India and Pakistan have battled over the territory of Kashmir for over sixty years. The two nuclear-armed states have not only fought three bloody wars in the region but have also been fighting shadow wars for quite some time. Of late, Kashmir has been one of the contemporary world’s most troubled and dangerous places, even a ‘nuclear flash point’ in what India calls ‘terrorist insurgency’ and Pakistan ‘a freedom movement’. Today there is a flood of literature on Kashmir. However, even though we frequently read about Pt Nehru or Sardar Patel’s views on the subject, very little is said about the kind of views that Mahatma Gandhi held towards the Kashmir issue and the role which he played with regard to the Kashmir issue during the last few months of his life. This paper attempts to study Gandhi’s views on the then newly-emerging Kashmir dispute which in later years would eventually culminate into a nuclear flash point in contemporary history and continue to remain one of the most vulnerable areas in the world. It would be purely speculative to hazard a guess if Gandhian methods could have been successful in diffusing the crisis in Kashmir.
FOR NEARLY SIXTY YEARS India and Pakistan have battled over the territory of Kashmir. The two nuclear-armed states have not only fought three bloody wars in the region, but the countries have also been fighting shadow wars for quite some time. Information gathered reveals that the Pakistan military has trained nearly half a million insurgents and as a matter of defence policy has continued the conflict in Kashmir at great human cost.1
There is more to Kashmir than ‘militants and migrants’. Since 1980s the valley and other parts of Kashmir have gone through a brutalizing and soul-searching experience of violence emanating from a variety of sources.2 The CIA money which was destined for Afghan Mujahedeen was funneled to Kashmir jihadists leading to a twenty year insurgency not widely discussed in western media. Of late, Kashmir has been one of the contemporary world’s most troubled and dangerous places, even a ‘nuclear flash point’ in what India calls ‘terrorist insurgency’ and Pakistan ‘a freedom movement’. Over fifty thousand people, mostly Muslims, but including Hindus, Sikhs and security personnel are said to have lost their lives in militancy-related operations, and nearly 200,000 Kashmiri Hindus have fled their homes in involuntary exile. While Indian sources put the figure of total deaths at fifty thousand, the jihadist sources put the figure at one hundred thousand.3
Today, there is a flood of literature on Kashmir. However, even though we frequently read about Pt Nehru or Sardar Patel’s views on the subject, very little is said about the kind of views that Mahatma Gandhi had towards the Kashmir issue and the role which he played with regard to the Kashmir issue during the last few months of his life. While some accuse Gandhi of successfully preventing the Maharaja of Kashmir from declaring independence,4 some others blame him for all the ills that Kashmiris face today.5 In the following paragraphs an attempt has been made to study Gandhi’s views on the then newly-emerging Kashmir dispute which would in later years eventually culminate in a nuclear flash point in the history of the contemporary world and continue to remain one of the most vulnerable areas in the world.
India was partitioned in August 1947 and the two new nations came into independent existence on 14th and 15th August respectively. From 15th August 1947 to 30th January 1948, Gandhi lived for 168 days and after 22nd October 1947, the reported date of actual incursion of tribesmen into Kashmir, Gandhi survived for exactly a hundred days. Even though a major part of Gandhi’s time during this period was devoted to establishing communal harmony in riot-torn Noakhali and Bihar, he also spoke and wrote on a variety of other issues. Based on the information collected during the last hundred days of his life, an attempt is made to analyze how Gandhi reacted to the conflict in its nascent form and what kind of solutions he had in mind. More than anything else, an attempt is made to analyze and speculate if Gandhi’s brand of non-violence and his ideas of conflict resolution could have been a possible pragmatic alternative!
