Gandhi's Political Life Writings: The Known and the Unknown History of the Indian Freedom Movement |
- By Tina Mazumdar* and Sib Sankar Majumder#AbstractJames Olney observed that life writing or “autobiography is the literature that most immediately and deeply engages our interest and holds it”.1 The deep engagement induces an increased awareness and generates an understanding of a ‘life’ in similar or dissimilar conditions. Olney has probed a few relevant questions in his preface to the Metaphors of Self: The Meaning of Autobiography “why men write autobiographies” and explores its dominant place in literature since time immemorial and “why we continue to read them?”2 Barbara Harlow records in “Prison Memoirs of Political Detainees” that the political life writings mark a difference from the conventional autobiographies “in a redefinition of the self and the individual” in the face of everyday struggle and venture.3 The narratives of the political prisoners differ in form and structure from the conventional auto/biographical writing such that the former discovered their writing style, technique, and interest in colonial prison. They represented the collective enterprise through writing. What Barbara Harlow wrote in 1987 was already written by Gandhi on 13 October 1908 from Volksrust Jail as a message to satyagrahis and other Indians. Gandhi wrote, “They [i.e. the political prisoners] have not gone [to gaol] to serve their own personal interests”.4 These prison writings are rather testimonies of national struggle written by individuals. The significant element of prison memoirs that bestows its difference from life writing is its “historical and cultural specificity” in politically resisting the prison apparatus/administration through collaborative strategies.5 In prison writing, the narratives consist of literary works written during the incarceration, following the incarceration, or incarcerated after the publication of a narrative sustains a significant connective link between the nationalists imprisoned and the nationalists fighting outside. The life writings, life histories, or ‘auto/ biographies’ from the Indian subcontinent during the pre-independence movement ran parallel to the emergent history of the Indian freedom movement. The political life writings, an all-encompassing narrative, etched an alternative history of India to serve as a guide for post-colonial probing. The act of writing became important for political activists or political prisoners to capture the nuances of history, its shifts, and transformations. These political life writings furnished a blueprint of the Indian freedom movement and “created a sense of the networks” coexisting alongside the anti-colonial struggle.6 Besides accounts of prison struggle, the narratives embody the charita of other convicts or state prisoners imprisoned alongside political prisoners. The persistent question remains unanswered “why men write [political] autobiographies?” Documents on the struggle reveal the choreography of the movement, “the failed political actions”, clandestine facts, etc.7 Primarily, the life writings narrated the history of the struggle “from the perspectives of the figures who spent their long periods of the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s in detention or Jail’.8 Another interesting aspect is the variation in the life histories that are brought forth by the profusion of narratives contributed by the moderates, revolutionary terrorists, congressmen, independent activists, etc. Durba Ghosh states that “By writing their own history, they [political prisoners] made themselves into historical subjects of a new nation that had a new homeland”.9 The security prisoners or political prisoners invaded a primarily colonial arena through writing. The task of writing itself becomes a counter-hegemonic technique to demonstrate political resistance to the prison administration and the bureaucratic mechanism. Their writing implied an organized resistance against “the prison authorities and the repressive state apparatus which they represent”.10 The political life writings that encompass the experiences of the colonial gaol mushroomed out of the “larger framework of resistance literature”.11 In a similar vein, though in a different context, Helene Cixous’ concept of ‘writing’ is analogous to the life histories of political prisoners. Cixous wrote that “writing frees”, it liberates, “....Why don’t you write? Write! Writing is for you . . .”.12 The process of writing is beyond an exercise, it is an “act of self-definition”.13 The Empire itself was a textual exercise. It maintained an array of writings, “political treatises, diaries . .. administrative records and gazetteers, missionaries reports, notebooks, memoirs, . . . , letters ‘home’ and letters back to settlers”.14 The colonial intervention, too, conformed to the textual enterprise. Through these texts, the colonial masters created and distorted images. The defining trait of India’s select political life writings was the upright rejection of the oppressive system and the consistency in saying “no”. The prison narratives of the freedom fighters challenged the power structure and sought to alter the system’s hegemonic, imperialistic, and authoritative power over the political detainee. In the political life writings of some, especially Aurobindo Ghosh, Jawaharlal Nehru, Bhai Permanad, and to some extent Mahatma Gandhi, the narrative suggests a form popularly known as ‘conversion narrative’. Conversion narratives capture the transformation of an individual after a moment of revelation through an “unplanned for experience”, for instance, solitary punishment and social isolation.15 In Tales of Prison Life, Aurobindo Ghosh said, “.... when I awoke, God took me to a prison and turned it into a place of meditation...”