Mahatma Gandhi and Mass Media; Mediating Conflict and Social Change 9780367541934, 9780367617202, 9781003106203

Citation preview

MAHATMA GANDHI AND MASS MEDIA

This book explores Gandhi’s engagement with print news media. It examines how Gandhi, the man and his message, negotiated the sociopolitical circumstances of his milieu and the methods of communication that he adopted towards this end. It analyses the role that he played in building up alternative modes of communication in South Africa and India. This volume elucidates his interactions with the colonial communication order and his contestations of the same through various methods that included setting up new journals and newspapers and taking on the roles of writer, journalist, editor, and publisher. It unveils Gandhi’s engagement with mass media and print journalism, particularly concerning issues of conflict and conflict resolution, as well as social transformation right from his days in London to the last days of his life. A significant contribution to scholarship on Mahatma Gandhi, this volume will be of great interest to scholars of politics, media and cultural studies, history, and South Asian studies. Teresa Joseph is Associate Professor in Political Science and Director of the Centre for Gandhian Studies at Alphonsa College, Pala, Kerala, India. Besides having written a number of articles on politics, international relations, mass media, and Mahatma Gandhi, she is the author of Reporting Nuclear Pakistan: Security Perceptions and the Indian Press and co-editor of Deliberative Democracy: Understanding the Indian Experience and Conflict Resolution in South Asia.

MAHATMA GANDHI AND MASS MEDIA Mediating Conflict and Social Change

Teresa Joseph

First published 2022 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2022 Teresa Joseph The right of Teresa Joseph to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-0-367-54193-4 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-61720-2 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-10620-3 (ebk) Typeset in Sabon by Apex CoVantage, LLC

TO MY PARENTS

CONTENTS

List of figures Preface 1

viii ix

Media before Gandhi: colonial communication strategies and contestations

1

2

The Mahatma, the medium, and the message

21

3

Mediated interventions in South Africa

47

4

Speaking truth to power: Gandhi and the Press in India

97

5

Epilogue: mediating conflict and social change Gandhi’s way

159

Bibliography Index

169 176

vii

FIGURES

3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

Gandhi’s early contributions to the Press in South Africa (22.5.1893 to 21.5.1896) Gandhi on the Asiatic Registration Act (1.8.1906 to 31.10.1906) Gandhi on the Franchise Bill, Asiatic Registration Act, and Natives Land Act Gandhi in the Press on Champaran (1.4.1917 to 31.7.1917) Gandhi in the Press on the Ahmedabad mill workers strike (1.2.1918 to 30.4.1918) Gandhi in the Press on the Kheda satyagraha (1.2.1918 to 30.4.1918) Juxtaposing Gandhi’s contributions to the Press on Champaran, Ahmedabad, and Kheda Gandhi’s contributions to the Press after taking over the editorships of Young India and Navajivan

viii

50 75 86 100 101 103 104 109

PREFACE

More than seven decades after his death, Mahatma Gandhi continues to be widely discussed and debated in different parts of the world. His philosophy and views on truth, non-violence, conflict transformation, social justice, and environmental sustainability are some of his enduring legacies. He continues to fascinate and inspire people all over the world. At a time when the internet did not exist, nor did mass media as we know it today, Gandhi was able to attract international attention. His worldwide appeal was possible not only due to the issues that he raised and pursued, or the message that he sought to convey, but also due to the manner in which he conveyed it. Gandhi used various media of mass communication to convey his message, and his engagement with these media forms an integral part of understanding him and his ideas in their entirety. His wide range of communication skills included various kinds of symbolic expressions, such as his clothing, physicality, gait, language, fasts, silence, food habits, and prayer meetings, as well as his oratorical practices and writing expertise, all of which enabled him to communicate his message to the world. The 100 volumes of The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (hereinafter referred to as CW) published by the Government of India, with each volume running to approximately 500 pages, stand as testimony to his prolific writing. In his struggles for peace and social justice, Gandhi made extensive use of journals and newspapers, whether it was through The Vegetarian in London or the papers that he edited or was closely associated with – Indian Opinion in South Africa and Satyagrahi, Young India, Navajivan, and Harijan in India. His negotiation of the colonial communication order and contestations of the same were a reflection of his ideals. He played a critical role in building alternative modes of communication in both South Africa and India through various methods, which included establishing new journals and newspapers and taking on the roles of writer, journalist, editor, or publisher. Despite the abundance of available writings by Gandhi, there has been little discussion of Gandhi’s engagement with print news media, particularly in the context of conflict and the transformation of conflict. Although often used synonymously with conflict management and conflict resolution, ix

P R E FAC E

conflict transformation as reflected in the works of Lederach (1995, 1997), Curle (1971), and Galtung (1996) moves beyond the aims of containing or ending conflict, focusing more on “developing attitudes conducive to peace and rebuilding ruptured relationships” (Moolakkattu 2013: 19, 33). History reveals the intrinsic relationship between mass media, power, and conflict. Although mass media are not the only important institutions in a public sphere, they are crucial instruments through which the public participates in political processes. Hence, the quality of their contributions to the public sphere is an important determinant of the quality of democracy (Herman and McChesney 1998: 3). Habermas (1991, 2006) elaborates on the linkages between media power and the public sphere and the changing historical role of the print media in constituting and maintaining a public sphere. A necessary prerequisite for the development of the ideal of the public sphere was deemed to be the independent and open access to information, particularly the print media, for all members of society. Subsequent discussions on the network society and new public sphere (Castells 2008, 2010) notwithstanding, the focus of this work is the era of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, which was dominated by print media. Anderson (2006: 36–46) argues that, “the convergence of capitalism and print technology on the fatal diversity of human language created the possibility of a new form of imagined community which . . . set the stage for the modern nation.” Print capitalism created “languages-of-power” and made it possible for “rapidly growing numbers of people to think about themselves and to relate to others, in profoundly new ways.” History reveals that empires sought control not only over territory but also over the minds of the people in order to sustain themselves and grow. While new communication technologies were often first acquired by the state and utilised to oppress the population, gaining access to communication technology enabled people to oppose the power of the state more effectively [for a detailed discussion, see Bernstein (2013)]. Colonial communication strategies and the contestations of the same were a reflection of this. Mass media also play a crucial role in mediating conflict, be it at the local, national, or international level. Media narratives help to reinforce and legitimise actions, decisions, and policies or to bring about change. Media can serve to incite or increase conflict or play a destructive role in the process of transforming conflict by reinforcing negative stereotypes of the enemy, emphasising the risks and dangers associated with compromise, and raising the legitimacy of those opposed to concessions. However, mass media can also play a central role in the promotion of peace inter alia by emphasising the benefits that peace can bring, raising the legitimacy of those working for peace, and helping to transform images of adversaries (Wolfsfeld 2001). They can act as channels of communication between conflicting parties, and they can play an educative role on the roots of conflict by identifying any underlying interests, focusing on long-term processes of reconciliation x

P R E FAC E

rather than on sensational stories of conflict, preventing the demonization of the “other,” counteracting misperceptions, allowing each side a more positive vision of the other, reducing suspicions, and showing that compromise is possible. The notion of Peace Journalism, which has emerged as an alternative model to traditional ways of reporting conflict, is of particular relevance in this context. Peace journalists consider conventional mainstream news coverage of conflict – with its reliance on government and military sources and its focus on “our suffering” versus “their villainy” – as comprising war journalism. Peace Journalism contends that conventional journalism typically avoids the causes or context of the conflict being reported, the undeclared vested interests involved, the alternatives to war, and possible solutions to resolve or transcend hostilities (Joseph 2014: 236). Johan Galtung (1998, 2003) advocates Peace Journalism as an approach to journalism that focuses on conflict transformation and suggests various ways in which it can be put into practice. According to Galtung, conventional news coverage of conflicts often decontextualise violence, focusing only on the conflict arena while ignoring the forces and factors that influence the violence and the options for peace. Galtung argues that the media generally follow the “low road” in reporting conflict – chasing wars, the elites that run them, and a win-lose outcome. He calls for an alternate route: The “high road” of Peace Journalism that focuses on conflict transformation. Galtung advocates journalistic practices that place peace-building as an essential value, the lens through which to view, frame, and report events. According to him, Peace Journalism attempts to depolarise by showing the black and white of all sides, and to de-escalate by highlighting peace and conflict resolution as much as violence. . . . Peace Journalism stands for truth as opposed to propaganda and lies, but is not “investigative journalism” in the sense of uncovering lies only on “our” side. (Galtung 1998) Rather than creating enemies, Peace Journalism humanises situations, examining the root causes of conflict. Other advocates of Peace Journalism further introduce the need for a structural reform of the media into the discussion, arguing that market forces, ownership structure, and regulation need to be addressed for Peace Journalism to succeed (see Lynch 2005, 2008; Wolfsfeld 2004). While the media have the potential to play a crucial role in the transformation of conflict, history has shown that selective reporting, reflection of the dominant discourse, fake news, sensationalism, war mongering, and processes of securitisation, demonisation of enemies, dehumanisation, and decontextualisation of conflict have tended to be the norm in the mainstream xi

P R E FAC E

media coverage of conflict (see studies by Chomsky 2007; Mermin 1999; Robinson 2000; Gan 2005; Barker-Plummer 2005; Blix 2004; Herman and Chomsky 1988; Manchanda 2001; Joseph 2014). Enemy images are used in propaganda by both sides in a conflict, and mass media are often willing participants in this process of demonisation. At the same time, the performance and role of mass media in society cannot be overly generalised, nor can the media be seen in isolation. Mass media are intrinsically linked to social, political, and economic processes at both national and international levels, and they need to be viewed within the specific context of the political, economic, historical, institutional, technological, and sociocultural circumstances in which they are situated. India’s engagement with mass communication emerged during the colonial period when colonial power and media power sustained and reinforced each other. Contestations of power often played out in the realm of the print media. While the British Empire attempted to control the Press through various methods, both overt as well as covert, the development of alternative communication modes became a significant part of the struggle against imperial power. The Press transformed the existing public spheres and created new ones in various regions in India (Mukhopadhyay 2005: 237; Mann 2017: 23). In the larger context of the state of mass media in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, this book provides an understanding of Mahatma Gandhi’s communication strategies and his engagement with mass media. It is situated within the milieu of Gandhi the man and his message, as well as the sociopolitical circumstances of the time. The narrative of the book is organised around specific events in the history of the Indian community in South Africa towards the end of the nineteenth century, events in India during the first half of the twentieth century, and discourses and practices of the media of the time. An overview of the then existing colonial communication strategies and the contestations of the same provides a contextual background to understanding Gandhi’s emergence as a mass communicator. On the basis of an understanding of Gandhi’s approach to the question of the role of media in society, this book also examines the role that he played in developing alternative modes of communication. Structured chronologically, it explores Gandhi’s use of the print media, particularly with regard to issues of conflict and social change in South Africa and in India. In doing so, the fact that every communicator is influenced by their personal life and the socioeconomic and political environment of his time, as well as the technological stage in which their country is situated, has been taken into account. Recognition of the crucial role of the media in conflict and social change and given the rampant sensationalism, commercialisation, selective reporting, etc., of contemporary mass media, indicates that Gandhi’s philosophy and his performance as a writer, editor, and publisher certainly need to be revisited. xii

P R E FAC E

My engagement with mass media commenced at a time when the inadequacies of the international communication system were being highlighted and discussions on a New International Information Order were at the forefront. Subsequently, the question of human rights violations in Kashmir caught international attention, and the role of media in addressing the issue became a focus of my research. The intricacies involved in this pointed me in the direction of examining Indian media coverage of Pakistan. After discovering the role of media in processes of militarisation, I moved on to research Indian media coverage of Pakistan’s nuclear programme. The realisation of the blatant use of gender to justify militaristic postures again led me to examine the question of gender and the security discourse in Indian media. The war on terror and the media blitzkrieg of the time induced me to analyse the role of mass media in international conflicts. A common thread that has run through my engagement with mass media has been a concern for peace and social justice and the role that mainstream mass media can play in this regard. Whether it is with regard to media reporting on Kashmir, or Pakistan, or international conflicts, the findings have not been encouraging. However, on reading Gandhi over the last several years, an alternative way of reporting conflict and social change loomed large before me. Despite the fact that Gandhi had been a writer, editor, and publisher and had left tremendous documentary evidence for posterity, it is astonishing that not much work has been done in this context. This volume is a humble attempt to expand the scholarship in this area. In this sojourn of over three decades, I had the privilege of the support, guidance, and encouragement of a number of individuals. I am indebted to Dr. K. M. Seethi, former Professor of International Relations and Politics, Mahatma Gandhi University, who encouraged and guided me through the initial years of my engagement with mass media. Dr. John S. Moolakkattu, Professor of Global Studies, Central University of Kerala, and editor of Gandhi Marg, opened up new pathways for me, pointing me in the direction of Mahatma Gandhi. His constant support and advice stood me in good stead in fulfilling my responsibilities as Director of the Centre for Gandhian Studies of Alphonsa College. Dr. M. P. Mathai, former Professor of Gandhian Studies, Mahatma Gandhi University, and editor of Gandhi Marg, has been a strong supporter who has played an instrumental role in stimulating and enriching my interest in and efforts to explore Gandhi. I am deeply indebted to both of them for reading the manuscript and providing comments and suggestions. I am also extremely grateful to Dr. D. Jeevan Kumar, former Professor of Political Science and Director of the Centre for Gandhian Studies, Bangalore University, for having meticulously reviewed the manuscript and offered critical insights. I place on record my gratitude to the University Grants Commission for providing financial assistance for my Minor Research Project, Mass Media and Social Change: Contemporary Relevance of the Gandhian Approach, which sowed the seeds for this book. xiii

P R E FAC E

My presentation on “Mediating Conflict: Mahatma Gandhi and the Press in India, 1917–1922” at the conference on M. K. Gandhi and the Media organised by the School of History, University of St. Andrews, Scotland, helped streamline my thoughts on the theme. I acknowledge my gratitude to the organisers of the programme, Dr. Chandrika Kaul, Reader in Modern History, University of St. Andrews, Scotland, and Dr. David Bulla, Professor of Communication, Augusta University, Georgia. I thank the management and my colleagues at Alphonsa College, particularly the Department of Political Science, for a conducive environment in which to pursue Gandhi. The opportunity to also work closely with C. J. Philomina, Lysamma Thomas, Annie Mathew, Alice Jose, Minu Joy, Sr. Tessy, and Rosmy Kattoor has been very beneficial to me, and I am indebted to each of them for their support and encouragement. I also thank my students and members of the Gandhi Forum who invigorated my efforts to understand Gandhi. A special word of thanks is due to my family. My long engagement with mass media and my interest in understanding Mahatma Gandhi have been constantly stimulated and strengthened by the unwavering support of Thomas. He has been my biggest critic, having gone through all of my manuscripts with his characteristic meticulousness. I am deeply grateful to Annie, Rakesh, and Mathew for the unstinting support, encouragement, and wholehearted assistance that each one of them has extended to me in this endeavour. I also thank other members of my family and friends for being with me.

xiv

1 MEDIA BEFORE GANDHI Colonial communication strategies and contestations

Mass media, being an integral part of society, are shaped by various factors ranging from the social, economic, and political to the technological, as well as from the local and national to the international. Discovery of these interlinkages from a historical perspective would be essential to understand the media of any society in its entirety. India’s engagement with mass communication emerged during the colonial period. However, strong communication networks existed long before that. Information was conveyed by word of mouth through native runners, carrier pigeons, relay horses, traders, pilgrims, wedding parties, soldiers, and wandering ascetics and artistes, as well as through inscriptions on the roofs and walls of temples, copper plates, palm leaves, and coins, pillar inscriptions, rock edicts, akhbarat of the Mughal empire, private manuscript newsletters, theatre, music, art, literature, poetry, and so on. The late rise of the print media has in fact been attributed to the abundance rather than any paucity of communication. In addition, the use of print media was not encouraged by Indian rulers, who feared that it would erode their legitimacy (Bayly 2009: 58). The history of the evolution of the Press in India is inseparable from the history of colonialism, nationalism, and social reform movements in the country. By the early nineteenth century, Britain had become a major communication media power as well as a predominant imperial power. Its capacity to disseminate news, information, and ideas around the world was unparalleled. Its communication media power clearly helped to create and sustain its imperial power, which in turn reinforced and shaped the development of its communication media power. This reflected how “technological innovation underlay the British imperial experience providing both the infrastructural and cognitive sinews of hegemony. It helped make the empire truly global” (Kaul 2014: 226; also see Kaul 2006: 4; 2018: 3). The colonial state attempted to control the Press in the subcontinent through various methods, both overt as well as covert.

1

MEDIA BEFORE GANDHI

The origins of the Press in colonial India The British played an important role in establishing communication systems in India in order to gain support for their institutions, ideas, and means of operation. The first printing press arrived in Goa from Portugal during the 1550s. This and subsequent presses, which were also brought from Portugal, were used mainly for printing religious literature, not for commercial, social, or political information. The East India Company, which ruled the country at that time, set up a printing press in Bombay in 1674, one in Madras in 1772, and another in Calcutta in 1779. However, no newspapers were published in the company’s territories for a long time. Company officials in India were suspicious of the media and feared that news of their abuses of power and “private trading” would reach London. However, with the increasing power and influence of the Press in England, it could not be entirely prevented from functioning in India for too long. The first attempts to publish newspapers in India were made by disgruntled employees of the East India Company. William Bolts, who had resigned from the company’s service after being censured for indulging in private trade under the company’s authority, attempted to start a newspaper in 1776. However, his intentions alarmed officials, who directed him to leave Bengal and return to Europe (Natarajan 1955: 5). In 1780 James Augustus Hicky, another former employee of the East India Company, published the first printed English newspaper in India, the Bengal Gazette or the Calcutta General Advertiser. Edited by Hicky himself, it was a weekly that published news of interest to the small community of European, especially British, settlers in Calcutta. It printed items taken from English newspapers in Britain, letters from local readers, and matters of gossip that were of interest to the European community. He was an outspoken critic of British administrative officials, and his writings on the social life of the European community in Calcutta were often seen to have tinges of malice and ridicule. Although he strongly supported the freedom of the Press and opposed corruption and absolute power, he paid the price for combining the personal with the professional. Consequent to publishing a news item that was scandalous and offensive to Governor-General Warren Hastings, the Bengal Gazette was forced to shut down a year and a half after it was first started. Hicky was fined and jailed, and his newspaper was proscribed (see Vilanilam 2005: 51; Parthasarathy 1997: 19–21; Otis 2018: xii). Within six years of Hicky’s venture, several weeklies and a monthly appeared in the company capital of Calcutta, which is also considered to be the birthplace of journalism in India. These included the Calcutta Gazette in 1784, the Bengal Journal and The Oriental Magazine in 1785, and the Calcutta Chronicle in 1786. The Madras Courier in 1788 and the Bombay Herald in 1789 were started in the two other major British trading centres of Madras and Bombay.

2

MEDIA BEFORE GANDHI

The Europeans controlled the Press in India during the initial years of its existence. The newspapers reflected the interests of the European community, especially their commercial interests, providing information on the arrival and departure of ships and other developments in the governance of the colony. However, as Tharoor (2016: 96) points out, they did establish a newspaper culture in British India. During this period, the circulation of newspapers did not exceed 200. As the papers were aimed at providing information and entertainment for the Europeans and Anglo-Indians, there was hardly any danger of public opinion being subverted. The company’s officers in India were more concerned that these newspapers might reach London and expose their acts of corruption to the home authorities. This period did not see the emergence of any Press laws as such. However, if it became known that anyone who was persona non grata with the authorities intended to start a paper, they were deported immediately. If a newspaper caused displeasure to the British administration, it was first denied postal privileges, later it was required to submit the paper for precensorship, and finally the editor would be deported (Natarajan 1955: 9). With the proliferation of newspapers, the British administration became concerned that the company’s critics and enemies, including the French, could use the Press to their advantage. As a result, it soon began to censor and suppress the Press in its colonies. But although the Press was curtailed to protect imperial interests, some amount of criticism of the British administration was permitted because outright censorship and repression would not have been appreciated by the British public at home. The first restriction on the Press to be imposed by law in India was the Censorship of the Press Act in 1799 by Lord Wellesley, the then governor-general. This brought all newspapers in India under the scrutiny of the administration prior to publication (Tharoor 2016: 96).

Growth of journalism in the nineteenth century Journalism in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries in India was not deemed to be a very reputable occupation, let alone a profession. The questions faced by journalists revolved around issues of freedom of speech, relationship with the state, the need to secure subscriptions and advertisements, access to postal and later telegraphic communication, the role of journalism in society, and so on. The Press became a “stratified and multilayered entity” with the conspicuous distinctions being along the lines of race and language, and hierarchies were established between the various sections of the Press (Bonea 2016: 149–52). This was evident in the different categories used to describe newspapers and periodicals, such as the AngloIndian Press, Indian Press, native Press, vernacular Press, native Indian Press, and so on.

3

MEDIA BEFORE GANDHI

By the nineteenth century, English journalism in India had emerged to meet the needs and interests of the British population in the metropolitan cities that were the headquarters of the British provinces. There were great similarities in the news content of all Anglo-Indian newspapers. Several English language newspapers appeared in the three major provinces of Bengal, Bombay, and Madras, all of which followed the style of Hicky’s Bengal Gazette. Some of these were the Calcutta Journal, India Gazette, Bengal Harkaru, John Bull, Bombay Herald, Bombay Courier, and Journal of Commerce. These newspapers were all weeklies and their circulation did not exceed 400 copies at the most. They largely contained extracts from newspapers and journals in England or Europe, with the main objective of providing information and amusement. They continued to focus on the arrivals and departures of Europeans, the timings of steamers, and the personal domestic needs of European settlers in the major metropolitan cities (Vilanilam 2005: 52). Their circulation was limited and there was little of interest to Indians. Governor-General Lord Hastings attempted to put his liberal ideas into practice in India and succeeded in establishing some of the progressive views that were gaining ground in Britain. Lord Hastings and Lord Amherst extended facilities to the British Baptist missionaries of Serampore (or Serampore missionaries as they were referred to) for the publication of their books on grammar, history, legends, fairy tales and dictionaries. Relaxation of Press restrictions also came during this period. In 1818, precensorship of the Press was dispensed with, although certain general guidelines for newspaper editors continued to exist. Until 1816, there were no Indian proprietors or editors of newspapers. The first newspaper of this kind was the Bengal Gazette, a weekly that was started in 1816 by Gangadhar Bhattacharya, a fellow traveller and close associate of Raja Rammohan Roy. This venture lasted for nearly four years and marked a trend towards the expression of Indian nationalism through the medium of English to draw the attention of the British government to the cultural history and philosophy of India. Through the columns of his paper, Bhattacharya attempted to educate his readers about the best in European religious thought and philosophy, without sacrificing the essential tenets of his own Hindu religion and philosophy. Such English language newspapers of the time run by Indians primarily for English-educated, elite Indians were referred to as Indo-Anglian newspapers. When English journalism was taken up by Indians, it initially continued to maintain its orientation towards European life and culture, with minor inputs of Indian culture and religion. It was only when the Indian nationalist movement became strong that the Indo-Anglian newspapers also became committed to Indian national needs and political freedom (see Vilanilam 2003: 11–12; 2005: 52–3). The early years of the nineteenth century saw the arrival of James Silk Buckingham, whom Jawaharlal Nehru later described as being among the earliest champions of freedom of the Press in India. Parthasarathy (1997: 4

MEDIA BEFORE GANDHI

23–4) refers to him as the first real journalist, an outstanding one and, by all accounts, the tallest in his profession at that time. Buckingham came to India in 1818 as the editor of the Calcutta Journal, which was started by some merchants in Calcutta. He emphasised news of local conditions and the lives of the people rather than fashion and gossip. His editorials concentrated on the omissions and commissions of British administrative policies. He was also fearless in condemning certain Indian customs like sati (the practice of widows voluntarily or forcibly taking their lives usually on their husband’s funeral pyre) and the failure of the authorities to put an end to it. He empathised with the native Indian Press and defended its right to exist and voice the opinions of the Indian people. Buckingham was an inspiration behind the growth of Indian journalism, and it was with his example that the Press actually began to discuss questions of public concern. Buckingham’s paper became a model for later publications. Many educated Indians began to feel that the Press could play an important role in mobilising public opinion and influencing government policies. Prominent people like Ram Mohun Roy, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, Dadabhai Naoroji, Justice Mahadev Govind Ranade, Surendranath Banerjee, Lokmanya Tilak, G. Subramaniya Iyer, C. Karunakara Menon, Madan Mohan Malaviya, Lala Rajpat Rai, Bipin Chandra Pal, and others played an important role in starting newspapers towards this end. The impediments which had prevented journalistic enterprise until then had also begun to disappear, and the idea of using the Press for the education of the public caught on. Lord Hastings was a supporter of literary development and believed in the utility of the Press (Chand 1967: 214).

