 The theme that I have chosen for presentation here is about Mahatma Gandhi and the concept of Nish. I think this is very important for the reason that the chairman pointed out in his introductory remarks that we are having a totally false nationalism and therefore it is important that we present the concept of nation, the concept of a free nation, independent nation that grew up, that developed in our national movement, in our freedom movement. And of course this means to a very large degree, not totally but a very large degree, the concept of nation as it developed in the mind and speeches of Mahatma Gandhi. So I hope you will excuse me if I begin first with the notion of what a nation is about in the discourse of the world and therefore I go back to the concept of a nation. There are various definitions ranging from that of John Stuart Mill for example and JV Stalin on the other side. They have many differences among them but there is one thing common. A country becomes a nation only when there is a serious effort within the nation, within the country to constitute it as a political entity. A country can be a geographical expression, a cultural expression, a social expression, you could say that India was a country where the caste system prevailed, it doesn't make it a nation. It becomes a nation when its people or when a large number of its people are convinced that it should have a government of its own. So the political entity to establish a political entity over the whole country is the very heart of the concept of nation. Now this concept of nation goes back to relatively recent times particularly the French Revolution of 1789 when the slogan was first raised of independence of nations. In the English language and other languages of Europe nation meant a class, a caste, a group but now it meant in the sense that I am speaking of a country which is on the way of becoming a separate political entity. Whether it's France or Germany or Italy it doesn't matter. Now when the French Revolutionists gave the slogan of independence of nations they were actually thinking of European multinational states like the Holy Roman Empire, like the Russian Empire and so far. They were not thinking of colonial states, colonial domination, countries under colonial domination and this remained the case almost throughout the 19th century and early 20th century in discussions about the nation in the west. Among Marxists also in the social democratic parties of the second international the debate was almost entirely confined to Europe whether you take power's discussion of it or whether you take Stalin's discussion. At best they considered that one country is a dominant country in a particular empire and so Lenin for the first time asserted that nations should have the right of self determination. They should decide whether to secede or not. Now this was a very limited concept of nation admittedly because it was confined to Europe and there was also a very strong view by Rosa Luxemburg and others who cited the communist manifesto, workers of all countries unite that actually it is internationalism that should be promoted and not the separate nationhoods of different countries. There was this debate in Europe but this debate did not include and this must be frankly recognized the bulk of the world. The bulk of the world in the bulk of the world outside Europe colonial system prevailed. Countries were ruled by European powers and a nearest Russia additionally by Japan by 1905. The bulk of the population of the world was enslaved by colonial powers. Here therefore the situation was different. Nations would grow up in the struggle against colonialism. This was not simply a case of cultural development, linguistic development. This was essentially a political struggle between the enslaved nations of the colonial world and the colonial powers. There was a total difference between the nationalism of the colonial powers and the nationalism of the enslaved countries. And here therefore is the essential difference, the practical irrelevance of the European debate about nations to the colonial world and this brings us therefore to India. In India, as Nehru noted in his autobiography, the economic nationalists, Dada Bhai, Noroji, Ramesh Dutt and others played a revolutionary part in that they showed that colonialism not only enslaved nations, it exploited nations. It drew wealth from these countries and took them to Europe. Marxists practically had forgotten and in Europe they still forget that this entire thesis was present in Marx's capital, Volume 1, which was published in Marx's own time in German and translated into English soon afterwards. Where in the chapter Primitive Accumulation of Capital, this was in fact written out with clarity that it was the wealth looted from the colonial countries that greatly helped the development of capitalism in Western Europe. And therefore this essential truth was now revived by the Indian economic nationalists and therefore if countries were to rise against colonialism, colonial powers, they must have as wide unity as possible. You could not have divisions. Already India in the 18th century had lost to Britain primarily because of the division of the country into so many states. So essentially for the struggle against colonialism, it was important to aspire to have large nation states, to unite large masses of people for the anti-colonial struggle. Now it is true that the Indian middle classes whose leaders formed the Indian National Congress in 1885 were not conscious of mobilizing the masses. But by the very name they gave to their organization, the Indian National Congress, they aspired to make India into a nation, to have a political entity of its own, to unite all of its people as far as they could be united against British rule or to rest concessions from the British rulers. Now therefore when you come to the colonial countries, it was an essential aspect of anti-colonial struggle that