Some reviewers of the first volume of this book have criticized it on the ground that it draws a portrait of Gandhi (based, of course, on his words and deeds) which can hardly be reconciled with his charismatic influence on the people. In their view a leader who followed policies opposed to the interests of the people could hardly enjoy the charisma that Gandhi did. It may be noted that the critics have neither refuted my arguments and the facts cited by me nor pointed out any inaccuracy in my quotes from Gandhi and their interpretations.
Gandhi was indeed a charismatic leader, for he could attract, influence, and inspire devotion among people. But charisma, the ability to influence and inspire people, does not presuppose that the policies of a leader possessed of it necessarily serve the interests of the people. Hitler enjoyed charisma among the Germans for some time; so did Jinnah among the Muslims. Few would agree that their policies were right. There may be a complex of factors contributing to a leader's charisma.
Before we discuss what went into the making of Gandhi's charisma, we would note the limits within which it worked.
First, Gandhi's charisma, as we have seen, failed to work on the Muslims. Second, a large section of the scheduled castes and tribes remained untouched by his charismatic influence. Third, his ability to influence and inspire the politically-inclined youth of India was very much limited. Fourth, towards the end of his life, his charisma ceased to work on his close associates who had cherished implicit faith in him before.
A few words about the period which saw Gandhi's advent in Indian politics. World War I intensified the crisis of British imperialism. During the war itself the British imperialists realized that it would be necessary to make devolution of power by stages to Indian collaborators, which, instead of weakening their rule, would strengthen it, and the Secretary of State Montagu made the appropriate declaration in August 1917. The appointment of the Indian Industrial Commission 1916-18, the Montagu-Chelmsford Report of 1918, and the Government of India Act 1919 were so many carrots dangled before the comprador bourgeoisie and other upper classes and their leaders in order to associate them with the administration. It is worth remembering that World War I had contributed greatly to the development, expansion and strengthening of the Indian big bourgeoisie who had emerged as agents of British capital.
On the other hand, unrest swept through this sub-continent towards the end of the war. By 1916, as Viceroy Chelmsford said, India had been "bled absolutely white".(1) In Punjab press-gang methods were widely used to recruit soldiers, and people were forced to make contributions to the War Fund. The raj's measures to bleed the people white were compounded by the reckless profiteering and swindling by the Indian big bourgeoisie. Both in India and the world outside, the popular forces were growing and presenting an immediate as well as potential threat to imperialism and its agents. The great Russian Revolution was awakening the masses, and the right of self-determination of the colonial peoples was placed by history on the agenda. Early in 1918 the British government observed:
"The Revolution in Russia in its beginning was regarded in India as a triumph over despotism; and... it has given impetus to Indian political aspirations."(2)
In the immediate post-war days the struggles of workers were breaking out in Bombay and other places. Discontent was simmering among the peasantry whom the landlords, the usurers, British and comprador merchant capital had reduced to a state of pauperization. During the war itself a section of the youth took to the path of violence to overthrow British rule.
It was at such a crossroads of history that Gandhi appeared on India's political stage. Early in April 1915 Gandhi, who had offered in London his active help to British war-efforts, returned to India at the request of the British Under-Secretary of State for India. While in Africa for twenty-two years, he was full of eulogy for the British colonialists and "vied with Englishmen in loyalty to the throne": it was his "love of truth [that] was at the root of this loyalty".(3)
It was in South Africa that Gandhi devised the form of struggle -- satyagraha -- an ideal weapon with which to emasculate the anti-imperialist spirit of the people. Gandhi himself declared that his satyagraha technique was intended to combat revolutionary violence. It may be borne in mind that this prophet of non-violence, though violently opposed to the use of violence by the people in the struggle against British imperialism, actively supported, whether in South Africa, London or India, the most violent wars launched by the British masters and, towards the close of his life, was in favour of war between India and Pakistan and approved of or suggested the march of troops into Junagadh, Kashmir and Hyderabad.(4)
Gandhi's activities in South Africa were watched keenly by the Indian big bourgeoisie like Sir Ratan Tata, Sir Purshotamdas and others, besides some of the princes, who overwhelmed him with large funds to help him to carry on his work. They had found in him the man they were seeking, the man who would be a powerful bulwark against all revolutionary struggles. He was welcomed back home both by the raj which bestowed signal honours on him for the services rendered by him in South Africa as well as by the Indian big bourgeoisie. On the eve of his departure from London, General Smuts, the South African minister responsible for the savage repression on Indian workers in South Africa during Gandhi's stay there, told the press that Gandhi would prove to be "an enormous asset to Britain".(5) And Gandhi did not belie Smuts's expectations. On his arrival in India Gandhi pledged his loyalty to the British and declared war on the revolutionaries, and the raj used him for furthering the cause of the war and recruiting Indian soldiers.