Social reform movements and rise of the language Press The Indian renaissance of the early nineteenth century and the related attempts to highlight injustices in society gave rise to a sense of consciousness among the elite of the role they could play in removing some of these inequalities. The first newspaper in an Indian language, Digdarshan, was a Bengali monthly published in 1818 by the Serampore missionaries. It restricted itself to literary, scientific, and historical subjects and did not continue for long. Another pioneering effort was made by Raja Ram Mohun Roy, who brought out the Sambad Kaumudi (Moon of Intelligence), a weekly Bengali newspaper, in 1821. It carried articles on philosophical debates in Calcutta. Roy also brought out Mirat-ul-Akhbar, a Persian weekly in 1822. He was one of the earliest champions of Press freedom and an advocate of social reform. His writings sought to achieve a social and cultural renaissance in Hindu society. Roy used his newspapers to promote campaigns against social evils such as sati and human sacrifice, which were finally banned by Lord William Bentinck in 1829. Through his extensive writings, Roy also sought to ensure that the ban was implemented. His campaign in support of the 5

MEDIA BEFORE GANDHI

administration’s measures influenced not only its enactment but also its continued enforcement despite the most vigorous opposition. While the editors of British papers could be deported if they published anything that displeased the company, Indian editors could not be punished in this manner. Hence, further restrictions came to be placed on the Indian Press. Sir Thomas Munro was deputed to examine and report on the problems of the Press in India. According to Munro’s recommendations, the freedom or restriction of the European Press could do little harm or good and hardly deserved any serious attention. However, he recommended the continuation of censorship and also the retention of the power to deport editors and journalists from the country. Munro also felt that there was a danger that the Press could corrupt the Indian army and spread principles of liberty among the people, stimulating them to work for the overthrow of British power and establish a national government. He argued that a free Press and domination by strangers were quite incompatible and could not exist together for long. The appointment of John Adam as acting governor-general in 1823 gave Munro the opportunity to implement his views. The Regulations of Printing Establishments, 1823, or the Adam’s Regulations as they were popularly known, made the restrictions on the Press more stringent. It stipulated that every newspaper, journal, pamphlet, or printed matter in any language should obtain a licence from the governor-general in Council and signed by the Chief Secretary before publication. The former was also empowered to cancel the licence after issuing due notice. Unlicensed presses were to be seized by magistrates. Thus, the printing and publishing of books and papers without the permission of the government were declared a punishable offence (Parthasarathy 1997: 156). The Chief Secretary to the Bengal Government, Butterworth Bayley, frequently referred to Ram Mohun Roy’s Persian weekly Mirul-ul-Akhbar to justify the restrictions on the Press. Roy protested against these restrictions and closed down his paper citing various reasons, the most important being that Indians had no access to officials, as English editors had, to secure a licence as required under the new law. Roy presented a petition through his counsel to the Supreme Court on behalf of the people of India protesting against the regulations, but this was ignored. Parthasarathy (1997: 32–4) contends that from the very beginning, Roy provoked the opposition of company officials, who did not approve of him propagating his views on social reform and religion. Some of them carried out an active campaign against him, and he was generally considered to be “unrepresentative” of Hindu opinion. Once he realised that his journalistic ventures were provoking opposition from both Hindu reactionaries as well as company officials, Roy kept to the background and encouraged others who shared his views. The newspapers with which he was associated strongly protested against the deportation of Buckingham. His campaign against sati, which provoked 6

MEDIA BEFORE GANDHI

Hindu orthodoxy into opposition, gave a fillip to language journalism. Around this time a powerful, orthodox Hindu Press had come into existence. Natarajan (1955: 31–2) points out that while Indian-owned, Indian language newspapers which fostered a broad liberal outlook were unable to function, newspapers which were confined to expounding the orthodox tenets of Hinduism were free to do so. Along with social awareness, a sense of nationalism grew among the elite. The fact that the Brahmo Samaj and Prarthana Samaj published periodicals (mostly in English and Bengali, but a few in Marathi, Telugu, Urdu, and Hindi) reveals the level of importance that these social reform movements gave to print journalism as a means to reach the educated classes. At the time of the partition of Bengal in 1905, Aurobindo Ghosh, who had been educated in Manchester, London, and Cambridge, left his teaching post at a college in Baroda and advocated radicalism through his journals Bandemaataram, Karma Yogi, and Dharma. By 1910, he retired from politics and moved to Pondicherry, in those days a French territory, where he established an ashram which eventually became world famous. He continued his journalistic efforts to propagate his religious, spiritual, and political views (Vilanilam 2005: 62–3). Lord William Bentinck’s appointment as governor-general resulted in major changes in India. There was an increase in the employment of Indians in the civil services. Old social customs, religious beliefs, and forms of literary expression underwent a transformation. Social reforms, such as the abolition of sati, were carried out. English education also gained ground, resulting in the establishment of more newspapers. There was a significant change in the attitude of the government towards the Press and, in particular, the Indian language Press. Sir Charles Metcalfe, a senior member of the governor-general’s council and later acting governor-general, was instrumental in shaping the views of Lord Bentinck on this issue. Thanks to Metcalfe, Bentinck adopted a liberal attitude towards the Press. Although the Adam’s Regulations were not revoked, considerable leeway was given to the Press. Acknowledging that the law relating to the Press was unsatisfactory, Bentinck promised to alter it but had to retire before he could do so. On succeeding Bentinck as governor-general for a short period, Metcalfe repealed the Adam’s Regulations in 1835. He argued that because the government possessed unquestionable powers of interference whenever the safety of the state was in danger, it was unnecessary to keep an offensive form of despotism in times of peace. He declared that if India could be preserved as part of the British Empire only by keeping its inhabitants in a state of ignorance, that domination would be a curse to the country and should cease. Metcalfe’s decision earned him the epithet of “Liberator of the Indian Press,” but he earned the displeasure of the Board of Directors of the East India Company. This liberal Press policy continued unchanged until 1856 and resulted in the rapid growth of newspapers all over the country. Although the Press 7

MEDIA BEFORE GANDHI

was generally moderate in tone and deferential to the government, there were occasions when it resorted to plain speaking (Chand 1967: 221–6; Parthasarathy 1997: 38). It was during this time that Dadabhai Naoroji started the Gujarati journal Rast Goftar in 1854, which propagated progressive views on social, religious, and educational reforms.

Revolt of 1857 and the Press in India towards the end of the nineteenth century A major impact of the Indian revolt against the British East India Company in 1857 was the imposition of restrictions on the entire Press (that is, both English-owned and Indian-owned). Lord Canning reintroduced licensing restrictions in addition to the existing registration procedure laid down by the Metcalfe Act. Canning’s sense of justice and his antipathy to racial discrimination were reflected in the inclusion of the English-owned Press under the new law. He observed that the English Press was not free from the things of which the Indian Press was accused. However, the bias in the practical implementation of the policy served to further estrange Indian sentiment and widened the gulf between the native Press and the European Press. The Indian Press, particularly those newspapers that held progressive opinions, was regarded with suspicion rather than as an instrument of progress by the authorities (Parthasarathy 1997: 40–2). With the passing of the Government of India Act of 1858, the administrative authority of the East India Company was transferred to the British Crown. In announcing this, the Queen’s Proclamation recognised Indians as British subjects and promised to end racial discrimination and extend to them rights commensurate with their new status. As Thomas (2019: 39) points out, the revolt of 1857 exposed “the need for direct government based on uninterrupted communication and information flows.” On the other hand, the impact of the period following the revolt witnessed the rise of the Indian Press as part of the nationalist or anti-imperialist struggle and the manifestation of two tendencies in the Press: One was in support of the colonial Raj and its policies, while the other took the line of criticism and opposition. Ram (1997: xiii) contends that during this stage, the Indian Press came into its own, gradually becoming a major weapon of the nationalist movement. It played an important role in the dissemination of anti-British feelings and in rousing the people against the government. The fault lines also reflected the distinctions between the English-owned and Indian-owned newspapers, as well as the English language journals and the vernacular Press. The Indian Press in Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras took little interest in the revolt, and its pages did not reflect the unrest that was seen in the East India Company’s army. However, Urdu and Persian newspapers, especially of Delhi and Punjab, played an important role in the dissemination of anti-British sentiment and in awakening the people against 8

MEDIA BEFORE GANDHI

the government during the revolt. This rift gradually widened, reaching its climax with the launch of the freedom movement by the Indian National Congress (see Parthasarathy 1997: 39–43; Chand 1967: 228). The colonial state began to look out for any act of sedition and prosecuted those whom it suspected of circulating views that were opposed to its rule. The activities of the Islamic, socioreligious Wahhabi movement, which had turned into armed resistance against the British, became a cause of concern to the government. Consequently, the infamous Section 124A was added to the Indian Penal Code in 1870. It sought to contain “seditious” activities of the Press by criminalising them. According to this section of the penal code, whoever attempted to incite feelings of dissatisfaction with the government established by law in British India was to be punished with transportation for life or for any term or with imprisonment for up to three years. More stringent measures were later added to this. Indian journalists developed various strategies to remain outside the scope of this law. As the law excluded the writings of those whose loyalty to the government was beyond doubt, they began their articles with sentiments of loyalty to the government and the Queen. Another strategy was to publish anti-imperialist items from London-based newspapers, because the journalists knew that the government could not take action only against the Indians (Chandra et al. 1989: 104). During this period, several social reformers carried out strong campaigns in the Press to remove various social evils. Some of them even started their own newspapers, while some existing newspapers took up their own battle for social reform. The advent of the telegraph and improved printing facilities in South Asia after 1850, as well as the development of the railways and the spread of education, contributed in their own ways to the development of the Press in India. The expansion of English education among Indians, which reflected the expansion of the middle class, contributed to this growth of newspapers. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, several institutions were founded in the major towns of India to provide scientific and liberal arts education. There was a rapid increase in the publication of newspapers and pamphlets. The objective of many of the newspapers that were established during the nineteenth century was largely to promote social, political, and religious reform among various sections of Indian society. At the same time, there was also a crucial link between journalism and commercial enterprise. This was reflected in the shipping and commercial information published by newspapers, as well as in the role played by the mercantile community in India in the establishment and development of the Press (Bonea 2016: 161). Jeffrey (2010: 216–17) highlights the elite nature of the “print-elite mode” of communication that emerged during the 1870s, particularly the domination of the English language and the fact that the literacy rate was 5 per cent. This elite, according to him, was largely upper caste, urban, and genteel. The Times of India, established in Bombay in 1838, the Statesman in Calcutta 9

MEDIA BEFORE GANDHI

in 1875, and The Pioneer in Lucknow were committed to British imperial interests, while at the same time they were able to criticise British policies and actions in a responsible manner. Tharoor (2016: 97) argues that, “their views could be taken as broadly representative of the British community in India.” By this point in time, vernacular publications had come to be identified as “potential vehicles of anti-colonial dissent and criticism” (Bonea 2016: 154). Hundreds of newspapers had emerged demanding freedom of expression and criticizing the repressive measures of the princes and the British Empire. They were supported by a few liberal Englishmen settled in the British-Indian provinces and the princely states. This motivated other like-minded people to start journals demanding justice and fair play (see Vilanilam 2005: 61). Tharoor (2016: 98–9) points out that the Press undoubtedly contributed significantly to the development and growth of nationalist feelings in India, inculcated the idea of a broader public consciousness, exposed many of the failings of the colonial administration and played an influential part in fomenting opposition to many aspects of British rule. By 1875, there were about 475 newspapers in India that were largely owned and edited by Indians. Though they catered to the less than 10 per cent of the population who were literate, their influence extended far beyond this as whatever was published was repeated by word of mouth. Nascent library movements and public reading rooms were of help, and newspapers also made their way to rural areas, albeit slowly. The development and growth of the vernacular Press resulted in a more vocal and increasingly critical approach to governmental policies. This contributed to creating strong public opinion that was critical of the imperialist acts of the Viceroy, Lord Lytton. The Press was particularly critical of the government’s approach to the victims of the famine of 1876–77 that had taken a toll of over 6 million lives, as well as the lavish expenditure on the Imperial Durbar at Delhi in January 1877. The British bureaucracy took offence at any criticism and sought drastic measures to curb the Press. In March 1878, Lytton promulgated the Vernacular Press Act, which was designed to “better control” the vernacular Press and to empower the government with more effective means to repress seditious writings. The act provided for the confiscation of printing presses if the government believed that they were publishing seditious materials and had violated any official restrictions. It empowered any magistrate of a district or commissioner of police in a presidency town to call upon a printer or publisher of a newspaper to undertake not to publish certain kinds of material, to demand security, and to forfeit their press, if necessary. Those against whom such action was taken could not approach a court of law (Natarajan 1955: 102–3; Chandra 10

MEDIA BEFORE GANDHI

et al. 1989: 105). The Vernacular Press Act is considered to be one of the factors that led to the awakening of political consciousness that facilitated the emergence of a nationwide freedom movement. It also gave rise to a stronger vernacular Press that was committed to freedom from British rule. Newspapers were now published more as a public service than a business enterprise, and journalists were often political workers. This period also witnessed a shift in focus from social reform to political issues, with the policies of the government being viewed more critically. The Vernacular Press Act was repealed in 1881 by Lord Ripon, who succeeded Lord Lytton as viceroy. This was anticipated as a liberal government under William Gladstone had come to power in England. By the late nineteenth century, the Press was becoming equipped to address issues of social reform as well as the political emancipation of the country.

Alternative modes of communication and persecution of the Press With the establishment of the Indian National Congress in 1885 and the intensified struggle against imperialist power, the essential need to establish stronger alternative means of communication came to be recognised. Chandra (1988: 21–5) argues that the national movement evolved its strategy and tactics in the context of, and in opposition to, the semi-hegemonic and semi-authoritarian, yet civil character of the colonial state. Hence, the battleground had to be one of ideas. The objective was to have the alternative, nationalist ideas and ideology internalised by the masses, who would then demonstrate their changed perspective by participating in the nationalist movement. As Bera (2005: 210, 222–3) points out, two important aspects of the birth of the Indian National Congress in this context were the “institutionalisation of the Press as a political and social instrument, and the sharpening of the disjunct between the nationalist establishments and the Anglo-Indian Press. The nationalist Press provided an alternative space to the nationalist movement.” Of the 72 delegates at the first session of the Indian National Congress, 14 were journalists. Other factors which contributed to the emergence of the Press as a powerful medium for political communication included the development of modern printing technology, which made faster production of non-elite newspapers possible, a changed perception of news as value-added information, and the expansion of the intercontinental and undersea telegraphic networks, which were instrumental in the quicker transmission and exchange of news and information. The rapid expansion of print culture also contributed to the emergence of the pamphlet as a means of political discourse. Low-priced pamphlets as well as books came to be more freely and cheaply available than ever before. The growth of public libraries, creation of dictionaries, and translation between English and Indian languages added to the democratisation 11

MEDIA BEFORE GANDHI

of print. Similarly, vernacular newspapers that had been in circulation since the early nineteenth century took on a new significance, reaching larger numbers of readers and using more colloquial language (Khan 2011: 15). Describing this era of journalism in India, Bonea (2016: flap, 206) points out that news “emerged as the site of many contestations, as imperial politics, capitalist enterprise and individual agency shaped not only access to technologies of communication, but also the content and form of reporting.” Furthermore, the pressures of increasing economic distress, frequent famines, and the exclusion of Indians from the conduct of government all contributed to the growing discontent among the people. In the absence of any constitutional machinery to express Indian opinion regarding the policies of the government, the Press was the only means of voicing the people’s demands and complaints (Chand 1967: 450). Jeffrey (2012: 218) points out that by the early twentieth century a “mass mode” of communication had begun to form. Indian language newspapers (Marathi, Gujarati, and Hindi mainly) and several English language newspapers published by nationalists carried articles by Gopalkrishna Gokhale and Mahadev Govind Ranade, who emphasised the colonial economic exploitation and the problems of the economic system followed by the imperialists. They identified the system as the main cause of widespread poverty, especially in rural areas and among small farmers and agricultural labourers (Vilanilam 2005: 67–8). At the same time, Chand (1967: 461) argues that the Indian Press was the province of the educated middle class who owned, managed, and edited the newspapers. Consequently, this middle class acquired influence over the whole country and began to claim to represent all of India, a claim that the rulers strongly resented. This only led to a change in the disposition of the Press and more emphatic demands for independence from British rule. Bal Gandhadhar Tilak, the Indian nationalist and freedom fighter, was a strong advocate of freedom of the Press. Together with his associates, he started the newspapers Kesari in Marathi and Mahratta in English in January 1881, which discussed national and international political and economic issues. Surendranath Banerji’s Bengalee and Motilal Ghosh’s Amrita Bazar Patrika were other newspapers that contributed nationalistic ideas to the country. In 1897, Tilak was arrested and sentenced to 18 months’ rigorous imprisonment for promoting disaffection against the British government through Kesari. This led to widespread protests all over the country, with nationalist newspapers and political associations organising movements against the violation of civil liberty and freedom of the Press. Many newspapers were published with black borders on the front page. In 1898, Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code was amended and a new Section – 153A – was added, making it a criminal offence to “bring into contempt” the Government of India or to create hatred among different classes (i.e. vis-à-vis Englishmen in India). This again led to nationwide protests. The swadeshi 12

MEDIA BEFORE GANDHI

movement and boycott of foreign goods, which began in 1903, were aimed at using economic strategies to attack the British Empire and were met with fierce repression. Consequent incidences of violence led to further repression and persecution of the Indian Press, with new laws to control the Press being enacted and a large number of newspaper editors being prosecuted (Chandra et al. 1989: 110–11). The freedom of the Press was strongly defended by the nationalist movement, and the struggle for freedom of the Press became an integral part of the struggle for independence. The government warned newspapers against publishing seditious matter and authorised local governments to initiate prosecutions for sedition. The Newspapers (Incitement to Offences) Act, 1908, empowered a district magistrate to confiscate any printing press that published newspapers containing any incitement to violence. Despite the stringent provisions of the act, the government contended that it was not sufficient to prevent the dissemination of seditious literature through the Press. Consequently, the Indian Press Act of 1910 was passed which clamped further controls on newspapers. This act revived the worst features of Lytton’s Press Act of 1878. It required the owners of printing presses to deposit a security of anywhere from Rs. 500/to Rs. 2000/-, which was forfeited if “objectionable matters” were printed. The right to seize printing presses and confiscate copies sent by post were also included in the act. Consequently, there was little scope for criticism of government actions in the Press. The vernacular Press suffered rigorous suppression during this period (1910–1914). The government banned 50 publications in English and 272 in the vernacular. This included 114 in Marathi, 52 in Urdu, and 51 in Bengali (Kumar 2013: 81). The act was not repealed until 1921. By the early twentieth century, the Press in India, especially the vernacular newspapers, had emerged at the forefront of the national movement in arousing the political consciousness of the people. Chandra et al. (1989: 103) point out that the influence of the Press during this period extended far beyond its literate subscribers in cities and towns. Newspapers also reached remote villages and would then be read aloud to many others. Local “libraries,” with a table and a bench or two, were soon organised around a single newspaper. News and editorials were read, heard, and discussed, constituting a form of political participation. The spurt of growth in newspapers, especially vernacular language papers, posed a challenge to the colonial powers as their tone and actions were different from what the rulers had been accustomed to. As Bonea (2016: 206) points out, news in colonial South Asia was a field where power relations were constantly being played out. Attempts to regulate, control, and shape the circulation and content of intelligence were, in effect, exercises in defining news and advancing visions of journalism that were subservient to imperialist interests. 13

MEDIA BEFORE GANDHI

Origins of the Press in South Africa: mission stations and colonial powers South Africa as a political entity did not exist at this point of time, but consisted of four provinces – Natal, the Cape Province, Transvaal, and Orange Free State. The ruling Whites were the British and the Dutch settlers or Boers. While the British controlled Natal and the Cape, the Boers ruled the Transvaal and Orange Free State. Each of these colonies was independently administered. The discovery of gold and diamonds in the latter half of the nineteenth century led to increased conflicts over these resources between the Europeans and the indigenous population, as well as between the Boers and the British. It was only after the Boer War (1899–1902) between the British and the Boers that the whole of South Africa became part of the British Empire. Racism in South Africa was sanctioned by the government, with laws discriminating on the grounds of colour and dark-skinned people being denied basic rights. Discriminatory practices included the need for work permits, not being permitted to live in areas of White residence, restrictions on public conveyances, restrictions from using public spaces such as parks, sidewalks, hotels, and shops, restrictions on travelling from one colony to another without a permit, etc. The history of the Press in South Africa reflected these circumstances. It was essentially marked by political interference and racial bias, as well as the colonial struggle between the British and the Dutch. According to Switzer and Switzer (1979: vii), the South African Press was a sectional Press throughout its history, with race rather than language, religion, or culture being the dominant feature of the sectionalism. The different strands of Press systems that can be identified during this period are the British, Boer, and Black African. Up to the second half of the nineteenth century, the South African Press was largely controlled by the European colonists, particularly the British. As was the case with India, the Dutch, who first settled in the region, did not encourage the establishment of a free Press. The first printing press arrived in 1799 and was used to fulfil the need to print government orders. The first English language newspaper to be established in South Africa was the Cape Gazette in 1800, which later became the Government Gazette. However, it was largely restricted to publishing government documents. The British leaders, according to Marshall (2017: 43), sought to mobilise public support for the Empire during the early South African campaign and attempted to cultivate “a unified, patriotic domestic population” by urging English newspapermen “to dispense jingoistic print.” After the British takeover of the Cape from the Dutch in 1806, a libertarian press was introduced in the Cape. Tomaselli (2002: 112–13) explains that the libertarian ethos that was introduced “continued to be influential, despite countervailing positions. The tradition was generally identified on the grounds of its opposition to political control of journalism and media.”

14

MEDIA BEFORE GANDHI

It was in 1822 that the Dutch poet Thomas Pringle, who had emigrated to Cape Town in 1819, helped found the newspaper South African Journal together with Dr. Abraham Fourie, a clergyman. Pringle and John Fairburn, a writer and journalist, began the South African Commercial Advertiser in 1824, which is sometimes considered to be the first truly independent newspaper in South Africa. Together they were considered to be the early promoters of freedom of the Press in the colony (Brantlinger 2008). Chronicling the history of the Black Press in South Africa, Switzer and Switzer (1979: 1–2) write that it can be viewed in different phases, with the first phase consisting of religious publications initiated by Christian missionaries in the Cape Province around the 1830s. By “Black Press,” Switzer and Switzer are alluding to serial newspapers and magazines intended for an African, Indian, or Coloured audience, not based on ownership or editorship. Missionaries set up their own presses for the purpose of evangelism, with the first mission press being set up in Transkei, which was later known as Lovedale. A second press was established near Durban in 1887 (Kantey 1990: vii). The printed matter produced by missionaries during this period focused on devotional and evangelical matters of interest to Christian converts living near mission stations. The first recorded publication in the series was a set of religious tracts in Tswana produced by the London Missionary Society. Mission schools created literate communities on mission stations and outstations, and mission presses gradually began producing literature in the vernacular especially after 1850. Printing presses were set up, for example, by the three major missionary societies – Anglican, Methodist, and Presbyterian – working among the Xhosa in the Eastern Cape. The Anglicans tried to establish presses wherever there were stations in the 1860s and 1870s. However, by the late 1870s most of these presses were no longer in operation. The Methodists operated a press at Grahamstown in 1833 but had ceased their printing operations by the late 1870s. A permanent printing press was established by the Presbyterians in Lovedale in 1861. Under James Stewart and William Govan, the Lovedale Mission Press concentrated on religious and educational publications and dictionaries. Lovedale was considered to be “an early innovator as far as the Black Press was concerned” (Switzer and Switzer 1979: 1–2). The first authenticated serial publications were produced by Methodist and Presbyterian missionaries working among the Xhosa in the Eastern Cape. Umshumayeli Wendaba (Publisher of the News), a Xhosa-language newspaper published between July 1837 and April 1841, is generally regarded as the first serial publication aimed at a black audience in Southern Africa. It was published as an irregular quarterly by the Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society first at Grahamstown and later at Peddie in the Eastern Cape. Four

15

MEDIA BEFORE GANDHI

journals were produced by the missionaries in this region between 1837 and 1850, until the frontier wars brought a temporary halt to these efforts. Twelve years later another serial publication was launched by the Glasgow Missionary Society, a Presbyterian mission, at Lovedale, which was also in the Eastern Cape. Indaba (August 1862–February 1865) was probably the first newspaper to be published in English as well as a vernacular language, establishing a trend that would characterise a major portion of the Black Press within little more than a generation. (Switzer and Switzer 1979: 1) Although the publications of the Mission Stations were not really independent, they played an important role in educating the rural population as they were often in the local language. They mainly provided the missionaries with the means to communicate on important issues, although they did sometimes serve as voices of resistance to local governments and legislation. However, most of these publications lasted only for a couple of years (Touwen 2011). Not all the newspapers of the period, however, were confined to religious matters. Some, like South African Outlook (founded in October 1870) and Leselinyana la Lesotho (founded in November 1863), were largely chronicles of African life in these countries. Both of these newspapers had multiracial readerships. South African Outlook was earlier titled The Kaffir Express and The Christian Express (Switzer and Switzer 1979: 1). The first independent newspaper was The Herald, established in Port Elizabeth in 1845. The Cape Times, another independent newspaper was established in Cape Town in 1876. Ten years later The Eastern Star was founded in Grahamstown; it was later moved to Johannesburg in 1889 to become The Star (Touwen 2011). In 1876, the Boers began publishing their own newspaper called Die Patriot. As Marshall (2017: 43–4) points out, while the roots of the popular Press in South Africa emerged in the 1840s in the form of Sunday papers, it was not until the end of the century, with increased domestic literacy rates and the government declaration of its support for “a less elite, independent English media that catered to mass consumption,” that such publications began to flourish. Compulsory mass education as facilitated by the Forster Act, 1870 played an instrumental role in this process. The restrictive stamp taxes that were imposed on British newspapers were removed, resulting in a reduction in prices and an expansion of the Press. There was an intimate relationship between the Press and government, with the Press being a conduit to convey the views of political leaders. However, this relationship began to shift by the late nineteenth century, with an increasingly literate population rejecting government propaganda. By the 1880s it had become cheaper and more efficient to allow commercial printing companies in South Africa and overseas to produce the 16

MEDIA BEFORE GANDHI

necessary books, pamphlets, and serial publications in the vernacular (Switzer and Switzer 1979: 2). By the mid-nineteenth century, many journals and newspapers were being published in Southern Africa which catered to women, missionaries, the Dutch community, and Jews, as well as newly emergent Black readers. Because Cape Town was a transit point between Britain and India, there was much interchange in the Southern African Press between British, South African, and Indian perceptions (Brantlinger 2008). It has been pointed out that during this time the White-dominated South African Press tended to malign the Indian community, with their headlines, reportage, and editorials displaying a deep hatred of the community. This was particularly evident in the letters to the editor section, which included rhyming parodies or letters mocking the Indians (Desai 2009a: 197).

Emergence of an independent, Black-owned Press It was in the late nineteenth century that an independent, Black-owned Press emerged. It gradually overshadowed the missionary Press, which was considered to favour European imperialism and colonialism. South Africa’s resistance Press emerged to rise against European imperialism, colonialism, and the missionary Press (History of Resistance and the Black Press 2017). This was largely active in the Cape, where Coloured and African males had been granted voting rights in 1872. The Cape at that time was a fertile ground for new ideas and activism by young, African elites, who had received higher education in Britain and the United States or at renowned colleges in the Cape. In the context of surging Afrikaner nationalism in the last decades of the nineteenth century, African voters, encouraged by the mission-educated Black elite and liberal Whites, started to register in large numbers beginning in 1880. As White voters outnumbered the Black voters by manyfold, Black leaders sought to reach out to the community to educate people and encourage them to register. A major driving force behind this were a few leaders who were part of the New African Movement, many of whom were also the first Black editors and journalists to establish independent newspapers in the Cape (Touwen 2011). The first African newspaper edited by Africans in South Africa was Isigidimi Sama Xhosa (the Xhosa Messenger), which was founded in 1876 by a missionary Rev. Dr. James Stewart. African grievances were rarely displayed in it, although editorials or letters to the editor did contain some muted criticism of the missionaries. Switzer and Switzer (1979: 3) point out that under the editorship of John Tengo Jabavu (1881–84) and William Wellington Gqoba (1884–88), an emphasis on news of general interest to an African audience, including political news and opinion, became evident. In 1884, Jabavu resigned from Isigidimi Sama Xhosa and started the first Black-owned and -controlled newspaper which was independent of missionary or other influences – Imvo Zabantsundu (African/Native Opinion) 17

MEDIA BEFORE GANDHI

in King William’s Town (History of Resistance and the Black Press 2017). This marked another milestone in the history of the Press in South Africa. Imvo was a community newspaper in which most articles were written in Isi Xhosa. It mainly sought to articulate and unify the interests and needs of the Christian African mission-educated elite. Imvo’s writers and readers formed a very small section of the African population, and according to reports its circulation probably did not rise above 4,000 before 1910. While subeditors were responsible for the Xhosa columns, Jabavu concentrated on the English section, particularly the editorial page, which focused on topics of political concern to African readers. White liberals of the Cape Parliament who were considered to be “friends of the natives” and sought to cultivate African voters helped fund the paper. Imvo soon became the most influential organ of African opinion in Cape Colony. This pattern was repeated elsewhere. Gradually, more Black-owned newspapers which strongly opposed imperialism and colonialism came to be established. In Natal, John Langalibalele Dube of the American Board Mission started the English/Zulu weekly Ilanga lase Natal in April 1903. In the Northern Cape, Silas Molema and Solomon Tshekisho Plaatje began publishing Koranta ea Becoana in April 1901, which was one of the first of several English/Tswana weeklies. The first African, Coloured, and Indian political parties and pressure groups were also formed during this period. These organisations began their own publications, which not only provided a vent for aspirations, but also showcased Black literary and educational talents (Switzer 1997: 59–60; Switzer and Switzer 1979: 4–7). The independent Black Press that emerged posed a challenge to the missionary and colonial Press. Nevertheless, the Black Press thrived on extremely fragile foundations during this period. Black journalists were denied access to conventional news sources and harassed even in their search for “black” news in an increasingly hostile urban environment. Deprived of opportunities to accumulate capital legally or of the right to own land, Black Press entrepreneurs lacked newsprint, equipment, buildings, skilled tradesmen and distribution agents. The purchasing power of black readers was low and black newspapers could not attract “white” advertising even with relatively high circulations. Illiteracy accompanied by the rural and regional disposition of a largely ethnicoriented audience was restricting the growth of the Black Press. (Switzer and Switzer 1979: 6) In 1898, P. S. Aiyar, a journalist from Madras, declared that he would bring out a weekly newspaper called India World. This failed to reach the stage of publication, and in 1901 Aiyar started publishing the Colonial Indian News, a weekly in English and Tamil which continued to exist until 1904. It was in 1903 that Mahatma Gandhi started Indian Opinion (Desai 2009a: 374).