Gandhi’s Kashmir connections go back to 1915. Despite being invited to visit Kashmir on more than one occasion previously, for some or the other reason, Gandhi had not been able to go there. After his return from South Africa, way back in 1915, Gandhi had gone to Haridwar where the turbulent Ganges enters the plains of India. It was the year of the once-in-twelve years Kumbh Mela and thousands of pilgrims had gathered at Haridwar for the holy occasion. One of the eminent individuals who had come for the occasion was Maharaja Hari Singh from Srinagar. By that time Gandhi had built up a huge reputation for himself as a staunch and fearless fighter for justice and rights in South Africa. On meeting him the Maharaja invited him to visit his state. But Gandhi had not succeeded in availing the invitation.6
Kashmir once again beckoned to him almost a quarter of a century later. In 1938 when Gandhi was staying in Abbotabad with Frontier Gandhi, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, and his brother Dr Khan Sahib, Sir N Gopalaswami Ayyangar, the then prime minister of Kashmir had earnestly wanted the Mahatma to visit Srinagar. The state had made all the arrangements and Gandhi almost went to Srinagar this time. But arrangements fell through and Gandhi had to wait again for almost a decade till a two-day trip to Srinagar and one-day visit to Jammu from 31st July to 2nd August 1947 materialized. Coincidentally, Gandhi managed to visit Kashmir when he was least interested and least expected to visit it.7 Gandhi had to plan a flying three-day visit of reaching Srinagar via Rawalpindi. Originally, Pt Nehru was scheduled to visit the state to assure the people andthe workers there that they were not being neglected by the Congress. But as 15th August was drawing near and he was the prime Minister-designate of independent India, he could not be spared. Even more important was the fact that the political future of Kashmir had not been decided and there was a very strong possibility that Nehru’s visit could be misinterpreted in the context of Kashmir as an attempt to influence its decision of aligning it with India after the British withdrawal.
To a friend Gandhi wrote on 30th July, “I am going to Kashmir....to see for myself the condition of the people. In any case I shall have a glimpse of the Himalayas. Who knows if I am going there for the first and the last time?”8 The UPI (United Press of India) had reported that while in Kashmir, Gandhi was to be looked after by the workers of the Kashmir National Conference and he was to reside at the house of Mr Kishorilal Sethi.9
Since the political game of one-upmanship had already begun Gandhi refused to be drawn into any controversy and made a reference to his impending Kashmir visit. In his prayer meeting of29th July 1947 held in Delhi he said,” I am not going to suggest to the Maharaja to accede to India and not to Pakistan. The real sovereign of the state are the people. The ruler is a servant of the people. If he is not so then he is not the ruler. This is my firm belief, and that is why I became a rebel against the British - because the British claimed to be the rulers of India, and I refused to recognize them as such. In Kashmir too the power belongs to the public. Let them do as they want...I do not want to do anything in public when I am in Kashmir. I do not even want a public prayer, though I may have it, as prayer is part of my life.”10
However, contrary to the view that the Maharaja held about Gandhi’s visit to the state in 1915, when he himself had personally invited Gandhi to visit Kashmir, in August 1947 the situation had undergone a dramatic change and the state administration this time around was determined to keep Gandhi out. Maharaja Hari Singh had himself written a letter to the Viceroy which Lord Mountbatten had passed on to Gandhi. His Highness had written, “It would be advisable from all points of view for Mahatma Gandhi to cancel his projected visit to Kashmir this year. If, however, for reasons of his own, he is not in a position to do so, I should still say that his visit should take place only towards the end of autumn....I would, however, again strongly advise that he or any other political leader should not visit the state until conditions in India take a happier turn.”11
Gandhi reached Srinagar on 1st August 1947 and on arrival was handed over a sealed letter by the secretary of Ramchandra Kak, the then Prime Minister of the state. Prior to his visit to Kashmir, Gandhi had been briefed by Nehru about Kak. He (Kak) was believed to have the complete confidence of the Maharaja and to have been strongly instrumental behind the imprisonment of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, the most popular leader in Kashmir. Wherever Gandhi went there were two popular demands repeated to release Sheikh Abdullah ‘the Lion of Kashmir’ and to urgently replace state’s Prime Minister, Ramchandra Kak. Gandhi patiently listened to these demands and expressed his sympathy but could not move on those matters as he had not come to Kashmir on any political mission. In a reply to what will happen to Kashmir after independence, Gandhi said, “What willhappen to Kashmir will depend on you, the people of Kashmir.”12 He had an inkling of what was going on in the mind of the ruler on the question of the future of Kashmir, as to whether Kashmir would join India or Pakistan when Kak replied “we are friendly, and we want to be friendly with everybody.”13
Once the infiltration of the tribesmen started in the fourth week of October 1947, Gandhi said: “Some of you may ask if I am aware of what is happening in Kashmir. Yes, I am aware of it. If the reports we are getting are correct, it is really a bad situation. All I can say is that we can neither save our religion nor ourselves by resorting to violence. It is reported that Pakistan is trying to coerce Kashmir to join that dominion. That should not be so. Today it is Kashmir.Tomorrow it can be Hyderabad. Next it may come to Junagadh or some other state. I do not wish to sit in judgement on this issue. I only believe in the principle that nobody should force anyone into doing anything ...”14 There was no doubt in Gandhi’s mind that the government of Pakistan should be prevented from compelling the people of Kashmir in its favour, just as India too had to desist from such a course of action.
