 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. Today we have a special guest with us, Mr. Harsh Mandar, a well-known peace activist, human rights activist. He has worked for several decades among a variety of people. Karwa Mohabbat is virtually a household name. We're meeting today on the occasion of Gandhi Jayanti. It's the 153rd birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi. We're going to discuss where the nation is today and where we're taking it in the context of Gandhi's philosophy and Gandhi's actions. Mr. Mandar, you've been a peace activist. Is Gandhi an inspiring figure for you? Gandhi is perhaps the central inspiration for a lot of my work. The Karwane Mohabbat was inspired most of all by the last months of Mahatma Gandhi's life, which I think are his finest in the midst of the horror of partitioned violence. A million people killing each other and he was not here to celebrate India's independence day. He was walking in Narkali and in Calcutta among families who had lost their loved ones. So I think what Gandhi stood for is what is being contested in the India of today. That is the central question. You might have the present regime claiming allegiance to Mahatma Gandhi. But Mahatma Gandhi was not this Swachh Bharati. His predominant message to India was not he stood for many things and also wanted sanitation. But that was not what he lived and certainly not what he died for. He died for the idea of a kind, inclusive country of equal citizenship. Many things are told. Ani Skidwai recalls meeting Gandhi just a few months before his assassination. Her husband had been killed in the partition riots trying to save lives. She did not even go through the full period. She comes to Gandhi and finds him very distraught. And Gandhi says that my life's work will not be complete until a Muslim child cannot walk without fear in this city, in this country. So it is in fulfillment of that imagination of Gandhi, of figures in the freedom struggle, Bhagat Singh, Manan Azad, Nehru, Patel. And of course the constitution. We are really battling whether we will fulfill that imagination for India of a country of equal citizenship, regardless of which God you worship. So when we look back at the last few years in particular, there have been a variety of movements and the movements in India tend to invoke Gandhi every time. Now, can you just look at them from a Gandhian perspective, the CAA, the farmers protest? I think, you know, the anti-CA protests, I mean, before one's eyes, we saw it unfold. And I don't think any of us imagined that the country would rise up in the way that it did spontaneously. In fact, the day CAA was being debated in parliament, I was thinking what would Gandhi have taught us. And he talked about duty of civil disobedience, that you must publicly disobey a law that you regard unjust. But another part of civil disobedience was that you must demand punishment. Because there's no point in breaking, you must publicly break the law that you regard unjust and demand that you either punish me or you change the law. Now the problem with the anti-CA was that I would say I would refuse to, I will, and that's my pledge, I will not provide any documents to any government. You know, with an NRC, with the CAA. But if I don't produce the documents, I am of an identity, I'm born in a sick family, which the law has been designed to protect me. So what do I do? So I then declared that I will, if an NRC starts based on the CAA law, I will first declare myself, you have to declare your religion. I will declare myself to be Muslim and this has been misunderstood many times. I didn't say I will convert to Islam. I'm an agnostic. I will tell the government first I register as a Muslim and be, I refuse to submit any documents to prove my Indian citizenship. And see if any of my Muslim sisters and brothers are disenfranchised, I demand that I should be treated in the same way. That is what I learned. So that was my act of my tribute to Gandhi. But what the country did was a much bigger tribute and it happens spontaneously. You really, if you think about it, it was the largest nonviolent public movement that we have seen in this country since Mahatma Gandhi's assassination. And it was the largest demonstration of Hindu-Muslim unity that this country has seen spontaneously. For those hundred days, I was called to address rallies every corner of the country. I was very little in Delhi. I was actually all over the country. Yes, that's right. It was terribly heartening to see huge crowds with only the national flag. People openly with their Muslim and Hindu identities, Sikh identities, women went to Punjab, standing together in solidarity. And the two icons that spontaneously came up actually were very interesting because they never came together in life. It was Gandhi and Dr. Ambedkar. To my mind, one is the symbol of Gandhi was a symbol of radical love. And Dr. Ambedkar was a symbol for all time of radical equality. And I think that this movement was one that was held them up and responded and none of us can claim that we had anything