Answering Calumny-II: Mahatma Gandhi And People's Movement for Independence

This is the second article in a five-part series. You can read other parts here: Part One, Part Three, Part Four, Part Five. 

The article in Frontline presents a comparison between Veer Savarkar and Gandhi. It credits Gandhi for drawing attention to the economic exploitation of the British and its destructive consequences.

It suggests that prior to Gandhi, those who opposed British rule did so due to feudal interests or emotional nationalism that didn't resonate with the wider population:

If credit for starting such a people’s movement is to be given, then it should be given to Lokmanya Bal Gangadara Tilak.

Sure, Gandhi transformed the movement by giving it scale, but it was Tilak who actually initiated it in the immediate temporal and spatial vicinity of Gandhi’s ascent in politics.

The detailed analysis of British economic exploitation and the draining of Indian wealth was developed by Dadhabai Naoraoji. Incidentally, it was Naoroji who brought back the word ‘Swarajya’ into Indian politics.

Tilak's political stance shifted from being not-so-pro-farmer in the 1870s to being definitely-pro-farmers in the 1890s.

He strongly opposed the rebellion led by Vasudev Balwant Phadke during the 1870s. However, during the famine of 1896-97, Tilak launched the No-Tax Movement. In this context, he wrote:

His southern disciple, V.O.Chidambaram Pillai, and his colleague, Subramanya Siva, started the workers’ strike down south in Thoothukudi. This movement became quite popular throughout India and even abroad.

Gandhi’s movement in South Africa came almost simultaneously. Madam Cama, in whose team Savarkar was a prominent member, was meanwhile networking and campaigning for India’s cause abroad.

One notable difference between the eras of Gandhi and Tilak is that during Gandhi's era, significant democratic reforms were implemented, including improvements in prison conditions for prisoners.

The harsh punishments endured by figures like Savarkar, Bhai Paramanand, and V.O. Chidambaram were mostly eliminated. (Although Tilak had a relatively better cell during his six-year imprisonment in Mandalay, he was cut off from society).

Unlike Savarkar and even Tilak, Gandhi enjoyed the advantage of being connected to his colleagues most of the time and not being forcibly relocated to a distant place. This political and strategic advantage allowed Gandhi to build a sustained national movement.

Gandhi utilized the pan-Indian image of previous generation leaders to mobilize his movement.

For instance, he established the 'Tilak Swarajya fund', setting the target at Rs 1 crore. Notably, he didn't create the fund in the name of Gopala Krishna Gokhale, his political guru and Tilak's rival.

Gandhi understood which leader's image held national appeal and would be embraced by the masses. He stood on the foundation laid by the freedom fighters of the 1900s and 1910s.

Here, it is pertinent to mention that the parallels between Gandhi and Tilak are striking.

Tilak was the first to write a commentary on the Gita, focusing on society and the nation. Gandhi followed suit, going a step further by considering the Gita as his mother and frequently discussing it during the freedom struggle.

Both Tilak and Gandhi used religious terms and symbols to connect with the Indian masses, with their respective journals reaching a wide audience.

Thus Gandhi consciously or unconsciously modelled himself after Tilak and built upon his ideas.

To diminish the movements preceding Gandhi's as being unconnected with the problems of Indian people is incorrect. Gandhi inherited and built upon these movements, benefiting from reforms achieved through the hardships endured by earlier leaders.

Ignoring the contributions of such streams to the Gandhian movement and portraying Gandhi as a solitary hero appearing out of nowhere is ‘both logically fallacious and morally reprehensible.’

[To be Continued].