In the course of his meetings with the Maharaja what Gandhi told him cannot be too hard to guess. Reading too much in to some of the changes that took place after his visit to the state can only be misleading. Ram Chandra Kak was removed from the post of the Prime minister on 10th August and Sheikh Abdullah was released on 29th September. All this and strengthening the road link between Pathankot and Jammu may seem to suggest that probably ground was being prepared for accession of the state to India. But there is no hard evidence to support the Pakistani charge that a ‘sinister design’ was in place to secure the accession of the state with the Indian Union.15
Speaking against an arms race, Gandhi said on 6th July, “Pakistanis will say that they must increase their armed forces to defend themselves against India. India will repeat the agreement. The result will be war....shall we spend our resources on the education of our children or on gun powder and guns?16
Gandhi had taken part in the First World War and although in an indirect capacity, he had had a first-hand experience of the inadequacies of the use of violence as a tool in the process of conflict resolution. For him cooperation and harmony rather than conflict and struggle constituted the fundamental law of the universe.
Gandhian dialectic placed man at the centre of reason and provided for a technique of conflict-resolution whereby one or both sides of a conflict could resolve the antimony into a re-interpretation. This could lead to, what is termed as, a ‘creative resolution of conflict’.17 Gandhi believed that a conflict can be creatively resolved only when peace is taken to be a positive concept rather than a negative one.
The negative concept of peace is a standard western formulation. In it “resolution of Conflict” is seen as a cessation of hostilities or conflict.18 The Gandhian concept of conflict resolution would mean not merely elimination of maladjustment but also progressing towards a better and more meaningful readjustment. Gandhi did not regard conflict as an antagonism between two or more parties, but as a product of a faulty system. The means, therefore, must develop to change the system itself for eliminating any future possibility of conflict.
If Gandhi’s perception with regard to the root of conflict is to be described, then it has to be himsa or violence. He used the word in a number of senses which makes it difficult to identify it with its traditional meaning. Gandhi did not have a narrow and unrealistic vision of ahimsa. “Ahimsa is a comprehensive principle.....man cannot for a moment live without consciously or unconsciously committing outward ahimsa, the very fact of his living......necessarily involves some himsa....He (a votary of ahimsa) will be constantly growing in self-restraint and compassion but he can never become entirely free from outward himsa”.19
Gandhi never attempted to put his ideas on conflict and its solution in a well-synthesized manner. They lie scattered in his works and one has to go in to the whole lot to present them cohesively. However, his views expressed on Bhagvat Gita do reflect his approach to war and conflict resolution.