to do with the planning of it. It happened by people. So I think that it was a movement that would have made Mahatma Gandhi extremely proud because the values that it continuously... And I would also say that the farmers struggled as well. It was not as... you walked through that place. It was with strong opposition to something, but it was a place of friendship. You were welcoming, somebody was giving you lunger, somebody was taking care of your shoes, somebody was taking care of... I mean, so both of these were struggles of how do you fight hate and injustice without yourself embodying hate and injustice. And I think these two movements are probably the most significant movements we've had, except for probably the anti-emergency movement. I mean, I think these are three significant movements we've had across the country. But the anti-CA protest was nationwide. It also, unlike the anti-emergency movement which was North Indian, this enveloped all of India. And the spirit of standing up proudly... I mean, every protest meeting used to end with a young girl usually reading out the preamble of the constitution and everybody singing... I mean, so repeating it and then singing the national anthem. I mean, I don't know of any movement where the constitution becomes the icon of revolt. And the national flag becomes the parcham that you're holding up, symbolizing equal citizenship. So I think that the anti-CA protest and the farmer's struggles had their own medium, but they owed a lot also to Mahatma Gandhi. And I'll just give one last example of what I... In Scheinberg, as we know, somebody who was in our union minister had done the slogan, Desh ke gaddaron ko, goli maron saalon ko, and so on. And targeting the protesters in the anti-CA protest. The women of Scheinberg said that we must give a fitting reply to them. And they crafted their own slogan and I think we should all hold it to our hearts where they said, Desh ke sab pyaron ko, they're addressing these people as, you know, all you beloved people of this country, Phool basao saaron ko, we shower all of you with flowers. If we understood the spirit of Mahatma Gandhi, it is in this kind of act. But you have also met a large number of victims of crimes committed by mobs, crimes committed by neighbors, and you have met victims of state oppression. Do they have the same feeling about Gandhi? Do you find them invoking Gandhi? What is Gandhi to people who have been victimized or the survivors of those who have been killed? And I think that Mahatma Gandhi has an extraordinary position in the public understanding and consciousness of India's poor and particularly India's minorities. And this again, I've learned over a long time. In one of my speeches during the anti-CA protests, just it was in Jamia the day after the students had been killed and it said many things. I said, this is a battle not against one law, but against what kind of country do we want to leave for our children and so on. And I also said that I asked India's Muslims that, hence forward, none of you should allow anyone to ask you to prove your love for your country, least of all those who never took part in the freedom struggle. And then the rest of us, and my family is a partition family displaced from Gaudi, etc. I said the rest of us, Hindus, Sikhs, etc. didn't have a choice. This was their only country. You, the India's Muslims, had a choice. Did you want to go to a country based on Islam or do you want to be in a country which is based on equal respect for all faiths? And your parents, your grandparents chose India. So you are Indian by choice. The rest of us are Indian by chance. And when you think about that choice that they made, I think Mahatma Gandhi had a great deal to do with it. His message, his actions, we can dispute many things in his life, but that those last months of his life I think are something that we should hold as a sacred legacy. His last fast in Delhi, two weeks before he was assassinated, had three demands. One of them is better known that the share in revenues that had to go to Pakistan should go. But the other two are even more important. One of them was that they had the Hinduma Sabha activists and so on. And a lot of the refugees who were very angry had converted the Meharuli Dargah, the Cannot Place mosque into temples by putting idols in there. He said that you cannot, no place of, true place of worship can be built based on disrespect to another religion. I know Mahatma Gandhi would not have considered the Ram Temple that has been built in Ayodhya as a temple because it is based on violence against another religion. So he was trying to give us that message. So he said, my second demand is that each of these places of worship must be returned with respect to the Muslim because this is their country as well. And thirdly that people who, the only way refugees who had come from here could get homes at that time were when Muslims would leave. And so there was violence and a point was being reached when there were more Muslims in the relief camps ready to driven out of their homes. And he said, you must