there should be larger and larger unity of larger and larger regions in the country. India, I have already given you the example. The provincial associations, the middle classes found were not effective. They must unite on the country-wide basis in the Indian National Congress that particularly came to be established in 1886 by the Congress meeting in Calcutta. For the West Asian countries, Jamaluddin Afghani, who is often reviled by unthinking people, was dreaming of pan-Islamism as one way of uniting the different countries of West Asia against British and French imperialism and colonialism. It must be remembered that Jamaluddin Afghani when he was exiled to India by the British in 1884 addressing Muslim youth in Calcutta said that his theory did not apply to India that here Muslims must join Hindus in opposing British rule. But as one could see, the pan-Islamist scheme could not succeed because of the various differences among the West Asian countries. But look at China where there are so many regional dialects and how the colonial powers by open door policy tried to exploit these divisions, developed, nurtured, bought lords and so on. Yet it was realized widely in China that in order to oppose colonialism, all the Chinese must stand united. So nations must be large countries in order for anti-colonial struggle to succeed. People of different regions as far as possible should be united. And that is why the concept of the Indian nation has really originated from the freedom movement. It does not come from the Rig Veda as RSS sites, RSS people to tell us. It came out of our own freedom struggle. And this brings us to Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi ji was not politically inclined as one can see from his memoirs. A very frank biography, my experiments with truth. In England, in late 1880s, he was confined to a concerned home home mainly with religion and vegetarianism. Certainly influenced by New Testament, whose truths he wanted to see in the Bhagavad Gita which he only read in an English translation. But essentially, except for attending Dada Bhai Narod's lectures, there was little to see in Gandhi the future father of the nation. It was when he went to South Africa in 1893 on behalf of a Muslim mercantile firm that actually the racist policy of South African government united Indians of both religions, Indians from Tamil Nadu, Indians from Bihar, Indians from Gujarat, merchants and workers. And therefore the idea of there being an India to which all these belonged actually was imposed in Gandhi's mind by the racist policy of the South African regimes. Where he began to work for their unity and work for their liberation, their release from the large number of restrictions that were placed about over Indians. I am not going into that discussion. Certainly Gandhi led Indians in acts of passive resistance which had no earlier president in India, no earlier president. Whether in the March of women in 1913, over provincial boundaries, some 200 women who were all arrested and badly treated including Gandhi's own wives, or the March of the 2000 miners into Transylvania. But there he learned that there he framed the vision of the Indian nation. Now what was this vision? In 1909 he penned his vision in what he called Hinswara. I would like you to stay a moment on the title. Already in the title he is conscious that there is only not one tradition by which India must swear. The very word Hinde and not Bharat, it tells its own story. His Swaraj was for all traditions and even the name of the country he derived directly from Arabic and Persian and Urdu. In this Hinswara he conceived a country free of Britain. Again there was something new in it when Indian politicians including Dada Mai Noroji or R.C. Dutt wrote about in Britain's exploitation of India. They always began with praises of British rule, of British people, of the important reforms they had brought in India. But in Hinswara there is no such concession. Not a single concession to colonialism. And this is of course its second element of greatness. It looks to India without British domination. But here we come to the real difficulties. He confuses British colonialism with western civilization. That is the essential element of Hinswara. By western civilization he means freedom for women, by western civilization he means freedom of labour, mobility of labour. He speaks about the Indian caste system as a very good organization for fixed labour, for an economy without competition. Glorifying in fact the caste system. He rejects technology, he rejects railways, he rejects doctors, he rejects lawyers which of course I wouldn't want very much. But he himself being a lawyer with doctors, it should be without doctors, it should be without railways, it should be without modern education. These are all signs of western civilization which he rejected. Therefore he looked forward to an India of poverty, never prosperity, but of regular poverty, people of leaders who would be honest, but wedded to poverty as if poverty represented the greatness of India. I will not go into other details within Hinswara, but let us come to the credit points. His Hinswara is religious but not sectarian. He rejects modern education and he wants education to be conducted by Mullahs, Parsi priests, Dastur and Brahmins. He supposes that these religious men will really inculcate virtues among the Indian people. So he is not secular. In fact he is glorifying a past that is imaginary. But what can be said about him is that he takes his hypothesis, his principles to their practical conclusion. If Hindus and Muslims have to live in enmity as he desires, he says frankly that a nation is not linked to religion, then Hindus must give concessions to Muslims. He therefore says as far as the moral reforms are concerned that those Hindu leaders are mistaken who are criticizing them for giving more privileges and rights to Muslims. What if our younger brothers get more rights? They