There were three main factors which contributed to the making of Gandhi's charisma.
Gandhi's charisma among the Hindus owed much to his capacity to make a superb cocktail of religion and politics. His continual references to God, to `the inner voice' and to the religious scriptures and epics, his claims that his steps were guided by God (that for instance his fasts were undertaken at the call of God), his ashrams and his ascetic's robe swayed the Hindu masses powerfully in this land where godmen flourish even today. His harking back to a mythical past, the Ram Rajya, had an immense appeal to the backward-looking Hindus, especially the peasantry enmeshed in feudal ties. He never hesitated to make unabashed exploitation of the religious credulity of the peasant masses and of other toiling people who shared the peasant outlook. When Rabindranath Tagore met Romain Rolland and his two friends in June 1926, Rabindranath dwelt on Gandhi's "variations and contradictions, the compromises he has accepted and that sort of secret bad faith which makes him prove to himself by sophistries that the decisions he takes are those demanded by virtue and the divine law even when the contrary is true and he must be aware of the fact".(6)
Besides his ashrams and the ascetic's garb, the prayer-meetings Gandhi held every day, where he blended prayers and politics, were a powerful weapon of his with which he swayed the mass mind. Kanji Dwarkadas said that Gandhi "was exploiting for political purposes these public prayers to keep and continue his hold on ignorant and superstitious people".(7)
Subhas observed that in this land where the "spiritual man has always wielded the largest influence", Gandhi "came to be looked upon by the mass of the people as a Mahatma before he became the undisputed political leader of India". Subhas said that at the Nagpur Congress in December 1920, Jinnah, who had addressed Gandhi as `Mr Gandhi', was "shouted down by thousands of people who insisted that he should address him as `Mahatma Gandhi'". Subhas added:
"Consciously or unconsciously, the Mahatma fully exploited the mass psychology of the people.... He was exploiting many of the weak traits in the character of his countrymen [like inordinate belief in fate and in the supernatural, indifference to modern scientific development, etc.], which had accounted for India's downfall to a large extent.... In some parts of the country the Mahatma began to be worshipped as an Avatar [incarnation of God]."(8)
The appeal of Gandhi as a leader to the masses, as David Petrie, Director of the Intelligence Bureau, Government of India, from 1924 to 1931 rightly said, "was semi-divine" and his "influence was far more religious than political".(9)
Gandhi did his best to turn the gaze of the people backward, to revive the obscurantist ideas and faiths of the past and to blunt the power of reason. When it suited him he talked of the "sinfulness" of foreign cloth or of the Bihar earthquake in 1934 as having been caused by the caste Hindus' sin of untouchability. His "moral" outpourings on modern civilization, industry, medicine, etc., had their appeal to the masses of the people in a colonial and semi-feudal society, who groaning under the impact of a bastard civilization felt yearnings for the supposed pristine glory of a vanished age. Gandhi knew how credulous the masses were. "If one makes a fuss of eating and drinking and wears a langoti", said Gandhi, "one can easily acquire the title of Mahatma in this country." Again he said: "in our country, a Mahatma enjoys the right to do anything. He may commit murder, indulge in acts of debauchery or whatever else he chooses; he is always pardoned. Who is there to question him?"(10)
Ravinder Kumar was right when he observed:
"More significantly, the religious idiom of Gandhi's politics widened the gulf between the two major communities of the sub-continent, and was probably one of the reasons behind its division into the two states of India and Pakistan in 1947."(11)
Systematic efforts were made by interested classes and persons to deify Gandhi -- not without his knowledge. During the Bardoli satyagraha of 1928,(12) which opposed the government's enhancement of land revenue "affecting a small but dominant landed class", Vallabhbhai Patel and others including Gandhi "deliberately used a religious idiom in their speeches and writings". Those reluctant to join the satyagraha were warned that "it would be difficult...for them to face God after death on account of their unholy actions". Support of the various social groups was sought "on caste and religious grounds". The tribal people who constituted almost one half of the Bardoli taluk's population, many of whom were serfs of their landowners, were told that their gods Siliya and Simaliya, who had grown old, had sent Gandhi, "their new `god'", to look after them. They were enjoined "to follow their dharma" and obey the command of their new god who wore a langoti like them.(13)
The following was one of the verses of a Gujarati song:
"Oh Englishman, the God Gandhiji came in the end and your days have been numbered."(14)
This deification of Gandhi was not confined to Gujarat. Shahid Amin writes that "legends about his `divinity' circulated at the time of his visit to Gorakhpur [on 8 February 1921]". To quote Amin, "Even in the eyes of some local Congressmen this `deification' -- `unofficial canonization' as the Pioneer put it -- assumed dangerously distended proportions.... Most of the rumours about the Mahatma's pratap (power/glory) were reported in the local press between February and May 1921." Amin says that numerous stories of Gandhi's miracle-making powers -- many times more numerous than Christ's -- were spread by `nationalist' journals and by word of mouth. Stories of supernatural beings appearing and asking the people to do puja to [worship] Gandhi were also circulated. According to Amin, the fact of the reporting of these rumours in the local nationalist weekly Swadesh indicates that "these were actively spread by interested parties".(15)
Similar stories about Gandhi's miraculous powers were spread in Bihar and he was deified.(16) P.C. Bamford, a high-ranking intelligence official, noted:
"unscrupulous agitators were circulating to the credulous masses stories of divine attributes and miraculous powers [possessed by Gandhi]. Gandhi's influence was strengthened by a spurious divinity."(17)
As noted before, Pandit R.S. Shukla, then Prime Minister of the Central Provinces and Berar, made it obligatory by an order issued in September 1938 to use the word `Mahatma' before Gandhi's name in all official papers. `Gandhi-worship' was also prevalent in some places of that province.(18)
In present-day Koraput in Orissa, rumours were spread early in July 1938 `that Mr Gandhi will visit the area soon and those who do not produce Congress tickets will suffer from ailments!' An official publication stated:
"The Congress had built up an organization and acquired a hold over these backward tribes [in Koraput] by making attractive promises...; they also played on their superstition, and in some places Mr Gandhi was deified and temple ritual took place at the Congress office."(19)
And, soon after 8 August 1942, a circular was issued in the name of the Congress reproducing Gandhi's message to the people on the eve of his arrest. It was entitled Six Commandments of Gandhi Baba.(20)
Myths about Gandhi which have no semblance of truth were consciously built up and propagated by his colleagues. Two illustrative ones may be cited, which will perhaps suffice. Nehru wrote:
"Crushed in the dark misery of the present, she [India] had tried to find relief in helpless muttering and in vague dreams of the past and the future, but he [Gandhi] came and gave hope to her mind and strength to her much-battered body, and the future became an alluring vision".(21)
Nehru here deliberately falsified the history of the anti-colonial struggles of the Indian people before Gandhi's advent -- struggles which were not diversionary ones like those in which Nehru participated under the leadership of Gandhi. Speaking of 1917 and 1918, Percival Spear correctly pointed out that "the political classes were occupied by the government's political moves. But the masses were getting steadily more restive. The precipitation of these feelings into an anti-government movement came about, as so often, by the government's attempt to prevent it."(22) It was Gandhi's mission to shackle all anti-government and anti-feudal struggles, not to organize or lead them. The future that Gandhi was striving for -- self-government within the British empire and the preservation of the social status quo -- was indeed `an alluring vision' to the Nehrus and the Birlas.
Rajendra Prasad wrote:
Gandhi "went to Noakhali [in 1946]. The result was that the Hindus recovered their courage and morale. The Muslims who, to begin with, suspected his bona fides, began slowly to be affected by his presence and his speeches, and saw the error of their ways. That was one of the marvels of non-violence in action..."(23)
No doubt, this is a marvel of untruth. The Muslims, who at first flocked to Gandhi's meetings, soon boycotted them and put every conceivable pressure on him to leave Noakhali. And how could the apostle of non-violence restore a sense of security to the minds of the Hindus when he himself moved about under the best possible armed protection provided by the Bengal government?(24) It should be noted that the ordinary Muslims were not responsible for the communal riots, and the section which was involved in them was led by a gangster -- Mian Ghulam Sarwar -- who had unsuccessfully contested the 1946 Assembly election helped with Congress funds.(25) It may also be borne in mind that the Muslims of the neighbouring district of Tripura (Comilla) organized themselves -- not under the influence of Gandhi -- and successfully prevented the gangsters from spreading the riots in that district.
We refrain from citing more samples of image-building so essential for the success of Congress policies. In the absence of a revolutionary party to call the bluff, the Congress leaders were apt to make breathtaking claims. After reading, according to his biographer and disciple Tendulkar, the first volume of Marx's Capital in the Aga Khan Palace at the age of seventy-four, Gandhi commented: "I would have written it better as assuming, of course, I had the leisure for study Marx has put in." In this context what Frances Gunther wrote to Nehru may be found interesting: "Essentially ignorant -- his ideas on science, food, sex, education, back to the village, etc. are crack potted and assigned by another man would arouse nothing but a yawn."(26)
Gandhi's charisma amounted to something like adoration for a holy person who was venerated but whose teachings were seldom followed. In the eyes of the Hindu masses who came under the spell of his charisma, he was a saint, an avatar, whose darshan was coveted, but whose sermons on non-violence or injunctions to carry out the `constructive programme' or to abolish untouchability fell mostly on deaf ears. It may be noted that his `constructive' workers were usually paid. When, in January 1947, Gandhi was asked "How did your Ahimsa work in Bihar?", he replied: "It did not work at all. It failed miserably."(27)
Gandhi of the popular imagination was not as he really was. He became in the imagination of the oppressed and exploited, the simple and unsophisticated masses a symbol of anti-imperialist, anti-feudal struggle -- the very opposite of what he was. They created him in the image of an ideal hero of their conception. During the Rowlatt Satyagraha, a small band of Muslim workers and peasants, which called itself `Danda Fauj', paraded the streets of Lahore in April 1919 and plastered its walls with posters which appealed to Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs to enlist in the `Danda Fauj' and fight against the "English monkeys", for this was "the command of Mahatma Gandhi". The workers of the European-owned tea plantations in the Surma valley in Assam left them and began their long trek back home during the non-co-operation days, thinking this had been the call of Gandhi. The peasants of Chauri-Chaura violently resisted and retaliated against the murderous attacks on them by the police with Gandhi's name on their lips.(28)
Besides Gandhi's extraordinary astuteness, his unabashed exploitation of the religious credulity of the Hindu masses, two other factors contributed to the making of his charisma.