.16 Again, Bhai Permamand (political prisoner in Andaman Cellular jail) in the Story of My Life notes the conversion, “what was to convicts worst form of imprisonment ... was to me... a means of attaining salvation to my soul”.17 Similarly, Gandhi recognized prison as “abodes for attaining nirvana”."18 The thoughts resulted from an understanding that ‘sufferings’ in prison provide the ultimate happiness.19 He believed that “ceaseless self-discipline and purification of the spirit [can be achieved] through the fire of suffering” in colonial prisons.20 However, Gandhi's initial experience of imprisonment in colonial jails, especially during the first decades of the twentieth century in South Africa (1908) contains interesting anecdotes to highlight his psychological transformation. He was agitated when instructed to sit “on a bench kept there for prisoners”.21 In Satyagraha in South Africa, Gandhi recollects that “. . . I was now a prisoner. What would happen in two months? Would have to serve the full term? If the people courted imprisonment in large numbers, as they had promised, there would be no question of serving the full sentence. But if they fail. . . two months would be tedious as an age”.22 Later, Gandhi advocated jail going. Jail became a source of attaining nirvana. It became synonymous with performing “services in the interests of his country. . .” or rather jail going legitimized the fight for freedom against colonial forces.23 The allusion to ‘silences’ in life writings are referred to as “strategies of protection” in Telling Lives in India: Biography, Autobiography and Life History by David Arnold and Stuart Blackburn.24 But Majeed foregrounds the intimate revelations of Mahatma Gandhi, the intimate sexual details or the reference to sexual jealousy in Gandhi's life writings can be labeled as confessional. The ‘shame’ is undisclosed giving rise to new form of life writing in India that challenges the cultural stakes perpetually maintained by auto/biographers. These political autobiographies, besides being confessional narrative are narratives of ‘displacement’ where an individual documents his experience of “complex and shifting notions of place”.25 Gandhi's Satyagraha in South Africa can be termed as a narrative of displacement because his experiences of incarceration in South African jails was harsh and inhumane, compared to his later Indian penal experiences in Indian Jails. This diverse experience about imprisonment gives him the impetus to write, cite and refer to those incidents. Thus, it can be stated that the “prison changed Gandhi more than he changed the prison”.26 The mass courting of imprisonment, the culture of jail going intensified under Gandhian influence or rather the civil disobedience movement. Gandhi’s My Experiment with Truth (1927) eschews details of his prison experiences, though it was partly written in Yeravda jail in the early 1920s. His work Satyagraha in South Africa, was originally written in Gujarati and published in 1928, focuses on jail going much before it became associated with patriotism, nationalism, and anti-colonialism. In the preface to Satyagraha in South Africa, Gandhi highlighted his unwavering approach toward imprisonment: “Are you ready to go to jail?” I asked. Interestingly, Gandhi drafted the initial thirty chapters of Satyagraha in South Africa in Yeravda jail. The significance of his South African experience in the context of political life writings of the Indian subcontinent ought to be underlined. The significance is better understood by reading Gandhi's outlook as documented in the preface. Gandhi writes, “The reader will note South African parallels for all our experiences in the present struggle to date”.28 Simultaneously, Gandhi gets into the crux of auto/biographical writings and identifies the importance of writing. Gandhi communicates that “my only object in writing this book is that it may be helpful in our present struggle, and serve as a guide to any regular historian who may arise in the future”.29 These writings are the molecules from which a more extensive historiography of the movement can be written. The political life writings have often resorted to unveiling personalities, which would otherwise remain unrecognized and obscure. Gandhi's life history focuses on such inclusion and recognition of individuals whose participation remains uncelebrated in India’s national history and prison narratives. Gandhi recorded the narration of Sjt. Sanmukhlal and C.L. Chinai, were