Questions on Mahatma Gandhi

A well-known figure in India, who was known to Mahatma Gandhi, is collecting questions on Gandhi at present.  He is going to arrange them, and as a part of his social work to give them his answer.  The following are my questions sent to him at his request.

Questions on Gandhi

H.Yamaguchi

                  

His sense of mission in life

Gandhi said, quite often, that he was trying to educate and train the Indians according to his ideas.  He already said at the time of the Kheda struggle in 1918 that his mission was ‘to train and prepare the country’.  Did he already have this sense of mission when he returned to India in 1915?  Was it the purpose of his return?  Was it his idea that he was the only person capable of doing so?  Otherwise what motivated him to return to India, largely unknown to him then, for good?

Gandhi, Jinnah and the Muslim League

Gandhi once said after the tension between the Congress and the League intensified that Jinnah ‘has hated me’ since he criticized Jinnah for not using the Gujarati language.  Was it so?  Can we say that the Congress-League tension was further deepened by the personal animosity between Gandhi and Jinnah?

On Gandhi-Jinnah talks of 1944, it is very questionable to me if Gandhi was right to back up the “Rajaji Formula”.  It was a plan for the partition of India.  Therefore it is difficult to say that Gandhi was against the partition.  Moreover the Gandhi-Jinnah talks, at which Gandhi based his idea on the “Formula”, made it known to Jinnah that the Congress was not dead against the partition.  It is debatable whether the League’s Pakistan Resolution was serious in intention or rather a bargaining counter, but even if it was a bargaining counter, the “Formula”, when backed by Gandhi, made it more than that.  Some first-rate intellectuals like Srinivasa Sastri expressed their apprehension, but of no use.

Communalism and the Constructive Programme

The All-India Spinners Association (AISA) took care of thousands of spinners and khadi weavers, and many of them were said to be Muslims.  Was it not enough to prevent the Muslim masses from going over to the League?

But later Gandhi had a long talk with Jajuji and told him that from then on khadi should be mainly for home consumption rather than for sale.  The sale of khadi then must have gone down and the income of the spinners/weavers also.  Why this change?

Gandhi’s brightest and darkest moments

Would it be possible to indicate the particular period(s) in Gandhi’s life when he was most high-spirited?  To me, one such period was the few years leading to the Salt March, including his return to politics, Sardar Patel’s Bardoli, Eleven Points sent to Lord Irwin, planning the March and picking up the fellow-travellers.  He even talked, ‘in confidence’, of his readiness to be the first President of the future Indian republic, saying ‘I should make a fair effort to shoulder it’ (Young India, 21 November 1929).  The several months leading to the Quit-India Resolution may have been another such period, but this time he was arrested much too soon.

On the other hand, it would appear that his lowest moment was when he said on the eve of Independence that ‘Sabarmati is far off, Noakhali is near’.  His greatness was, however, that he was not discouraged by the darkness around him.

Harijans

One of the subjects which Ambedkar put forward against Gandhi was that the Harijans were excluded from the management of the Harijan Sevak Sangh.  Gandhi had his own reasons for doing so.  He thought it was first and foremost the caste Hindus’ work.  He also said the Harijans were ‘so completely helpless’ and could not plan themselves.  Still, did it not unnecessarily antagonize Ambedkar?

Communists

Gandhi asked some Communists to come to Sevagram to ‘study me’.  He even offered to show his papers to them.  This was a very Gandhi-like behavior.  In your knowledge were there any Communists who did so, and published their observation?

The Partition

Was it correct for Gandhi to advise Ghaffar Khan to abstain from the crucial voting in deciding the fate of the NWFP in 1947?  He said that the choice should have been between Pakistan and Pakhutunistan.  That may have been ideal, but he must have known that it existed only in his mind and was not a realistic possibility.