Truth, non-violence and morality formed the very basis of Gandhi’s life and work. He judged every aspect of life including teachings of the Gita by the tests of truth and non-violence. Gandhi’s approach to the treatment of the concept of war and non-violence in the Gita illustrated his attitude to all the shashtras. If, in the Gita Krishna urges Arjuna to fight, to Gandhi, it could not be a justification of war or violence. For him any one who derived justification for war or killing through violence was not a true bhakta (devotee) entitled to interpret the shastras. “It is possible to draw any number of evil ideas from the Bible, the Vedas, the Quran and other scriptures.”20
Immediately after the violent incursion of the tribal groups engineered by Pakistan into Kashmir started, Patel and Pt Nehru had discussions with Gandhi. Both of them had been emotionally drained by the hectic political parleys related to the partition and the sensitive issue of the refugees. Gandhi tried to convey to both of them some of his own strength, the secret of which lay in keeping calm, doing one’s best with least flutter, and trusting absolutely in the wisdom of God, even while confronted with the worst of emergencies. Gandhi held that war was something which resulted only when ones’ utmost efforts to keep peace failed. He wanted India’s efforts to be always directed towards peace, but he said, it had to be a fair peace with no damage to honour, with first and foremost attention paid to safeguarding the lives and property of citizens.21
On 27 October 1947, he said “I respectfully submit also that Kashmir has to establish popular rule in the state. The same is the case with other states like Hyderabad and Junagadh. The real rulers of the state must be their people. If the people of Kashmir are in favour of joining Pakistan, no power on earth can stop them from doing so. But they should be left free to decide the question for themselves. They cannot be asked to decide while being attacked and coerced by having their villages and houses burnt. If the people of Kashmir, in spite of being Muslims in the majority, wish to accede to India then too no one can stop them”.22
Talking to Saheed Suhrawardy regarding the invasion of Kashmir by the tribesmen, Gandhi said, “Either Pakistan is behind the outrage, as all circumstantial evidence goes to show, or it is not behind the invasion. If Pakistan is indeed involved in this attack, is it not your duty as a true friend of India and Pakistan to proclaim your opinion? On the other hand, if even in the face of the evidence of the organized military forces present in such strength in Kashmir, you want to maintain that Pakistan has no hand in this business, then is it not up to you to find out who is actually responsible for this attack?.” 23
Kept fully in picture by Patel, Nehru and Abdullah, Gandhi gave ‘tacit consent’ to the dispatch of Indian troops to Kashmir.24 The idea of accepting accession of Kashmir and sending troops to save Srinagar and the valley had the consent of Gandhi.25 On 29 October he even said, publicly, that, “...the job of armed forces is to march ahead and repel the attacking enemy”.26 In his prayer meeting of Friday, the 31st October 1947, Gandhi referred to the plight of the Kashmiris, both Hindus and Muslims, fighting under the banner of Sheikh Abdullah and he said, “The people of Kashmir are brave. All the communities are living there in unity....Kashmiris should tell the invaders to go back, and if they attack they will have to march over the dead bodies of the people of Kashmir. Then nobody will be able to touch our soldiers. If they die, they will become immortal. The darkness around us should vanish and we will be able to see light. This is my prayer”.27
In his prayer meeting of 1st November Gandhi referred to the massive air movement that was going on in Delhi ferrying men, arms and supplies to defend Kashmir, conceding that many of the soldiers going on the mission were going to lose their lives but commended that their lives would have been laid down for the nobler cause of establishing peace and harmony in the beautiful valley of Kashmir.28 Touching upon non-violence in the context of the battle being fought to save Kashmir, he again told in the prayer meeting of 5th November that left to himself he would have gone with a band of non-violent resisters prepared to die at the hands of the enemy to rescue the state. But at the same time he also expressed the feeling that such an occasion would arise only if people listened to his words and acted accordingly.29
On 12th November 1947, speaking on Accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India, Gandhi said that the Government of India agreed to the accession for the time being, because both the Maharaja and Sheikh Abdullah, who is the representative of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, wanted it. Sheikh Abdullah came forward to make the demand representing not only the Muslims but the entire masses of Kashmir.30 The same day he also said, “I have heard people talking in whispers that Kashmir could be divided, that Jammu would come to the Hindus, and that the Muslims could have the rest. I cannot even think of such divided loyalty and division of India’s states into several parts. I hope that the whole of India would act sensibly, and that the ugly situation will be avoided.”31 He also observed, “there is a large preponderance of Muslims in Kashmir. There should be no partitioning of the state. If we start the process again here, where will it end? It is enough and more than enough that India has been cut into two....”32