imprisoned in Sabarmati Central Jail in connection with the penal food that resulted in / stomach infection/ chronic dysentery, stomachache, and diarrhea with thirty to thirty-five motions per day. The satyagrahi detainees refrained from complaining to the prison officers, mostly true in the case of ‘BY and ‘C’ class prisoners. The complaints follow consequences that make the entire episode futile.30 These life writings exist in relation to other elements or aspects that shape or mould the way one writes. Thus, it can be said“... one life history reflects and informs a multiplicity of others”.31 The word ‘multiplicity’ ushers in an essential aspect associated with Gandhi. The multiplicity of texts on Gandhi challenges the ‘truth’ or rather the rationale of subjective and objective knowledge. The facts need/ demand to be continuously verified because Gandhi never published his penal episodes in the form of life history other than Satyagraha in South Africa, which is again a blend of historical information, political condition, moral inclination, etc. Therefore, it is imperative to consult his official and unofficial letters, petitions to the Directorate of Prisons, and through his articles published in Young India. Some of Gandhi's select articles, interviews, and letters connected to his imprisonment were compiled and edited by V.B. Kher and were subsequently published by Navajivan Trust. However, the question is, why Gandhi did not publish another autobiography regarding his incarceration experiences in Indian colonial jails? After a thorough speculation, I found the explanation in the introduction of My Experiments with Truth. Gandhi's initial interest in writing a life history seems certain, but an anonymous “God-fearing friend” insinuated that “writing an autobiography is a practice peculiar to the West. I know of nobody in the East having written one, except amongst those who have come under Western influence.”32 The argument had an impact on Gandhi.33 However, preventing Gandhi from writing was impossible. Despite the criticism, he continued to write articles for Navajivan and Young India regarding his experiments with ‘truth’. These articles are a constant source of information for hundreds of biographers on Gandhi. Sushila Nayar, incarcerated in ‘Aga Khan Palace with Gandhi, Kasturba Gandhi, Mahadevbhai Desai, and a few others, maintained a Jail Diary regarding Mahatma Gandhi's experience in prison that was first published in 1950 as Bapu ki Karoavas Kahini in Hindi. This was later published in English forty-five years later in 1996, as Mahatma Gandhi's the Last Imprisonment: The Inside Story. Further, the reasoning of Gandhi's ‘God fearing Friend’ regarding the classification of autobiography as a genre of the West and ‘western influence’ can be negated on several grounds. There was an upsurge of political life writings in the late 1919 and early 1920s after state prisoners were released from various colonial prisons, especially from Bengal and Andaman. When Gandhi began writing, the print media stood as one of the most powerful mediums for circulation of political life writings. The revolutionary participants documented their history to encourage the masses to participate in the movement. Durba Ghosh captured the psychological bent behind the explosion of life histories. Ghosh touched upon the thoughts of Bhupendra Kumar Dutta, a Bengali revolutionary terrorist who focused on the immediate preservation of the history of the ‘leftists’ or the “revolutionary terrorist”.34 I have said that it is highly necessary to write a contemporary history, as its absence will render difficult the preparation of history in the future. From practical political experience I know that whatever gains currency among the people or is printed in books, does not constitute history. Actual facts remain for the most part unknown to the people, and historians fail frequently to discover the truth about them . . . The revolutionary movement is extinct today in India and the people have accepted nonviolence as their creed; and it is time, therefore, to examine the records of our own activities . . .35 The testimonies were recorded and circulated widely as a disclaimer to the nationalists and the colonial government regarding the ongoing revolution and also to debunk the claim of the British that Bengalis were not hostile or aggressive. The impetus behind their leftist inclination was recorded through the prison narratives. This drives us back to the initial enquiry about “why men wrote” prison narratives. David Arnold, in Telling lives, has accurately identified the reason that if they were not written “... stories would otherwise be entirely lost to us”.36 The life writings consist of copious accounts of individual participation in the collective struggle. Javed Majeed observed that the narrators of life or self are constantly “discovered, created and asserted”.37 These manifestos offer only partially successful attempts against colonial India. The categorization of political prisoners into different ranks (A, B, C) based on caste and class was another contentious issue. However, Durba Ghosh identified that