What motivated the assassination of Gandhi

At the end of 1947, he wrote of the opening of the Pandharpur Temple in Maharashtra, and the visit by a large number of Harijans.  He also talked about the unhappiness on the part of many Brahman priests, who even went on fast.  Usually the assassins of Gandhi were said to be motivated by their hatred of Gandhi because of his allegedly pro-Muslim attitude.  Did his allegedly pro-Harijan attitude also motivate them?

   

Congratulations to the Geneva Agreement, Congratulations to Iran

     It was a good news coming from Geneva on Sunday.  It proved that Europe as a whole could play a great role in bringing peace, especially when it was united under the EU Foreign Minister.  It proved that the US should hereafter restrain herself in international negotiations as her role, even under Obama, had very much her own and the Israeli interests in mind.  And it proved that Iran, under the current President and the Foreign Minister, had persevered a lot for the sake of reaching an agreement with the West.

     Indeed, the Iranians, if not Iran as a state, persevered for exactly 60 years, as Prime Minister Musaddiq was pulled down by an Anglo-American sponsored coup in 1953.  They were left with no other means to express themselves but Islamism.  Then the war forced by Iraq.  And on both sides of the country, in Afghanistan and Iraq, there were huge US forces, in a position to attack Iran if necessary in their eyes, almost an unprecedented phenomenon in modern history.  But they stuck to peace somehow, and succeeded.

     I am not saying that Iran as a state had a clean record all the time.  She should not crossed the Iraqi border.  It is a matter of regret that she, and the world, missed an opportunity of coming to an agreement much earlier which was torpedoed by the former President.  And she should refrain from aiding some elements in the Middle East today from the wider perspective of peace in the region.

    Still, I was startled by the sharply pro-Israeli stance of not only the US President and his Secretary of State, but of the Western media.  One day, when the conference was in recess in the middle of November, one of such media was talking to a White House official.  The media person said things like, is it possible to come to an agreement with a new President who has been in office for just two months, or the sanctions are telling on the Iranians so is it not better to negotiate after the sanctions continue for some more time?  The inflation rate in Iran is 40% and it is really telling on the life of the people in humanitarian proportions.  There is not even a word on the hawks in Israel who may have been on the look-out for a military attack on Iran in case of a failure.  Even otherwise they called it 'a bad deal, a dangerous deal'.

     Even those who are not friendly-disposed toward Iran should take notice of the fact that the idea of peace has fast filtered into the people of Iran by the process of reaching an agreement this time.  They may also do well to note that, though Iran as a state may not be called democratic as yet, the peace of the region should rely on the civil society there who has been responsible for electing the new President.          

Miyazaki Hayao's "Kaze-Tachinu"

     Miyazaki Hayao, the world famous animation film director, has suddenly announced his early, or from our point of view premature, retirement.  But before doing so, he left one more to us and the world which, though centred around the life of a designer of a fighter plane, contains a strong appeal for peace.

     The designer, the hero of the story, is Horikoshi Jiro(1903-82).  He is a legendary figure who after years of painstaking effort succeeded in designing a fighter plane for the then Japanese navy, known as "Zero".  It excelled all the other main fighter planes in the world at the time, round about 1940.  In order to retain the maneuverability and speed while carrying a still inferior engine made in Japan, he and his team tried everything to curtail even one extra gram from the plane's weight.  In the movie Horikoshi was saying, 'Shall we then dismount the machine guns?'. Of course it was a joke, and they finally met all the requirements the navy had put to them, and even more.
   
     But Horikoshi is not described as a war-like man here.  He is not even a military man.  He is wholeheartedly interested in making a beautiful plane, a dream put into his head in his childhood by an Italian plane maniac in a real dream.

     One thing I would particularly appreciate is that there are no scenes of battle in the movie, let alone no scenes of 'Zero' fighters winning a victory over the enemies.  Most of the 2 hour 10 minute movie is devoted to how Horikoshi and his team worked, and some related and beautiful episodes such as his love and marriage.  Toward the end, when the team succeeded in producing a required prototype, the test pilot came to him and thanked him for giving them such a wonderful plane. The age for the 'Zero' plane had come, and the war-time Japan produced as many as 10,000 of them.  However, the war had been over by the next scene, where Horikoshi says, 'Not a single plane has come back'. 

