Gandhi and AnarchySankaran Nair, C. (Chettur), Sir
History
Gandhi and Anarchy
Sankaran Nair, C. (Chettur), Sir
Gandhi, Mahatma, 1869-1948 -- Political and social views; India -- Politics and government -- 1919-1947
Q:--My information, derived from Military sources, is that there are
over half-a-million armed men on the frontier.
A:--You are right, I agree.
Q:--These tribes have frequently attacked India hitherto. Why do you
think they will refrain from doing so when India possesses Home Rule?
A:--In the first instance, the world's views have changed and secondly
the preparations that are now made in Afghanistan are really in support
of the Khilafat. But when the Khilafat question is out of the way, then
the Afghan people will not have any design on India. The warrior tribes
who live on loot and plunder are given lakhs of rupees as subsidy. I
would also give them a little subsidy. When the Charka comes into force
in India, I would introduce the spinning wheel among the Afghan tribes
also and thus prevent them from attacking the Indian territories. I
feel that the tribesmen are in their own way God-fearing people.
But for the fact that he is well known to be a Saint and Mahatma, I
would have had no hesitation in saying that his last observations about
meeting the Afghans show him to be either a fool or a knave.
He said on the 16th February 1921:--
"There must be complete independence, if England's policy is in
conflict with the Moslim sentiment on the Khilafat question or with the
Indian sentiment in the Punjab."
And in his recent speech at the congress opposing the resolution for
Independence it was said that if the Punjab and Khilafat demands are
complied with, Independence is not necessary. Well, he knows or ought to
know they are impossible demands. The implication is plain and taken in
conjunction with what has been said above as to the Western civilisation
and the Indianisation of the English people, the conclusion that he is
really aiming at Independence is inevitable. To certain Boy Scouts on
the 23rd March he was quite plain. He said:--
"No Indian could remain loyal in the accepted sense to the Empire as it
was at present represented and be loyal to God at the same time. An
Empire that could be responsible for the terrorism of the martial law
regime, that would not repent of the wrong, that could enter into
secret treaties in breach of solemn obligations could only be reckoned
as a Godless Empire. Loyalty to such an Empire was disloyalty to God".
These have to be borne in mind when we consider the question of the
Swaraj that he has put forward. The Swaraj that he works for is thus
described:--
"Swaraj means full Dominion status. The scheme of such swaraj shall be
framed by representatives duly elected in terms of the Congress
constitution. That means four anna franchise. Every Indian adult, male
or female, paying four annas and signing the Congress creed will be
entitled to be placed on the electoral list. These would elect
delegates who would frame Swaraj constitution. This shall be given
effect to without any change by the British Parliament".
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account