18

MEDIA BEFORE GANDHI

International news agencies Global media came into existence long after the emergence of local and national media and tended to reflect the patterns of the overall political economy. According to Herman and McChesney (1998: 11–12), in most Western nations, the Press was initially explicitly political and was regulated and subsidised by the state or political parties. With the development of capitalism and the realisation of the profitability of commercial publication, newspapers tended to be controlled by business and operated according to commercial principles. Emerging as small enterprises in competitive markets, commercial media gradually evolved into large enterprises operating in monopolistic or oligopolistic markets. Competitive pressure often pushed these firms into new media and other industries and eventually towards international expansion. The emergence of telegraph and underwater cables in the mid-nineteenth century facilitated this process. Wire-based, international news agencies were the first significant form of global media. The French Havas, German Wolff, and British Reuter (which later came to be known as Reuters) were commercial news agencies established in the nineteenth century as domestic enterprises, but with a particular interest in foreign news. They produced news which they then sold to newspaper publishers. The three established the “Ring Combination” in the 1850s, a cartel that divided the entire world market for news production and distribution among themselves. Journals that did not have their own foreign correspondents could now provide important news. Bera (2005: 223–6) points out that by their very nature, news agencies made a tremendous impact on journalism and emerged as the most powerful instrument of colonial interference. The news agencies, which expanded their business, were all from powerful countries that were primarily colonial powers. These countries, particularly Britain as the biggest colonial power, dominated and controlled the means of cross-border communications. Britain owned or had an interest in 80 per cent of all submarine cables before the First World War. This helped Reuter to expand throughout the British Empire. Reuter was established in 1851 and entered the Indian market in 1866, setting up branches throughout the Indian subcontinent. The expansion of the telegraph network in various parts of India further helped Reuter consolidate its operations in major centres. Thomas (2019: 116) points out that the British used the telegraph, as well as the cable and wireless, “as the communication means to maintain and administer the economics and politics of the Empire and reinforce the advantages of being the world’s premier superpower.” In 1870, the existing international news agencies agreed to promote the exchange of worldwide news by dividing the world into zones for the collection and distribution of news. The British colonies were allotted to Reuter. News of national and international interest thus began to make its way into local newspapers in all the major cities of countries connected to the

19

MEDIA BEFORE GANDHI

telegraph. Professional news-gathering, production, and distribution began to dominate the print media with the emerging media scenario becoming part of a globalising media market (Mann 2017: 1–13). As Bera (2005: 224–7) elaborates, Reuter enjoyed a monopoly over both domestic and foreign news flow in the British colonies. There was no competition from other international agencies, nor was there any independent domestic news agency with which to compete. Newspapers in the colonies were totally dependent on Reuter for international news. Reuter in turn received much official patronage. In India, as in other British colonies, a special relationship was developed between the colonial government and Reuter to serve their mutual interests. Reuter was helped, patronised, and even subsidised by the colonial administrations in various ways. It was only during the last decade of the nineteenth century that nationalist establishments in India began to contest Reuter’s apparent neutrality, but they did not have any alternative. On the contrary, the British Committee of the Indian National Congress made an arrangement with Reuter in 1891 to disseminate congressional reports to England and the outside world. However, Reuter was subject to strong official influence both in London and in Delhi, and by the early 1920s, it was well under official control. The Associated Press of India, which was formed in 1908 by representatives of Anglo-Indian papers, was later taken over by Reuter. Thus, Reuter also became the major domestic news agency in India. The situation was the same in other British colonies, including South Africa. With the discovery of gold and diamonds, Reuter expanded its establishments in South Africa. As in India, it entered into agreements with the governments in South Africa to subscribe to its service. In the absence of alternative channels of news circulation, Reuter further contributed to the consolidation of White hegemony over news and information dissemination in South Africa, despite the existence of tensions between the Boer- and the British-controlled newspapers. The history of communications in India as well as South Africa can therefore be seen as a history of the colonial state to regulate and control the media and the struggle to create alternative modes of communications. It was during this period of history that Mahatma Gandhi entered the world of mass communication.

20

2 THE MAHATMA, THE MEDIUM, AND THE MESSAGE

Every communicator is to a certain extent influenced by his or her family, education, and the socioeconomic, cultural, and political environment of the time, as well as the technological stage in which his or her country is placed. Much has been written on the various influences on Mahatma Gandhi, including inter alia the deeply religious environment of his home, his experiences in London and South Africa, and a large number of writers and thinkers. It is of course a debatable question as to how much of an influence each of these had on him. On various occasions, Gandhi acknowledged the influence of the numerous books and papers that he had read, not only on his way of thinking and speaking but also on his style of writing, which is a major concern of this book. Gandhi was an avid reader especially when he was in London. He read extensively not only on law, which was his field of study, but also on Western as well as Indian philosophy and politics and an array of other subjects of interest to him. He often quoted the books that he read in his speeches and writings. In his autobiography, Gandhi (1927: 84) writes: “Three moderns have left a deep impress on my life, and captivated me: Raychandbhai by his living contact; Tolstoy by his book, The Kingdom of God is Within You; and Ruskin by his Unto this Last.” Gandhi also confessed that Unto this Last “brought about an instantaneous and practical transformation” in his life (1927: 276). He later recalled in 1942 (CW 76: 358) that it transformed him overnight from a lawyer and city-dweller into a mystic living on a farm three miles away from the nearest railway station. Similarly, Tolstoy’s The Kingdom of God is Within You removed any lack of faith in non-violence. It left such a strong impression on him that he made the book mandatory reading in the Phoenix settlement. He admitted that he learnt the basic principles of non-violence from Tolstoy. Of the 20 books that he recommended for further reading in Hind Swaraj, which he wrote in 1909, the first six were by Tolstoy (see Gandhi 1939: 91). As Mathai (2009: 5) points out, the list of books suggested by him reveals the fact that he was familiar with the prevailing trends in contemporary sociopolitical and cultural discourses. The themes that they covered ranged from vegetarianism to art, literature, ethics, and jurisprudence. 21

T H E M A H AT M A , T H E M E D I U M , A N D T H E M E S S AG E

During the years 1922–23 when Gandhi was in Yervada jail in Poona, he read over 150 books on religion, literature, and the social and natural sciences. Besides reading the Mahabharatha and English translations of Manusmrithi and Upanishads, he read extensively on the Bhagvad Gita, Buddhism, Sikhism, Islam, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism (Tendulkar 2016b: 111). During his visit to London for the Second Round Table Conference, he interacted with several writers and intellectuals, including George Bernard Shaw, Harold Laski, Lloyd George, J. Krishnamurti, Sir Charles Trevelyan, Francis Yeats-Brown, Sir Evelyn Wrench, editor of The Spectator, Randolph Churchill, H. W. Braillsford, Clare Sheridon, Shaw Desmond, Charlie Chaplin, and others (Bhattacharya 1969: 154). The influence of many of these writers and intellectuals is evident in his philosophy as well as his writings.

The message Although there is no dearth of available material written by Gandhi, understanding his philosophy is not easy given the fact that his entire life was one of transformation. Gandhi wrote the following in Harijan under the title “Inconsistencies” (29 April 1933, CW 55: 61): I would like to say to the diligent reader of my writings and to others who are interested in them that I am not at all concerned with appearing to be consistent. In my search after Truth I have discarded many ideas and learnt many new things. Old as I am in age, I have no feeling that I have ceased to grow inwardly or that my growth will stop at the dissolution of the flesh. What I am concerned with is my readiness to obey the call of Truth, my God, from moment to moment, and therefore, when anybody finds any inconsistency between any two writings of mine, if he has still faith in my sanity, he would do well to choose the later of the two on the same subject. Gandhi considered his message to be far superior to himself. It was also “superior to the vehicle through which it is expressed. It has a power all its own, and I hope it will produce an impression on the youth of India” (Young India, 24 March 1927, CW 33: 144). A brief discussion on Gandhi’s message that has a bearing on the thrust of this volume would be appropriate to provide a contextual background to the study. The quest for truth (satya) was the underlying principle of Gandhi’s life and philosophy. He emphasised the point that truth is God and that nonviolence serves the truth. He considered truth to be God as “mere mechanical adherence to truth and ahimsa is likely to break down at the critical moment” (Harijan, 20 July 1947, CW 88: 324). To him truth was not merely about abstaining from falsehood; it should rule one’s life regardless of its consequences. A votary of truth should be able to achieve a harmony of 22

T H E M A H AT M A , T H E M E D I U M , A N D T H E M E S S AG E

thought, word, and deed. Truth needs to be discovered and acted upon. On finding the truth, it is the duty of the individual to make it known and put it into effect. This could be made possible through ahimsa (non-violence) and satyagraha (“truth force” in contrast to “physical force”). He considered every evil action to be the result of the failure to see things as they really are. Gandhi had a dualistic concept of truth, distinguishing between absolute truth and relative truth. As the mind works through various media and the evolution of thought varies from person to person, what may be truth for one may be untruth for another (Iyer 2000: 154–68). To him, “the golden rule of conduct . . . is mutual toleration seeing that we will never all think alike and that we shall always see Truth in fragment and from different angles of vision” (Young India, 23 September 1926, CW 31: 442). He attempted to look at both sides of any issue based on the notion that there was some truth in the position of each side. Gandhi pointed out that conflict arises when people raise their limited perceptions of truth to absolute levels and try to impose them on others. Denial of justice was another main cause of conflict according to Gandhi. However, rather than viewing conflicts negatively, he looked upon them as opportunities to work toward transforming sociopolitical relations. Gandhi’s approach to conflict was both systematic and graded, with the first step being to identify and expose the conflict. Conflicts may not always be visible; they may be concealed in systems and structures. Systemic or structural conflicts were particularly invisible to most people, even to the victims themselves. Hence, it was essential to verify the nature and causes of injustice involved and locate them in the existing sociopolitical system or structure. Conflict transformation, for Gandhi, therefore included processes of fighting and removing injustice. He considered all forms of injustice – exploitation, discrimination, segregation, domination – as violence. At the same time, he insisted on the inseparable connection between means and ends. Hence, in order to remove injustice and establish justice, the means one employs becomes crucial (Mathai 2013: 61). According to Gandhi, “the means may be likened to a seed, the end to a tree and there is just the same inviolable connection between the means and the end, as there is between the seed and the tree” (Gandhi 1939: 62). He felt that the means would affect the ends and that only just, non-violent means would lead to a just and harmonious society. Gandhi thus linked truth with non-violence as a method of engaging with conflict. To Gandhi, non-violence meant far more than what was implied by the term in English. It meant more than not doing physical harm to an opponent. He wrote, Literally ahimsa means non-killing. But to me it has a world of meaning. . . . Ahimsa really means that you may not offend anybody, you may not harbor an uncharitable thought even in connection with one who may consider himself to be your enemy. . . . If we 23

T H E M A H AT M A , T H E M E D I U M , A N D T H E M E S S AG E

return blow for blow, we depart from the doctrine of ahimsa. But I go further. If we resent a friend’s action or the so-called enemy’s action, we will still fall short of this doctrine. But when I say we should not resent, I do not say that we should acquiesce. (Gandhi 1955: 78–9) He further points out that ahimsa does not mean helping the evil-doer to continue the wrong or tolerating it by passive acquiescence – on the contrary, love, the active state of ahimsa requires you to resist the wrong-doer by dissociating yourself from him even though it may offend him or injure him physically. (Young India, 25 August 1920, CW 18: 195) Nanda (2004: 247) argues that while ahimsa had been part of the Indian religious tradition for centuries, it was Gandhi who transformed what had been an individual ethic into a tool of social and political action. Gandhi felt that while violence against people or property only blurred the real issues in the conflict, non-violent, non-coercive action could bring the parties to a dialogue. He believed that non-violence was the only way to resolve any kind of conflict, be it the smallest in his ashram to that of the conflict with the Empire. Non-violence safeguarded the integrity of all those involved in the conflict and brought about genuine transformation in relationships. It was also the only way towards a lasting resolution of conflicts (Brown 2011: 55–6). Parekh (2005: 65–6) points out that Gandhi appreciated the fact that people sometimes resorted to violence out of frustration or the belief that there was no other way to fight entrenched injustice. Consequently, while he totally opposed violence as a deliberate method of social change, he was prepared to condone “spontaneous violence under unbearable conditions or grave provocation.” He also felt that non-violence was not merely a personal virtue but also a social virtue to be cultivated like other virtues and called for the “extension of it on a larger, national and international scale” (Harijan, 7 January 1939, CW 68: 276). Gandhi did not see humankind in terms of binaries of good and bad. He saw human beings and their deeds as two distinct factors. He also differentiated between individuals and institutions and warned that irrespective of the nature of the deed, the doer of the deed “always deserves respect or pity as the case may be. ‘Hate the sin and not the sinner’” (Gandhi 1927: 254). While he opposed the British Empire, he did not bear any hatred towards the British people, many of whom became his closest friends. He identified adversaries and knew whom to fight against, but he also saw them as victims and, hence, as potential partners in a common emancipatory struggle. The enemy was not to be an eternal enemy but a potential friend (see Parekh 24

T H E M A H AT M A , T H E M E D I U M , A N D T H E M E S S AG E

2005: 116; Nanda 2004: 141) He sought to focus on principles rather than persons in any conflict. The underlying principle of Gandhi’s engagement with an opponent in any conflict was not only to keep the channels of communication open but also to avoid intimidation and to remove all obstacles to dialogue (Gonsalves 2010: 15). Norwegian sociologist and pioneer of peace research, Johan Galtung (1992: 93–6), points out that there is an integral link between Gandhi’s philosophy and his actions. One can discern a layer of norms, commands, and moral injunctions between the general philosophical background that Gandhi stood for and his concrete actions. Galtung identifies Gandhi’s writings in terms of a set of norms and subnorms relating to conflict in general, conflict struggle, and conflict resolution. He lists the following actions to take when conflict occurs: Define the conflict well, have a positive approach to it, act non-violently, act in a goal-consistent manner, avoid cooperating with evil, be willing to sacrifice, avoid polarisation or escalation, solve the conflict, insist on the essentials and not the non-essentials, see oneself as fallible, be generous in one’s view of the opponent, and seek conversion rather than coercion. Gandhi felt that conflict could be resolved and transformed if the parties concerned accepted the truth of the situation. In a conflict situation which involves questions of justice, it is extremely difficult to convince the perpetrators of injustice that they really do so. More difficult would it be to change them. However, this hard goal has to be achieved. So the question of what would be the most effective means to achieve the goal of convincing the adversary/opponent and converting him by making him realise the truth of the situation was central to Gandhi. (Mathai 2013: 63) Gandhi felt that although rational discussion was desirable in principle, in actual practice it had its limitations. According to him, “To men steeped in prejudice, an appeal to reason is worse than useless. We can only hope that what reason may not accomplish will be accomplished by the great healer, Time” (Indian Opinion, 13 August 1904, CW 4: 237). He also felt that both rational discussion and violence were inadequate to fight injustice. On the other hand, he asserted that, “if you want something really important to be done, you must not merely satisfy the reason, you must move the heart also” (Young India, 5 November 1931, CW 48: 189). A new method was needed that would appeal to both the head and the heart and also create a climate conducive to a peaceful resolution of conflict to be conducted in a spirit of mutual goodwill. Thus emerged his method of satyagraha (see Parekh 2005: 64–8). Satyagraha, the word coined during the early stages of Gandhi’s resistance movement in South Africa, was the Gandhian technique for transforming 25

T H E M A H AT M A , T H E M E D I U M , A N D T H E M E S S AG E

conflict. Gandhi explained that satyagraha is “literally holding on to Truth and it means, therefore, Truth-force. Truth is soul or spirit. It is, therefore, known as soul-force” (Young India, 23 March 1921, CW 19: 466). Satyagraha, according to Gandhi, was a relentless search for truth and a determination to reach it through non-violence. It was active love that was expressed through various methods and by cheerfully accepting suffering or punishment meted out by one’s adversary (Desai 1999: 65). Nirmal Kumar Bose (1972: 85), an anthropologist and close associate of Gandhi, argues that this Gandhian method was a continuation of a tradition of Indian civilisation. But Gandhi extended its application from the “exclusively religious to secular spheres of life” and converted it from a “private and personal instrument into a large scale collective enterprise for the people of India.” Joan Bondurant (1965: vi–vii), in her incisive analysis of Gandhi’s philosophy of conflict, describes satyagraha as a method of conflict in the exercise of which a man could come to know what he is and what it means to evolve. In satyagraha, dogma gives way to open exploration of context. The objective is not to assert propositions, but to create possibilities. In opening up new choices and in confronting an opponent with the demand that he make a choice the satyagrahi involves himself in acts of “ethical existence.” The process forces a continuing examination of one’s own motives, an examination undertaken within the context of relationships as they are changed toward a new, restructured, and reintegrated pattern. In essence, satyagraha means the discovery of truth and, in the process, conversion of the adversary into a friend. Gandhi felt that while the technique of satyagraha was essentially based on an individual attitude towards life, it “is a power which can be wielded equally by all – children, young men and women or grown-up people – provided they have a living faith in the God of love and have therefore equal love for all mankind” (Harijan, 5 September 1936, CW 63: 260). The aim of the Gandhian approach to satyagraha was to satisfy all parties to a conflict that their positions had been honoured. It was a relentless search for truth, with the satyagrahi’s objective being to convert rather than coerce the wrongdoer. In fact, it aimed to liberate both the exploiter and the exploited from exploitative structures. Conflict resolution for Gandhi was not restricted to merely resolving disputes and disagreements but also to reestablishing healthy relationships that had been ruptured in conflict (Mathai 2013: 64). Gandhi explained to a friend, Non-violent non-co-operation did not mean mechanical isolation or complete avoidance of contact with the opponent under all conditions. . . . Although non-co-operation is one of the main 26

T H E M A H AT M A , T H E M E D I U M , A N D T H E M E S S AG E

weapons in the armoury of satyagraha, it should not be forgotten that it is after all only a means to secure the co-operation of the opponent consistently with truth and justice. The essence of nonviolence technique is that it seeks to liquidate antagonisms but not the antagonists themselves. . . . Avoidance of all relationship with the opposing power, therefore, can never be a satyagrahi’s object, but transformation or purification of that relationship. (see Harijan, 29 April 1939, CW 69: 40–1) In South Africa, Gandhi’s parting gift to General Smuts, one of his adversaries, was a pair of sandals which he himself had stitched. Despite his conflict with the Empire, he made sure to keep open the lines of communication with all viceroys. As the enemy was not regarded as an eternal enemy, but a potential friend, it was the duty of the satyagrahi to reason with the adversary, to try to dispel his prejudices, to disarm his suspicions, to appeal to his dormant sense of humanity and justice, and eventually to try to prick his conscience by inviting suffering at his hands. (Nanda 2004: 141) Guha (2018: 569) succinctly states, “by suffering oneself and drawing attention to that suffering, a protestor could open up a channel of communication with his or her adversaries.” Gandhi argues that one is better able to approach the truth when one loves rather than hates, when one forgives rather than seeks revenge, when one is guided by rational discourse rather than passion, and when one confronts injustice rather than accepting injustice for the sake of order on the surface (Terchek 2011: 118). For Gandhi, with satyagraha there would ultimately be only victory for all. There would not be any losers or enemies. He felt that “three fourths of the miseries and misunderstandings in the world will disappear, if we step into the shoes of our adversaries and understand their standpoint. We will then agree with our adversaries quickly or think of them charitably” (Young India, 19 March 1925, and The Hindu, 14 March 1925, CW 26: 271). Gandhi’s satyagraha had several forms. During the nationalist movement in India, non-cooperation and civil disobedience were the most frequently used methods of campaign besides submitting memoranda to the authorities. Non-cooperation, consisting of hartals strikes, boycotts, and fasts unto death, was a mechanism for indirect pressure on the opponent. On the other hand, civil disobedience, consisting of picketing and non-payment of taxes due to deficiencies of specific laws, was a positive step to confront the ruling authority face to face (Chakrabarty 2007: 203). There were two dimensions in the role of satyagraha – to resolve interpersonal as well as structural conflicts. Transformation of human relations was given importance in 27

T H E M A H AT M A , T H E M E D I U M , A N D T H E M E S S AG E

interpersonal conflicts, while basic structural changes were sought in larger sociopolitical struggles. Satyagraha as non-violent direct action is action that is directed at the injustice and evil embedded in a situation. Satyagraha recognised that human behaviour was, to a considerable extent, determined by the existing socio-political systems and structures. Hence, transformation of these systems was integral to satyagraha (Mathai 2013: 64–5). In his study on the state of the field of conflict resolution, Moolakkattu (2013: 33) points out that it would not be incorrect to say that the shift from “conflict resolution” to “conflict transformation” reflects a Gandhian understanding of expressing and resolving conflicts within a relational world view. Gandhi felt that ahimsa or non-violence was a precondition for realising the truth of satyagraha. There is no threat, coercion, or punishment. The person offering the satyagraha instead undergoes self-suffering with the optimistic belief that the opponent can be converted to see the truth of the satyagrahi’s claim by touching the opponent’s conscience or that a clearer vision of truth will grow out of the dialectical process for both parties. “While satyagrahis try to convert, they must themselves also remain open to persuasion. . . . If the attempts at conversion through such measures fail, the methods of non-cooperation or civil disobedience may be brought into play” (Weber 1991: 35–41). Throughout any satyagraha, the channels of communication with the opponent were kept open and intermediaries were encouraged (Parekh 2005: 70). The objective of the satyagrahi was not to coerce the wrongdoer but to convert him. Notably, there were no enemies for a satyagrahi, only opponents or adversaries. Juergensmeyer (2002: 63–4) lists a set of rules to implement Gandhi’s approach to conflict resolution. They include avoiding confrontation, staying open to communication and self-criticism, finding a resolution and holding fast to it, regarding one’s opponent as a potential ally, making one’s tactics consistent with the goal, being flexible, being temperate, being proportionate, being disciplined, and knowing when to quit. Gandhi felt that the role of satyagraha was of immense importance in the formation of public opinion. He wrote in Young India (8 August 1929, CW 41: 204) that “an awakened and intelligent public opinion is the most potent weapon of a satyagrahi.” He further added in the same article that, “although satyagraha can operate silently, it requires a certain amount of action on the part of a satyagrahi,” who “must first mobilise public opinion against the evil which he is out to eradicate, by means of a wide and intensive agitation. When public opinion is sufficiently roused against a social abuse even the tallest will not dare to practise or openly to lend support to it.” He elaborated that while a satyagrahi’s appeal has been to the reason of the orthodox, experience has shown that mere appeal to the reason produces no effect upon those who have settled convictions. The eyes of their understanding are opened not by argument but by the suffering of the satya28

T H E M A H AT M A , T H E M E D I U M , A N D T H E M E S S AG E

grahi. The satyagrahi strives to reach the reason through the heart. The method of reaching the heart is to awaken public opinion. Public opinion for which one cares is a mightier force than that of gunpowder. (Young India, 19 March 1925, CW 26: 327) Significantly, in his preface to the second edition of the Green Pamphlet (CW 2: 93), Gandhi wrote, “publicity is perhaps the chief remedy for the grievances and the pamphlet is one of the means to that end.” In a letter to The Times of India (17 October 1896, CW 2: 65), Gandhi stated that “publicity is our best and perhaps the only weapon of defence.” Gandhi was able to involve more people in the national movement because of the wide acceptance that he was able to garner for his model of conflict transformation. Brown (2011: 60–1) points out that Gandhi’s method of satyagraha was not an elite, educated enterprise as earlier politics had been. Thousands more people were involved in the political process, which put pressure on the colonial regime. Gandhi involved people of diverse backgrounds including women, who now felt they could come out on to the streets. Rudolph and Rudolph (2006: 152–8) contend that in contrast to Habermas’ public sphere, which featured the literate disinterested few or the bourgeois public who could engage in what he called rational deliberation, Gandhi’s version of a public sphere was not conditioned on literacy. Gandhi asks more of the deliberative process than the rationality that Habermas found sufficient. He argues that the mind without the heart, or reason without emotion, cannot be persuasive and insists that rationality without feeling cannot give rise to knowledge, truth, or the public good. Satyagrahas were a form of deliberative action that engaged the contending parties in pursuit of situational truth. They resulted in a deliberative process that obliged adversaries to imagine themselves in each other’s shoes and opened the possibility of reaching common ground through situational truth. Gandhi felt that as most conflicts were structural in nature and impacted not only the victims but society at large, it was necessary to ensure the participation of the larger society in the process of resolving conflicts (Mathai 2013: 63). At the same time, he felt that the success of non-violent methods of resolving or transforming conflict was contingent on enlightened public opinion. His engagement with mass media reflected this perspective. Gandhi’s ability to mobilise people irrespective of economic, social, political, or cultural differences was possible not only due to the issues that he raised and pursued, or the messages that he sought to convey, but also the manner and media through which he conveyed them.