One was that, appreciating his worth, British imperialism recognized him as the national leader. Like General Smuts, many Viceroys including Willingdon regarded him as an asset. In combating the militant forces of anti-colonial and anti-feudal struggle, the British ruling classes counted on his help and he never failed them. As Judith Brown wrote, "Gandhi was impelled into or at least confirmed in a national leadership role by the Government's attitude, its needs and fears, as much as those of his followers or the compulsions of his own personality.... They [the British officials] angled for his help in the struggle against violence and terrorism."(29)
From his days in South Africa, Gandhi "regularly maintained personal contact with the highest levels of Government, even when no specific issue was at hand".(30) Jacques Pouchepadass has referred to `fantastic rumours' that circulated about Gandhi in Champaran in 1917 -- rumours that Gandhi had been sent to Champaran by the Viceroy, or even the King, to redress the grievances of the peasants; that the administration of Champaran was going to be handed over to the Indians and so on. According to Pouchepadass, "many of these rumours were very consciously spread by the local leaders".(31) The Indian elite, the rich peasants and others looked upon him as their guide and placed implicit faith in him, for his easy accessibility to the highest representatives of the raj fed their opportunist hopes. Men like Prasad, Patel and many others gathered around him thinking that while risks were small, gains would be enormous.
The other prop -- a more important one -- on which Gandhi's charisma rested was the lavish support extended to him by the Indian big bourgeoisie. With his home-coming, besides the Tatas and Thakurdases, the Sarabhais, Birlas and others rallied to his support. The Indian business elite hailed him: his message of non-violence, his satyagraha, his faith in the raj, his political aspirations, his abhorrence of class struggle, his `change of heart' and `trusteeship' theories, his determination to preserve the social status quo, his `constructive programme' intended to thwart revolutionary action -- all these and more convinced them that in the troubled times ahead he was their best friend. His outlook on industrialization never frightened them. Rather, they expected that Gandhi's `moral' outpourings on industry and modern civilization would weave a spell on the masses, victims of cruel exploitation who were yearning to escape from it. His ashram, all other organizations of his, and all his political, social and moral campaigns were financed by them. Modifying somewhat Sarojini Naidu's quip, one might say that it cost the big bourgeoisie, the Birlas in particular, quite a big amount to keep him in poverty. And he too attended to their interests to the very end of his life. During the war when the "prices of cloth reached levels more than five times the pre-war level", the government intervened, cloth prices were put under control and fixed at levels which "industrialists themselves were not reluctant to accept". The profits of the cotton mill industry, in which capital to the tune of Rs 50 crore was "primarily invested", soared from Rs 7 crore in 1940 to Rs 109 crore in 1943. But the declared profits were only `peanuts' compared to the actual profits made when hoarding and blackmarketing were the rule.(32) G.D. Birla's biographer, Ram Niwas Jaju, writes that "the boom in the speculation market and then the war gave a boost to their activities, and they [the Birlas] acquired twenty-two big factories" in addition to what they had before. On 24 March 1947 G.D. Birla "wrote a seven-page letter" to Rajagopalachari, a member of the Interim Government, asking for removal of control on cloth.(33) Gandhi started inveighing against rationing and control on prices of food and cloth. He pitied the millionaires. "We do have millionaires in our country", he said, "and they make millions too, but even they are left with little money because of heavy taxation." He condemned `control' "as a vicious thing" and "continuing the controls as criminal".(34) And control on cloth was lifted and cloth prices shot up immediately to the satisfaction of the poor millionaires and to the immense distress of the common people.
Edgar Snow was not wrong when he said: "Nobody else in India could play this dual role of saint for the masses and champion of big business, which was the secret of Gandhi's power"(35) -- the secret of Gandhi's charisma. A negative factor that sustained Gandhi's charisma was the weakness of the working class and the Communist Party of India.