go to the camps and call them back. And Irfan Habib, the historian talks about the power he was 19 years old at that time. He says, think about a man who can say to somebody who has been displaced, lost their home and their country by Muslim mobs. He comes here, lives in refugee camps, at last gets a home. Now you're telling him go back to the Muslim owner of that house and respectfully give him back this home and go back to the refugee camp. For you to even be able to make that demand. To me that is the legacy of Gandhi that our young people must understand. And I'm told that this last fast, even his closest supporters who believe everything, I mean, Monara, Nehru, Patel, all of them said this is not the time. There's too much anger. And Gandhi said this is the only time when I must do it. And they say the first day there were 10,000 people who came out in his support of his fast. By the 50, there were 1 lakh people on the streets of Delhi in his support. And everybody had to accept his demands. The Hindu Mahasabha had to give a written undertaking in returning these places of worship. That to me is the finest moment of our, you know, of our, you know, becoming a nation. Two weeks later, he was assassinated. And today we are at a time when, when the forces, the ideology that resulted in his assassination are now in time for power in our country. And so that battle actually which he, which he fought so bravely at that time. And then which with Dr. Ambedkar, Nehru and others, we were able to build into our constitution is now reopened. The constitution, you may not formally rewrite the constitution, but for all practical purposes, we seem to have abandoned it. So I think it is, Gandhi has never been as relevant to India. And Gandhi was not some sanitary inspector of Swachh Bharat. He stood for this idea of radical love. And that I think is... What is to be remembered? That is to be remembered. There's also slightly complicated legacy here. For example, the CA protest, you know, there was a moment of great anger on part of the farmers and moment of violence. What would Gandhi have done? Yeah, that's an interesting question. I don't think, I mean, I've seen both those movements closely. I don't believe that that day of violence in the farmer's struggle was an authentic act of violence by the protesting farmers. It was a subversion of the peaceful movement. And the anti-CA protest, actually whatever they might say. In fact, now this whole thing is being constructed that the daily riots was the outcome of a conspiracy, etc., etc. On the other hand, the CA protesters were the subject of attacks. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So on the contrary, that exactly was the case. And all of us who actually participated in the anti-CA protests are now being charged with the conspiracy of violence. So I don't think, in fact, there were acts of violence that marred both of these movements. But if they were, Gandhiji would have controversially, as he did in the 1920s, he would have called off the movement. But I don't think that movement had arrived. But there's also legal oppression. You have cases which are filed and they continue. Would Gandhi have had a take on that? Of course he would have. He also had a sharp sense of humour which we often don't remember. One that is worth quoting in the 1920s, he was charged with sedition, under sedition law and disaffection against the state. And he said, affection has to be earned. It cannot be forced by the state. And almost 100 years later, that's exactly what we are seeing. But we're seeing more than that. I mean that I love my country, that's why I criticise it. And that is what our freedom struggle was about. And that the government is not the supreme leader. What they've created a kind of discourse in which the supreme leader, his government, his party, his religious identity and the nation are all one. So any criticism to any of these is a criticism of its anti-Hindu, its anti-national. If you have criticised any action of the state. And I think that Gandhi's legacy also, one of the many things I recall in these difficult times, is that he said somewhere that I obey only one dictator. And you ask him which one, you guess which one? His conscience. Yeah, true. He said, in fact he said, I obey only one dictator, the still too soft or some something like that. It wasn't loud enough. If he said that then all of us need to think. But he said, it's that voice of conscience is the only dictator I believe. And I think in this time, the importance of us holding out our conscience is the other tribute. One tribute is upholding the idea of Hindu-Muslim unity, a country of love and inclusion. And the other is freedom to speak out according to one's conscience. Which reminds me, when you say speaking, he spoke all his life. Actually he never stopped conversing, having dialogue. And writing. And dialogue is in the news because of certain dialogue with the RSS chief, Mohan Bhagwad that the Muslims have held. Have you ever considered, have civil rights activists ever considered that such a dialogue might