The medium On 5 September 1947, when Devtosh Das Gupta, secretary of the newly formed peace corps Shanti Sena Dal, called on Gandhi for a message, the 29

T H E M A H AT M A , T H E M E D I U M , A N D T H E M E S S AG E

latter wrote, “My life is my message” in Bengali (see CW 89: 156). According to George Orwell (1949), Gandhi’s “whole life was a sort of pilgrimage in which every act was significant.” His strategies were formed after careful reflection, and he firmly believed that every action and symbol used should agree with the spirit of non-violence and reinforce human interconnectedness (Moolakkattu 2012: xv). Reading Gandhi’s autobiography, one gets the impression that as a child and young man he was a very shy and diffident person. In fact, a chapter in his autobiography is titled, “Shyness My Shield,” in which he elaborates: The shyness I retained throughout my stay in England. Even when I paid a social call the presence of half a dozen or more people would strike me dumb. . . . It was impossible for me to speak impromptu. I hesitated whenever I had to face strange audiences and avoided making a speech whenever I could. (Gandhi 1927: 58) Bharati Narasimhan, a member of the editorial team of The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, stated, “One can hardly believe that a bumbling student and a nervous lawyer could go on to become such an effective journalist and communicator” (cited in Gonsalves 2010: 3). According to Gonsalves, Gandhi was “convinced that only a communication strategy that was methodologically planned, hermeneutically relevant, creatively symbolic, morally disciplined, geographically extensive and founded uncompromisingly on satya and ahimsa” could succeed in drawing the illiterate masses of India into the struggle for independence. Gandhi’s was a holistic, principled approach to communication. As Scalmer (2011: 60) astutely states, in his particular ways of speaking and writing, he developed subtle tools of anticolonial resistance. Gandhi sought to convey his message through his own way of life as well as through various media, including symbolic expressions, oratorical practices, and textual interventions. Symbolic expressions Symbols cut across barriers of language and convey messages in diverse ways. But as Gonsalves (2012: 223) argues, symbols become relevant only in a historical and cultural setting. In order to identify the cause of a problem and to communicate it through appropriate symbolism, “one needs to be able to perceive reality through historical and ontological lenses.” Gandhi recognised the importance of symbols in communication in India, which had a rich tradition of communicating through symbols and parables. He felt that the masses could be mobilised through the use of appropriate symbols that would appeal to both the heart as well as the head. Recognising the significance of symbols, particularly at a time when the means of communication 30

T H E M A H AT M A , T H E M E D I U M , A N D T H E M E S S AG E

were not very advanced, Gandhi made extensive use of symbols to convey his message. He used them as effective tools of communication that could cut across different languages, faiths, and social sects across the country. Gandhi’s symbolic expressions endeared him to the largely illiterate, rural population and played a significant role in the freedom movement. It was through the use of symbols that he was able to establish and maintain close contact and rapport with millions of people (Pasricha 2002: 317–19). Examples of his non-verbal symbolism were his silence, fasting, clothing, khadi, spinning wheel, salt, walking stick, pair of glasses, Gandhi cap, pocket watch, prayer beads, and the three-monkey figurine, as well as imprisonment, walking, etc. Gandhi not only evolved these symbols but also became one himself through his dress, language, mode of speaking, food, bodily gestures, ways of sitting, walking, and talking, humour, and staff. These symbolised a specific way of life and conveyed highly complex messages. Drawn from the daily lives of ordinary Indians, they were designed to reach out to people all over the country. “In their own ways they created a new aesthetics and a kind of private public world of discourse to which the colonial government had no access” (Parekh 2005: 12–13). By engaging in historical practices such as fasting, silence, and weaving his own cloth, Gandhi discovered a powerful resource to infuse symbolic meaning into the world of high politics. This also enabled him to strike an emotional chord with the masses, who were then drawn to the public sphere which until then had been an elite domain (Chakrabarty 2006: 174). Studying Gandhi as a symbol-maker, Gonsalves (2010: 123) elucidates that it was not merely the quantity of the symbols that he produced, or the wide range of his communication skills, that made him an important leader but also the “quality as well as the process of symbol-making. . . . Gandhi’s symbolisation of swaraj, swadeshi, satyagraha and ahimsa set and attained personal standards of conviction and courage that few will ever match.” Gandhi knew the symbolic power of an image. By wearing his traditional dhoti when visiting the king in Buckingham Palace, he was in fact making a statement. Gandhi’s image as he projected it also involved what Hyslop (2011: 48) refers to as a brilliant play with gender: “Unlike other anticolonial leaders, who aimed to portray themselves as masculine, modern and (often) militaristic, Gandhi produced an image of his body that played on the British stereotype of the weak and feminised Hindu.” The Indian masses, particularly the poor, could identify with his physical self-representation. This also made any restriction of his movements by the authorities appear to be an act of intimidation of the vulnerable. Gandhi’s early religious experiences had their impact on the manner in which he chose to communicate with the masses. His symbolism was often derived from the diverse religious traditions of India, but over the years it has been subject to much debate and criticism. To Gandhi, the ancient 31

T H E M A H AT M A , T H E M E D I U M , A N D T H E M E S S AG E

religious culture was an important factor that had held together a very pluralist Indian society and was an indispensable medium of communication with the masses (Copley 1987: 12). While critics argue that Gandhi’s use of religious vocabulary was in effect divisive, Rajmohan Gandhi (1997: 281) contends that Gandhi’s Hindu idiom was in fact considered divisive only when he lacked powerful Muslim allies. Although others before Gandhi, such as Tilak and Aurobindo Ghosh, had used religious symbols, he took particular care to assure Muslims that they had nothing to fear from his Hinduism. Fasting, silence, prayer meetings, padayatras Fasting was the most ingenious and representative symbolic action of Gandhi’s mode of communication. Gandhi’s idea of fasting is considered to have been drawn from the Hindu practice of tapas (penance) and the predominantly Christian idea of suffering love – an act of self-imposed suffering designed both to purify oneself and to energise the consciences addressed by it. He did not see his fasts as hunger strikes or forms of moral or emotional blackmail. On the other hand, they were seen as a form of self-sacrifice and represented a perfectly moral method of action. Based on his past experiences, he felt that human actions emerged from “both the head and the heart.” In order to shake people out of their complacency on vital issues, sermons and arguments alone were not enough, one had to touch their hearts and consciences, and fasting was one of the most effective ways to do so (Parekh 2005: 15–57). Rather than a means of coercion, fasting was seen as a weapon of satyagraha, a means of nonviolent persuasion. It was a device to inflict pain on oneself, which could persuade one’s opponents to appreciate the goals for which the fast was undertaken. However, it was to be resorted to only sparingly (Chakrabarty 2007: 204–5). Fasting, however, caused considerable unease among both his critics and his followers. Writing about his fast against separate electorates, Nanda (1989: 190) draws attention to the fact that Gandhi was aware that his fasting did exert a moral pressure, but the pressure was directed not against those who disagreed with him but against those who loved him and believed in him and whose consciences he tried to prick. The fasts dramatised the issues at stake and were intended to free reason from the inertia and prejudice which had permitted gross social iniquities to exist for centuries. Gandhi therefore took great efforts to defend his fasts on various grounds. He argued that it was a form of suffering love, and that it was “his way of expressing his deep sense of sorrow and hurt at the way in which those he loved had degraded themselves and disappointed him.” He saw his fasts as a way of atoning for their misdeeds. It was often a last desperate attempt “to mobilise their moral energies” and to bring the quarrelling parties together 32

T H E M A H AT M A , T H E M E D I U M , A N D T H E M E S S AG E

to resolve their differences themselves. This, he felt, would deepen their sense of community and develop “their powers of self-determination and conflict resolution” (Parekh 2005: 71–2). Parel (1969: 526–7) points out that Gandhi fasted for various reasons. While some were purely personal or devotional, others were atonement for public scandals, the restoration of social and political harmony between Hindus and Muslims and between harijans and caste Hindus, or in the context of the colonial policies of the British administration in India. Each fast was different, drawing upon the experiences of the previous ones. As Payne (1997: 557) elaborates, “there was a slow but constant progress from the penitential fasts of the early years to the fully orchestrated fasts of his later years.” Observing silence was another essential part of Gandhi’s communication. As he grew up, he was able to see the positive benefits of his initial shyness. These included the economy of words and the ability to appreciate the value of silence. He writes in his autobiography (1927: 59), Experience has taught me that silence is part of the spiritual discipline of a votary of truth. Proneness to exaggerate, to suppress or modify the truth, wittingly or unwittingly, is a natural weakness of man and silence is necessary in order to surmount it. Gonsalves (2010: 22) points out that the desire for silence and to be disciplined in the search for truth, besides the desire to avoid idle talk, resulted in his vow to observe silence every Monday for introspection. On several occasions he would go on “speech fasts,” wherein he deliberately chose silence for longer periods – for a few days, a whole week, a whole month, and even indefinitely. Gandhi also spent a large amount of his time travelling and interacting with all sections of society. He often went on foot. Apart from reasons of health, Gandhi gave long walks a symbolic meaning when he turned them into “padayatras” or walking pilgrimages. It was a non-violent way of demonstrating solidarity and determination in the struggle for justice. The longest such padayatra that he undertook was the Dandi march to pick salt from the seashore in 1930 in violation of the orders of the British administration. This was one of the most symbolic of Gandhi’s movements against the Empire. It is said that in 1947 at the age of 77, Gandhi walked barefoot for 116 miles through 47 villages, urging peace and often quoting the Koran to his predominantly Muslim audiences (Gonsalves 2010: 27) in the riotstricken areas of Noakhali and Tipperah. Gandhi also made use of prayer meetings to disseminate his message, especially in the later years of his life. Communal harmony formed an essential part of his prayer meetings. As important announcements were made during these meetings, they were widely reported in the mass media. 33

T H E M A H AT M A , T H E M E D I U M , A N D T H E M E S S AG E

Sartorial communicative practices Gandhi felt that the freedom struggle should be a mass movement, and he gradually came to feel that an appropriate method to facilitate mass participation would be through the charka (spinning wheel) and khadi (a cloth made from homespun yarn). These soon emerged as symbols of the movement. Brown (2010: 1, 74–6) asserts that Gandhi’s “programme of spinning (as practice) and deployment of the spinning wheel (as icon) represents one of the most significant unifying elements of the nationalist movement in India, and a key component of the struggle for swaraj, or self-rule.” Spinning was an easily communicable, visual factor cutting across different contexts and regions, connecting the symbol of the wheel to the larger programme of anti-colonial action led by Gandhi. It transcended regional, caste, class, and religious distinctions to a large extent as the spinner could be from any religion or caste and could be associated with a wide range of occupations. Because the wheel was not connected to a particular group within the community, it could not be easily appropriated as a political symbol. Thus, Gandhi’s choice of spinning proved communicable across a range of divisions within the subcontinent. Gandhi’s insistence that every congressman take to spinning, which until then was considered to be a woman’s occupation, was a radical step in breaking the existing gender stereotypes (Kishwar 1985: 1758). Spinning allowed the formerly elite nationalist movement to connect to the broader Indian population. It was a way of gently rebelling against the then existing technological civilisation. It unified cities and villages, as well as the elites and the masses. It also established the dignity of manual labour and those engaged in it (Parekh 2005: 12–13), while representing simple living and high thinking. The spinning wheel for Gandhi gradually came to symbolise rural upliftment, with the economics of the spinning wheel becoming the centre of a new, sustainable, employment-intensive village economy. Gandhi promoted the spinning wheel as a possible solution not only for the economic problems of the country but also for national unity and freedom. Besides being a symbol of defiance against foreign rule and a protest against industrialisation and materialism, it also became a means of identifying with the poorest of the poor (Nanda 1989: 149). Gandhi wrote in Young India (17 September 1925, CW 28: 188), The message of the spinning wheel is much wider than its circumference. Its message is one of simplicity, service of mankind, living so as not to hurt others, creating an indissoluble bond between the rich and the poor, capital and labour, the prince and the peasant. That larger message is naturally for all. Together with spinning and the spinning wheel, khadi was probably the most important Gandhian political symbol. Parel (1969: 517–19) explains 34

T H E M A H AT M A , T H E M E D I U M , A N D T H E M E S S AG E

that khadi aided the recognition of certain values which had immediate political relevance: economic self-sufficiency, mastery over machinery, social and political harmony between the rich and the poor, and the value of swaraj or national independence. It was also a symbol of protest against the everincreasing desire for material comforts and pleasures, and it represented a spirit of empathy between India’s rich and poor, between the rural and the urban classes. Although khadi as a cloth was not an effective visual symbol, as clothing it was a very effective one, identifying the wearer as a participant in the national movement and visually unifying groups of people (Brown 2010: 73). The use of khadi was intended to provide the nation with a uniform to create at least some kind of outward equality in a highly unequal society, to generate a sense of solidarity with the poor, to reduce foreign imports, and to bring economic pressure on the British authorities (Parekh 2005: 11). Through it, Gandhi wanted to not only eradicate unemployment but also empower, unite, and liberate the people of India from foreign domination. During his speech at a public meeting in Chidambaram, Gandhi pointed out the following: If we have the khadi spirit in us we should serve ourselves with simplicity in every walk of life. Khadi spirit means illimitable patience. For those who know anything of production of khaddar know how patiently those spinners and weavers have to toil. Even so must we have patience while spinning the thread of swaraj. Khadi spirit means also equally illimitable faith. So must we have that illimitable faith in truth and non-violence ultimately conquering every obstacle in our way. Khadi spirit means fellow-feeling with every living being on earth. It means the complete renunciation of everything that is likely to harm our fellow creatures. And if we are to cultivate that spirit amongst the millions of our countrymen, what a land this India of ours would be! (The Hindu, 13 September 1927, CW 34: 520) He continuously emphasised the economic, cultural, and spiritual message of khadi for India. The economic message was that it gave poor villagers a cheap, honest, and self-reliant industry to supplement agriculture for earning a livelihood. The economic basis of colonialism had to be defeated with a non-violent weapon that even the poorest of the poor could wield. While Lancashire cloth was a symbol of exploitation, khadi was the symbol of selfsufficiency, self-respect, and freedom. The cultural message of the charkha was its appeal to the rich to also use it. This would make the spinning wheel a symbol of their identification with the poorest. If worn by the urban Indians, it would provide a market for the cloth spun by their rural counterparts. Its universal adoption would also help bridge the caste and communal divide 35

T H E M A H AT M A , T H E M E D I U M , A N D T H E M E S S AG E

and promote national unity. The spiritual message flowed from his belief in the inseparable relationship between economy and religion. He felt that it was due to the fact that the message of the spinning wheel was spiritual that it had tremendous political and economic consequences (Kulkarni 2012: 59–61). Gandhi pointed out that, given the fact that the sale of manufactured cloth represented the biggest item of British trade in India, a boycott of it would induce the British to recognise India’s strength. As Gonsalves (2010: 63) avers, Gandhi believed that an alternative clothing system would promote “an economic self-sufficiency (swadeshi) powerful enough to establish self-government (swaraj).” Thus, abstract political ideas, such as the struggle against colonial rule, assumed concrete form for ordinary people. Wearing khadi symbolised “opposition to colonial rule, identification with the poor and the exploited and an assertion of the spirit of self-reliance, of freedom” (see Kishwar 1985: 1695). Khadi gradually came to represent what the entire freedom struggle stood for. Gandhi’s physicality and clothing were also an integral part of his life and message. Gandhi’s sartorial transformation can be seen in the context of his inner transformation, as well as in the broad framework of anti-colonialism and the formation of Indian national identity. This transformation not only challenged the British notion of civilised dress but also undermined the very idea of cultural supremacy attached to it (Mishra 2012: 308, 19). During his childhood and adolescence, photographs of Gandhi showed him dressed elegantly in his native Kathiawadi costume. During his student days in England and his early days in South Africa, he wore the formal clothing common to British barristers. However, it was upon reading John Ruskin’s Unto this Last that he began to simplify his lifestyle. He initiated his satyagraha campaign by dressing in a white kurta and dhoti as a sign of mourning for the violence committed by the British administration against the Indian indentured labourers of South Africa. On his return to India, he discarded Western clothing and urged all Indians to dress only in khadi, setting the example himself. He soon learned that people in certain parts of India were too poor to afford khadi. In solidarity with them, Gandhi reduced his conventional clothing to a mere waist-covering dhoti (Gonsalves 2010: 25). Gandhi explained to a journalist: “In India several millions wear only a loin-cloth. That is why I wear a loin-cloth myself. They call me half-naked. I do it deliberately in order to identify myself with the poorest of the poor in India” (The News Chronicle, 19 September 1931, CW 48: 26). Colonisers looked at the body and clothing as a means of identifying differences and superiority, while using the state of nudity to signal apparent primitiveness. While Western reactions to the figure of Gandhi categorised him into a well-developed racial hierarchy, his physicality posed a challenge. When he planned to meet the king for tea in a loincloth, this disturbed the long-held conventions of the Empire. This could be seen as a triumph for 36

T H E M A H AT M A , T H E M E D I U M , A N D T H E M E S S AG E

Indian nationalism. Here was a seditious lawyer bargaining with the king’s representative – the viceroy – almost naked and as if an equal. The political significance of Gandhi’s clothing was well-recognised. Gandhi’s “semi-nudity simultaneously symbolised, scandalised and challenged all at once” (Scalmer 2011: 20–5). Gonsalves (2010: 65–8) reveals that, “caught between the two conflicting fashion systems, all Indians were forced to reveal whether they were for imperialism or for independence simply by dressing the way they chose.” In 1918, when Gandhi went to Kheda to recruit Indian candidates to join the British in the First World War, he felt the need to wear the “sola topi” (a hat made from the pith of the sola plant) to avoid sunstroke as he went from house to house. But the people felt that he was compromising his stand on swadeshi by using a British invention. Recognising the importance of headwear as a pan-Indian symbol of unity, Gandhi therefore designed what came to be called the Gandhi topi (Gonsalves 2012: 23). The model for this white cap, which was pointed at the front and back, was the prison cap worn by Black convicts in Volkrust prison in Transvaal. Gandhi had stitched this cap when he was in Volkrust prison in October 1908. However, the Indian cap was made from cotton spun and woven by hand (Gandhi 2007: 137). Through the white khadi cap, Gandhi was eager to create visual uniformity that never existed in Indian headgear. He hoped it would symbolise the unity of purpose and action in the struggle for freedom. He wrote, The khadi cap can be used by all, the rich and the poor . . . only the khadi cap is to be regarded as swadeshi. Such a cap needs no stamp. A swadeshi cap should be one that could be identified even by children. (Navajivan, 17 July 1921, CW 20: 386) Its symbolism became so popular that it led to the prevention of its use in some areas. Gandhi’s sartorial communication had a symbolic and subversive as well as a liberative aspect. Gonsalves (2012: 112; 2010: 109) succinctly argues that the significant visible impact of Gandhi’s sartorial subversion of the Empire was the psychological bonding it gave participants, the fear it aroused in the Empire, and the different interpretations it generated among different sections of Indian society. While the British administration was adept at banning newspapers it considered to be seditious, it was not accustomed to censoring clothing that was subversive. Gandhi’s sartorial revolution revealed that seditious clothing could have a much deeper impact on public opinion than seditious words. The violence that thousands of satyagrahis in khadi attire and Gandhi topis suffered at the hands of the British provided a dramatic backdrop to the Indian demand for freedom on the world stage. 37

T H E M A H AT M A , T H E M E D I U M , A N D T H E M E S S AG E

Oratorical practices As noted earlier, Gandhi by his own admission was not an effective speaker during his younger days. Even in his later years, his style of speaking was not very effective, as is evident from the fact that he often had to ask the audience to be silent. Guha (2013: 91) quotes a reporter who often covered Gandhi’s court appearances in South Africa: [Gandhi’s] manner was not aggressive but pleading. He was no orator. When addressing the court he was not eloquent, but rather otherwise; and in his submissions he did not actually stammer, but prefaced his speeches and comments by repeated sibilants, for instance: “Ess-ess-ess your worship, ess-ess-ess this poor woman was attending an invalid sister and was on her way home after curfew bell had gone when she was arrested. I ask ess-ess-ess that she should not be sent to gaol, but cautioned ess-ess-ess.” His speeches were reported to have been delivered in an unimpressive, conversational tone. His voice was considered to be “light” and “soft,” sometimes becoming almost a whisper. His modulation was unvarying, and his public speeches were conversational in tone. His slow rhythm was “passionless, quiet and measured” (Scalmer 2011: 61). The Times of London wrote in its obituary (31 January 1948) of Gandhi: “He was no orator, his speeches were made seated and delivered in low level tones, which did not vary whatever his theme might be” (cited in Desai 2009c: 16). Desai (2009a: 68) reveals that Gandhi “never acquired in his speech the ease and expertise evident in his writings.” There were several occasions in London when someone else had to read out his speeches. Yet his language was simple and direct. His English was considered accurate, precise, and gracious, and his sentences unfolded with clarity and logic. He gradually developed the ability to communicate effectively with his audience. He was able to generate confidence through his communication because of the strength of his sincerity and commitment. He spoke with conviction in a way that his listeners could easily understand. Without any emotional appeal, he spoke with authority. He would speak on an issue only after gaining a thorough understanding of it and formulating his opinion on firm grounds. His words were always carefully chosen and well thought out before he spoke (Vilanilam 2003: 42–3). He was able to mobilise people into action because he articulated the voice of protest in a much more comprehensible language than anyone else had in the past. As Nanda (2004: 75) points out, “Gandhi spoke in an idiom that the people readily understood; the battle between good and evil.” This made more sense to them than a constitutional debate would have. Subhas Chandra Bose, who had major differences with Gandhi, commented, 38

T H E M A H AT M A , T H E M E D I U M , A N D T H E M E S S AG E

when the Mahatma spoke, he does so in a language that (the people) comprehend not in the language of Herbert Spencer and Edmund Burke, as for instance, Sir Surendra Nath Banerjee would have done, but in that of the Bhagvad Gita and the Ramayana. When he talks to them about Swaraj, he does not dilate on the virtues of provincial autonomy or federation, he reminds them of the glories of Ramrajya (the kingdom of the mythical king Rama) and they understand. And he talks of conquering through love and ahimsa (non-violence), they are reminded of Buddha and Mahavira and they accept him. (cited in Chakrabarty 2007: 190) Gandhi was always willing to give interviews to foreign correspondents as it formed a part of his communication strategy. He was interviewed by Fox Movietone News in April 1931. By way of introduction, the interviewer stated that Fox Movietone News and the Associated Press of America together reach an audience of several hundred million people throughout the world. A copy of the interview was corrected by Gandhi before being released for publication. He began by saying, Although I know this sort of enterprise will advertise you, which is your primary object, I know also that it will serve the cause which I represent – India’s independence. I do not discount the value of propaganda. I have been described as the greatest propagandist in the world. I may deserve the compliment. But my propaganda is unlike the ordinary. It is that of truth, which is self-propagating. Truth abhors artificiality. (The Hindu, 1 May 1931, CW 52: 16) Gandhi’s visit to London to participate in the Second Round Table Conference also witnessed his radio broadcast to an American audience from the studios of the Columbia Broadcasting Service (CBS) network on 13 September 1931. The same was reported in the New York Times (14 September 1931). Gandhi pointed out that the attention of the world was directed towards India’s “attempt to lead a successful, bloodless revolution.” He concluded by appealing “to the conscience of the world to come to the rescue of a people dying for regaining its liberty” (CW 48: 8–10). By the time of India’s independence, All India Radio was broadcasting his post-prayer talks. Citing the inability of most Indians to own radios, Gandhi was initially hesitant but later agreed to the broadcasts (Rajmohan Gandhi 1997: 342). Taking into account the advantages of reaching millions of people instantaneously, Gandhi made effective use of the radio during the last months of his life. Gandhi’s various symbolic communicative practices – silence, fasting, walking, and clothing – in addition to his oratorical skills, all had a significance 39

T H E M A H AT M A , T H E M E D I U M , A N D T H E M E S S AG E

that made them much more than mere practices. As Alan Campbell-Johnson, Mountbatten’s press attaché observed in his diary, the whole of Gandhi’s life is a fascinating study in the art of influencing the masses, and judging by the success he has achieved in this mysterious domain, he must be accounted one of the greatest artists in leadership of all time. He has a genius for acting through symbols which all can understand. (see Kripalani 1968: 188) Textual interventions Print media was the only widely available means of mass communication during Gandhi’s time. Yet, Gandhi writes in his autobiography (1927: 45, 276) that while in India, he had never read a newspaper or anything else beyond his textbooks. Printed pamphlets on social life were, however, a popular means of communication, and he often read them from cover to cover. Vernacular newspapers had also become significant with wider readership and the use of more colloquial language. It was an opportune moment for a person who had a message to convey, as well as the ability to convey it, to emerge in the public sphere (Khan 2011: 15–16). Robin Jeffrey (2012: 223–4, 218) argues that, “Gandhi was a product of the printing press and the ‘print-elite mode’ . . . whose reach and effectiveness depended heavily on print.” In 1927, Gandhi himself noted in Young India (8 December 1927, CW 35: 368) that “the printing age has broken down all barriers.” He made extensive use of print media to publicise his views and to strengthen and sustain the different movements he led both in South Africa and in India. The enormous extent of his writings is evident from the 100 volumes of The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, each consisting of approximately 500 pages. It is due to the dedicated secretarial assistance of Mahadev Desai and Pyarelal that most of Gandhi’s speeches, articles, letters, petitions, and important conversations were recorded, translated, and preserved for posterity. As Nanda (2004: 142, 202) points out, from the day Desai joined Gandhi in 1919 until his death in 1942, he was Gandhi’s eyes, ears, and voice. Hundreds of his articles in Young India and Harijan bear testimony to his scholarship and identification with Gandhi. He preserved a day-to-day record of Gandhi’s thoughts and activities which are of great use to posterity. Pyarelal acted as deputy to Desai, and after the latter’s death, he became Gandhi’s private secretary. Gandhi always wrote with a purpose in mind. Yet, as a seeker of truth he was always willing to change his own perspective on the basis of new facts. He himself admitted that his arguments were not always consistent: At the time of writing I never think of what I have said before. My aim is not to be consistent with my previous statements on a given 40

T H E M A H AT M A , T H E M E D I U M , A N D T H E M E S S AG E

question, but to be consistent with truth as it may present itself to me at a given moment. The result has been that I have grown from truth to truth; I have saved my memory an undue strain; and what is more, whenever I have been obliged to compare my writing even of fifty years ago with the latest, I have discovered no inconsistency between the two. But friends who observe inconsistency will do well to take the meaning that my latest writing may yield unless, of course, they prefer the old. But before making the choice they should try to see if there is not an underlying and abiding consistency between the two seeming inconsistencies. (Harijan, 30 September 1939, CW 70: 203) For someone who only began learning the English language at the age of 11, whose matriculation marks were mediocre, and who had never heard English at home, Gandhi’s language was surprisingly clear and direct. Gandhi’s wide and varied reading of English may have enabled him to develop his language, especially when one considers his academic performance in school and his deficiency in the grasp of the English language at that time. His interest in English literature was reflected in his statement to an associate in 1915: “If I have given up anything for national service, it is my interest in English literature. Renouncing wealth and career was no sacrifice, I wasn’t really interested in them, but I was completely fascinated by English literature” (Nanda 2004: 60). As Gandhi sought to address the common man, he used simple words and short sentences to drive his message home. He wrote on a variety of topics not confined to politics, and his compassion, humility, and concern for the poorest of the poor breathed through his writings. In their preface to volume 16 of The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, the editors note, In simple, easy Gujarati, he addressed the people directly, argued with them, coaxed and rebuked them as one of themselves. In the process, he freed the language from the artificiality of an exclusive tradition of writing and ushered in a new era in Gujarati literature. (CW 16: ix) Gonsalves (2010: 10) points out that Gandhi’s graciousness, transparency, humility, largesse and ability to forgive are as evident as his desire to be reasonable, simple and clear. Even in the most stressful circumstances, he did not allow his emotions to tarnish the content and manner of expression. He sought to inform and educate public opinion in all three continents of Africa, Asia, and Europe. Towards this end, he wrote letters, pamphlets, and booklets and later brought out his own newspapers. 41

T H E M A H AT M A , T H E M E D I U M , A N D T H E M E S S AG E

Letter writing, pamphlets, and books A glance through The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi reveals that Gandhi was a prolific letter-writer. Gandhi’s biographer and personal secretary Pyarelal (1965: 12) reveals that one day he actually counted 56 letters which Gandhi had written in his own hand. Gandhi reread each one of them carefully from the dateline to the address before sending them out, and he insisted that they be posted on the same day they were written. Approximately 100,000 letters form a vital part of his writing. Gonsalves (2010: 12–13) points out that Gandhi’s “openness to all human beings, irrespective of race, nation, culture, religion, age, gender or intelligence is evident from the diversity of individuals with whom he corresponded.” His letters were addressed to relatives, friends, associates, government officials, and heads of state. He wrote to Queen Victoria, Adolph Hitler, and Tolstoy just as he did to children and adolescents. While some letters consisted of only one sentence, others ran to many pages. He often used letter writing as a mode of conflict transformation and later published these letters. He took great care and time in drafting his letters, and through their content, tone, and style they contributed to his widening reputation as a sincere human being who wanted only good for his addressees. In his “Homage” to Gandhi in the first volume of The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (1: vi), Rajendra Prasad (the first President of India and an associate of Gandhi) writes that Gandhi had been a very regular correspondent. There was hardly a letter calling for a considered reply which he did not answer himself. Letters from individuals, dealing with their personal and private problems, constituted a considerable portion of his correspondence and his replies are valuable as guidance to others with similar problems. Desai (2009a: 288) reveals that while in South Africa, Gandhi wrote a large number of letters to newspapers. They were always civil and reflected an anxiety to understand the viewpoints of others while conveying his own position with clarity. Consequently, newspapers rarely refused to publish them. Moreover, despite the fact that most newspapers were against the interests of the Indian community, they often published editorials on the issues that he raised. Gandhi believed that readers were more important than the proprietor, and as an editor he always aimed to establish a close relationship with his readers. He wrote, I was inundated with letters containing the outpourings of my correspondents’ hearts. They were friendly, critical or bitter, according to the temper of the writer. It was a fine education for me to study, digest and answer all this correspondence. It was as though the 42