the political prisoners of Andaman were considered as ‘A’ class prisoners “who were seen to be highly dangerous” specifically the revolutionaries of Bengal.38 Besides the division between political prisoners and convicts, the sub-division between political prisoners brings in conflicting issues of caste and class. The provision of detention of suspected political prisoners under the Bengal Criminal amendment in 1930 was frequently used as another instrument of incarceration. Political prisoners under detention were not charged under the Indian penal code, but they were kept in detention camps (usually within jail compounds) for months without trial. Besides preferential treatment, the detainees were provided monthly allowances and other additional facilities, but strict vigilance was maintained so that they could not communicate with fellow prisoners. Mahadev Desai, the ardent follower and secretary of Gandhi, convicted on 24 December 1921 was given a tattered coat, a flannel shirt, a loincloth, and two lousy blankets. Gandhi, on the other hand, maintains that the British jail officials usually provided better facilities to him. Gandhi corresponded in Young India that: So far, therefore, as my physical comforts were concerned, both the government and the jail officials did all that could possibly be expected to make me happy. . . they never let me feel that I was a prisoner.”39 Mahatma Gandhi's experience in colonial Jails in the Indian subcontinent was comparatively better than his experiences in South African jails. According to a report of the Indian Jails committee 1919-20, political prisoners were to be treated under Special Division Regulations. However, most political prisoners were deprived of the facilities specified under Special Division Regulations. Gandhi was treated under the Special Division Regulations. Through numerous letters written to the jail superintendents and directorate of prisons, Gandhi tried to refuse the ‘special favours’ shown to him under the provisions of Special Division Regulations. At the same time, he appealed to the colonial prison authorities to provide the benefits of these regulations to all political prisoners, irrespective of their caste and class. For example, Gandhi wrote on the 6" of September, 1923, to the Superintendant of Yeravda central prison that “I further submit to you that it was awkward for me to enjoy a facility Mr. Gani could not enjoy and therefore my diet too should be so reduced”.40 In another instance, Gandhi referred to three other satyagrahi prisoners namely Messrs Kaujalgi, Jeramdas, and Bhansali “who enjoyed outside a status... a softer life” and were compelled to do hard penal labour in Yeravda Jail.41 Gandhi pleaded very strongly to the jail superintendent that his name should be removed from the Special Division. However, he was conveyed after a few days that such changes in the jail regulations could be initiated at the request of a prisoner.42 The segregation of political prisoners from ordinary prisoners or convicts occupies one of the central tropes of discussion in the history of prison literature in India. Though key changes have been introduced in the 1919-20 report of the Jail committee, the political prisoners were deprived of the facilities. In addition, the 1919-20 jail committee report also fails to classify state prisoners as political prisoners. The sub-division categorized the political prisoners as political criminals. However, it states that “all persons who’ commit offences from political motives are deserving of special consideration and leniency”.43 Interestingly, Gandhi was imprisoned in the early 1920s and encountered British acrimony for the word ‘political’. Sir George Lloyd (appointed as Governor of Bombay in 1918) wrote that he failed to properly decipher the meaning of the term ‘political’ as applied to a political prisoner and also refused to acknowledge the distinction between political prisoners and convicts. As he wrote, “we do not make any distinction between political and ordinary prisoners”.44 The commitment towards this denial was addressed to Gandhi in Yeravda Jail in 1922. Gandhi made a willful employment of the word ‘political’ to the Superintendent of the Yeravda jail in relation to the jail tickets of the state prisoners. Gandhi registers his response to the Superintendent in Young India, “... I was told by the then Superintendent that the distinction was private and was intended only for the guidance of the authorities”.45 He focused on the distinction “between modes of life”.46 However, he observed that the authorities reckoned the prisoners convicted under the criminal code as invulnerable to political prisoners.47 Similarly, the 1919-20 report states that leniency or consideration towards ‘political criminals’ would be tantamount to emboldening the crime. Thus, the British penal administration reinstates the ‘apparent’ concept of punishment forwarded by Jeremy Bentham in his correspondence to a friend in England in 1787.48 Bentham promulgated the idea that its appearance outweighs reality. Therefore, “it is the apparent punishment that does all the service”. It is intended not for