be fruitful or not fruitful? What I'll say is, will perhaps be a little controversial and I'd like to explain. I feel there is huge scope. I mean, we must always have open dialogue within the four walls of the constitution. I can throw back a question to you. Suppose we'll say, okay, the legitimate position and we believe in women's equality but there are people who don't and that's also legitimate view. So let's sit together and have a dialogue, giving equal status to anti-women's equality and pro-women's equality. I would say that's not possible. Yeah, you would say that's not possible. Another person could say, you know, there are people who feel that Manuswati was right about caste and so equal. So to me, the RSS stands for actually something that is outside what we built as a consensus in the freedom struggle. People of every religious identity are equal citizens in every respect. And I think that this kind of dialogue that I'm seeing again is legitimizing something that is illegitimate. By national consensus over a long freedom struggle that we fought together in the writing of our constitution, either we actually amend that constitution and let's see what happens. But as long as this constitution stands, I believe a dialogue with the RSS violates, legitimizes a whole political, social, ethical discourse which stands in contravention of the constitutional consensus and therefore it is illegitimate. Do you also feel that it is actually not a dialogue or a discussion as it is? It's almost like, you know, it's accepting a new power relationship. You know, de facto, we have changed, you know, the constitution may say something, but we are actually a Hindu raster of which the icon is this great person who lives with much simplicity, etc. You know, if you, you have to read the early writings of the RSS which opened the admiring of Hitler. You have to read every, virtually every judicial commission report of almost every major riot and the central role is always of the RSS. You can't suddenly say it's such a great nationalist organization because nationalism, there's a variety of nationalism and I've just come back from Germany and I've seen there's a variety of nationalism which is based on I can love my country, who I can love my country only if I hate another. I can love my religion only if I hate another. We are saying, no, there's another kind of way of loving your country. You love your country and you respect all others. I love my religion and I respect all others. And my love is not less. It's probably much more authentic in the way that Gandhi spoke about. He was a devout Hindu. That's why he could not bear the idea of desecration of Muslim places of worship. Is the Hindu-Muslim relationship likely to mend? Are there ways in which you see that happening? I'm still holding on to hope because on one side we see enormous growing radicalization of the Hindu heart and mind. That is the big accomplishment of the RSS over these years. So, in Gurgal, the famous Nawaz thing, you have a city which has exploded many times with migrants. You just have two mosques. Many Muslim migrants have come. They need a place to worship. It's not a big deal, one hour on Fridays. It made a big issue. You're familiar with it. But I was more anxious by the fact that where are these people who turn up on those 100 spots and on Friday at one o'clock and start wanting to do Hindu prayers or play cricket or throw cow dung, etc. It's that mobilization that is frightening. But I have hope because there was also a response when people said, what's the problem? Come to our factory. We'll open up our factory floor. Come to our homes. Come to the Gurdwaras. As long as that happens, because I've studied Germany, it didn't happen in Hitler's time. It was very rare. We still show enough examples of ordinary people reaching out to each other. But what I finally want to say on this question is that I've often said to Muslim friends that they often have the sense of despair that whatever, how much we love this country, whatever we might do, we will always be only a minority in this country. And my reply to them was that if the dispute in India was, central dispute in India was between Hindus and Muslims, yes, you'll always be a minority. We can't change that. But I don't see that. I think the central dispute is by people who follow their own religion or belief system and respect all others and all between those who misuse religion for fostering hate. And I believe that you and I belong to this first category and the people who are fostering hate are actually still a minority. I think that is the case. We have to make sure that they remain a minority and the rest of us come together. There's too much at stake and our only tribute to Mahatma Gandhi as I said, his most important contribution in the last months of his life would be, when he said, my work will not be completed until a Muslim child can't travel in a dark-case country, we will have to make such a country. That will be our tribute to him. Thanks very much. Thank you for your insightful views and thanks for joining us.