T H E M A H AT M A , T H E M E D I U M , A N D T H E M E S S AG E

community thought audibly through this correspondence with me. It made me thoroughly understand the responsibility of a journalist, and the hold I secured in this way over the community made the future campaign workable, dignified and irresistible. (Gandhi 1927: 264) The rapid expansion of print capitalism had led to the emergence of pamphleteering as an important method of political communication. This had been popular during the American and French Revolutions. But in the Indian context, Gandhi was one of the pioneers in the use of pamphlets to influence public opinion. They were cost-effective as well as easy to circulate and read. He depended on pamphlets particularly in the early years as he found them to be an easy as well as appropriate option to present detailed analyses of prevailing issues. The narrative style of the pamphlet enabled him to delve deep into the issue at hand and include his own perspective on it. During his initial years in South Africa, he wrote several pamphlets. The Open Letter: To the Hon’ble Members of Natal Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly (December 1894) was Gandhi’s first experiment with the pamphlet form. It was printed and published in Durban in the wake of the Franchise Law Amendment Bill, which aimed to disenfranchise Indians. Copies of the pamphlet were circulated mainly among Europeans and the Press in Natal. Gandhi also published two pamphlets on the condition of Indians in South Africa, titled Indian Franchise – An Appeal to Every Briton in South Africa (December 1895) and The Grievances of the British Indians in South Africa: An Appeal to the Indian Public (1896). The latter was later referred to as the “Green Pamphlet” due to its green cover. It became so popular that within three months he had to bring out 10,000 copies of a revised, second edition. The Green Pamphlet in its own way represented a unique experiment in India’s encounters with the colonial communication system. The Green Pamphlet was thus both a means as well as a form of political communication (see Bera 2005: 210–29). While the Green Pamphlet was meant for the Indian public, the Open Letter was meant for members of the Natal legislative bodies, and the Indian Franchise was for “every Briton” in South Africa. In all three pamphlets, the arrangement of facts and arguments as well as the style were in accordance with their titles. Gandhi also wrote several books, although there does not appear to be any common thread running through them. Hind Swaraj is a critique of modern Western civilisation. Satyagraha in South Africa is an autobiographical account of the struggle for dignity and equality of Indians in South Africa, and his autobiography is the story of his search for truth. Yervada Mandir and Ashram Observances in Action reflect the experiences of the ashram community, while Constructive Programme: Its Meaning and Place provides a guideline for building an ideal society. Various other books attributed to Gandhi are in fact compilations of his articles in journals and newspapers. 43

T H E M A H AT M A , T H E M E D I U M , A N D T H E M E S S AG E

While Hind Swaraj was his first published book, it was not the first book written by him: Guide to London was written during his early years in South Africa. Hind Swaraj (Indian Home Rule), a slim volume of about 100 pages, was written in the form of a dialogue between an editor and a reader. It was written by Gandhi during his voyage from England to South Africa in 1909. Writing continuously, he finished the book in 10 days, using his left hand when he became tired of writing with his right hand. It was initially published in Gujarati in Indian Opinion (Gandhi’s newspaper in South Africa) on 11 and 18 December 1909, and it was published as a booklet in January 1910. This was banned in March of that year by the British administration in India as being seditious literature. Gandhi soon published it in English. While it is generally seen as being a critique of modernity, Rajmohan Gandhi (2017: 166) astutely points out that it is “a challenge above all to Empire, rather than to modernity. If modernity is assailed in Hind Swaraj that is because it is a weapon of Empire, in fact Empire’s most seductive weapon.” It was in realisation of this fact that the British authorities banned the book. It was a critique of violence and domination by the British Empire, while promoting satyagraha. As Chakrabarty (2007: 26) argues, Hind Swaraj was also aimed at confronting the anarchist and violence-prone Indian nationalists with an alternative to violence. With its strong critique of Western civilisation, it reflected a major paradigm shift during the era of colonialism. In it, Gandhi sought to present his views on an alternative model of development that India could follow once independence was won. Despite numerous criticisms against it, Narayan Desai (2009a: 425–6) points out that, “the seeds of his original thought are to be found in this text . . . (it) comes to us not as a traditionalist manifesto but as a postmodern text that points to us the possible solutions to the problems of modernity.” Gandhi’s 25-page booklet, Constructive Programme: Its Meaning and Place, written in 1941 also points India towards a non-exploitative society. Obliged to contribute something to Navajivan every week, he thought of writing his life story. Thus emerged Satyagraha in South Africa, which was written in Gujarati. One chapter appeared in Navajivan every week over a period of one year. Mahadev Desai translated it into English for Young India. This was followed by his autobiography, The Story of My Experiments with Truth. When publishing his books, Gandhi insisted on clear typeface, durable paper, and neat, simple jackets, taking into consideration the fact that costly books in attractive jackets were out of the reach of general readers in a poor country like India. He considered bad printing to be an act of himsa (violence). During his lifetime, Navajivan Press printed many books at a low price. Gandhi’s autobiography in Gujarati was priced 12 annas (Bandopadhyaya n.d.), which in today’s terms would be the equivalent of 48 paise. 44

T H E M A H AT M A , T H E M E D I U M , A N D T H E M E S S AG E

However, in his engagement with the print media, it was newspapers that occupied the most important place. Newspapers and journalism Gandhi (1939: 17) stated that the objectives of a newspaper are “to understand popular feeling and to give expression to it; another is to arouse among the people certain desirable sentiments; and the third is fearlessly to expose popular defects.” He believed that the media should not be used for selfish ends or merely for the sake of earning a livelihood or amassing money. Journalism for Gandhi was a mission rather than a profession. It was a means to serve the public. He states in his autobiography that “the sole aim of journalism should be service” (Gandhi 1927: 264). In his article titled “Newspapers” in Hindustan (CW 14: 84), he emphasised that “there are certain spheres of work which are of such consequence and have such bearing on public welfare that to undertake them for earning one’s livelihood will defeat the primary aim behind them.” He further elaborated: Newspapers are meant primarily to educate the people. They make the latter familiar with contemporary history. This is a work of no mean responsibility. It is a fact, however, that readers cannot always trust newspapers. Often facts are found to be quite the opposite of what has been reported. If newspapers realised that it was their duty to educate the people, they could not but wait to check a report before publishing it. It is true that, often, they have to work under difficult conditions. They have to sift the true from the false in but a short time and can only guess at the truth. Even then, I am of opinion that it is better not to publish a report at all if it has not been found possible to verify it. (CW 14: 84) Gandhi was a strong advocate of press freedom. According to him, “freedom of speech and pen is the foundation of swaraj. If the foundation-stone is in danger, you have to exert the whole of your might in order to defend that single stone” (Harijan, 29 September 1940, CW 73: 21). At the same time, he was also conscious of the responsibilities of the Press. He wrote in his autobiography, The newspaper Press is a great power, but just as an unchained torrent of water submerges whole countrysides and devastates crops, even so an uncontrolled pen serves but to destroy. If the control is from without, it proves more poisonous than want of control. It can be profitable only when exercised from within. (Gandhi 1927: 264) 45

T H E M A H AT M A , T H E M E D I U M , A N D T H E M E S S AG E

Advocating the role of newspapers as a means of service, Gandhi was strongly critical of the use of newspapers for profit-making. He argued that when “a newspaper is treated as a means of making profits, the result is likely to be serious malpractices” (Hindustan, CW 14: 84). He did not want anyone, particularly those who could afford to advertise themselves through newspapers, to influence his quest for truth or exploit his newspapers for profit. He also was not an advocate of copyright. His writings in the journals edited by him were common property that could be reproduced by anyone. He clearly stated that there was “no copyright in Harijan. Enterprising vernacular newspapers will publish their own editions of Harijan. Some have already written to me of their intention to do so. I can prevent no one” (Harijan, 25 February 1933, CW 53: 406). He further added in 1940 that, although the matter of copyright had often been brought before him, he did not have the heart to copyright his articles. I know that there is a financial loss. But as Harijan is not published for profit I am content so long as there is no deficit. I must believe that in the end my self-denial must serve the cause of truth. (Harijan, 15 June 1940, CW 72: 163) Gandhi was clearly a communicator par excellence who had a wide range of communication skills. He was able to attract the attention of the world through his symbolic expressions, as well as his oratorical and textual skills. At least part of his charisma came from his “skill as a communicator and especially his ability to use symbols and images in a language for and of the Indian people” (Dalton 1998: 32). The use of mass media and newspapers formed an essential part of Gandhi’s repertoire of communication skills. Gandhi’s engagements with print media and newspapers in particular can be classified into three main categories: Writings in London in the magazine Vegetarian, in which he expressed his views on the Indian diet, customs, festivals, and religious ceremonies; writings in South Africa in Indian Opinion, through which he voiced his views on the grievances of Indians; and writings in India in Young India, Navajivan, and the Harijan weeklies. The following chapters examine these phases in his life, which have been merged into two chapters – one dealing with his writings in London and his interventions in South Africa, and the other examining his engagements with the media after his return to India.

46

3 MEDIATED INTERVENTIONS IN SOUTH AFRICA

Gandhi writes in his autobiography (1927: 276) that during his younger days in India he rarely read anything beyond his school textbooks. His transformation in this regard, inter alia other diverse facets of his life, began with his sojourn in England from 1888 to 1891. This chapter provides a trajectory of Gandhi’s engagement with mass media, moving from his days in England to his multifarious, mediated interventions in South Africa, with particular focus on mediating conflict and social change. Upon Gandhi’s arrival in England, Dr. Pranjivan Mehta, who hailed from a town near Rajkot and was studying to be a barrister in England, arranged his accommodation for a few weeks with Dalpatram Shukla, an Indian friend. Shukla encouraged Gandhi to read newspapers and practised speaking English with him until he became comfortable with the language. Gandhi wrote in his autobiography (1927: 45), “In India I had never read a newspaper. But here I succeeded in cultivating a liking for them by regular reading. I always glanced over The Daily News, The Daily Telegraph and The Pall Mall Gazette.” His primary objective in reading newspapers at the time was to learn English. But this led to his lifelong practices of reading newspapers and cutting out and preserving items from them. He maintained a systematic and exhaustive record of clippings from contemporary newspapers during the period 1889–90 in 13 scrapbooks (Pyarelal 1965: xiv). During his initial months in London, Gandhi tried to live like an English gentleman, but he soon began to focus on the more serious issues of life. He began to read widely on British and European law, philosophy, religion, and politics. An important experience in London was Gandhi’s encounter with the British vegetarian movement. He joined the Vegetarian Society and was appointed editor of its weekly newspaper The Vegetarian in 1890. He participated in the International Vegetarian Congress in September 1890 and was made a member of its executive committee. His entry into journalism began with a series of six articles titled “Indian Vegetarians,” which were published in The Vegetarian in February and March 1891 (CW 1: 19–28). They discussed vegetarianism in India and how vegetarianism and 47

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

non-vegetarianism were interlinked with religion and caste. This series was soon followed by articles about the festivals and foods of India from March to June – titled “Some Indian Festivals-I”, “-II,” and “-III” and “The Foods of India” (CW 1: 29–40). These articles sought to dispel several common misconceptions of India by introducing the social system and festivals, as well as the dietary habits of the people. The very fact that he wrote these articles for publication was itself a notable achievement, considering the fact that while studying at Bhavnagar College in India he had been unable to follow lectures in English. As Kripalani (1968: 12) points out, “these adolescent essays in journalism, simple, straightforward and unaffected, make interesting reading even today.” They reflect Gandhi’s powers of observation as a young boy and were the earliest intimation of his future role as a journalist. His scrupulous regard for facts, flair for polemics, and capacity for incisive argument are evident, albeit in an undeveloped and naive form. It was during his tenure in London that Gandhi came to understand the techniques of propaganda and the potential of newspapers to influence public opinion, which would serve him well in the future. He was called to the bar in 1891 and returned to India soon thereafter.

South Africa: the moulding of a journalist Gandhi made an unsuccessful attempt to build a career for himself as a barrister in India. In 1893, a firm of Muslim merchants based in Porbandar offered him a job in South Africa for one year. He accepted the offer and eventually stayed on for 21 years. It was Gandhi’s experiences in South Africa that became the turning point in his life. This period also witnessed the international development of transportation. This in turn generated unprecedented opportunities for astute political activists to publicise their causes internationally through the print media. Gandhi was particularly well-placed to become an excellent practitioner of world media politics because of the unique administrative position of India within the British Empire. It was in South Africa that Gandhi “became a master of reading the political movement and of the political use of the print media” (Hyslop 2011: 17–37). At the time of Gandhi’s arrival in South Africa, there were approximately 42,000 Indians in Natal and approximately 3,000 in Transvaal and Cape Colony (Desai 2009a: 119). Natal was a settler colony. Beginning in the 1860s with the abolition of slavery, indentured labourers from India had replaced slaves as a mode of cheap labour for the coffee and tea plantations of the imperialists. These labourers were mostly Tamil speakers who came from southern India. By the 1870s migrants also included traders, who were mostly Gujaratis. Both groups were disliked by the White population, the traders for being competitors and the indentured labourers for being unhygienic, dirty, and responsible for spreading epidemics and disease. 48

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

Indians suffered all kinds of discrimination, especially in Transvaal and Natal, in public transportation, schools, hotels, etc. During his stay in England, Gandhi had not experienced much open racism. But in the first few weeks of his stay in South Africa, he came face to face with various kinds of racial discrimination, including his being thrown out of a train in the middle of the night for travelling in a first-class compartment and being kicked into a gutter by a guard for walking past the president’s house in Pretoria. Desai (2009a: 169) writes that Gandhi realised that the problems of the Indians in South Africa actually encompassed the three continents of Africa, Asia, and Europe and the three systems of colour prejudice, political slavery, and colonialism. The question of the self-respect of the Indian people therefore had implications for national and international political, economic, and social policy. On 23 May 1893, the day after his arrival, Gandhi wore his turban inside a magistrate’s court in Durban. The magistrate took it as a sign of disrespect and ordered him to remove it. Gandhi instead walked out of the courtroom. This incident was reported in The Natal Advertiser in an article titled “An Unwelcome Visitor.” Gandhi immediately wrote a letter of response to the newspaper pointing out that, Just as it is a mark of respect amongst the Europeans to take off their hats, in like manner: it is in Indians to retain one’s head-dress which the English ladies and gentlemen generally seem to appreciate. To appear uncovered before a gentleman is not to respect him. In England, on attending drawing-room meetings and evening parties, Indians always keep the head-dress, and the English ladies and gentlemen seem to appreciate the regard which we show thereby. In High Courts in India those Indian advocates who have not discarded their native head-dress invariably keep it on. (The Natal Advertiser, 29 May 1893, CW 1: 57–8) It was published on the fourth day after Gandhi’s arrival in the country, and the issue was widely discussed. It was the first of many letters that Gandhi would write to counter White sentiment about and misrepresentation of the Indian community. During his first three years in South Africa, 32 items written by him were published in newspapers, 20 of which were letters to the Press (see Figure 3.1). Gandhi soon began to appear regularly in local newspapers, such as the Natal Mercury and the Johannesburg Star, and gradually in international publications such as The Times of London and the New York Times. Desai (2009a: 372) points out that it was unusual and surprising that South African newspapers printed writings by an unknown Indian to the extent that they did. This showed that they probably considered his arguments to be valid or appreciated his style of writing – the measured tone and the willingness 49

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

32

20 13 10

9 3

5

10

5

1 0 0 22 May 1893– 21 May 1894

1

Aracles Peaaons

5 2 2

1

0 22 May 1894– 21 May 1895

1 1 0 22 May 1895– 21 May 1896

Leaers to the Press Adverasements

2 3 2 Overall

Speeches Quoted TOTAL

Figure 3.1 Gandhi’s early contributions to the Press in South Africa (22.5.1893 to 21.5.1896)

to appreciate the viewpoint of the other. While newspapers often published rejoinders that criticised and ridiculed the Indians, they usually also published Gandhi’s responses. A lead report of The Natal Advertiser referred to “wily wretched Asiatic traders” as “parasites who live a semi-barbaric life” and who were driving European traders out of business. In a hard-hitting letter of response to the paper (see The Natal Advertiser, 23 September 1893, CW 1: 59–61), Gandhi asked, Why all this outpouring of wrath on the poor Asiatic traders? . . . If the small European trader has been driven out, is it to be laid at their door? . . . Should not the superior ability be a special reason for encouragement so that the rest may try to rise as high? Is it a sound policy to stifle healthy competition? Should not the European trader take a leaf out of the book of the Indian trader, if that be not below his dignity, and learn how to trade cheaply, how to live simply? “Do unto others as you would be done by.” But you say these wretched Asiatics live a semi-barbaric life. It would be highly interesting to learn your views of a semi-barbaric life. I have some notion of the life they live. If a room without a nice, rich carpet and ornamental hangings, a dinner table (perhaps unvarnished), without an expensive table-cloth, with no flowers to decorate it, with no wines spread, no pork or beef ad lib, be a semibarbaric life; if a white comfortable dress, specially adapted to a 50

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

warm climate . . . be a semi-barbaric life; if no beer, no tobacco, no ornamental walking stick, no golden watch chain, no luxuriouslyfitted sitting-room, be a semi-barbaric life; if, in short, what one commonly understands by a simple frugal life be a semi-barbaric life, then, indeed, the Indian traders must plead guilty to the charge, and the sooner the semi-barbarity is wiped out from the highest Colonial civilisation, the better. It seems, on the whole, that their simplicity, their total abstinence from intoxicants, their peaceful and, above all, their businesslike and frugal habits, which should serve as a recommendation, are really at the bottom of all this contempt and hatred of the poor Indian traders. And they are British subjects. Is this Christian-like, is this fair play, is this justice, is this civilisation? While he began by writing letters to the editor, he moved on to write articles and “open letters” to the public. He constantly drew public attention to the plight of the Indians. He was soon able to generate an interest in the British-owned papers in India, such as the Times of India and the Statesman, and some of the papers in Britain, such as The Times, to highlight the discrimination faced by Indians in South Africa. He maintained a list of friendly newspapers and individuals and made use of them to publish open letters on the problems faced by the Indians (Chadda 2010: 4). He also continued to be associated with The Vegetarian and for a short while was its temporary editor.

The Indian Franchise Bill The case that Gandhi had originally gone to South Africa to work on ended through an out-of-court settlement in April 1894, and Gandhi was to return to India. However, during this time the legislature of Natal was in the process of debating the Indian Franchise Bill, which intended to take away the rights of Indians to elect members to the Natal Legislative Assembly. An important part of the argument was that Indians had not exercised the franchise in their own country. Gandhi’s employer requested him to stay on and lead the fight against this. Gandhi agreed. He decided to send a petition on the Franchise Bill to Lord Ripon, the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The petition was prepared and printed. It had 10,000 signatures, and copies were sent to prominent British politicians. Gandhi was able to bring the issue before the eyes of the media both in Britain and in Natal (Chakrabarty 2007: 48). He personally delivered copies of it to the Press and took upon himself the task of responding to all editorials or discussions about the bill. His brief and measured writings were such that even his adversaries could not find fault with them. In an article titled “Indian Village Communities,” The Natal Mercury of 7 July 1894 contested the Indian argument that Indians were familiar with 51

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

representative institutions almost from time immemorial. It argued that Indian village communities had nothing to do with political representation but only with the legal question of land tenure. Gandhi’s response to this was published by the paper on 11 July 1894 (see CW 1: 144–5). He cited the example of the State of Mysore, which had given political franchise rights to its subjects. He went on to castigate the paper, asking will it not better serve humanity by collecting and pointing out points of resemblances between the two peoples than by holding out to the public gaze points of contrasts, often farfetched or merely imaginary, that can but arouse the worst feeling of a man, while they can do nobody any real good? I hardly think it can be to your interest to sow the seeds of jealousy and animosity between the two nations. That, I doubt not, is in your power, as it is in anybody’s, more or less. But a thing far higher and far nobler, too, lies within your reach . . . and that thing is to educate rightly the Colony about India and its people. Desai (2009a: 220) writes that Gandhi’s point was taken. The Natal Mercury responded, “We should be very sorry indeed to be the medium of sowing seeds of jealousy and animosity between the Indians and our own people” (Natal Mercury, 12 July 1894), but at the same time it argued that if the Indians had followed the habits and customs of Europe, the problem would not have arisen! Another case in point was when The Times of Natal published a lead article titled “Rammysammy” on 22 October 1894. Gandhi, in his response which was published in the paper a few days later (see CW 1: 166–7), asks “Does not the very heading “Rammysammy” betray a studied contempt towards the poor Indian? Is not the whole article a needless insult to him?” He proceeds to state that the Indian and the Native were denied the franchise “because they have a dark skin. You would look to the exterior only. So long as the skin is white it would not matter to you whether it conceals beneath it poison or nectar.” By the second half of 1894, Gandhi was busy drafting petitions, and at this point of time he was more concerned with the conditions of Indian merchants, their clerks, and those Indians who worked in White households as servants, craftsmen, workmen, and hawkers rather than the indentured labourers who would be of concern to him later (Desai 2009a: 171). Gandhi drew up a petition to be presented to the Natal Legislative Assembly regarding the passing of the Franchise Bill. As Kripalani (1968: 36–7) points out, Gandhi’s crusading zeal and journalistic flair were seen at their best in the long open letter which he addressed to the members of both houses of the Natal Legislature in December 1894 and published in the Press. After quoting many Western authorities on the high level of Indian civilisation, he contrasts this with the attitude of the Natal Europeans towards the Indians 52

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

living in their midst. He goes on to quote extensively from reports in the Press: I think it will be readily granted that the Indian is bitterly hated in the Colony. The man in the street hates him, curses him, spits upon him, and often pushes him off the footpath. The Press cannot find a sufficiently strong word in the best English dictionary to damn him with. Here are a few samples: “The real canker that is eating into the very vitals of the community;” “these parasites;” “Wily, wretched, semi-barbarous Asiatics;” “a thing black and lean and a long way from clean, which they call the accursed Hindoo;” “he is chockfull of vice, and he lives upon rice. . . . I heartily cuss the Hindoo;” “squalid coolies with truthless tongues and artful ways.” The Press almost unanimously refuses to call the Indian by his proper name. He is “Ramsamy;” he is “Mr. Sammy;” he is “Mr. Coolie;” he is “the black man.” And these offensive epithets have become so common that they (at any rate one of them, “coolie”) are used even in the sacred precincts of the Courts, as if “the coolie” were the legal and proper name to give to any and every Indian. . . . The expression is a contradiction in terms and is extremely offensive to those to whom it is applied. But then, in this Colony the Indian is a creature without feelings! (“Open Letter,” CW 1: 185–8) Gandhi concludes the “Open Letter” with the entreaty, “Will you promote unity,‘which is the condition of progress’, or will you promote discord,‘which is the condition of degradation’?” Kripalani (1968: 37) reveals that what was remarkable about Gandhi was that even while quoting all this abuse, he himself was free from any bitterness or malice and scrupulously avoided any form of exaggeration. Copies were sent to all the newspapers and publicists that Gandhi knew, including journals and publicists in England who represented different political parties. Many newspapers published the petition with favourable comments. Gandhi took care to include the responses of newspapers in his writings. The Times of India, in a lead article on the petition, strongly supported the Indian demands. The Times of London also supported their claims, raising their hopes that the bill would be vetoed (Gandhi 1927: 134). The “Open Letter” evoked a substantial response from the Press. Whether they agreed with his views or not, newspapers in South Africa and in England all complimented him for his scholarly, polite, and measured tone, as well as the fair-mindedness, restraint, and ability with which he had stated his case (Desai 2009a: 224–5; Pyarelal 1965: 474). The Natal Mercury admitted that Gandhi wrote “with calmness and moderation. He is as impartial as anyone could expect him to be.” It continues to state, “Not only does Mr. Gandhi write with marked moderation, but the 53

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

arguments he uses are skilfully put, and the ‘Open Letter’ is throughout distinctly creditable to him in every way” (7 January 1895, as cited in Pyarelal 1965: 474). The “Open Letter” sought to reduce the misgivings and ignorance about India and Indians. But even while accepting Gandhi’s arguments, the newspapers continued with their demand to disenfranchise Indians. Desai (2009a: 224–5) points out that the response of the Transvaal Press “taught him that people were not to be convinced by citing authorities and by the force of reason.” Gandhi began to look within himself and his society. He began to lobby at both the local and international levels against the many forms of discrimination that Indians faced in Natal and the Transvaal. He went on to consolidate the gains of his campaign by publicising the pathetic conditions of indentured workers. Important newspapers of Calcutta commented editorially on the grievances of the Indians of Natal (Hyslop 2011: 36–7). Gandhi gave interviews to many papers sympathetic to his cause and made extensive use of the cable and telegraph to project the cause of Indians in South Africa, especially among government officials and leaders of the Indian community in England. When he was a student in London, Gandhi had become acquainted with Dadabhai Naoroji, who had started the journal India in 1890. It mainly dealt with topics of Indian interest. Bhattacharyya (1965: 5) writes that Gandhi became the journal’s Durban, Johannesburg, and South African correspondent. However, it is not certain whether he was a self-appointed correspondent or one maintained by India on an honorarium basis. In any case, Gandhi utilised this journal to present the grievances of the Indians in South Africa. Desai (2009a: 199–201) narrates an incident that was reported in The Natal Advertiser (29 January 1896), where “two well-dressed, respectablelooking Christian youth” were caught by a constable. Realising they were Christians, the policeman asked them their father’s occupation. On hearing that they were girmitiyas (Indian labourers who worked on the farms of White farmers, in mines, or on railways), he remarked that their fathers could be arrested for moving without a permit, so why couldn’t the same apply to them as well? According to the constable, if an Indian is permitted to evade the law by changing his religion and his name the whole population would do so. Gandhi reacted to this incident with a letter to the Natal Mercury (6 March 1896, CW 1: 297–300), asking whether it was sufficient to label the Indians untrustworthy just because they had changed their name or their religion. Gandhi, in his open letter, also commented on the conduct of the superintendent in handling the case and the two boys. Desai reveals that Gandhi’s letter evoked considerable sympathy for the two boys. The Natal Witness censured the superintendent and the Natal Advertiser wrote in support of Gandhi. He continued his efforts to appeal to the kindness of the superintendent and cultivate his goodwill, so much so that he became Gandhi’s staunch supporter and a good friend of the Indian community. 54

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

Factual errors in newspapers were often challenged by Gandhi through letters to the editor. He wrote in The Natal Advertiser (22 May 1895, CW 1: 229), This is not the first occasion on which I have found the facts in your reports mis-stated or exaggerated, and I am sorry to say whenever this has happened, they have been mis-stated and exaggerated much to the disadvantage of the Indian community. Despite the campaign against the Natal Franchise Bill, it was finally passed. Gandhi’s campaigns against restrictions on immigration and discriminatory taxes on indentured labour were also not very successful, although they helped to partially reduce the tax and the harshness of the laws. Gandhi began to feel that petitions, requests, etc. did not have much of an impact on the minds of the rulers of South Africa and wondered what other course of action could be taken (Bhattacharyya 1965: 5). The Indian community in South Africa had long felt the need to have a press and a newspaper of its own, especially since the movement for the disfranchisement of Indians was started by the Whites, but they lacked the finances and personnel for it. The Natal Indian Congress (NIC), which was formally established on 22 August 1894 in the context of the franchise controversy, placed particular emphasis on propaganda, but starting a press was not included in the objectives of the party in its constitution. However, it did specify its objective “to inform the people” by writing to newspapers, publishing pamphlets, and delivering lectures. Gandhi himself often wrote the minutes of the NIC and had notices of meetings, circulars, etc. that were to be sent out by NIC cyclostyled in his own office; often they were written by himself. By 1896, the need for the NIC to have a press and a newspaper of its own came to be even more keenly felt. Gandhi made an appeal to raise a fund of at least £1,000 for the NIC, which included inter alia the establishment of a press and a newspaper to cater to the interests of the Indians in Natal. He was subsequently given the responsibility of bringing a press as well as printers and compositors from India (Pyarelal 1986: 63).