the punished individual but for all other spectators. This classification of prisoners offended Gandhi in Transversal. In Johannesburg Prison in 1908, Gandhi was placed amongst Kaffirs. Since Gandhi’s mode of writing, is confessional, he admits to having felt ‘great misery’, ‘fear’, and uneasiness in their company. Though Gandhi reasoned out his fear, his usage of the phrase ‘appeared to be wild’ signifying the Kaffirs invites a justification. Gandhi was never a constant. His writings portray his experimentation and development of thought. Gandhi's initial objection to being classified among the natives of South Africa has been identified by Nelson Mandela in “Gandhi the Prisoner: A Comparison” as: Gandhi had been initially shocked that Indians were classified with Natives in prison; his prejudices were quite obvious, but he was reacting not to “Natives”, but criminalized Natives. He believed that Indians should have been kept separately. . . All in all, Gandhi must be forgiven those prejudices and judged in the context of the time and the circumstances. We are looking here at the young Gandhi, still to become Mahatma, when he was without any human prejudice, save that in favour of truth and justice.49 Nevertheless, in later years, Gandhi strived for the emancipation of the lower classes in India and identified himself with them. Most of these political life writings were published as periodicals in different journals and newspapers. For instance, Karakahini was published in a Bengali journal called Suprabhat, V.D. Savarkar published his anecdotes in Kesari, and later Shraddhanand, and Gandhi primarily published in Navajivan and Young India. The growth of print culture in India led to an upsurge in political life writings. In addition to print culture, the language chosen for political or penal articulation was restricted to Indian languages. The obvious intention was to “inspire as well as inform”.50 It became customary amongst political prisoners to renounce English as a language of colonial domination. Thereby rejecting the “systematic imposition of colonial language, some postcolonial writers and activists advocate a complete return to the use of indigenous language”.51 Those who wrote in native Indian languages are considered to have a grip over history or the narrative and, to some extent the ‘self’. By and large, Gandhi disowned English as a political medium. He wrote his autobiographies in Gujarati, later translated by Mahadev Desai into English. Nevertheless, other political prisoners consistently wrote their individual penal experiences in colonial prison in English. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Vijay Laksmi Pandit, and Krishna Hathisingh perennially wrote in English regarding their relentless participation in the Indian freedom movement in addition to their incarceration anecdotes. This discussion can be shaped by roping in Chinua Achebe’s perception of writing in English. In the African context, Chinua Achebe notes in “The African Writer and the English Language” that “. . . for me there is no other choice. I have been given the language and I intend to use it’.52 Interestingly in Indian context, Kamala Das in “An Introduction” echoes the notion of the African writer. She writes: I am Indian, very brown, born in Malabar, Those who wrote in English believed that colonization “gave them a language with which to talk to one another”.54 Since the act of writing itself became a system of resistance, the narrative, irrespective of the language, transforms into a new voice that exhibits experiences previously unexplored by political prisoners. Ashis Nandy noted a socio-cultural-political change was taking place during the British rule in India. The adoption of western norms and the internalization of foreign cultural elements led to a “crisis in identity” among the natives, especially the Elites. Nandy observed, “this deeper level personality crisis split the elites into two clear groups: the modernists and the restorationists”.55 The former embraced the change for transforming the nation, and the latter focused on revivalism. Amidst rejection and acceptance of the self, with contrasting identities of the two divided groups- the moderates and the extremists, things steered with the appearance of Gandhi in the Indian political situation in the 1920s. Gandhi brought about a conscious move towards agglomeration of different sections of the population towards one political movement. The doctrine of passivity can be retraced to the “cultural, spiritual, religious and philosophical traditions” of India.56 Gandhi's surfacing led to the adoption of the concept of “nonviolence and nonviolent action” which denotes various methods for conflict resolution through peaceful means. He abjured the application of any form of physical violence to ‘win’ a situation. Rather than adopting a revolutionary method in the conventional sense, Gandhi stuck to an evolutionary process for bringing about social change. The term passive resistance is often associated with the evolutionary concept of Gandhi. However, Gandhi, as an exemplary model in politics, revered as a propagator of ‘passive