Hyderabad: April of the year 1917. The land of Champaran. A novel experiment of truth and non-violence. The protagonist was a man called Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. He had already done a similar experiment (Satyagraha) in South Africa. He was successful there. This experiment gave him a new identity in India. Probably, this was the reason why Rajkumar Shukla, a farmer from Champaran instead of asking the other contemporary leaders to visit Champaran and take account of the situation, narrated the ordeal to Gandhiji and invited him.
If we observe the political landscape of 1917 we realise that Gandhiji was not amongst the first line of leadership in Indian National Congress. Yet the faith that was vested in him by the farmer residing in the other part of the country is noteworthy.
Gandhiji has extensively written about Champaran in his autobiography. He has written that he encountered the ‘Goddess of Ahimsa’ in Champaran. In India, under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, Champaran was first to witness Satyagraha. In 1917 Champaran Satyagraha changed the course of Indian freedom struggle. After this, Gandhiji acquired the centre place in the national movement as well as in Congress.
When Gandhiji decided to go to Champaran at the behest of Rajkumar Shukla he had no idea that he would initiate a satyagraha there, or he would stay there for those many days; or he would give real form to his concept of education; or he would call Kastoorba Gandhi, Rajendra Prasad and other important leaders; or what started as fact-finding in Champaran would prove to be so essential for the near future, or the visit to Champaran would add a new chapter to history of Satyagraha.
Gandhiji spoke about the origin of the word satyagraha that before this name was coined a ‘matter’ was first created. Matter, meaning that after which ‘satyagraha’ became a prominent name in the world of knowledge. Even Gandhiji had not recognized its form at the time of its origin. Everyone recognized it in Gujarati as its English name ‘Passive resistance’.
In an assembly of Europeans in South Africa, Gandhiji realized that very narrow meaning of ‘passive resistance’ was being taken. It was considered to be the weapon of the weak. It may contain malice and in its final stages, it may take a violent turn. In such a scenario Gandhiji vehemently opposed it.
A new term is required to address every new or fundamental phenomenon. A word that can express that phenomenon in its true perspective, sometimes new phenomenon adds new meanings to old words. Then the old meaning is displaced and the new meaning becomes strongly associated with that word. The term ‘passive resistance’ was unable to completely express the struggle in South Africa lead by Gandhiji in its true sense. Hence, it became necessary for the Indians to plan a new term to redefine their struggle.
Gandhiji could not figure out an appropriate and exclusive word for it. Hence, he announced a competition for the readers of ‘Indian Opinion’ with a namesake reward. The prize was won by Maganlal Gandhi. He made a synthesis of the terms sat+agrah and sent the word Sadagrah as his entry. Gandhiji in order to enhance the meaning furthermore added a letter ‘y’ to coin the word ‘Satyagraha’. As a result, this struggle was by this name in Gujarati. In the due course of time, this word became a synonym for all non-violent movements across the world.
After the Satyagraha in South Africa, it became apparent that the basis of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi’s thought and deeds were truth and non-violence. Ahimsa according to Gandhiji was the greatest challenge in Satyagraha. Hence, there were debates discussions and conversations on it. Many did not agree with establishing non-violence as the root of satyagraha…many still do not!
Even those with diametrically opposite views do not concur to the principle of ahimsa. Both right-wing and left-wing who on other issues are opposed to each other, both seem to agree to disagree on this issue. Even the great freedom fighter Lala Lajpat Rai was in fierce disagreement with the concept of nonviolence. Both Lala Lajpat Rai and Mahatma Gandhi’s conversation on Ahimsa is well discussed.
In July 1916 issue of Modern Review, a Calcutta based monthly, Lala Lajpat Rai questioned the ‘sanity’ of the Mahatma’s Ahimsa Parmo- Dharma (Ahimsa the supreme dharma). He wrote “I have great reverence for Shri Gandhi’s personality in my heart, he has enumerated those who I venerate. I have no doubt in his truth. I do not question his noble intentions, but I feel it is my duty to strongly oppose and condemn the malefic principle of Ahimsa. Even a Mahatma should not be permitted to poison the minds of the youth of India. No one should be allowed to pollute the font of caste purity.”
Lala Lajpat pointed out that the concept of non-violence can be misconstrued, making a person cowardly, dastardly, perverse and intellectually depraved. Its misuse will be a rot that will set in the mind and soul, rendering a person mentally corrupt, debilitated, deranged, emotional and elitist.
According to him, ahimsa is the prime reason behind India being down-trodden, stripped of all humanism and pride for the last fifteen hundred years. The moment Ahimsa is held as the paramount, India’s honour, courage, and gallantry is wiped off. Self-esteem and purity are demeaned. Patriotism, nationalism, filial affinity and honour of caste are all compromised and diminished. The inappropriate and perverse use of non-violence, and compromising other principles to hold this aspect higher has led to the social, political and moral degeneration of the Hindus.
Gandhi responded to Lala’s diatribe in the October 1916 issue of Modern Review. He wrote that he mutually respected Lala ji but he strongly disagreed that the principle of extreme non-violence has led to India’s fall and degeneration. Mahatma was right in saying that there is no historic validity or foundation that our pride and strength have diminished because of ahimsa.
In the last fifteen hundred years, we have given enough evidence of our physical prowess and valor. But internal strife has disintegrated us as a nation and vested interests took precedence over patriotism. The Mahatma asserted that truth and fearlessness as important components of ahimsa. He said the non-violence demands unwavering courage. Therefore it is fallible to consider non-violence as a weapon of the cowardly.
In 1936 the great poet Suryakant Tripathi Nirala‘s epic Ram ki Shakti- Puja was published. Nirala wrote that power is corrupted tool in the hands of the unjust. He spoke of the original image of power. The violence is the preserve of the unjust and cruel, therefore in its opposition, the great poet asserted on the power of the conscience.
In fact, traditionally, strength has always been construed as violent. Nirala’s idea of fundamental image of strength is the power of non-violence. It seems as if in South Africa, Gandhi imagined the power of non-violence, struggling with the weapon of Satyagraha. Nirala gave voice to this.
Imagining non-violence as potent power, Gandhi established non-violence as the epitome of perseverance, courage, valor and fearlessness. In his autobiography, Gandhi mentions that in the land of Champaran he had an interface with the goddess of Ahimsa. Even though he experimented and struggled with non-violence for two decades in South Africa, Gandhi saying this about Champaran has deep implications.
Written By Nachiketa Desai
Read:| Mahatma Gandhi, one of Modern India's first Medical Messiahs