Newspapers and the Green Pamphlet Gandhi returned to India in 1896 and made efforts to contact the Press and give interviews about the situation in South Africa. He had heard that The Pioneer, published from Allahabad, was an opponent of Indian aspirations. He obtained an appointment with its editor, M. Chesney, who gave him a patient hearing and promised to notice in his paper anything that I might write, but added that he could not promise to endorse all the Indian demands, 55

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

inasmuch as he was bound to understand and give due weight to the viewpoint of the Colonials as well. (Gandhi 1927: 156) In August 1896, while in India, Gandhi published his pamphlet, The Grievances of the British Indians in South Africa: An Appeal to the Indian Public, often referred to as the Green Pamphlet due to its green cover. He took one month to write and publish it. Ten thousand copies were printed and sent to all the newspapers and leaders of major political parties in India. Gandhi himself writes that the language he used was more moderate than in his earlier pamphlets, as he realised that things heard from a distance appear to be larger than they actually are (Gandhi 1927: 157). Bera (2005: 214–29) points out that of the total 51 pages, 26 were devoted to referencing or quoting newspaper editorials or reports. There are instances where Gandhi quoted the full text of an article or an editorial. For instance, his quote from the editorial of The Natal Advertiser of 28 February 1895 runs into three pages in print. It was on the Franchise Bill issue and favoured the inclusion of Indians in the Natal voters list. Although Gandhi could have made his arguments in his own words, he selected texts from newspapers and used them in different parts of the body of the argument with a definite strategy in mind. What Gandhi used were not merely quotes from newspapers but also value-added texts. As Bera points out, the use of newspaper editorials to support an argument is different from quoting the speech of a political leader or extracts from an official statement. Because of the different contexts in which they are placed, the same text when read in the newspaper and when quoted in the pamphlet has different connotations. Gandhi sought to highlight each of his points with extracts from newspapers, a method not yet popular among Indian writers. This could ostensibly have been to attract the attention of the Empire and all White establishments. It also revealed Gandhi’s awareness of the importance that the Press had come to enjoy by the end of the nineteenth century. The Green Pamphlet became very popular, and a revised edition was printed within three months. Subsequently, Gandhi’s Notes on the Grievances of the British Indians in South Africa was published in September 1896. The last paragraph of the pamphlet lists the dates of the editorials published in The Times of London regarding the conditions of Indians in South Africa. Gandhi’s efforts to meet editors and members of the Press bore some fruit. The Indian Press gave the Green Pamphlet wide publicity, with many papers publishing editorials and articles on it. In his autobiography, Gandhi (1927: 167–70) recalls that G. Parameshvaran Pillay, the editor of The Madras Standard, was of the greatest help to him, often inviting him to his office and advising him, in addition to placing the columns of his paper at Gandhi’s disposal, of which he freely availed. Gandhi also acknowledges the support of G. Subrahmaniam of The Hindu and the editors of The Daily Telegraph, 56

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

The Statesman, and The Englishman. Saunders, the editor of The Englishman, placed his office and paper at Gandhi’s disposal and the two continued to be friends. He also writes about the negative response that he received from the Press in Calcutta, particularly the editors of Amrita Bazar Patrika and Bangabasi who treated him curtly. While in Calcutta, Gandhi received a cable from Natal urging him to return immediately. Gandhi’s meetings and the Press coverage of the Green Pamphlet had nevertheless sparked the interest of the people of India regarding the condition of Indians in South Africa. Gandhi’s arrival at Durban was witness to unpleasant experiences. The Pioneer in India was the first paper to write an editorial on the Green Pamphlet. A summary of this was cabled to London by Reuter, and in turn a summary of this summary was cabled to Natal by Reuter’s London office. Gandhi (1927: 157, 175) writes that this cable was not more than three lines in print, was a miniature, exaggerated edition of the Green Pamphlet, and was not in his words. However, it was quoted extensively by newspapers in South Africa, which were vociferous in their attacks on Gandhi and agitated for his repatriation. He was accused of having “indulged in unmerited condemnation of the Natal whites.” Upon Gandhi’s arrival at Durban along with his family, the port authorities detained the ship for 23 days. He was finally able to disembark, but on his way to his residence he was mobbed and beaten mercilessly. He was finally rescued by Mrs. Alexander, the wife of the superintendent of police with the assistance of the police. In an interview in The Natal Advertiser (14 January 1897, CW 2: 122), Gandhi revealed that he was aware that “Reuter cabled Home a summary of the pamphlet that could not be borne out by the ‘Open Letter.’” He also pointed out that he could hardly “be held responsible for Reuter’s statements and opinions.” Gandhi strongly refuted the charges levelled against him. He was also able to provide copies of all the speeches and other writings he had made in India to prove that he had not said anything which he had not already said in South Africa in stronger language. Although South African newspapers were initially enraged at the Reuter’s report, many of them changed their views on reading the original Green Pamphlet sent to them by Gandhi. His interview in The Natal Advertiser and his refusal to prosecute his assailants also had an impact on the Press, which declared him innocent and condemned the mob (Gandhi 1927: 181). Although Gandhi had been entrusted with the tasks of buying a printing press in India and bringing printers and compositors back with him, he was unable to do so. Yet, one of the reasons for the attack on him at Durban was the rumour that he had brought a printing press and printers along with him. While Gandhi’s initiatives in the 1890s were important as the first organised action to oppose racial discrimination against Indians in South Africa, it did not in any way contest the colonial system but sought to resolve problems within the existing imperial framework. Hence, he was able to garner the support of some influential Anglo-Indian newspapers in India, a section 57

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

of the ruling establishment in Britain, and a section of the “White” Press in South Africa (Bera 2005: 227–8).

International Printing Press In view of the long-felt need of the Indian community in Durban and Natal to have a printing press of its own, Gandhi and Madanjit Vyavaharik, a school teacher from Kathiawad and an active member of NIC, had mooted the idea of setting up a small press with the support of leaders of the community in 1895. However, the idea did not work out. In 1898, Gandhi again broached the subject with Vyavaharik, but this time advised him to depend upon his own means, with the assistance of workers who would work for a share in the profits if there were any. The idea appealed to Vyavaharik, and he purchased a second-hand printing machine (Pyarelal 1980: 192–3). The International Printing Press (IPP) was inaugurated on 29 November 1898. At the inaugural function, speeches in Gujarati were translated into English by Gandhi, who also read out letters of support from Indians in various parts of Natal. According to Hofmeyr (2013: 48–9), the IPP was an unusual institution with all the “in-between” characteristics of a “colonial-born” press. Situated among a range of media and printing traditions, the IPP stood between different languages and scripts; between print and performance; between profit, community service, and merchant patronage; and between grand objectives (advancing civilisation, profit sharing, imperial loyalty) and lowly job printing. The establishment of IPP was a major milestone in the progress of the Indian community in Natal. It initially printed wedding cards, business cards, menus, account forms, memoranda, circulars, receipt books, and so on in Gujarati, Tamil, Hindu, Urdu, Hebrew, Marathi, French, etc. Between 1903 and 1914, IPP published about 30 pamphlets. Things had moved forward significantly since the time Gandhi himself wrote circulars, reports, invitations, petitions, and memorials to be sent out by NIC and had them cyclostyled for circulation by his office clerks (Pyarelal 1980: 194). Hofmeyr (2013: 52–67) points out that as an instrument of social reform, IPP was interlinked with several wider public service networks. These included the NIC and the Indian Ambulance Corps, which Gandhi had organised during the Boer War of 1899–1902. Gandhi initially regarded copyright law as a form of private property that prevented the free circulation of ideas. Two of the pamphlets produced by the IPP (Hind Swaraj and Tolstoy’s Letter to a Hindoo) explicitly indicated “No Rights Reserved.” Hofmeyr argues that in following this policy, “Gandhi was in effect seeking a way of operating not only beyond the constraints of the market but of the state as well.” 58

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

In a few years’ time, Gandhi became a successful lawyer and was soon able to establish himself as a leader of the local community, which consisted mostly of poorly educated merchants. He began to hold regular community meetings, provided training in office procedures and the English language, and provided education on hygiene and sanitation. In 1899 when the Boer War broke out between the two groups of White settlers in the region – the British and the Boers – Gandhi personally sympathised with the Boers, who were fighting for their independence. However, he felt that if he demanded rights as a British citizen, it was his duty to defend the British Empire when it was threatened. “No rights without duties” being his motto throughout life, he advised the Indian community to support the British cause (Kripalani 1968: 49). He helped organise and train the Indian Ambulance Corps of 1,100 volunteers and offered their services to tend to the sick and wounded on the battlefield. Most of the Natal newspapers praised the Indian Ambulance Corps, and many writers even apologised for their previous tirade against the Indians (Desai 2009a: 365). Gandhi recorded his experiences for publication in the Times of India. As Bhattacharyya (1965: 6) points out, “Gandhi thus joined the band of early war correspondents.” He had hoped that their loyalty would be rewarded with Indians gaining equal status as citizens of a British colony. However, conditions only became worse, and soon his faith in the fairness of the government began to decrease. Gandhi and his family left for India in 1901, promising to return if the people felt that they needed him. He made his first public statement on the question of Indians in South Africa to The Times of India of 20 December (CW 3: 250–1): “The Indians in South Africa are eagerly awaiting to see in what direction the Indian public are going to help them in the struggle which they are carrying on for existence in that sub-continent against awful odds.” He concluded with a plea to the editor: “May I, then, on behalf of the Indian settlers in South Africa, appeal to you and your contemporaries to help us in the desired direction? I would venture also to ask your contemporaries, if possible, to copy this letter.” He attended the Calcutta Session of the Indian National Congress and began working for the Congress. News about the second reading of a bill in the Natal Legislative Assembly which imposed on the children of indentured Indians in Natal the same discrimination that their parents faced appeared in The Times of India. Gandhi wrote to the paper (1 May 1902, CW 3: 285) to protest against the iniquity of the measure, under which all children of indentured parents (even infants in arms!) would be liable to pay the £3 tax, and if an indentured Indian happens to have seven children, by no means an unlikely event, between him and his children he would have to pay £24 per year, a thing that would be absolutely beyond his capacity. I shudder to contemplate the evil 59

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

effects of such a measure on the moral tone of the community which is called upon to pay. Gandhi was soon called back to South Africa to work for the welfare of the Indian community. Realising that he would not be able to return soon, he took his family along with him. Indian Opinion: the voice of resistance Besides the need to have a press of its own, the Indian community had also long felt the need to have its own newspaper, particularly after the move to disfranchise Indians in 1894 and the establishment of the NIC. As news spread of NIC’s interest in starting a newspaper to air the grievances of the British Indians, several people expressed their interest in being part of the venture. However, despite Gandhi’s enthusiasm, none of these proposals materialised, primarily due to the lack of adequate finances (for details, see Pyarelal 1986: 63–9). In 1898 P. S. Aiyar, a journalist from Madras, declared that he would bring out a weekly newspaper called Indian World. He also wrote a disclaimer to the editor of The Natal Advertiser, stating that Gandhi was not associated with the paper in any capacity, probably feeling that, by distancing himself from Gandhi, he would obtain greater support for his venture. The Indian World did not reach the stage of publication. However, in 1901 Aiyar started publishing the Colonial Indian News, a weekly in English and Tamil, and continued to bring it out until 1904. He later became the editor of African Chronicle, which was established in 1908. Over the years, Aiyar was a strong critic of Gandhi and was the only Indian according to Guha (2013: 443, 453) who at that point in time expressed his disagreements with Gandhi in print. Gandhi, however, disregarded the taunts and abusive remarks of the African Chronicle. By this time, some of Gandhi’s writings that were critical of government policy and administration came to be rejected by mainstream newspapers. Desai (2009a: 219) reveals an instance where Gandhi wrote a response to an editorial of a newspaper in South Africa. The editor of the paper responded that if he wanted to intervene in the debate, he should do so by publishing his views as advertisements. Gandhi realised that it was not enough to write sporadically and depend on the goodwill of newspapers. Moreover, for a sustained political campaign, he needed an official and consistent mouthpiece. He therefore felt the urgent need to begin printing and publishing on his own (Gonsalves 2010: 19). Gandhi’s entire professional income from Natal, after meeting his living expenses, was spent to repay the debt that his brother Lakshmidas had incurred at the time he was sent to England for his studies and also to discharge his other family responsibilities. The situation began to change by 60

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

the end of 1902, by which time he had repaid Lakshmidas and pledged all his future earnings to public causes. He was earning well as an attorney of the Transvaal Supreme Court. After the Boer War, the government’s policies had altered and he realised that it was unwise to expect continued support for the IPP from the White-owned newspapers. Publication of occasional pamphlets and brochures was not an alternative. An Indian newspaper that would voice the views and aspirations of the Indians, as well as serve as an organ of their struggle, was urgently needed. It was at this juncture that in 1903 Madanjit Vyavaharik approached Gandhi for advice on a proposal to start a weekly to be published in four languages – English, Gujarati, Hindi, and Tamil. The IPP had already been in existence for four years at this point. Gandhi agreed to support the new weekly – Indian Opinion – with his pen and if necessary his money (Pyarelal 1986: 68). In his book Satyagraha in South Africa, Gandhi (1950: 131–4) devotes an entire chapter to Indian Opinion. He begins by writing that he proposes to acquaint the reader with all the weapons, internal as well as external, employed in the satyagraha struggle and as such proceeds to introduce Indian Opinion. Gandhi was never the editor of Indian Opinion, but the editors knew that “he was its soul.” In the initial years, he bore all its expenses, wrote lead articles, and scrutinised all material before it was printed. Although he could have easily taken up the responsibility as editor, his sense of professional ethics did not allow him to do so. He was a practising lawyer and felt that, if his name appeared as the editor every week, it would amount to selfadvertisement. He decided that Mansukhlal Hiralal Nazar’s name would appear as editor. Nazar was a member of NIC and had been an associate of Gandhi’s in Durban since the 1890s. He was a widely travelled Gujarati who had studied medicine in Bombay and had run a business in London before migrating to South Africa. He had been sent to London by Gandhi in 1897 to counter the colonial propaganda against Indians. He was a trained journalist and had made his mark by his frequent contributions to the Advocate to India. He agreed to work as unpaid editor and continued to do so until his sudden death in January 1906 (Desai 2009a: 307, 375; Pyarelal 1986: 70). The first issue of Indian Opinion appeared on 4 June 1903, and the first page announced its policies as follows: The policy of the paper would be to advocate the cause of the British Indians in the sub-continent. But while it would insist upon the rights of the community, it would not be slow to point out to it its responsibilities also as members of a mighty empire. It would persistently endeavour to bring about a proper understanding between the two communities which Providence has brought together under one flag. The advantages to the Indian community in subscribing to and supporting this paper would be: 61

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

(1) It would have a newspaper that would advocate its cause as well as give to all sections its news in their own languages. (2) It would contain news specially affecting Indians of all parts of South Africa, besides local and general information. (3) It would contain an epitome of events happening in India. (4) It would give commercial intelligence. (5) It would contain contributions from competent writers, Indian as well as European, on all subjects – social, moral and intellectual. The advantages to the European community would be: (1) The paper would give it an idea of Indian thought and aspirations. (2) It would acquaint it with such Indian matters as are not commonly known to it, and yet which should not be ignored by the true Imperialists. (Indian Opinion, 4 June 1903, CW 3: 377) A few years later, Gandhi’s statement reiterating the objectives of the paper at a meeting of Durban Indians that was convened to consider the future of Indian Opinion, was published in the paper (28 April 1906, CW 5: 289–90): The objectives of the journal are threefold: first, to make our grievances known to the Government, to the whites here in South Africa and in England and to people in India; secondly, to tell our people of their own shortcomings and to exhort them to overcome these; and thirdly – and this is perhaps the principal object – to eliminate the distinctions as between Hindus and Mahomedans and also those among Gujaratis, Tamilians, and Calcuttawalas prevalent here. Gandhi had earlier written in Indian Opinion (24 December 1904, CW 4: 320) that the objective of the paper was to bring the Europeans and the Indian subjects of King Edward closer together. It was to educate public opinion, to remove causes for misunderstanding; to put before the Indians their own blemishes; and to show them the path of duty while they insisted on securing their rights. It was clear that the Africans themselves were not a consideration in the aims and objectives of Indian Opinion. In an article addressed, “To Readers of Indian Opinion” (4 January 1913, CW 11: 422–3), Gandhi wrote, Our purpose is to publish from time to time, articles of permanent value so that readers who like to preserve copies can later have them bound into a volume. . . . We now hope to print, for the most part, writings of two kinds: those which will provide the community with 62

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

full information, in so far as that is possible, of the hardships we suffer, and we will [also] consider and suggest remedies; secondly, those that deal with an ethic of public conduct or contain, in essence, thoughts of great men on this problem. We hope that Indian Opinion will thus become an instrument of education. He called on readers to make scrapbooks of selected articles, create a file of one’s own cuttings, bind together pamphlets, and keep old copies for crossreferencing (see Indian Opinion, 19 August 1905, CW 5: 45). An idea of what Indian Opinion had really meant to Gandhi can be understood from his autobiography. He recounts that he had to shoulder most of the work as he was practically in charge of it. According to Gandhi (1927: 263), The Indians and the Europeans both knew that, though I was not avowedly the editor of Indian Opinion, I was virtually responsible for its conduct. It would not have mattered if the journal had never been started, but to stop it after it had once been launched would have been both a loss and a disgrace. So I kept on pouring out my money, until ultimately I was practically sinking all my savings in it. I remember a time when I had to remit, 75 pounds each month. But after all these years I feel that the journal has served the community well. It was never intended to be a commercial concern. So long as it was under my control, the changes in the journal were indicative of changes in my life. Indian Opinion in those days, like Young India and Navajivan today, was a mirror or part of my life. Initially Indian Opinion was published every Wednesday, but in view of the irregularities of postal delivery, this was changed to Friday so that subscribers could read it at their leisure on Sunday (Pyarelal 1986: 78). Although it began with four sections – in Hindi, English, Gujarati, and Tamil – these sections were later discontinued due to the lack of writers of Hindi and Tamil. Each issue of Indian Opinion consisted of eight pages. While the cover page listed the journal’s title and the languages in which it was printed, this was followed by a series of advertisements, followed by news and commentary, matter in Gujarati, and finally matter in Hindi and Tamil. Articles were shaped to fit the needs of the specific community. There was a continuous flow of letters, articles, and proofs between Nazar and Gandhi, who directed its operations from several hundred miles away (Guha 2013: 158–9). From his earliest days in South Africa, Gandhi had collected news clippings on relations between the races, and he made use of these for publication in Indian Opinion. He also wrote biographical sketches of eminent persons from different parts of the world, providing insights into their ideas and thoughts in order to enlighten the Indian community. Hofmeyr (2013: 5, 15) comments that what initially looked like a newspaper began to resemble 63

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

“an ethical anthology.” There were no reporters on the beat or accounts filed by foreign correspondents. Instead, there were clippings, summaries, and extracts from other publications. In fact, as Hofmeyr contends, Indian Opinion was hardly a newspaper at all. It appeared weekly, was read both privately and communally . . . and published news as well as essays and ethical discourses. Such periodicals were never solely objects for profit but formed part of a world of philanthropy, reform and service. It started publishing news, views and reports on discriminatory laws and cases involving Indians in South Africa, letters to editors of the local Press correcting adverse reports about Indians, important happenings in India, and contributions on social, moral, and intellectual subjects. Every issue had two or more editorials, a few short comments dealing mostly with discriminatory law cases, and a correspondence column. Other columns in Indian Opinion included “Our London Letter,” “Durban Notes,” and “Johannesburg Letter.” It took up issues not only concerning the trading and professional classes but also relating to the Indian indentured labourers (Anand 2007: 5, 12). Indian Opinion also drew the attention of the Indian community to the fact that their fight against White prejudice would be effective only if they also overcame their own weaknesses. Although they were the victims of municipal neglect and adverse legislation, that could not be a justification for squalid living. It was as unsparing in its criticism of the faults of the Indian community as it was of the lapses of the authorities and denial of justice to non-Europeans by Whites. The objective was not to condemn but to help eradicate shortcomings and injustices and bring about social change (for instance, see Indian Opinion, 2 July 1903, CW 3: 427; Pyarelal 1986: 80). Gandhi wrote that it was the duty of the Press to serve the people. While championing their rights, if we happen to observe any of their shortcomings, we must bring these to their notice. If instead of doing so we went on flattering them, we would be playing the part of an enemy. As we said at the very outset, we shall boldly defend our people if our opponents speak ill of them; but at the same time, if we notice any shortcomings in our people, we shall fearlessly expose them to the public gaze and urge their removal. (Indian Opinion, 28 October 1905, CW 5: 114) Similarly, Gandhi did not hesitate to praise the Indian community for their emulation of what was good in the Europeans and to promote goodwill between the Indians and the Europeans. He set aside some space in Indian 64

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

Opinion for the reproduction of matters of interest that had appeared in other journals, including Indian ones. The underlying idea was that a better understanding of each other’s ideals, traditions, and social backgrounds could help to remove the ignorance which affected the relations between the two communities (Pyarelal 1986: 80–1). Indian Opinion attracted the attention of different sections in South Africa. Government officials read it carefully as it represented the voice of the Indian community and its style was measured. Cuttings and summaries from it were regularly dispatched to the offices of the colonial secretary and ministers of the British government. The “regard for truth, absence of rancour, and impartial moderation” in Indian Opinion compelled the authorities to take note of its reports and have them investigated if required (Desai 2009a: 378). Mountford Chamney, the Protector of Asiatics in Transvaal, wrote to its editor, I have read every issue of the Indian Opinion since the first issue of the paper, and have been impressed by its moderation, even when discussing contentious topics, and by the spirit of loyalty displayed throughout. . . . I sympathise with its objects. (Indian Opinion, 25 March 1905, cited in Desai 2009a: 379) Gandhi asserted that Indian Opinion had endeavoured “never to depart from the strictest facts,” their duty being “to serve the community.” The writers believed in the “righteousness of the cause” and would fail in their duty if they wrote anything with a view to hurt. Facts we would always place before our readers whether they be palatable or not, and it is by placing them constantly before the public in their nakedness that the misunderstanding now existing between the two communities in South Africa can be removed. (Indian Opinion, 7 January 1904, CW 4: 100) Gandhi realised in the very first month of publication of Indian Opinion that “the sole aim of journalism should be service.” While control of a newspaper from without was “more poisonous than want of control,” an “uncontrolled pen serves but to destroy.” He stated that the journal provided him “training in self restraint” and “compelled the critic to put a curb on his own pen” (Gandhi 1927: 264). The initial years of Indian Opinion did not prove to be easy. Both Nazar and Gandhi were particular about punctuality, quality, and the paper reaching the readers on time. Yet, Vyavaharik, who as manager was responsible for subscriptions, tended to be busy with other activities. The newspaper had to be published in four languages, and Nazar had to shoulder all the 65

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

day-to-day editorial responsibilities. Gandhi was responsible for editorials, editorial policy, and analyses, besides translating between Gujarati and English and having articles translated into Tamil and Hindi. With the publication of the first issue, it was evident that Indian Opinion was not a commercial publication but a means of serving the community. It aimed to build bridges between the Indian people and the government and between the Indian community and the Whites. Desai (2009a: 375–6) points out that although it may not have improved the relationship between the Whites and the Indian community, “it did prevent and clarify many misunderstandings by articulating the position and feelings of the Indian community.” Pyarelal (1986: 414) writes that Gandhi vigilantly followed each and every case of ill-treatment and oppression of the “coolie” and gave it full publicity in his journal. Gandhi wrote in Indian Opinion under the title, “The Bright Side of the Picture” (25 June 1903, CW 3: 419), that while the situation looked bleak, the hope in the long term, was that as the European community grows older, the awkward corners would be rubbed out, and that the different members of the Imperial family in South Africa would be able to live in perfect peace in the near future. That time may not come within the present generation; we may not live to see it, but that it will come no sane man will deny; and that being so, let us all strain our every nerve to hasten its coming, and that can only be done by calmness in discussion and strict adherence to facts and high ideals, and last, though not least, by trying to step into the shoes of our opponents and endeavouring to find out what may be running in their minds – to find out, that is to say, not merely the points of difference, but also points of agreement. This was a very strong message, particularly the last sentence, which reflected Gandhi’s basic perspective on mediating conflict. He reiterated this in the Indian Opinion of 13 August 1904 (CW 4: 237): To men steeped in prejudice, an appeal to reason is worse than useless. We can only hope that what reason may not accomplish, will be accomplished by the great healer, Time, and the Indian can afford to wait, as justice is on his side. In the 7 January 1904 issue of Indian Opinion (CW 4: 99–100), in a column titled “Ourselves,” Gandhi evaluated the performance of the paper to date. Indian Opinion has been in existence hardly seven months, but we venture to think that within that short period it has carved out 66

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

for itself a position. Whatever influence it may have gained it has been our endeavour to use for the benefit of the community and the Empire, to which it is our pride to belong. . . . One thing we have endeavoured to observe most scrupulously, namely, never to depart from the strictest facts and, in dealing with the difficult questions that have arisen during the year, we hope that we have used the utmost moderation possible under the circumstances. Our duty is very simple and plain. We want to serve the community, and in our own humble way to serve the Empire. We believe in the righteousness of the cause, which it is our privilege to espouse. We have an abiding faith in the mercy of the Almighty God, and we have firm faith in the British Constitution. That being so, we should fail in our duty if we wrote anything with a view to hurt. Facts we would always place before our readers whether they be palatable or not, and it is by placing them constantly before the public in their nakedness that the misunderstanding now existing between the two communities in South Africa can be removed. And if we can assist in hastening the removal to any extent whatsoever, we shall have been amply rewarded. In 1904, the Indian areas in Johannesburg were afflicted with a sudden outbreak of plague. Gandhi fought against the attempts of the White community to use the plague to further discriminate against the Indians. At the same time, he also worked equally hard with his own people to put their house in order (Pyarelal 1980: 206). In a letter to the Press, Gandhi accused the municipality of gross negligence and held it responsible for the outbreak of the plague. On reading Gandhi’s letter, Albert West, who was a partner in a local printing concern and was known to Gandhi as they frequented the same vegetarian restaurant, offered his services to help nurse the patients. But Gandhi asked him if he would instead take charge of Indian Opinion in Durban. By this time, the loan that Gandhi had given Vyavaharik had increased tremendously and the latter desired to return to India. He told Gandhi that he would not be able to continue to publish Indian Opinion and expressed his desire to sell the paper as well as the press to Gandhi. Gandhi immediately accepted the offer (Pyarelal 1986: 86). West agreed to the proposal to take charge of Indian Opinion. Although salary was not a consideration to him, an amount of £10 per month and a part of the profits, if any, was fixed. On reaching Durban, West wrote to Gandhi that the books were not in order and arrears needed to be recovered. He did not expect Indian Opinion to yield any profit, but on the other hand it may even be at a loss. However, he reassured Gandhi that he would try his best to put things in order. From then on, West continued to remain a partner in Gandhi’s joys and sorrows (Gandhi 1927: 271–5). 67

