaraj obviously cannot wait for such perfection. It is a political goal and it cannot long be delayed without disaster to the country, without making unrest habitual and driving impatient spirits among the youth to reckless acts of violence. The distinction therefore between the two ideals and the methods of their attainment ought, I think, to be made far more clear than at present. You, as a worker for the Kingdom of God, ought, in my humble opinion, to stand aside from the struggle for mere political power without hampering the swift acquisition of the latter by your insistence on methods which really pertain to the former and which you cannot get practised by a mass of workers who are in the main moved by the lesser ideal.

Take the case of your recent fast. I quite see that to you it was a religious issue and consequently far more important than the political question, and therefore you were prepared to lay down your life for it. But, as the leader of the Congress, you are fighting the political battle and thousands have followed you to prison expecting a speedy settlement of that. In turning aside from that main issue to fight untouchability, I humbly submit that, you were betraying the cause of the Congress. In taking up the untouchability question in the manner you did, you were really being true to yourself, but that as a worker for Rama Raj and not for Indian independence. India can get independence with separate electorates and with many imperfections which may not be tolerable in the Kingdom of God: only it would not be the independence of your conception; it would not be Rama Raj. But the issue has not been cleared as to whether the masses, and even the leaders, who stand behind you would prefer political independence in the immediate future or be content to wait and suffer for the Kingdom of God "which comes not with observation" and which cannot be forced upon men. I believe the majority of those who work under you, especially the leaders, would be willing to let go the distant and glorious ideal for the more tangible and immediate goal. Unless that issue is cleared in your favour you should stand aside and let the Congress fight its battle for its own legitimate, though lesser goal, while you should come out as a worker for God's Kingdom, challenging the allegiance of all who work and pray for it throughout the world. 

Having ventured to say so much, may I go on to make a further criticism? That relates to your fast. The time and circumstances at which you elected to fast on the issue were such, it seemed to me, as to throw part of the odium of it on the Government. This would be more clear if we think of the eventuality of your death. It would have irrevocably embittered the country against the Government, while you would really have died at the hands of the people. For however much the Government may be to blame for exploiting our unhappy differences this issue is peculiarly one of our own creation and maintenance, and one who felt, as you do, the enormity of our guilt in the matter would have exonerated the Government altogether and directed the fast solely against the people. What I mean is that this issue had better been fought with the Government left out. A deeper sense of your Hindu responsibility for the crime would have led you not to embarrass the Government even to the extent that the decision did and was meant to. I know I am treading on sacred ground when I question what you claim to be your divinely guided choice of time and say that the issue had better been tackled when the independence question was settled and you, from the height of your power, could have hurled your life as a challenge against this long-standing injustice. 

 Forgive me if in anything I have seemed to be irreverent. I was only being utterly frank with you. May I be favoured with a reply C/o the Acharya, Christa Seva Sangh, Poona? 

Your humble follower, S. K. GEORGE

Gandhi to George from jail

 My Dear George, I prize your letter for its gentle frankness. Only I cannot give you the full reply it deserves. My position as a prisoner would not warrant my giving you a detailed reply. One thing I may say. I do not isolate politics from religion as you appear to me to do. Religion to be true must pervade every activity of life. And that activity which cannot be pursued without sacrificing religion is an immoral activity to be shunned at all costs. Politics is not only not such an activity but it is an integral part of civic life. The rest of the discussion must be postponed to a more auspicious occasion. Only do not give me up in despair. I hope you had my previous letter. 14-10-, 32 Yours, Bapu.

( Gandhi-George Correspondence from George's book,Gandhi's Challenge to Christianity).

Segaon, Wardha
April 3, 1937

An Unfortunate Document

( A Reply to Barrister George Joseph and Others)

Fourteen highly educated Indian Christians occupying important social positions have issued a joint manifesto setting forth their views on the missionary work among Harijans. The document has been published in the Indian Press. I was disinclined to publish it in Harijan, as after having read it more than once I could not bring myself to say anything in its favour and I felt that a critical review of it might serve no useful purpose. But I understand that my criticism is expected and will be welcomed no matter how candid and strong it may be.

The reader will find the manifesto published in full in this issue. The heading⁽¹⁾ is also the authors'. They seem to have fallen between two stools in their attempt to sit on both. They have tried to reconcile the irreconcilable. If one section of Christians has been aggressively open and militant, the other represented by the authors of the manifesto is courteously patronizing. They would not be aggressive for the sake of expedience. The purpose of the manifesto is not to condemn uniquivocally the method of converting the illiterate and the ignorant but to assert the right of preaching the Gospel to the millions of Harijans. The key to the manifesto is contained in paragraphs 7 and 8. This is what one reads in paragraph 7:

"Men and women individually and in family or village groups will continue to seek the fellowship of the Christian Church. That is the real movement of the Spirit of God. And no power on earth can stem that tide. It will be the duty of the Christian Church in India to receive such seekers after the truth as it is in Jesus Christ and provide for them instruction and spiritual nurture. The Church will cling to its right to receive such people into itself from whatever religious group they may come. It will cling to the further right to go about in these days of irreligion and materialism to awaken spiritual hunger in all."

George Joseph

These few sentences are a striking instance of how the wish becomes father to the thought. It is an unconscious process but not on that account less open to criticism. Men and women do not seek the fellowship of the Christian Church. Poor Harijans are no better than the others. I wish they had real spiritual hunger. Such as it is, they satisfy by visits to the temples, however crude they may be. When the missionary of another religion goes to them, he goes like any vendor of goods. He has no special spiritual merit that will - distinguish him from those to whom he goes. He does, however, possess material goods which he promises to those who will come to his fold. Then mark, the duty of the Christian Church in India turns into a right. Now when duty becomes a right it ceases to be a duty. Performance of a duty requires one quality - that of suffering and introspection. Exercise of a right requires a quality that gives the power to impose one's will upon the resister through sanctions devised by the claimant or the law whose aid he invokes in the exercise of his right. I have the duty of paying my debt, but I have no right to thrust the owed coppers (say) into the pocket of an unwilling creditor. The duty of taking spiritual message is performed by the messenger becoming a fit vehicle by prayer and fasting. Conceived as a right, it may easily become an imposition on unwilling parties.

Thus the manifesto, undoubtedly designed to allay suspicion and soothe the ruffled feelings of Hindus, in my opinion, fails to accomplish its purpose. On the contrary, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I venture to suggest to the authors that they need to reexamine their position in the light of my remarks. Let them recognize the fundamental difference between rights and duties. In the spiritual sphere, there is no such thing as a right.

1. The heading of the manifesto was. "Our Duty to the Depressed and Backward Classes".

Note: The signatories were: K.K. Chandy, S. Gnanaprakasam, S. Gurubatham, S. Jesudasen, M. P. Job, G. Joseph, K.I. Matthai, A. A. Paul, S.E. Ranganadham, A.N. Sudarsanam, O. F.E. Zacharia, D.M. Devasahayam, G.V. Martyn.( only 13 names are there-Ramachandran.)
 

Vol.65 P. 47-48 ,Harijan, 3-4-1937