resistance’ in India and abroad, rejected the term ‘passive resistance’ to describe his resistance method. Louis Fischer in The Life of Mahatma Gandhi and Veronique Dudouet in “Nonviolent Resistance and Conflict: Transformation in Power Asymmetries” foregrounds the aversion of Gandhi and most nonviolent activists towards applying the term ‘passive resistance’ to glorify their nonviolent struggle against the British empire in India. Dudouet remarked that Gandhi disapproved of the term since the connotation “does not render justice” to the unflinching measures espoused by nonviolent activists.57 The activists debunked pacifism as a synonym for nonviolent resistance. Similarly, Fischer observed, “there was nothing passive about Gandhi. He disliked the term Passive Resistance”.58 For Hardiman, Gandhi's disapproval of the term passive resistance was because “it implied passivity rather than active and courageous encouragement”.59 The communication between Gandhi and passive resisters, and Gandhi and European masters, was embedded in a broad purview “of relevant discourses” that generate meaningful discussions within the cultural setting.60 Ideological discourse exhibits its connection with the connotation of the term ‘power’, equality, injustice, etc. The interdependence of ideology and discourse extends an understanding of one’s creation in relation to the other. Dialogic communication is essential to intervene in the hegemonic institution and terminate the monologue or, rather, the one-sided ‘broadcasting’ of the ‘powerful’ colonial masters. Mark. W. Steinberg, in “The Talk and Back Talk of Collective Action: A Dialogic Analysis of Repertoires of Discourse among Nineteenth Century English Cotton Spinners” explicates the role of communication in power relations and debunks the classic system of sending and receiving messages; instead he foregrounds the existence of discourse in an uneven socio-cultural-political situation. Steinberg uses the term ‘challengers’ to denote the powerless section of society which continuously interrupt or rather struggles to dominate the powerful discourse of the Empirical masters. The petition forwarded by Gandhi to the Director of prisons is a ‘talk back’ situation where the powerless strive to challenge the colonial administration's prison discourse. Steinberg readjusted the spotlight to the repertoire of collective action. In this framework, Charles Tilly’s argument on repertoire, as quoted in “The Talk and Back talk...” reinforces the concept of ‘evolution’ discussed earlier with reference to Mahatma Gandhi. Tilly opines that “repertoires are learned cultural creations, but they do not descend from abstract philosophy or take shape as a result of political propaganda; they emerge in struggle”.61 An analogy between the repertoires concept and the resistance or protest methods adopted by Gandhi in South Africa and India whether in prison or far from it, can be drawn to project the innovative ideology behind it. The ‘new’ repertoire theory broached by Tilly Charles suggests the transformation that came about in the early nineteenth century. Sean Chabot underpins the ‘new’ repertoire theory of Tilly, which implies “large-scale direct actions like national strikes and mass marches” against the hegemonic discourse. This ‘new’ repertoire theory mirrors the Gandhian struggle that resorted to mass movements, strikes, a boycott of foreign goods, hunger strikes, and so on. Chabot adds a fresh touch to Tilly’s’ theory by comparing Gandhi's methods to the ‘new’ European repertoire and labeled Gandhian repertoire as a “transformative invention in its own right”.62 Chabot noted that despite the similarity between “Gandhian forms of action, organization, and communication” and different social movements, “their meanings and implications” are categorically disparate.63 Similarly, Dennis Dalton, in Mahatma Gandhi: Nonviolent Power and Action, proclaims the uniqueness of his thought and extols Gandhi's ‘uncanny ability’ to execute and transform his political introspection or ideas into action. It is indeed difficult to determine Gandhian repertoire in the anti-colonial struggle that includes demonstrations, political processions, boycotts, etc., as exclusive from Tilly’s ‘new’ social movements. Sean Chabot identifies the ‘transformative invention’ of Mahatma Gandhi with reference to his ideologies, principles, and beliefs. Unconditional reliance on the strength of nonviolence, refusal of loathing of opposition, dissemination of love for mankind, analyzing the premise of oppression, striving for welfare, precluding abuse of the opponent in deeds or words, and so on provides Chabot an opportunity to tag Gandhian repertoire as original. Recurrent insistence on courting incarceration for the nation’s sake underscores the uncompromising psychic development of Gandhi in South Africa. Louis Fischer highlighted the persistence of Gandhi’s prison card, which was later held high and preserved by Manilal Gandhi. Fischer casts a spell on the readers with the fascinating details of the prison card: It is cream-coloured and two and seven-eighths inches wide by three and one- eighth. His name is