Syria's Chemical Weapons

     This writer has long been under the impression that the chemical weapons in the hands of the Syrian government have been supplied from outside...from Russia, over the years.  Now the President of that country has told the world, at least to this writer's great surprise, that Syria herself has been manufacturing them, for a long time.  But has the declaration answered all the questions?

     Such as ; how is it that Syria got all the know-how to manufacture them; and to store them: what use, if any, has Syria put those dreadful weapons to: and above all what was Russia's role in arming Syria with them: suppose Syria could have manufactured 'the poor man's nuclear weapons' herself, what about the delivery systems:in other words are Syria's weapons fit only to be carried on the back of the soldiers? and suppose Russia helped Syria to have the necessary delivery systems, what was her purpose? it seems the Council Resolution included the destruction of the weapons and not the delivery systems:no such things existing in Syria?

     On the eve of an impending-so it seemed at one time-US attack on Syria, Russia seemed to score a diplomatic victory by producing the chemical weapons on the negotiating table.  But it was because they had known it, and by doing so they thought they could defend the government in Syria, or the person of the President.  A Cold War tactics.

     While there is nothing so far in the policies of the three Western powers encouraging to the cause of peace in the region, except the dramatic 'No' vote in the House of Commons, so were the Russian policies, too.  How about China's?

     The silver lining was the US-Iran dialogue held for the first time after the Iranian revolution. Its further progress would immensely enhance the cause of peace in the region.  It is hoped that Israel's blockade would be wisely bypassed.  

       

Once Again Hands Off Syria

     I am writing this on the eve of the crucial decision-taking by the IOC(International Olympic Committee) to choose one from among the three candidate cities, Istanbul, Madrid, Tokyo, as the venue of the 2020 Olympic Games.  I will come back to it at the end.
     The whole world is now discussing the possible military action against Syria.  The US is in the forefront of the move.  The Secretary of State John Kelly said in the public hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the world should 'stand up and act', waking up from 'armchair isolationism'.  These words are very conveniently said if seen from Japan where the US military bases are always active.
     One remarkable point is that neither Obama nor Kelly, or the resolution by the above Committee of 4 September, has referred to the UN, its Security Council, or even the UN Investigation Team which seems to be busy analyzing what they have collected in Syria.  Is this not unilateralism, or 'isolationism'?  The Permanent Members are split into two camps on this issue. Therefore the Security Council is immobile.  The US goes to the UN only when it suits her?
     At this hour of the UN crisis, although we can think of some precedents, it is the Secretary-General, Mr.Ban Ki-moon who has been warning against taking military measures without an explicit yes of the Council.  Unless in self-defense or by an SC resolution a military action would be deemed as an aggression, and is not conducive to 'the political resolution of the conflict', he says.  The authority of the UN is kept upright by him at the moment, as 'the political resolution of the conflict' is what the UN is for.  I do appreciate his action.  Obama says that the US needs no such sanctions by the UN, but these are misled words.  It may well be his graveyard in the eyes of the international community, even the Americans at large.
     There are a couple of questions I would like to ask on the chemical weapons. (1) Is not a part of the reason of the US preparedness this time the defense of Israel, as usual? (2) Was the US responsible for the chemical warfare Iraq unleashed against the Iranian army toward the end of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War?
     I am skipping them over for now, and come to the IOC voting.  I have no idea at all how the 100 or so of its members will vote tomorrow morning.  What I strongly feel is that if Japan is keen on one or both of the following, Tokyo might get more votes than otherwise.  (1) On the disposal of the contaminated water at the Fukushima nuclear plant.  (2) On 'the political(as against the military) resolution of the conflict' in Syria.