For Gandhi, cooperation and harmony rather than conflict and struggle constituted the fundamental law of the universe. He aimed at ‘creative resolution of conflict.’33 Social transformation of the conflicting parties worked miracles in this regard. Gandhi was of the firm opinion that Kashmir with its Muslims, Hindu and Sikh population could provide an antidote for the sub-continent’s Hindu-Muslim divide. He also expressed his opinion that after the raiders were repulsed ‘Kashmir would belong to the Kashmiris’.34 Later in the year (1947) when the Indian government referred the Kashmir question to the United Nations, on 27 December Gandhi said, “I shall advise Pakistan and India to sit together and decide the matter. If the two are interested in the settlement of the dispute, where is the need for an arbitrator?”35 Who precisely originated the idea that India should take the Kashmir question to the Security Council (described by Sardar Patel as “Insecurity Council’) is not clear. Some at the time mentioned the name of Mountbatten and others that of Nehru and his key official advisers.36 Again on the same issue he said on 4 January 1948, “Mistakes were made on both sides. Of this I have no doubt....therefore the two dominions should come together with God as witness and find a settlement. The matter is now before the United Nations Organisation. It cannot be withdrawn from there. But if India and Pakistan come to a settlement the big powers in the UNO will have to endorse that settlement.”37
He was unequivocal in holding that no fair settlement could be found by inviting a foreign hand. At times expressing helplessness Gandhi sought shelter in his prayers and derived comfort in surrendering himself to God. On 3rd January he said, “...Today that poison (of distrust) is increasing. Kashmir has added more poison. If there is war, both countries are going to bleed. I do not wish to be alive and be a witness to the carnage. I can only pray to God, and ask you all to join in the prayer, that He may take me away. I pray to God that He may cure us of folly and madness so that our country may continue to progress.”38
Along with the Kashmir cauldron when the Hyderabad problem started, Gandhi felt that he was very right in not being in favour of partition of India and lamented that others refused to pay heed to his views. In a letter written on 26 November 1947 in Gujarati Gandhi wrote, “I was not in favour of partition of India: I could foresee these developments. Hence I am not surprised at the crisis we are facing today.”39
Gandhi did not believe that violence was inherent in human nature. He was of the firm opinion that man was essentially peace-loving, co-operative and compassionate for others. Goodness in man could be aroused, articulated and strengthened. He wanted people to settle their own quarrels. “Men were less manly if they resolved their disputes either by fighting or by asking their relatives to decide for them...they became more unmanly and cowardly when they resorted to the course of law. It is a sign of savagery to settle disputes by fighting. It is not the less so by asking a third party to decide between you and me. The parties alone know who is right and therefore, they ought to settle it.”40 With regard to Kashmir, he also said, “If I had my way, I would have invited Pakistan’s representatives to India, and we would have met, discussed the matter and worked out some settlement. The two dominions should come together with God as witness and find a settlement...”41
Gandhi out rightly rejected the use of violence as a means of conflict resolution. He thought it could be achieved only through “peaceful negotiation”.42 Blanche Watson also corroborates the effectiveness of the Gandhian method of using non-violence against violence in a similar manner. He writes, “Repression has never worked. I challenge anybody to point me to a single episode in either ancient or modern history, which proves that repression has even once achieved the end to which it has been directed. The English failed in America,....it failed in South Africa after the Boer War, It failed in Ireland yesterday.....it will fail in India tomorrow. If repression succeeds in anything, it is in advertising the cause of the enemy”.43
Repression provokes conflict and a solution is never reached. The synthesis of two opposing claims in conflict resolution does not necessarily imply partial surrendering of original claims from both sides. Nor can it be called a compromise in the modern parlance of negotiations. Resolution of conflict in the Gandhian way, thus, departs from the traditional sense in that there is no sacrificing of position, no concession granted to any party, and no victory in the sense of triumph of one party over the other. In a conflicting situation, groups should meet with an open mind willing to convince and to be convinced.
In spite of practising truth and non-violence for a major part of his life, Gandhi conceded that ahimsa (non-violence) was an ideal which was impossible to realize to perfection. Evil is inherent in action. As it is very clear, Arjuna did not raise the question of violence and non-violence. He simply raised the question of distinction between kinsmen and others which, according to Gandhi, was due to Arjuna’s reclusion arising out of his ignorance and attachment to ego.44 For Gandhi, what the Gita propounded on the common sense level was that once plunged into a battle, one should go on fighting. One should not give up the task once it has been undertaken. The illustration of war in Gita is not inadequate. Wise men shouldn’t read a wrong meaning in it.
For Gandhi satyagraha had a deep linkwith the universal brotherhood of man. It discarded the biological concept of the struggle for human existence as well as the concept of survival of the fittest. He believed in love, respect, mutual help and cooperation in the work for the welfare of the society as a whole. “Love of the hater is the most difficult of all. But by the grace of God, even this most difficult thing becomes easy to accomplish if we want to do it.”45
However, Gandhi also knew how hard it was for common people to practise what they said. Speaking on truth and non-violence he said, “....if our actual conduct is not in conformity with those virtues, just talking about them is hypocritical. I do not like that. I have traversed India many times and seen thousands of villages. I find that people talk of truth and non-violence, but they do not act accordingly. People think in one way, speak in another and act in yet another way!”46
On Conflict Resolution, Gandhi never put anything as a die-hard theoretician. He himself practised what he propagated and in one sphere or the other, he put into practice all modes of conflict resolution as and when he was confronted with one. The saying that “all good theories can be practised and all good practices can be theorized” fits aptly to the Gandhian mode of conflict resolution.
