Always looking outside India BY Dr. N S Rajaram. I believe that there is a simple explanation for this strange behavior on the part of the Congress and its leaders. I hold that this feature � of seeking inspiration and help from beyond the borders of India � has been the hallmark of the Congress party ever since its inception. What we are witnessing now, I suggest, is only the latest manifestation of a historic trend in the Congress party. When we examine the history of the Congress over the past century without any preconceptions, we find that for at least the past eighty years or so, the leaders of the Congress have always looked beyond the borders of India for their ideas and inspiration. (This is not to say that it has not produced outstanding nationalists, but only that the ideology of the party is outward looking, with a colonial orientation.) This failure was noted by no less a person than Sri Aurobindo. Writing as far back as 1906, he observed: But the Congress started from the beginning with a misconception of the most elementary facts of politics, with its eyes turned towards the British Government and away from the people. Ever since the birth of the Congress, those who have been in the leadership of this great National Movement have persistently denied the general public in the country the right of what shall and what shall not be said or done on their behalf and in their name. This was in 1906! This soon led to a clash within the Congress � and its breakup into the so-called �moderate� and �extremist� wings, with Sri Aurobindo and Lokamanya Tilak being part of the extremist wing. We would now call them nationalists. (Sri Aurobindo himself seldom used the word extremist.) Although present day history books give it short shrift, the Swadeshi Movement, following the Partition of Bengal (1905) had all the marks of a national freedom struggle. With Tilak assuming undisputed leadership of the Congress, Swaraj � or independence from foreign rule � became its paramount goal. This was a truly national movement with a national goal. So during the period from the Partition of Bengal to the death of Tilak, there was a truly national party waging a struggle for freedom. But following Mahatma Gandhi�s return from South Africa in 1916, things began to change. It should be noted that Gandhi began as a �moderate�, as a follower of Gopala Krishna Gokhale. He supported the British in the First World War, and even served as a recruiting Sargent, though no longer in uniform. (Gandhi had served in the Boer�s War as a non-combatant.) He was not particularly sympathetic to the cause of the national struggle for freedom. But circumstances allowed him to gain control of the Congress following Tilak�s death in August 1920. Here was an opportunity for Gandhi to lead Indians towards freedom, especially since the Congress, under Tilak�s leadership, had declared Swaraj as its goal. But Gandhi�s behavior over the next couple of years highlights the point that I just made� that the Congress has always looked beyond the borders of India for inspiration. Instead of leading a national movement, Gandhi started a gigantic non-cooperation movement in support of something called the Khilafat. Most history books today mention the 1920 Non-Cooperation Movement, but barely note what gave rise to it � the Khilafat. As a result, most Indians believe that the Non-Cooperation Movement was the first great struggle for freedom launched by the Congress under Gandhi�s leadership. It was nothing of the sort. It was a movement in support of the theocratic goals of the Khilafat: in fact, it was called the �Khilafat Non-Cooperation Movement�. Its aim was to persuade the British to restore the Sultan of Turkey who had lost his empire following the First World War. This is an important point: the Khilafat Non-Cooperation Movement had no national goals. Its demand was not freedom for India, but the restoration of a discredited theocratic ruler in far away Turkey whom the Turks themselves didn�t want. And strangely, Gandhi and the Congress supported this irrelevant goal to the extent even of suspending Swaraj! If anything, it was anti-national. Here is the little known story. When the First World War ended in 1918, Ottoman Turkey, which had fought on the same side as Germany, had suffered a massive defeat. The result was the breakup of the Ottoman Empire ruled by the Sultan of Turkey who had also pretensions to the title of the Caliph or the leader of all Muslims. Turkey�s defeat was seen as a major blow to the prestige of Islam, especially by many Muslims and their leaders in India. They formed committees to press the British Government to restore the Sultan in a movement known as the Khilafat. The Khilafat movement is often described as a demand by Muslims for the restoration of the Sultan of Turkey to his rightful office of the Caliph. This is a serious misrepresentation. Muslims outside India did not recognize the Turkish Sultan as Caliph; it was strictly an Indian movement but with a foreign focus. The Turks themselves under Kemal Ataturk eventually drove their Sultan into exile. The last Caliph with a legitimate claim to the title was the Abbasid al-Mustasim. He had been executed by the Mongol Huleku Khan (grandson of Chengiz) following the sack of Baghdad in 1258. By no stretch of the imagination can the Khilafat be regarded an issue affecting the nation or Swaraj. In return for his support for the Khilafat, Gandhi obtained, or thought he obtained Muslim support for launching his nationwide nonviolent non-cooperation movement. In order to get their support, Gandhi went on to redefine Swaraj to mean support for the Khilafat. In his words: To the Musalmans Swaraj means, as it must, Indias ability to deal effectively with the Khilafat question. ... It is impossible not to sympathise with this attitude. ... I would gladly ask for the postponement of the Swaraj activity if we could advance the interest of the Khilafat. So Swaraj, which previously meant self-rule, became transformed overnight into support for the Khilafat � to restore the Sultan of Turkey! Let us not forget that the Congress, only a year earlier, had adopted Swaraj (as independence) as its goal. Yet, Gandhi was telling the nation that the restoration of the Sultan of Turkey � whom the Turks themselves eventually kicked out � was more important for him than Indian independence! The result was a �jihad� by Muslim leaders against the British that was later turned against the Hindus. It led to the death of tens of thousands of innocent people all over India. It was particularly virulent in Kerala where it is known as the Moplah Rebellion. And Swaraj as the goal did not return to the Congress until 1929. In other words, Gandhi and the Congress gave up the cause of freedom in support of a faraway theocratic institution called the Caliphate. How can this be called nationalism? And how can its leaders � including Gandhi � be called �national� leaders?
Posted on: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 08:56:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015