mistakenly given as ‘M. S. Gandhi’ instead of M. K. Gandhi. ‘Trade: Solicitor’ No alias. ‘Sentence and date: Twenty-five pounds or two months. October 10, 1908, ‘Due for discharge: December 13th, 1908’.64 Interestingly, the reverse side of the prison card under “prison offences”, as Fischer notes, lay unlisted. Fischer claims Gandhi was a model prisoner. Stonewalls do not a Prison Make comprises a section titled “model prisoner,” initially published by Gandhi in Young India, which pertains to the obligation and function of an imprisoned satyagrahi. Gandhi rejoiced in imprisonment owing to its advantageous condition of obtaining complimentary food, physical fitness as a result of prison work, scanty ‘vicious’ habit, and sufficient time to invoke God. Gandhi claims that “the prisoner’s soul is thus free” and the trajectory to happiness resides in espousing imprisonment and misery.65 Fischer copiously cited Henry David Thoreau in relation to Gandhi to proclaim the corresponding thought process, though influential and convincing for Gandhi in many respects. Thoreau debunked the concrete barricade as pointless “. and the walls seemed a great waste of stone and mortar...”.66 Gandhi’s remark on imprisonment mirrored a utopian thought where the political prisoners must positively cherish the experience of the so-called freedom in prison and simultaneously celebrate or anticipate swaraj. The articles of Young India by Mahatma Gandhi, as presented in Stone Walls do not a Prison Make, were testimonies of individual struggle in colonial prison. Through allusion to the experiences of the detainees in colonial prison, Gandhi foregrounds his personal encounter with the system as an inmate. Though intimidated by his initial confrontation with the “pitch black walls” in South Africa, the sufferance and the lesson learnt remain “the richest treasures in life’s memories”.67 In the Speeches and Writings of Mahatma Gandhi published by G.A. Natesan and Co. Madras, Gandhi embarked on the contrasting perspectives of the prison going of individuals and elucidated the virtue of incarceration for a nation. His comprehensive understanding of the reluctance of nationalists to court imprisonment led him to associate it with cowardice.68 The significance of embracing imprisonment to eliminate anxiety and devote adequate time to health, exercise, religion, country, and so on remains a vital realm of discussion for Gandhi. Since non-violence served as one of his main agendas (for propagation), Gandhi debunked the idea of punishment in prison for both the convicts and the political prisoners. He harped on the ideology of passive resistance and negated the “Penal Code and its sanctions”.69 Gandhi propagated the concept of reformation of prisoners and criminals, thereby recommending simple imprisonment to thieves and robbers. He advocated that prisons should serve as sites of reform for criminals but rejected the death penalty, detention, deportation, or corporeal punishment.70 In the letter dated 17 March 1922 to C.F Andrews from Sabarmati Jail, Gandhi rebuffed the idea of establishing a connection with the outside world while in prison. The letter further unfolded the ideal of his prison life as a civil resister. Gandhi communicated the obligation of a civil resister to relinquish privileges to enhance one’s “religious value of Jail discipline”.71 Imprisonment in colonial jails gradually became associated with pilgrimage, the attainment of nirvana as reiterated by Gandhi in his political, social, or religious narratives. His discourse on the shouting of slogans inside the prison by political prisoners holds a controversial or contradictory position in the history of penal literature. The life writings of the political detainees emphasized the power of slogans in prison despite the expulsion drive initiated by the system. Gandhi refuted the practice of shouting slogans in prison since it amounts to a breach of jail discipline and underlines the probability of inciting violence amidst the convicts.73 The sustenance of discipline reigns in the “non-co-operator prisoner”.73 Conforming to jail discipline fortifies the cause and intention of the national movement and subsequently accelerates the dream of swaraj. In Discipline and Punishment: The Birth of the Prison, Michel Foucault remarked on the sudden call for a transformed form of punishment in a humanitarian way without centralizing torture.74 The reference to the eighteen-century proposition to instill humanity in punishment became a matter of discussion in Discipline and Punish. Gandhi echoed the eighteenth-century form of relaxed penalty in his article “Model prisoner”. In British prisons in India, a certain extreme form of punishment was prevalent. Gandhi focused on the metamorphosis of those forms through radical reform of prisons and the penal system. Notes and References
Courtesy: Gandhi Marg, Volume 44, Number 4, January-March 2023. * Tina Mazumdar, is a PhD Scholar, Department of English, Assam University, Silchar. Email: tinamazumdar18.tm@gmail.com # Sib Sankar Majumder, is Assistant Professor, Department of English, Assam University, Silchar. Email: ssmaus1980@gmail.com |