Gandhi had an undying faith in the power of truth and non-violence. As a life-long practitioner of non-violence, his standard advice was to confront violence with non-violence. But at times it was put to severe test. When a group of Sikhs led by Giani Kartar Singh met him and narrated to him the continuing atrocities on Sikhs in Pakistan, his advice was not well-taken. Kartar Singh protested, “Afflicted men cannot be balanced men. Everyone can not be a Mahatma Gandhi.” To this, Gandhi replied calmly, “Mahatma Gandhi is neither an angel nor a devil. He is a man like any of you. It can do no good to dwell on who has killed more people and where...”47
Like an eternal optimist, he had complete faith in people’s power and their sense of justice. He had grand plans of visiting Pakistan and was also hopeful that partition was only a temporary process and it could be revoked. Before setting out for Pakistan, however, Gandhi felt he had first to make another effort to get India’s house in order. ‘What face can I turn to the Pakistanis’, he asked, ‘if the conflagration still rages here?’48 Even while replying to Vincent Sheean’s question as to why violence had not subsided after a righteous war, Gandhi said, “See what is happening in India, in Kashmir. Yet, I have faith. If I live long enough, my followers will see the futility of it (employing force), and come round to my way.”49
It is a strange coincidence that Kashmir became the cause of Gandhi’s death. A crisis occurred when India hesitated to honour the financial clause of the Partition agreement, which included the payment of cash balances amounting to Rs. 550 million to Pakistan. Sardar Patel took a firm stand linking the payment of the sum to Pakistan with the withdrawal of troops from Kashmir.50 But, Gandhi was not convinced that a violent dispute entitled India to keep Pakistan’s money. Pakistani representatives accused India of strangulating their country. Gandhi announced an indefinite fast at this stage and word went round that it was directed against Patel’s decision to withhold the cash balances. Mountbatten and Nehru were, in fact, known to have told Gandhi that India was morally bound to transfer the balance to Pakistan and that the situation created by the unbending position adopted by Sardar could be saved only by Gandhi. Patel finally yielded and Gandhi broke his fast at the behest of the leaders of all communities.51 The young man, Godse, who shot him justified his act by saying that his main provocation was the Mahatma’s ‘constant and consistent pandering to the Muslims’, “culminating in his last pro-Muslim fast (which) at last goaded me to the conclusion that the existence of Gandhi should be brought to an end immediately”.52
A sentiment that has been repeated again and again is a lasting peace based on the reconciliation between the Muslims and non-Muslims for which Gandhi gave his life. But the sub-continent still awaits the peace that Gandhi wanted to secure by visiting Pakistan in February 1948, an exercise that was prevented by his assassination.53
Notes and References:
- Arif Jamal, Shadow War: the Untold Story of jihad in Kashmir (New Delhi: Vij Books, , 2009), p.14.
- Foreword by T N Madan in A Rao (ed.)The Valley of Kashmir, The Making and Unmaking of a Composite Culture (New Delhi: Manohar, 2008),p. XIII.
- Figure quoted by Gen (Retd.) S K Sinha, Governor of the state, speaking in New Delhi on 29 April 2005.The figures for death were: 20,000 militants, 15,000 civilians (almost all killed by terrorists) and 5,000 security personnel (Daily Excelsior, Jammu, 30 April 2005). He characterized the manner of killings by terrorists as brutal.
- Abdul MajidZargar, “Mahatma Gandhi and Kashmir Politics” see http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2011/oct/2/mahatma-gandhi-and-kashmir-politics .
- V Ramamurthy, Mahatma Gandhi: The last 200 Days (Chennai: Kasturi& Sons, 2004),p.27.
- In a reply to Sardar Patel’s letter Gandhi had written ‘...I do not want to go to Kashmir and that Jawaharlal will go instead. Now I have a letter saying that I may go there, but not Jawaharlal. I cannot make up my mind. What shall I do?’ cited in V Ramamurthy, op. cit.,p.26.