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

Phoenix: transforming theory to practice On receiving West’s letter, Gandhi left for Durban from Johannesburg. Henry Polak, a British-born lawyer, Assistant Editor of The Critic (a weekly dealing largely with Transvaal politics), and a friend of Gandhi, gave him a copy of Ruskin’s Unto this Last at the station. Gandhi had met Polak at a vegetarian teahouse across from his law office. Gandhi recalls in his autobiography (1927: 276) the great influence that Ruskin’s Unto This Last had on him. In fact he devotes an entire chapter to “The Magic Spell of a Book” as he titled it. He took three important points from Ruskin’s work – that the good of one is contained in the good of all, that all have the same right to earn their livelihood (a lawyer’s work has the same value as that of a labourer’s), and that a life of labour is the life worth living. While conceding that he already knew the first point and the second he had dimly realised, the third had never occurred to him. He decided to change his life in accordance with the ideals of the book. Gandhi sought to put Ruskin’s theories into practice and discussed with West a plan to transfer Indian Opinion to a farm on which everyone would work, draw the same living wage, and attend to press work during their spare time. West approved of the proposal, and £3was laid down as the monthly allowance per head, irrespective of colour or nationality. Yet Gandhi wondered whether all of the 10 or more workers at the press would agree to go settle on an out-of-the-way farm and be satisfied with bare maintenance. He therefore proposed that those who could not fit in with the scheme could continue to draw their salaries and gradually try to reach the ideal of becoming members of the settlement. Vyavaharik considered the proposal to be foolish, arguing that it would ruin the venture he had started – that the workers would leave, Indian Opinion would come to a stop, and the press would have to be closed down. Among the men working at the press, Chhaganlal Gandhi, one of Gandhi’s cousins, and the machinist Govindaswami agreed to the proposal. The rest did not join the scheme but agreed to go to wherever he moved the press. Gandhi immediately advertised for land near a railway station in Durban and within a week purchased 20 acres of land. He later also purchased the adjoining 80 acres, at a total cost of £1,000 (Gandhi 1927: 277–8). The land, building materials, and workers’ stipends were mainly paid for by Gandhi and the Durban merchant Parsee Rustomji. Gandhi provided a substantial sum of £3,500 from his own savings, and Rustomji contributed cash as well as in kind (Guha 2013: 176). Some Indian carpenters and masons, who had worked with Gandhi in the Boer War, helped him to erect a shed for the press. The 75 ft long and 50 ft broad structure was ready in less than a month. Gandhi did not want an engine to work the press as he felt that hand power would be more in keeping with the agricultural atmosphere where work was to be done by hand, but he soon realised that this

68

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

was not feasible. Therefore, an oil-fuelled engine was installed. However, a wheel that could be worked by hand was also installed in case the engine stopped working. The size of the paper was reduced to foolscap so that in the case of an emergency, copies could be made with the help of a treadle. The first Phoenix issue of Indian Opinion was published on 24 December 1904, and Gandhi describes the experience in his autobiography under the heading, “The First Night.” Everyone – young and old – helped in bringing out the newspaper. Although there were paid compositors, “the idea was for every member of the settlement to learn type-setting, the easiest, if the most tedious of the processes in a printing press. Those therefore who did not already know the work learnt it” (Gandhi 1927: 276–81). Gandhi gave a detailed overview of the recent developments relating to Indian Opinion in an article again titled, “Ourselves” (as he was wont to do when reviewing the paper). He pointed out that the paper was entering the third stage of its development in the short span of the 18 months of its existence. Highlighting the financial difficulties of the paper, Gandhi elaborated, The object of Indian Opinion was to bring the European and the Indian subjects of King Edward closer together. It was to educate public opinion, to remove causes for misunderstanding; to put before the Indians their own blemishes; and to show them the path of duty while they insisted on securing their rights. This was an Imperial and pure ideal, towards the fruition of which anyone could work unselfishly. So it appealed to some of the workers. The plan was shortly this. If a piece of ground sufficiently large and far away from the hustle of the town could be secured for housing the plant and machinery, each one of the workers could have his plot of land on which he could live. This would simplify the question of living under sanitary and healthy conditions, without heavy expenses. The workers could receive per month an advance sufficient to cover necessary expenses, and the whole profits could be divided amongst them at the end of each year. The management would thus be saved the necessity of having to find a large sum of money from week to week. The workers also could have the option of buying out their plot of land at the actual cost price. . . . the workers could live a more simple and natural life, and the ideas of Ruskin and Tolstoy [be] combined with strict business principles. Or, on the other hand, the workers could reproduce the artificiality of town life, if it pleased them to do so. One could hope that the spirit of the scheme and the surroundings would have an educative influence on them. There would be a closer brotherly combination between the European and the Indian workers. There was a possibility that the daily working hours could be reduced. Each could become

69

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

his own agriculturist. The English workers could belie the taunt that the Englishman in South Africa would not cultivate the soil and work with his own hands. He had here all the facilities for such work, without any of the drawbacks. The Indian worker could copy his European brother, and learn the dignity and utility of healthy recreation as distinguished from constant, slaving toil for miserable gains. The incentive would be threefold to all: an ideal to work for in the shape of Indian Opinion; perfectly healthy surroundings to live in, and an immediate prospect of owning a piece of land on the most advantageous terms; and a direct tangible interest and participation in the scheme. Such in outline was the argument. It has been translated into action. The printing works have been removed to a large piece of ground near Phoenix Station, on the North Coast line. There are already Englishmen and Indians working here under the scheme. It is yet too early to forecast the result. It is a bold experiment and fraught with momentous consequences. . . . We, therefore, think it but right to take the public into our confidence. Their support would encourage us very greatly, and no doubt contribute largely to the success of the scheme. We can appeal to both the great communities residing in South Africa and trust that they will assist the management to bring the scheme to the successful issue that we believe it deserves. (Indian Opinion, 24 December 1904, CW 4: 319–21) Gandhi wanted to gradually retire from the legal profession, live in Phoenix, and earn his livelihood by manual labour there. But this was not to be. He had to return to Johannesburg to attend to his responsibilities there. By 1905, the number of pages of Indian Opinion had increased from 8 to 36 with reports now covering a wide range of topics. As a major objective of Indian Opinion was to mould public opinion, it included writings of many European and Indian authors. Gandhi made it a practice to acquaint his readers with books that had impressed him, publishing summaries, paraphrases, or translations of these books. Many of them were serialised in the journal’s pages, including his own Hind Swaraj, his abridged translation of Ruskin’s Unto This Last, and a biography of Socrates (Desai 2009a: 378). Excerpts included those from Socrates, Ruskin, Thoreau, Tolstoy, and Emerson. He also included profiles of famous personalities such as Maxim Gorky, Mazzini, Abraham Lincoln, Tolstoy, Florence Nightingale, J. N. Tata, and Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar. Readers were encouraged to cut out and keep articles they found interesting. Hofmeyr (2013: 89, 92) points out that the use of summary and excerpt formed part of Gandhi’s project of slowing down reading, of turning the format of the periodical and 70

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

the newspaper (designed for speed) against itself, and of using the art of condensation to pull readers in and slow them down. At the same time, Gandhi also took time to solicit articles from renowned intellectuals and men of standing. His letter to J. Stuart, the Resident Magistrate of Durban (CW 4: 340–1), is a case in point. The letter also highlights Gandhi’s perspective on the role of Indian Opinion. In my humble opinion, it is discharging a worthy mission in that it acts as an interpreter between the two great communities in South Africa. Its aim is Imperial and though it does and it must lay stress upon the grievances of the British Indians in South Africa, it often tones down the feelings of the Indian community, and it never fails to point out to it its shortcomings in the clearest possible terms, but now in its new garb and in its new abode, it represents much more. It represents a scheme which is briefly described in the enclosed, and if it is at all successful, it may mark a revolution in business methods. Anyhow the fact that there are four independent Englishmen who were engaged in their own businesses, [who] have given them up in order to work for its realisation and that there is an equal number of Indians who have done likewise cannot but commend itself to you. In spite, however, of this band of eight founders the scheme must depend upon public support for success. There are two ways in which, I venture to think, you could assist the enterprise. The first by becoming a subscriber and by occasionally writing for it either over your own signature or anonymously. . . . If the object of Indian Opinion commends itself to you and you consider the scheme it represents worthy of support, will you kindly let me have a letter of encouragement which I may pass on to the editors for publication, apart from the two requests above made. Indian Opinion was in a sense Gandhi’s initiation into the actual world of journalism, although he had contributed articles to The Vegetarian and been its editor for some time. He had also been a habitual writer of letters to the editor. But it was with Indian Opinion that he entered the field of journalism in a systematic manner. Gandhi later recalled that the changes in Indian Opinion reflected the transformations in his life (Desai 2009a: 379). The importance of the journal to Gandhi can be understood from his autobiography. He writes that Indian Opinion was a part of my life. Week after week I poured out my soul in its columns and expounded the principles and practice of satyagraha as I understood it. During ten years, that is until 1914, excepting the intervals of my enforced rest in prison there was hardly an issue of 71

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

Indian Opinion without an article from me. I cannot recall a word in those articles set down without thought or deliberation or a word of conscious exaggeration, or anything merely to please. Indeed the journal became for me a training in self-restraint, and for friends a medium through which to keep in touch with my thoughts. The critic found very little to which he could object. In fact the tone of Indian Opinion compelled the critic to put a curb on his own pen. Satyagrahas would probably have been impossible without Indian Opinion.  .  .  . For me it became a means for the study of human nature in all its casts and shades, as I always aimed at establishing an intimate and clean bond between the editor and the readers, I was inundated with letters containing the outpourings of my correspondents’ hearts. They were friendly, critical or bitter, according to the temper of the writer. It was a fine education for me to study, digest and answer all this correspondence. (Gandhi 1927: 263–4) Pyarelal (1986: 81–2) argues that in many respects Indian Opinion set up a new style of journalism that has since come to be associated with Gandhi: It shunned polemics and used journalism as a medium of communication for building bridges between himself and the opponent. Its austerity of style, rigorous economy of phrase, meticulously pruned of epithet, blunted the edge of resistance and tended to make the mind of the adversary receptive. He never tried to hide or slur over adverse facts or take advantage of any weakness in the presentation of his case by the opponent, but with a disarming frankness admitted the faults of his client or, the weakness, if any, in his case. . . . The aim was not to score a debating point or to get the better of the adversary in argument but to win his cooperation in the enthronement of truth and justice which should be a common ground between them. In keeping with this goal, he never wrote for effect but to reach the head and heart of the opponent. Gandhiji was one of the earliest advocates of investigative journalism, holding strongly that the function of the Press was not merely to purvey whatever news flowed in; it had a positive function, namely to prevent the abuse of power and miscarriage of justice by conducting an independent inquiry on its own in matters affecting common humanity and public weal. Pyarelal (1986: 82) further adds that writing for Indian Opinion became, for Gandhi, an exercise in truth and non-violence. Through this Gandhi was able to make the Indian community in South Africa aware of its rights. He made use of the Press for the overall advancement of the community and 72

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

sought to enlighten the readers about sanitation, health, self-discipline, and good citizenship. He shed light on a wide range of health issues, from the evils of tobacco and alcohol, the benefits of being a vegetarian, and the significance of exercise to different types of remedies and cures. His emphasis on dietary issues was an important component of his sociopolitical reform. Clearly, Gandhi and his press played a determining role in the evolution of consciousness among the Indian community in South Africa. In Satyagraha in South Africa (1950: 132–3), Gandhi writes, Through the medium of this paper we could well disseminate the news of the week among the community. The English section kept those Indians informed about the movement who did not know Gujarati, and for Englishmen in India, England and South Africa, Indian Opinion served the purpose of a weekly newsletter. I believe that a struggle which chiefly relies upon internal strength can be carried on without a newspaper, but it is also my experience that we could not perhaps have educated the local Indian community, nor kept Indians all over the world in touch with the course of events in South Africa in any other way, with the same ease and success as through Indian Opinion, which therefore was certainly a most useful and potent weapon in our struggle. Hofmeyr (2013: 61–2) illustrates how Gandhi involved himself in all levels of press work, from giving instructions on how much type to order to recommending time and stress management strategies for the hard-pressed staff, debating how to arrive at a charge for advertisements, and determining what size the advertisements should be, how best to split Gujarati words, and how to design letterheads. A little over two years after its advent, Indian Opinion became the largest circulated weekly to be distributed by the postal department in Durban. Its phenomenal success caused a stir in the Natal Assembly. In July 1905, three questions concerning Indian Opinion were asked in the Natal Parliament: (1) How many hundred weight of Indian Opinion was distributed each week by the post office; (2) how many European and other carriers were employed in distributing this paper; and (3) whether, if a newspaper made use of house-to-house delivery for the free delivery of the newspaper, this was an “abuse” of the system of free postage for local newspapers, and if so, would the government take any steps in the matter? In his reply, the prime minister stated that approximately 20 lbs. of Indian Opinion were dealt with by the post office over a week; that the delivery of the papers was effected by permanent postmen and no extra men were employed; and that because no postage should be charged on newspaper delivery under the Post Office Laws, the government could not stop the practice (Indian Opinion, 15 July 1905 cited in Pyarelal 1986: 84). 73

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

While some Marxist historians have viewed Indian Opinion as reflecting the class bias of the merchants who financed it, Guha (2003) contends that although the journal did indeed take up questions of taxation and trade that affected the merchants, it also spoke strongly on behalf of Indian indentured labourers and occasionally took up the cause of Africans – writing of their dispossession by European farmers and their inability to represent themselves in parliament. Gandhi kept the readers acquainted with developments in India. Writing in the Indian Opinion of 4 November 1905 under the title “Lord Metcalfe: Liberator of the Indian Press,” he discusses the difficulties that Metcalfe faced in enacting the famous law giving freedom to the Indian Press. Gandhi also quotes Metcalfe’s response to criticism by prominent Englishmen: If British rule can be preserved only by keeping the people in ignorance, our rule then would be a curse on the country and ought to come to an end. But I personally think that we have much more to fear if the people remain ignorant. The spread of knowledge, I hope, will remove their superstitions, will enable them to appreciate the benefits of our government, will promote the goodwill between the rulers and the ruled and will eliminate the differences and disunity amongst the Indians themselves. (CW 5: 124–5)

Asiatic Registration Act and satyagraha In 1906 the Transvaal government passed the Asiatic Law Amendment Ordinance restricting the entry of Indians into Transvaal. It made it compulsory for all Indians to register themselves with the government, for which fingerprints and body identification marks were to be recorded. The police could enter private homes to ensure that all inhabitants had been registered, and those who did not have a registration card could be punished with a fine, imprisonment, or deportation without the right to appeal. Gandhi considered the ordinance to be discriminatory and humiliating, describing it as a Black Act, and was at the forefront of the campaign against it. Details of Gandhi’s writings in the Press on the Black Act during the period from 1 August 1906 to 31 October 1906 can be seen in Figure 3.2. The opening sentence of his article titled “Abominable!” in the Indian Opinion of 1 September 1906 (CW 5: 404) reads, “Abominable is a very strong adjective to use in respect of any act, and yet we can find, even after calmly considering it, no other term equally fitting to characterise the Draft Asiatic Ordinance.” He continues that “it sets at nought the British principle of justice and fair play, and it tramples upon the ordinary ideas of right and wrong as they have been known to mankind for ages past.” 74

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

Interviews 4 Speeches Quoted 3

Statements/Letters to the Press 10

Total 47 Articles 30

Figure 3.2 Gandhi on the Asiatic Registration Act (1.8.1906 to 31.10.1906)

On 11 September, a mass protest meeting of the Indian community was held under Gandhi’s leadership in Johannesburg, where he declared that he no longer felt any loyalty towards the British Empire. He pledged to resist the ordinance and to court imprisonment if it became law. He also pointed out that defiance of a specific law had indigenous precedents. Under the title “The Duty of Transvaal Indians,” Gandhi wrote that the resolution threatening mass resistance was nothing extraordinary and there was no reason to be nervous. It was unique in the sense that it was the first time that Indians had resolved to go to gaol rather than submit to a law. At the same time, it could not be considered unique as a number of similar instances could be found in history (Indian Opinion, 6 October 1906, CW 5: 461–3). A two-member delegation consisting of Gandhi and the merchant H. O. Ali was sent to London by the British Indian Association in October 1906. Gandhi made efforts to mobilise all possible pressure to impress upon the British Government the genuineness of the Indian case and the urgency of doing something about it. However, he was faced with several difficulties, an important one being the adverse publicity given to the deputation and its mission in London. South African correspondents had publicised in the London papers that the Black Act was both desirable and in the interests of all, including the Indian community in South Africa (Nayar 1989: 16). The Johannesburg representative of The Times made allegations about Gandhi’s integrity and warned that, if the ordinance was not approved, the influx of 75

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

Indians would force the Whites to leave South Africa. Gandhi wrote a letter refuting these charges. Because the general nature of Press coverage was a critical issue, Gandhi monitored the opinions of newspapers and intervened in their debates. His request that the correspondent from the Transvaal Leader be present during the meeting with the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lord Elgin, was denied. But the organ of the establishment, The Times, published the government’s version the next day. After much difficulty, Gandhi obtained permission from the government to publish the minutes of the meeting in full (Desai 2009a: 385, 90). On leaving London, Gandhi wrote a polite letter of gratitude to The Times, which had not printed some of his earlier letters, stating, “The lesson we have drawn . . . is that we may rely upon the British sense of fair play and justice and that the cause we have the honour to espouse is absolutely just” (The Times, 3 December 1906, CW 6: 251). While the Tribune, Morning Leader, and South Africa interviewed him, the editor of the Daily News wrote a strong lead article in favour of Indians after Gandhi convinced him of the cause (Tendulkar 2016a: 82). Together with the personal transformations in his life and thought, as reflected in his mode of dress, a corresponding change was also reflected in the character of Indian Opinion. The number of subscribers, which generally ranged between 1,200 and 1,500, began to increase day by day. Despite the increase in the rates of subscription, at the peak of the struggle there were as many as 3,500 subscribers. The number of Indians who could read Indian Opinion in South Africa was at the outside 20,000, and therefore a circulation of over 3,000 copies could be considered to be quite satisfactory (Gandhi 1950: 133). Gandhi wrote, The community had made the paper their own to such an extent, that if copies did not reach Johannesburg at the expected time, I would be flooded with complaints about it. The paper generally reached Johannesburg on Sunday morning. . . . Not all who wanted to read the paper could afford to subscribe to it by themselves and some of them would therefore club together for the purpose. Just as we stopped advertisements in the paper, we ceased to take job work in the press, and for nearly the same reasons. Compositors had now some time to spare, which was utilised in the publication of books. As here too there was no intention of reaping profits and as the books were printed only to help the struggle forward, they commanded good sales. Thus both the paper and the press made their contribution to the struggle, and as Satyagraha gradually took root in the community, there was clearly visible a corresponding moral amelioration of the paper as well as of the press from the standpoint of Satyagraha. (Gandhi 1950: 133–4) 76

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

The officers of the Asiatic Department of the Government of South Africa were diligent readers of Indian Opinion. Gandhi elaborated, Secrecy had been deliberately ruled out of the movement. Indian Opinion was an open book to whoever wanted to gauge the strength and the weakness of the community, be he a friend, an enemy or a neutral. . . . The very interest of the community demanded, that if the disease of weakness was to be eradicated, it must be first properly diagnosed and given due publicity. When the officers saw that this was the policy of Indian Opinion, that paper became for them a faithful mirror of the current history of the Indian community. (Gandhi 1950: 134) Week after week, Gandhi used Indian Opinion to reach out to the members of the Indian community in South Africa to educate them, cultivate their views, gauge their thinking, and teach them the practice and philosophy of satyagraha. The paper became central to the Indian protest movement, particularly during the second and third struggles for satyagraha. When those in charge were imprisoned, Albert West and Chhaganlal Gandhi were given the responsibility for the paper, with West being in charge of the English section and Chhaganlal being responsible for the Gujarati section. When Chhaganlal went to jail, the responsibility went to Maganlal Gandhi, who was also responsible for the functioning of the Phoenix settlement. After the premature death of Nazar in 1906, his place as editor was briefly taken by Herbert Kitchin, an English electrical engineer (and theosophist) who had joined the settlement. Kitchin relinquished the responsibility after he had a dispute with Gandhi over the adoption of satyagraha. Later in 1906, Henry S. L. Polak took on the role of editor until 1916 when he left South Africa for England. During the imprisonments, Rev. Joseph Doke also acted as editor. Gandhi, however, was the de facto editor until he left South Africa in 1914. Thus, while Gandhi was in South Africa, except for Nazar, all of the editors of Indian Opinion were Europeans (Desai 2009a: 372–7). According to Pyarelal (1986: 69), this “was in keeping with the ideal of a paper whose avowed objective was to combat racial prejudice and enthrone in its place the ideal of the brotherhood of all mankind.” Gandhi’s standing instructions to the editors were that letters criticising him should be given priority in the letters to the editor column, provided they did not exceed the limits of propriety and restraint, but letters in support of him could be played down. Writings likely to cause bitterness or dissension in the community were not to be published. He took great pains to go through all of the evidence before publishing a report or taking a stance (Pyarelal 1986: 81). Alarmed by the increasing violence in India, he wrote a series of articles on non-violence in Indian Opinion. 77

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

The Asiatic Registration Act was vetoed by the British Government in 1906. But when Transvaal was granted self-government in January 1907, it was re-enacted as the Transvaal Registration Act which was to come into force in May 1907. The lead report in Indian Opinion of 11 May 1907 (CW 6: 457) bore the headline, “To the Gaol!” which referred to the Transvaal gaol. Gandhi explained to Indians the duty of resistance and gave detailed instructions on preparing for imprisonment and legal defence. Hyslop (2011: 45) points out that “the Transvaal campaign took on immense symbolic significance for Indian nationalists, and Gandhi brilliantly publicised his activities in the Indian Press, syndicating Indian Opinion’s stories on the struggle.” He wrote in Indian Opinion, “If anyone is prevented under the new Act and if the person concerned holds a valid permit or is otherwise entitled to reside in the Transvaal, Mr. Gandhi will defend him in the court free of charge” (Indian Opinion, 25 May 1907, CW 6: 495–6). Over the next few months, Gandhi published several articles in order to strengthen the resolve of the Indians. Indian Opinion also began printing the names of those who pledged to court arrest. The act was to take effect on 1 July 1907, and Indians were asked to apply for registration before 31 July. Teams of volunteers were organised to go on house-to-house campaigns and picket registration offices. At the same time, they were instructed not to be impolite, violent, or rude to anyone wishing to register themselves, in which case they were to be assisted in the process (Desai 2009a: 496–7). Under the title, “Duty of Volunteers” (Indian Opinion, 28 September 1907, CW 7: 258), Gandhi wrote, A watchman’s duty is to watch, not to assault. We have not the slightest hesitation in saying that if anyone in Johannesburg seeking registration is assaulted, our success will turn into failure just at the last moment, like a ship sinking when about to reach the harbour. Our whole struggle is based on our submitting ourselves to hardships, not inflicting them on anyone else, be he an Indian or European. This point must be borne in mind very carefully by every “watchman.” Our duty is to reason with those who are doing wrong, to entreat them, to beg of them. If in spite of this they wish to court slavery, they ought to have the freedom to do so. For, we do not see any gain in saving them from the yoke of the law in order to subject them to our own yoke. It is our duty to extend to others the same freedom that we want for ourselves. In a similar vein, each issue of Indian Opinion carried instructions about rules to be observed by the satyagrahis and the volunteers, in addition to outlining their duties and responsibilities. The fact that violence was to be avoided at all costs was strongly emphasised. Indian Opinion now published two lists each week, one of new subscribers and the other of Indians who 78

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

had taken out permits – lists of loyalists and traitors, respectively (Guha 2013: 252). Meanwhile, in an article in Indian Opinion (CW 7: 186–7), Gandhi made a “Suggestion to Readers:” In our opinion, the Gujarati section of Indian Opinion is at present rendering invaluable service. . . . The Transvaal Indians are at present carrying on a heroic struggle and this paper is engaged in furthering that struggle in every possible manner. We therefore deem it to be the duty of every Indian to read every line of it pertaining to the struggle. Whatever is read is afterwards to be acted upon, and the issue, after being read, is to be preserved and not thrown away. We recommend that certain articles and translations should be read and re-read. Moreover, our cause needs to be discussed in every home in India. Our readers can do much to bring this about. They can send the required number of copies of Indian Opinion to their friends and, advising them to read them, seek all possible help from them. In October 1907, Gandhi made a strong appeal for more subscriptions to Indian Opinion in the pages of the paper, pointing out that increased circulation would mean the “growth of education and patriotism” among the Indian community in South Africa: From the time that Indian Opinion was founded till today, no one has thought of making money out of it, and no one will ever think of it in future. Hence we intend to give to the reader greater benefits in proportion to the rise in income. If and when there remains any balance after the salaries of those connected with the journal reach a certain level, all of it will be spent on public work. We are convinced that an increased circulation of Indian Opinion will mean growth of education and patriotism among us. The journal has at present only 1,100 subscribers, though the number of readers is much larger. If all readers buy their copies, Indian Opinion can render three times better service than it does today. (Indian Opinion, 12 October 1907, CW 7: 277–8) In the December issue of Indian Opinion, Gandhi called for entries for a Gujarati, Sanskrit, or Urdu word as an alternative to passive resistance or civil disobedience. He felt that “passive resistance” was too narrowly construed, that it was supposed to be a weapon of the weak, that it could be characterised by hatred, and that it could finally manifest itself as violence. . . . It was 79

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

clear that a new word must be coined by the Indians to designate their struggle. (Gandhi 1927: 294) He himself had been unable to come up with a new word. He wanted indigenous replacements because “to respect our own language, speak it well and use in it as few foreign words as possible – this is also a part of patriotism.” The prize offered to honour the best entry was 10 copies of a booklet on the Asiatic Act (Indian Opinion, 28 December 1907, CW 7: 455). The prize was won by Gandhi’s nephew, Maganlal Gandhi, who suggested the word “sadagraha” (sat – truth, agraha – firmness). Gandhi modified the word to “satyagraha” to make the meaning clearer. Indian Opinion was used to publicise Gandhi’s ideas of satyagraha, its philosophy, and its methods. Gandhi was also aware of the inadequacies of the Indian community and sought to focus attention on the same in order to facilitate a transformation. He wrote in Indian Opinion (2 February 1907, CW 6: 308–9) on the need to show consideration for the feelings of others, particularly when living in another country. He included a list of rules for personal cleanliness, the failure of which he felt had given rise to some of the causes of White prejudice. He requested that readers avoid certain habits as it was necessary that “we should so behave that the whites’ prejudices against us are weakened.” Some of the “don’ts” included blowing your nose or spitting on swept or paved walks or in the presence of others. . . . One should not belch, hiccup, break wind, or scratch oneself in the presence of others. . . . If you want to cough, do so holding your handkerchief against the mouth. . . . Even after a bath, in many men, some dirt remains in the ears or under the nails. It is necessary to pare one’s nails and keep them as well as the ears clean. Those who do not grow a regular beard should, if necessary, shave every day. An unshaven face is a sign of laziness or stinginess. One should not let mucus accumulate in the corners of the eyes. . . . Every act of cleaning the body should be done in privacy. Numerous cartoons on Gandhi began to emerge in South African newspapers. Gandhi reproduced these in Indian Opinion with necessary explanations for the benefit of his Gujarati readers (see Hofmeyr 2013: 80–1). On 10 January 1908, Gandhi was sentenced to two months’ hard labour for refusing to register.