are our brothers. This was not a position easy to take, but Gandhi takes this position very firmly as one must say his mentor Gokhale did. But Gokhale rejected the entire idea of Hinswara. When he said I am horrified at this kind of notion of India, you should withdraw this book. When Gokhale visited South Africa in 1912, Gandhi records his extreme disappointment with Hinswara. Not the elements of communal enmity, but the whole outlook of rejection of western civilization and going back to a past and imagined past in which religious communities would live together in poverty and under a religious education which does not make them quarrel with each other. As we know this was a total illusion. Religions make people more quarrel more than a religion, but that is what Gandhi believed. Another point that I am striving at is that when Gandhi arrives in India and already in South Africa when he leads women to cross the borders and get all of them arrested, when he leads minors into a trans wall, already the whole picture of Hinswara begins to fade. If women are to stay at home, why are you sending them to prison? But when he comes to India, it becomes clear to at least us now that we can study Gandhi, that if masses were to be brought into the national movement, then Gandhi's vision of a poverty stricken India with no reform in property and with almost traditional education, with no technological development, was not one which could attract people to his, to the struggle against it. They were not going to struggle against Britain for this kind of India. And therefore when he goes to Champaran, doesn't he attack property? Doesn't he attack property of the Indigo farmers? When he goes to Ahmedabad in 1980, doesn't he attack the property of the mill owners? A man who was saying that I would prefer that India send money to England to buy milk cloth from England rather than multiplying mills here, was now standing up for the textile factory workers. If they have to be brought into the movement, are you going to say that we will get you unemployed by closing your factories? It is a situation which was unthinkable and whatever you may say about Gandhi, his heart was with the poor. So obviously this kind of future could not be set forth for the masses of Indians. Later when he raised the issue of Khilafat, he was there true to himself. To him, religion was no bar to politics. To him, whether it was Islam or Hinduism, they have equal claims to the nationalist allegiance. So if Muslims were worried about the safety of Khilafat after the end of the World War I where Turkey was defeated, then all Indians should stand by the Muslims. And you must remember that non-pooperation movement started on the issue of Khilafat. Gandhi's religious position was totally different from Tilak's. To him Islam was as important in political matters as Hinduism. To me this was an unfortunate position but for Gandhi this was an honest position totally arising out of his principles in the Hinsor aisle. But it was soon found in practice that you can't have non-cooperation over Khilafat unless you offer something else as an objective to the masses. And therefore the first time the issue of Swaraj is brought in. Swaraj is ordered to the Khilafat. And still more an appeal is being made to peasants that they should be prepared not to pay tax when U.P. of course in provinces like U.P. most of India not paying tax really meant not paying rent to the landowners who paid the tax. So the peasants are brought into the concept of nation. Their rights are brought in. In 1922 when the non-cooperation movement as withdrawn, Gandhi issues an appeal to the peasants. Our subaltern friends denounce this as a concession to landowners. But if you read the report when he says we he means peasants. When he says they he means landowners. And in it he says plainly that there will be occasion when you will be asked to refuse to parent. So now the needs of the national movement even enforce a new position on Gandhi that property rights could be challenged. That peasants could obtain land. This is a position very hard for him to tie at right. There were many withdrawals from that position but clearly that particular principle came to be more and more strengthened in the national movement as attempts were made to expand its base in Gandhi's own constructive program. There was a whole new of 1920s. There was a whole attack on untouchability. When you take Hinsoran, untouchability is not treated as an evil of Indian civilization. When you take Gandhi's constructive program of 1920s, untouchability is one of the for leading evils that have to be eradicated. Clearly if the so called untouchables were to be brought into the national movement you must for that up to that extent modify the caste system. Increasingly Gandhi begins to subvert in his mind the different aspects of the caste system. For instance, temple entry. He never went to a temple but he insisted that temples should be open to the untouchables whom he later called the Harijans. And then of course the Harijan movement from 1933 onwards. Clearly it was these conditions which shaped Gandhi's increasing departure from Hinsoraj in his views during the civil disobedience movement. Look at his 11 points and it became clear that if civil disobedience movement was to be carried forward, peasants had to be to form its real base and that meant that workers and peasants, women, ordinary people had to be given a picture of India which was in total contrast to the Hinsoraj. This brings us to the Karachi resolution. The resolution on fundamental rights passed at Karachi in 1931. This resolution is a total rejection of the vision put forward in Hinsoraj. Abolition of untouchability, equal rights for men and women, protection of women workers whom Gandhi had said should not be workers at all. Agrarian reform and a man who had such great regard for territory added something to the original draft and that was abolition of