- It indeed turned out to be his first and the last visit to the state. V Ramamurthy, op. cit., p.28, and Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol.96, pp.173-174 cited in Rajmohan Gandhi, Mohandas: The true story of a man, His people and an Empire (New Delhi: Penguin, 2007), p.623.
- Kishorilal Sethi was a well-known contractor who commanded great respect in the state and his mansion was about three miles from the heart of the city on the aerodrome road.
- V Ramamurthy, op. cit.,p.29. Also Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol.96, pp173-174, cited in Rajmohan Gandhi, op.cit., p.623.
- The Maharaja was referring to the partition killings. V Ramamurthy, op.cit.,p.36. Also see Ramachandra Guha, India After Gandhi: The History of the World’s Largest democracy (New Delhi: Picador, 2007), p.62. Transfer Of Power, Vol.12, Nicholas Mansergh and Penderel Moon (eds.), 1983, pp.3-5, p. 368. At the request of the Maharaja, Gandhi did not address any public gatherings during his 3-day stay in the state even though he met several delegations.
- V Ramamurthy, op. cit., p. 44.
- Ibid., p.40.
- Ibid., p. 277.
- BadamWaer, “Gandhi and Kashmir”, Statesman, Thursday, 2nd October, 2008.
- Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi , vol-95:408-409, cited in Rajmohan Gandhi, op.cit., p.625.
- Joan Bondurant, Conquest of Violence: The Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict (London: Routledge&Kegan Paul, 1958),p.199.
- Karnal Singh (ed.,) Gandhian Direction to the society at crossroads, (Patna, 1991), p.65.
- M K Gandhi, An Autobiography, p. 264.cited in S K Sethi’s chapter Gandhi and the First World War in S Pani and N Pani (ed.) Reflections on Gandhi: The Forgotten Mahatma (Delhi: Zenith Books International, 2008), p.126.
- A N Mishra, “Gita Gandhi and Non-violence” in S Pani and N Pani (ed.), op.cit.,p.107.
- V Ramamurthy, op.cit., p.281.
- Ibid., p.277.
- Ibid., p.285.
- Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol.98, p.319.
- Durga Das, India from Curzon to Nehru & After(New Delhi: Rupa&Co, 1977),p.270.
- Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol.97, p.185.
- V Ramamurthy, op. cit., p.289.
- Ibid., p.292.
- Ibid., p.304.
- Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi,Vol.97, pp.285-286.
- Ibid., p.326.
- V Ramamurthy, op.cit., p.417.
- Joan Bondurant., op.cit., p.199.
- Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi,Vol.97, p.185.
- Ibid., vol.98.p114.
- Durga Das, op.cit., p.270.
- Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi,Vol.98.p.171.
- V Ramamurthy, op.cit., p.431.
- Ibid., p.360.
- C Shankaran Nair, Gandhi and Anarchy (New Delhi:, 1922,repr.1995, Mittal), p.6.
- V Ramamurthy, op.cit., p.434.
- Kenneth Boulding, Conflict and Defence: A General Theory (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962), p.304.
- Blanche Watson, Gandhi and Non-violent Resistance (New Delhi: Anmol, Reprint 1989), pp.516-17.
- A N Mishra, op.cit., p. 110.
- S R Bakshi, Mahatma Gandhi (New Delhi, 1990), pp.55-56.
- V Ramamurthy, op.cit., p.419.
- Ibid, p.464.
- Larry Collins and Dominique Lappierre, Freedom at Midnight (Mumbai: Vikas, 2000),p.465.
- V Ramamurthy, op.cit.,p.479.
- Citing Kashmir conflict as the reason, on 3rd or 4th of January Patel said that India could not give money to Pakistan ‘for making bullets to be shot at us.’ G M Nandurkar (ed.) Sardar Patel Centenary Volumes (Ahmedabad), vol.2. p.19 cited in Rajmohan Gandhi, op.cit.,p.663.
- Durga Das,op.cit.,p.276.
- Cited in Ramachandra Guha, op.cit., p. 22.
- Rajmohan Gandhi, op.cit, p.685.
Source: 'Gandhi Marg' Volume 35, Number 2, July-September 2013