Mr. Gandhi's Present Outlook
BY HORACE G. ALEXANDER.
[Mr. Alexander is a member of the Society of Friends, and
Professor of International Relations at Selly Oak Colleges,
Birmingham.—En. Spectator.] IT was the writer's good fortune to be, permitted to visit Mr. Gandhi in the jail at Poona in the middle of September ; apart from the jail superintendent, no other European, I believe, has seen him in recent months ; so it may be of value to record something of his con- versation and of the impression he made on a visitor at that time.
The Sapru-Jayakar negotiations had just broken down, so it might have been expected that Gandhi would be in an intransigent mood. But he is not a man of moods, or a man to be much influenced by passing events. I found him most willing to talk about peace; but, on the other hand, utterly unwilling to compromise on what are to him matters of principle in order to win peace.
He said he had been amazed at the extent of the country's response to his lead in the civil disobedience movement, and at the extent of " non-violence " ; but, he went on to say, though a great many had adopted non-violent methods in the campaign, a large proportion of them had not adopted the principle of non-violence. Those who only use non-violence as a method of resistance to Government are liable to become embittered, especially when roughly treated by the police. Even in the seclusion of his prison he was acutely conscious that such embitterment was developing, and for this reason he would welcome a return to peace and co-operation— as soon as it could be honourably obtained. But Gandhi is one of those who believes that what has to be is for the best : so, having made it clear that he would welcome peace at any time if it were an honourable peace, he went on immediately to add that if that were impossible then the struggle must continue, and that would prove a blessing to India by the purifying effect of suffering voluntarily undergone.
If Gandhi is open to discuss peace, what are his terms ? They are what they have always been. But he some- times uses such perplexing expressions that they need some interpretation to the Western mind. The point that he stressed most in our talk was the " substance of independence," .in the form of such control over financial and fiscal policy that it would be possible for India to reduce military and civil expenditure, to ease the burden of taxation, and to control imports in such a way that the peasants and workers of India might have better opportunities of developing their village crafts and industries. Of these, hand-spinning is to him 'the symbol, but he is less of a hand-spinning monomaniac than people sometimes imagine. He wants the minimum of interference from Government and the least possible taxation, so that the peasants may be free, with the help of Indian voluntary organizations, to improve their irrigation and their cattle, -and to develop tanning and other village crafts. And he believes the only way to achieve these things is by obtaining full control of financial and fiscal policy at once, so that military expenditure and the salaries of Civil Servants are fixed in accordance with Indian ideas of India's needs.
If this is, to Gandhi, the " substance of independence," he adds various subsidiary demands, some of which may be quite • as difficult to agree to. " We cannot for a moment give up the things we have already won," he said. And he mentioned in particular the right to collect salt and the effective picketing of liquor and drug shops —which, he said, had resulted in a 60 per cent. decrease of consumption in six months. • These are the things that Gandhi cares about. Phrases like "Dominion status" and "Federation" mean little to him. He wants to know what the functions and powers of a Dominion are to be, and who is to have effective control of the essential services in any federation. Unlike many of his fellow-countrymen, it is not the prestige of a higher status that he craves, but the power to wrestle with the problem of Indian poverty. There is surely nothing negative or destructive in such an aim, as so many of his British critics maintain, even though his method of securing it may seem strange.
Gandhi confessed that he had lost faith in the British Government. He had hoped at first that the Viceroy's declaration of November, 1929, looking forward to Dominion status, meant a real desire to achieve that status without delay ; but the parliamentary debates that followed destroyed his hope, and the publication of the Simon Report has confirmed his doubts. Never- theless, he always hopes the best of his opponents— any little sign of a " change of heart," of a growing responsiveness to Indian demands, meets with an immediate response from him. When I met him, the Government had just released Pandit Motilal Nehru, the seventy-year old political leader, whose health had broken down in prison. " That," said Gandhi, " is an encouraging sign ; of course, they say lie is released on grounds of health, but they need not have done it." He spoke with real gratification of this incident ; and it seemed clear that a few more such gestures would go far to convince him that the Government mean business.
Gandhi has a way of putting his demands in an extreme form ; but lie is not an extremist. What he looks for is clear proof—indeed, not only in word—that Britain really means to recognize India's right and ability to control her own national life. If, through the Round Table Conference decisions, we can prove that to him, then he will be our most powerful ally in persuading young India to come in and work the new Constitution. Otherwise, he will continue to be a mighty opponent of all that we do. If he can be released from jail, and invited to meet the Viceroy in person, as soon as the proposed powers of the Central Government have been decided in London, that might be the first step towards a rapid and full pacification. His influence is still great, but more dangerous and uncontrollable forces are -gathering strength daily.
Previous page