indebtedness, cancellation of debts which was a real burden on the presently. So if you look at the Karachi resolution which Gandhi accepted and moved himself, you will see what the needs of the national movement had brought about. They had imposed on Mahatma Gandhi a vision for India which was totally at variance with Hinsoraj. A welfare state, a capitalist state but a state with state capitalism control and ownership of industry by state it says. Neutrality among all religions but not pursuit of religion, nothing against modern education. And therefore although there were slight backs and if you read Nauru's autobiography you will see his irritation as now Gandhi ji sometimes assured support to the landowners, sometimes even support to princes in his autobiography written in 1934. But essentially Gandhi in practice was abandoning the vision of Hinsoraj. He didn't concede it entirely but he did say in early 1930s when a new edition of Hinsoraj came out that he had learnt many things after writing Hinsoraj that he is more concerned with truth rather than consistency. A very important concession that he was not going to be consistent to Hinsoraj if things indicated otherwise, they were indicating otherwise. Essentially he was now coming close to the picture of an Indian nation, a united Indian nation, almost secular. If you read Karachi Resolution it presents a vision of a secular India, not a multi-religious India as in Hinsoraj. But there were also other difficulties in the world and I come now to those difficulties and their influence on Gandhi and the differences between Gandhi and the left. In the 1920s after World War II among the defeated powers and also among the victorious powers there was a growth of national chauvinism. And therefore the left movement in Europe became more and more suspicious of the world nation. At the same time in the world outside Europe anti-colonial struggles became stronger and stronger, India, China, West Asia already in Latin America. And with his great genius Lenin as early as 1920 recognized that the whole view of nation for the colonial world must be different. In his thesis he styled the national colonial question mark this hyphenated word national colonial question. He imagined the rise of nations in the colonial world and the rise of national struggle in which the capitalist, the bourgeoisie, the middle class would also play a role and he imagined that this would be a revolutionary movement very much like that of the French Revolution. Land to the peasants, some rights to workers but essentially capitalism to continue. And he looked favorably despite being the leader of the communists of the world, he looked favorably at this particular vision. Let us all combine, let us build a nation both consisting of peasants, the working class and the middle and capitalist classes. But this vision was at odds with the situation in Europe and therefore from 1928 the communist international took a position which was against nationalism and promoted internationalism. And if you read Nehru's glimpses of world history and autobiography you will see the influence of this point of view on his own writings. In glimpses he is suspicious of nation, nations divide humanity. In autobiography he rejects nationalism, one should be international. Of course this true was a position my throat doesn't like my speaking on a nation. He but as far as Gandhi was concerned his heart and mind was on India. True he was not unconcerned when injustice occurred elsewhere. He had been greatly concerned when Turkey had been defeated in World War I and he was all for Turkish independence. He was greatly concerned when in 1930s these ionists began to oppress the Arabs of Palestine and he had contacts with the leaders of the Arab people of Palestine at that time. And he issued statements in their favor. Those statements should be read out to the present leaders of India who love Israel so much these days. But as I say his attention was riveted to India. At the same time because of the opposition to fascism and the idea of popular front the communists also changed their position from their attack on nationalism of all use to support of the national liberation movement. And the Dutt Bradley thesis and I am happy to say that I have darshan of both Rajni Bam Dutt and Ben Bradley who was one of the accused in the Mirat conspiracy case. The communists who had been suppressed so long Peshawar conspiracy case, Kanpur conspiracy case, Mirat conspiracy case, membership of the Communist Party itself a criminal offense. Now were asked by the Dutt Bradley thesis to cooperate with the Congress to form a united national movement which indeed they did. Now this situation continued of cooperation and strengthening the national movement and the left was fairly strong. You know in 1939 the election of Subhash Bose as president showed its strength within the Congress against Gandhi's candidate and up till 1941 the communists were quite important in the individual Satyagraha launched by the Congress. Mr. Chairman, kindly I am not over excess of time. I misled my watch so I am conscious about time. Well as you know in 1942 came the major test between nationalism and internationalism and in this test as Nehru said nationalism prevailed over internationalism. What did internationalism demand at that time? Consider the situation. Germans are at Stalingrad on the brink of crossing the Wall. Japanese have started a new offensive in China and they are up on the Indian border with Burma. The Allies are nearly in crisis. When later on the letters of Stalin were published there is a letter there around this time in which he said that Russia may be defeated. The only concession he ever made on this point that Russia may be defeated. At that time to reject total negotiations with the British government and to pass the quit India resolution as if it is the immediate demand of Indian people that the British should quit India was a total rejection of internationalism. We know that both Nehru and Abul Kalam Azad, then President of the Congress were opposed to this position. But Gandhiji pressed on with this position and gave Britain the greatest opportunity of saying that Indian nationalists are behind fascists. And as you know immediately after passing the quit India resolution they arrested all the Congress leaders. Now unlike, I don't know how many who are 87 today in this audience, I was a school boy. I know that the protests against Britain were not about quit India, they were about arrests of Congress leaders. Why have you arrested Gandhiji and Nehru? They were about arrests but they were so large that despite their suppression the British government was at heart convinced that India could not be ruled in the old way. Nevertheless it does not justify I think the quit India resolution. That had a very unfortunate effect on communists because of their rift with the Congress they began to incline towards the Muslim League. Up till now there had been no differences on the communal situation between us and the Congress. Communists had also always supported the Congress position which was that of a secular body and denied that a nation could be religious, be formed on religious grounds. But this situation changed after the Congress and inclination towards the Muslim League. A position had been taken in 1924 that no member of a communal organization like Hindu, Mhasa or Muslim League could be a member of the Communist Party. In effect as far as the Muslim League was concerned this bar was lifted. Communists went into the Muslim League and were forever lost to the Communist movement. It was said that Pakistan was justifiable because Muslim Punjabis could form a nation with Sindhis and Bhattans. Although even if you go by Stalin's definition they spoke three or four languages. They had different cultural regions. Only religion united them. This was called the Adekari thesis. Thankfully in 1946 Arpidat again came forward and in a very important article rejected the theory of Pakistan. And the Communist Party then changed its position of nationalities and began to speak about the importance of a united India. By this time it was too late. Already in 1946 a vast majority of Muslims from Punjab to Tamil Nadu to Madras had voted for Pakistan. The ideological battle was lost. Partition became practically after that, but practically inevitable. In this situation Gandhi did not resile from his principles. Whether it was Calcutta, Noachali, Bihar, he was there. Stem violence and riots and after independence which he did not celebrate because to him a divided India was not after his own vision. He went into and fast in Calcutta and that fast prevented not only riots in Calcutta but also, and this must be remembered to the honour of Gandhi and to the honour of Bengal, a slaughter of Muslims and non-Muslims in the division divided Bengal. Bengal did not give the same example which Punjab unfortunately was to present after independence. Much of it we must acknowledge was owed to Gandhi's presence and first his earlier tour of Noachali right in the heart of Muslim district villages and later his fast in Calcutta. He moved then to Delhi and it must be recalled that now India had committed one of the worst acts of ethnic cleansing and religious slaughter in world history. Talk about Hitler's murder of 5 million Jews. Why not talk about perhaps a million Hindus and Muslims and Sikhs killed in 1947. Something to be proud of. So it was then that Gandhi went on fast on 13 January. In that fast there were two demands Muslims must be protected in Delhi and given back their houses to India must pay 55 crores to Pakistan. I have been reading some recent works my friend Sudhir Chandra's work and Mr. Raghavan's work and both of them denounced the fast. Pakistan was to be paid 55 crores. Sudhir Chandra says militarily suicidal and absurd. In France what was military in it? Pakistan had to be paid 55 crores which was its due. Why don't you pay it? Nobody speaks about the vile slander that RSS indented at that time. You read Sudhir Chandra's so-called possible impossibility or impossible possibility. There is no condemnation of those who were inciting riots. Those who were denouncing Gandhi. But only a condemnation of his fast. But that fast saved the honour of India. So when Gandhi said I am speaking for Pakistan because I belong to both countries. I don't believe in partition. So I belong to both countries. That was a real assertion of opposition to partition. Not hostility to Pakistan but enmity with Pakistan. Sudhir Chandra also says that we killed Gandhi before God se killed him. Did we kill Gandhi? We actually rose in his defence. We forced people to acknowledge even RSS leaders to acknowledge that they would accompany Muslims back to their homes. We did not kill Gandhi. RSS and God se killed him. RSS and Mahindu Mahasabha created the atmosphere which God se committed that act. When Patel taxed Gol Valkar saying that you celebrated Gandhi's murder, Gol Valkar did not deny it. So today when the RSS and their government in India are treating the father of the nation as only a senior sanitary inspector, then is it not time for us to celebrate Gandhi as the father of the nation? Who told us two truths. Nationalism doesn't mean quarrelling with other countries. Nationalism means sympathy with people, our own people and people of other countries. When universities celebrate the surgical strike, a strike which if Pakistan denies it could be a fraud and a strike if it really took place was a violent, was a gross violation of international law. You are celebrating it in Indian universities which are supposed to belong to educated people. Then isn't it time that we should also celebrate Gandhi and we should take 13th January when he went on his last fast to assert that Gandhi had a different vision of the Indian nation. Then the present semifaces who are in power today. Thank you.