The cause of Black Africans A major critique of Gandhi’s life and struggle in South Africa was that he had considered Indians to be superior to the native Black Africans, referring 80

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

to them as “Kaffirs,” and that he did not bring the Black Africans into his movements or advocate their cause. Desai (2009a: 221) reveals that in 1894, Gandhi “considered Indians to be different from, and even superior to, the native Blacks.” But although he began his public life with such a position, his views were ever evolving. As far as Indian Opinion was concerned, the objectives of the paper as clearly specified on various occasions was to “advocate the cause of the British Indians in the sub-continent” (Indian Opinion, 4 June 1903, CW 3: 377) and “to voice and work to remove the grievances of the British Indians of South Africa, and to do educative work, by publishing matters of an elevating character” (Indian Opinion, 14 September 1912, CW 11: 326). Other statements about the objectives of Indian Opinion can be found in CW 4 (pp. 99–100, 319–21, 332–3, and 340–1), CW 7 (pp. 186–7), and Gandhi (1950: 131). It was clear that the Africans themselves did not find a place in the aims and objectives of Indian Opinion. However, although Indian Opinion was a journal essentially intended for voicing the grievances and demands of Indians, it was not possible for it to remain entirely insulated from the people among whom it was located. As Nauriya (2007: 49–65) points out, the African predicament gradually came to be included in its pages. Gandhi saw and condemned the racial discrimination built into the legal systems prevailing in South Africa and the manner in which it operated against the Africans. Natal laws and regulations were criticised for their racist content. Gandhi, however, did make consistent use of the word Kaffir. The first time he used the word on record is in the Open Letter of 1894 to members of the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly. He states that, A general belief seems to prevail in the Colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than savages or the Natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir. Such a state of things, which the Christian legislators of the Colony would not, I firmly believe, wittingly allow to exist and remain, must be my excuse for the following copious extracts, which will show at once that the Indians were, and are, in no way inferior to their Anglo-Saxon brethren, if I may venture to use the word, in the various departments of life – industrial, intellectual, political, etc. (CW 1: 177; italics added) The footnote at the end of the page in the Collected Works explains what is meant by Kaffir: “Member of a South African race; loosely applied to Natives in South Africa.” While Kaffir was a commonly used term at that point in time, a tone and tenor similar to those in the preceding quote can 81

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

be seen in “The Petition of the British Indians Residing in the South African Republic” of May 1895, which states, The question, then, really is not whether the Indian is to live in this street or that, but what status he is to occupy throughout South Africa. For, what is done in the Transvaal will also affect the action of the two Colonies. There seems to be a general consensus of opinion that the question will have to be settled on a common basis, modified by local conditions. So far as the feeling has been expressed, it is to degrade the Indian to the position of the Kaffir. (CW 1: 212) Similar instances can be seen in The Grievances of the British Indians in South Africa: An Appeal to the Indian Public (CW 2: 7), which states that Indians “are classed with the natives of South Africa – Kaffir races,” or a speech in Bombay in 1896 (CW 2: 53), where he stated that, Ours is one continual struggle against a degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the Europeans, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir whose occupation is hunting, and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with and, then, pass his life in indolence and nakedness . . . the deliberately expressed object is not to allow the Indian to rise higher in the scale of civilisation but to lower him to the position of the Kaffir. On various occasions he refers to the government policy of “degrading the Indian to the level of a raw Kaffir” (for instance, see CW 2: 72, 84; 3: 334). However, while Gandhi used the word Kaffir innumerable times in Indian Opinion to refer to the Native Black African, he gradually developed a sense of empathy for the community. The 9 April 1904 issue of Indian Opinion (CW 4: 163–4) speaks sympathetically of the hardships of the community in the context of relocation due to the plague: A mile away is the Kaffir camp. It is worthy of note that, when the removal from the Location took place, contrary to regulations, there were found to be in the Location nearly fifteen hundred Kaffirs, all tenants of the Municipality. This sudden removal of the people has meant a loss, without exaggeration, of thousands of pounds, for all the people are by no means labourers earning their daily wage. There are nearly twenty store-keepers of considerable standing, also laundrymen with a very large custom. Seven hundred pounds worth of washing was at the time of the outbreak taken out of the Location by the plague committee, disinfected and delivered. To the store-keepers the removal and stoppage of 82

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

their businesses means practically ruin, for, when the quarantine of the camp is removed, they have nowhere to go, and it is a question whether the authorities will allow them to open stores within town limits, pending the fixing of a permanent site. Moreover, all their goods have been stored by the Municipality, and though the store-room is a very good place, those having any knowledge of business will at once appreciate what damage would be done to the things which are stored loose in a place for some length of time without being aired. All these troubles the community is bearing with philosophic calmness, and it is only to be hoped that when the plague has been entirely wiped out, their patience would stand them in good stead. Similarly, in the Indian Opinion of 17 December 1904 (CW 4: 313), Gandhi writes that the Kaffir Market is an eyesore which has nothing to recommend it; and it has to be dealt with on its own merits. But it would not be proper to blame the whole community for the obstinacy of an individual. In an article titled “Does a Kaffir Feel” (Indian Opinion, 4 February 1905, CW 4: 347), Gandhi expressed distraught at a new law being passed which further discriminated against the Kaffir: The Johannesburg Town Council has been for some time considering the question of Native cyclists. The Works Committee brought out, last week, a report, and advised that a bye-law should be passed whereby “every Native, holding a cycle permit and riding a cycle within the municipal area, should wear on his left arm, in a conspicuous position, a numbered badge which shall be issued to him, together with his permit”. That, in a cosmopolitan town like Johannesburg, the Town Council should, by a large majority, have passed such a drastic bye-law is to us a matter of painful surprise, notwithstanding the fact that colour prejudice is a strong ruling sentiment in South Africa. . . . May not a Native ask the question – has he no feelings? Gandhi concludes the article with the specific clarification that as a rule the paper was reluctant to express opinions on matters not specifically coming within its purview. However, “the proceedings of the Town Council are, in our opinion, so scandalous, that we should be failing in our duty if we did not, in the interests of the community of South Africa, raise our humble protest against them.” 83

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

In another article on the same matter in the same issue of Indian Opinion (4 February 1905, CW 4: 353), Gandhi wrote, The Johannesburg Town Council could not bear to see the Kaffirs riding bicycles like the whites, and therefore passed, at its last meeting, a resolution . . . the only matter for satisfaction during the discussion on the resolution was that Messrs. Mackie Niven, Quinn, Rockey, and Pim did not forget that the Kaffirs, too, were human beings and raised their voice [of protest] against their unwarranted humiliation. But theirs was a cry in the wilderness. Nevertheless, they deserve our respect for giving expression to their true thoughts unmindful of popular sentiment. Indian Opinion also pointed out the discrimination imposed on Coloured people, using the term so as to include the Africans as well as the Asians. In the following issue of Indian Opinion, which contained an article titled “The Coloured Franchise” (Indian Opinion, 11 February 1905, CW 4: 351), Gandhi wrote, We can only say that the Coloured community has our fullest sympathy in its endeavour to escape from political oblivion. Time was when the late Mr. Rhodes uttered his famous dictum that the franchise should be given to every civilised man south of the Zambesi. That ideal seems, in these latter days, to be rapidly falling into disrepute. . . . We have seen only recently how a Native Commission has issued an official report, in which the recommendation is made that Coloured people, already enfranchised, should retain their franchise rights only in State elections, but should lose them in the event of elections for a Federal Parliament. The manifest injustice of this needs no emphasis. It is much at one with the general attitude adopted by the white population of South Africa towards the non-white. In matters of Colour prejudice, it is, unfortunately, almost impossible to convince by logical argument. Where blind prejudice rules, justice goes by the board. We are afraid that the Coloured community of the Transvaal will have to wait long before they succeed in securing the recognition of what we conceive to be their just rights. We trust that they will continue to protest against ill-considered treatment and to urge the inherent justice of their demands. Gandhi often declared that the Coloured community had his utmost sympathy. In an article titled “The Coloured People’s Petition,” Gandhi wrote in Indian Opinion (24 March 1906, CW 5: 243) that “though the hardships suffered by those people and the Indian are almost of the same kind, the remedies are not identical. It is therefore proper that the two should 84

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

fight out their cases, each in their own appropriate way.” In the context of the forthcoming elections to the Cape Parliament, Gandhi again emphasised the fact that the struggles of the two communities were different. He wrote, The first thing to remember is that it is not absolutely necessary that the votes of the Kaffirs and the Asiatics should always be cast on the same side. The rights they have to secure are different. Their struggles are of different types. For example, the Cape Immigration Act is a hardship to the Indian community; it has little effect on the Kaffirs. Again, the Licences Act affects only the Indians. Moreover, as South Africa is their mother-country, they have a better right here than we have. But the Indians can demand their rights with greater force on the strength of the Proclamation of 1858 and in view of their being an ancient nation. Each has thus some advantages over the other. The Indian community therefore should think independently as to which way it should cast its vote. (Indian Opinion, 27 July 1907, CW 7: 125) In May 1908, the Gujarati Indian Opinion began publishing a summary of Ruskin’s Unto this Last. Gandhi gave the Gujarati version the title “Sarvodaya” or the “welfare of all.” Dissatisfied with the goal of the “greatest good of the greatest number,” Gandhi explained that like Ruskin he wanted “the advancement of all, not merely of the greatest number” (“Sarvodaya,” Indian Opinion, 16 May 1908, CW 8: 241). Nauriya (2006: iv–4) contends that Gandhi’s transformation from an upper-class Indian professional with racial and class prejudices to a mass leader of the Indian community cutting across classes became particularly evident with his speech at the YMCA in Johannesburg on 18 May 1908. This speech was reproduced in Indian Opinion on 6 and 13 June (CW 8: 243–6): We hear nowadays a great deal of the segregation policy, as if it were possible to put people in water-tight compartments. . . . If we look into the future, it is not a heritage we have to leave to posterity, that all the different races comingle and produce a civilisation that perhaps the world has not yet seen? There are difficulties and misunderstandings, but I do believe, in the words of the sacred hymn, “We shall know each other better when the mists have rolled away.” Guha (2013: 293) points out that it was the first time in public that Gandhi used the neutral “Africans” instead of the pejorative “Kaffirs.” The change in language reflected a deeper change in his way of thinking about the world. When he first came to South Africa, Gandhi had 85

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

pleaded for Indians to be distinguished from Africans, whom he then considered “uncivilized.” He spoke of his vision of a multiracial polity and society in South Africa based on equality of all. The conditions of the plantation workers in Africa also received Gandhi’s attention. He admitted that he avoided “tea and coffee as far as possible, since they are the produce of slave labour” (Indian Opinion, 7 August 1909, CW 9: 278). He wrote the following in Indian Opinion (8 March 1913, CW 11: 483): Tea, coffee and cocoa are produced for the most part by indentured labour. In cocoa plantations, Negro workers are subjected to such inhuman treatment that if we witnessed it with our own eyes we would have no desire to drink cocoa. Volumes have been written on the tortures inflicted in these plantations. However, Gandhi’s response to the passage of the discriminatory Natives Land Act in 1913, which sought to strengthen White property rights visà-vis the Black Africans, was notable by its absence. See Figure 3.3 for a comparative analysis of Gandhi’s writings on the Franchise Bill, the Asiatic Registration Act, and the Natives Land Act. (It should be kept in mind that at the time of the Franchise Bill controversy, Indian Opinion had not yet been established.) Nevertheless, Indian Opinion’s support for the rights of Black Africans was evident in its report, pointing out that,

30

10 4

3 1

0

0

0

Franchise Bill Aracles

1

0 Asiaac Registraaon Act

Statements/Leaers to the Press

Speeches Quoted

0

1

0

0

0

Naaves Land Act Interviews

Peaaons

Figure 3.3 Gandhi on the Franchise Bill, Asiatic Registration Act, and Natives Land Act

86

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

The Natives Land Act of the Union Parliament has created consternation among the Natives. Indeed, every other question, not excluding the Indian question, pales into insignificance before the great Native question. This land is theirs by birth and this Act of confiscation – for such it is – is likely to give rise to serious consequences unless the government takes care. (Indian Opinion, 30 August 1913; see Nauriya 2006: 47) In an interview with an American delegation in February 1936, Gandhi was asked whether the South African Negro had participated in his movement. His response was, “No, I purposely did not invite them. It would have endangered their cause. They would not have understood the technique of our struggle nor could they have seen the purpose or utility of non-violence” (CW 62: 199). However, by the 1940s with changed circumstances, Gandhi was amenable to a joint struggle.

Satyagraha again The Transvaal government did not repeal the Registration Act despite the strong struggle led by Gandhi against it. Instead, it passed a new measure by which Indian immigrants who entered the country in the future were also to be subject to the Black Act. Gandhi’s correspondence with General Smuts was quoted in his column, “Johannesburg Letter,” in Indian Opinion (23 May 1908, CW 8: 247), wherein he referred to the Black Act as an “obnoxious law.” In June 1908 under the title “Satyagraha Again”, Gandhi warned, That a further battle remained to be fought in the Indian war in the Transvaal has now become clear. In every great war, more than one battle has to be fought. . . . The war of the Transvaal Indians is not an armed conflict as these were. Save for that, this, too, is a war. For, if we think of the consequences, this war (waged) through satyagraha is no whit less of a war than those fought with gun and powder. Victory or defeat in this war will have far-reaching consequences for Indians in other Colonies. No other consequence can be more important than this. . . . A number of battles may be won in the course of a war, but all the gains are wiped out if the final battle is lost. The same is true of the Transvaal Indians’ satyagraha. The first battle was fought in 1906. It was waged in the arena of British politics, and the Deputation returned victorious. This was followed by a series of encounters in which the Indian community showed fine mettle; it earned for itself a name as a brave community which, though a mere handful, compelled the Boers to yield by sheer dint of courage and truth. . . . This is the last battle in this war we have been talking of, and it must be won. (Indian Opinion, 27 June 1908, CW 8: 323) 87

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

From the end of 1907 to the beginning of 1908, satyagraha was the subject of reports and editorials in newspapers published in various languages in India. In his weekly column,“Johannesburg Letter” in Indian Opinion, Gandhi explained why satyagraha was being organised. It was not for the repeal of the act, as General Smuts was prepared to do that, nor was it a fight against giving fingerprints: When it is a matter of preserving self-respect and resisting the imposition of slavery, why should there be so much fuss about fingerimpressions? The fight is for (the rights of) those who hold the £3 Dutch registration certificates, for those who are outside the Transvaal at present, but are in a position to prove that they are old residents of the Transvaal. It is also for the sake of the educated Indians. Every Indian must be clear about this. At the time of compromise, this issue could not have been settled. The important thing then was to prove the bona fides of the Indian community. Till that was done, it was impossible for us to protest. No decision could then be taken about those holding the £3 (registration certificates), about the other refugees and about the educated (Asiatic immigrants). It was not possible therefore to have the matter settled. (Indian Opinion, 4 July 1908, CW 8: 329) It continued to state that whatever defence was needed would be provided by Gandhi free of charge. Gandhi wrote in the Indian Opinion of 28 September (CW 9: 173), “We must fill the gaols, and refuse to take advantage of the new Act.” Together with a group of Natal Indians, Gandhi crossed the Transvaal border on 6 October and was detained at Volkrust, where he was remanded to prison for failure to produce his registration certificate. From there he wrote a message to “Satyagrahis and Other Indians” in Indian Opinion, reminding them that, this campaign knows no distinctions of Hindus, Muslims, Parsis, Christians, Bengalis, Madrasis, Gujaratis, Punjabis and others. All of us are Indians, and are fighting for India. Those who do not realise this are not servants but enemies of the motherland. (Indian Opinion, 17 October 1908, CW 9: 97) In 1909, while talks on the unification of South Africa were in progress, Gandhi visited England to meet with politicians and members of the Press to plead for justice for the Indians in South Africa. However, his lack of faith that his visit would be successful was clear in his “Letter to Transvaal Indians,” written before he left the country (Indian Opinion, 26 June 1909, CW 9: 259): There is only one unfailing remedy – going to gaol. Even if a few Indians keep on going to gaol from time to time, we are bound to get in 88

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

the end what we want. We shall get it even if there should be only one such Indian to fight to the last. This is a war between truth and falsehood. Since truth is on the side of the Indian community, it must win. Gandhi’s efforts in London did not bear fruit. He issued a letter to the Press on 5 November enclosing a summary of “A Concise Statement of the British Indian Case in the Transvaal.” The covering letter explained that although the statement had been prepared immediately after the arrival in London of the Transvaal British Indian Deputation, it was not issued then as delicate negotiations with a view to arriving at a quiet settlement were in progress. We have now learnt that these have proved abortive and that the position remains unchanged. It has therefore become necessary for us to inform the public as to how the matter stands. (see CW 9: 514) This again reflected Gandhi’s judicious use of mass media. Gandhi’s despondence at the failure of his visit to London was evident in his “Deputation Notes” (Indian Opinion, 13 November 1909, CW 9: 483). However, quoting his correspondence with Tolstoy, he stated that it was “a matter of deep satisfaction that we have the support of such a great and holy man. His letter shows us convincingly that soul-force – satyagraha is our only resort. Deputations and the like are all vain efforts.” During the period when Gandhi was in London and Polak in India, Indian Opinion was edited by Reverend Joseph Doke. The first biography of Gandhi, Gandhi: A Patriot in South Africa, written by Doke, also appeared during this period and was serialised in the London Indian Chronicle. On his return from England to South Africa on board the ship Kildonan Castle between 13 and 22 November 1909, Gandhi wrote his pioneering work Hind Swaraj, which contained the basic principles of the political and socioeconomic views that he held at that point in time. According to Parel (1997: xxvi), Hind Swaraj was addressed to a mixed audience: “the expatriate Indian greatly attracted to terrorism and political violence, the Extremists and Moderates of the Indian National Congress, the Indian nation and ‘the English’.” It was published in two instalments in the Gujarati section of Indian Opinion on 11 and 18 December and was later published in book form by the IPP in 1910. Gandhi subsequently translated it into English with the title, Indian Home Rule. The finances of Indian Opinion had, in the meantime, come under severe strain. Gandhi wrote to his nephew Maganlal Gandhi on 27 November 1909 (CW 10: 81–2), reminding him that their pledge was to bring out at least a one-page issue of Indian Opinion and distribute it among the people as long as there is even one person in 89

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

Phoenix. . . . We do not want to make a fetish of the journal and worship it. But we do want to keep our pledge. By the time Gandhi returned from London, Ratan Tata, the son of Jamshedji Tata, a pioneering Indian entrepreneur who had started India’s first steel mill, made a contribution of Rs. 25,000/- to support the struggle in South Africa, including Indian Opinion. Payne (1997: 229–30) points out that the gift from the multimillionaire was ironic as his wealth came from the Indian steel mills with their thousands of underpaid labourers, and he was opposed to all that Gandhi stood for. However, Gandhi was not concerned about the origin of the money. Another important gift came from the German architect and friend of Gandhi, Herman Kallenbach, who bought a farm of 1,100 acres, 20 miles from Johannesburg. It was given to Gandhi free of cost for the use of the satyagrahis. Gandhi named it “Tolstoy Farm.” Despite the financial problems of Indian Opinion, Gandhi was not comfortable with publishing advertisements in it as these “made it a commercial or business concern, thus taking away from it the character of being purely an instrument for the service of the community” (Anand 2007: 29). In 1910, he made the decision to stop all job printing by IPP, seeing this as a distraction from the real work of producing the newspaper as well as pamphlets. In the same year, he also began scaling back on advertisements. In 1912, he decided to dispense with all advertisements except those promoting socially useful objects, especially books. He announced this major change in policy in Indian Opinion thus: We have also come to the conclusion that, consistently with our ideals we could not accept advertisements for paying our way. We believe that the system of advertisement is bad in itself, in that it sets up insidious competition . . . and often lends itself to misrepresentation on a large scale. . . . The object of this paper is twofold: to voice and work to remove the grievances of the British Indians in South Africa, and do educative work, by publishing matter of an elevating character. (“Ourselves,” Indian Opinion, 14 September 1912, CW 11: 326) Gandhi commented on the impact of this decision in Satyagraha in South Africa (1950: 132–3): As the community was transformed in course of and as a result of the struggle, so was Indian Opinion. . . . The community realised at once their proprietorship of Indian Opinion and their consequent responsibility for maintaining it. The workers were relieved of all anxiety in that respect. Their only care now was to put their best work into the paper so long as the community wanted, and they 90

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

were not only not ashamed of requesting any Indian to subscribe to Indian Opinion, but thought it even their duty to do so. Phoenix settlement and Indian Opinion were considered to be Gandhi’s personal property in the sense that they were established out of his own income. In 1911, Gandhi decided to renounce all of his ownership rights and to put them into a trust. The ownership of Phoenix, its land and machinery, was transferred to five trustees: The merchants Omar Hajee Amod Johari and Parsee Rustomjee Jeewanjee Ghorcoodoo of Durban; architect and farmer Hermann Kallenbach of Johannesburg; Barrister-at-Law Lewis Walter Ritch of Johannesburg; and Barrister-at-Law Pranjivandas Jugjivan Mehta of Rangoon. The deed was published in Indian Opinion (“The Phoenix Trust Deed,” 14 September 1912, CW 11: 320–5). It also listed eight guidelines by which the settlement would be run: (1) So far as possible to order their lives so as to be able ultimately to earn their living by handicraft or agriculture carried on without the aid so far as possible of machinery; (2) To work publicly so as to promote a better understanding between the Europeans and British Indians established in South Africa, and to voice and work to remove the grievances of the latter; (3) To follow and promote the ideals set forth by Tolstoy and Ruskin in their lives and works; (4) To promote purity of private life in individuals by living pure lives themselves; (5) To establish a school for the education principally of Indian children mainly through their own vernaculars; (6) To establish a sanatorium and hygienic institute, with a view to the prevention of diseases by methods generally known as “nature treatment”; (7) To train themselves generally for the service of humanity; (8) To conduct the said Indian Opinion for the advancement of the ideals mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs. The deed further stipulated that Gandhi would continue to be the manager of the trust during his lifetime, subject to the control of the trustees for the due fulfilment of the objectives of the trust. In his absence from South Africa or upon his death, the trustees could appoint from among themselves a manager. Gandhi reserved for himself the 2 acres of land and buildings which were being used by him and his family under the same terms as the other settlers. He also had the right to draw sustenance money from the income of the Press or other undertakings, not exceeding £5 per month. Upon his death, his wife, should she survive him, would draw from the income of the settlement not more than £5 per month for herself and their two minor sons, Ramdas and Devdas, during her lifetime, and the same amount would be paid to the guardian of the minor sons after her death until the younger or the survivor of the two of them attained the age of 21 years. The trustees 91

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

could “part with the ownership of Indian Opinion in favour of the settlers or any number of them and may lease to them the printing-press, type, and other necessary appurtenances” (see Indian Opinion,14 September 1912, CW 11: 320–5). The editorial of the same issue, under the title “Ourselves” (Indian Opinion, 14 September 1912, CW 11: 325–6), stated that the trust deed marked a step forward in their work and that Gandhi ceased to be the sole legal owner of the International Printing Press, where Indian Opinion was printed. At the same time it reiterated that the objective of issuing the paper “is twofold: to voice and work to remove the grievances of the British Indians of South Africa, and to do educative work, by publishing matter of an elevating character.” It concluded with the request that, “we hope that our readers will appreciate our position, and continue to give us their support, by subscribing to the paper.” With Indian Opinion’s first issue of 1913, Gandhi began a weekly series in Gujarati called “General Knowledge about Health.” It was based on his wide reading as well as his experiments and experiences. It was highly critical of the modern dependence on drugs, as well as dirty latrines and open-air urination, the casual dumping of food peelings and garbage, and spitting in public spaces – all practices common to Indians. He spoke of the dangers of drinking contaminated water and explained how water could be cleaned and purified in homes (Guha 2013: 445). Although the Union of South Africa was formed on 1 June 1910, the condition of Indians did not see any improvement. In Indian Opinion on 3 May 1913 (CW 12: 57–8), Gandhi reflected that despite the Immigration Bill being rushed forward, we imagine that it will never reach the third reading stage. But it is well for passive resisters to keep themselves in readiness. It is to be hoped, that, if the struggle revived, the impending third campaign will be the purest, the last and the most brilliant of all. We share the belief with Thoreau, that “one true passive resister is enough to win a victory for right.” Right is on our side. Gandhi announced in the 13 September issue of Indian Opinion (CW 12: 187) that negotiations had failed and that satyagraha would be revived. The real object of our fight must be to kill the monster of racial prejudice in the heart of the Government and the local whites. We feel the presence of this monster in the Government’s administration of the Gold Law in the Transvaal and the new immigrant law, in its insistence on the collection of the £3 tax from poor, miserable, helpless Indians, and in its attitude towards our women. The best cure for all this lies, not in securing the repeal or amendment of the 92

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

respective laws, but in rooting out the evil from the heart. There is only one way to kill the monster and that is to offer ourselves as a sacrifice. There is no life except through death. Death alone can raise us. It is the only effective means of persuasion. It is a seal which leaves a permanent imprint. We will not conquer the whites by hating them. We can gain no victory by killing them. We may kill a white in the body, but the monster inside will survive and multiply. A tree will grow the larger when a branch is cut. It will be destroyed only if it is pulled out by the roots. In the same way, we are not concerned with the body of any white, but only with the evil in his heart. The only effective way of bringing about a change in his attitude is satyagraha. It is a divine law that even the most hardhearted man will melt if he sees his enemy suffering in innocence. The satyagrahi volunteers to suffer in this way.

Indians’ Relief Bill and Gandhi’s return to India The struggle against the Black Act and poll tax by the Indian community continued. In March 1913, the Supreme Court of Cape Colony ruled that only Christian marriages were legal in South Africa, thus invalidating Hindu, Muslim, and Parsi marriages. Large numbers of women began to join the movement. In October of the same year, Gandhi organised a march of over 60,00 Indian workers, who were largely indentured workers, to cross into Transvaal from Natal. As crossing over without a permit was not allowed by law, Gandhi was arrested. The passive resistance movement or satyagraha spread all through Natal and Transvaal. It witnessed various acts of civil disobedience including courting arrest and imprisonment. As prisons began to overflow, Gandhi was released. The satyagraha continued until the middle of 1914. The passage of the Indians’ Relief Bill by the South African Parliament in 1914 brought to an end the requirements for Indians to register and carry passes, the £3 tax system of indenture, and the immigration constraints into South Africa and between states. Marriages were also recognised. In the issue of Indian Opinion on 31 December 1913 (CW 12: 311), Gandhi wrote that the satyagraha campaign did not have a parallel in history. He pointed out that the real credit for this went to the Hindi- and Tamil-speaking people living in the country, and as a tribute to their memory, news in Hindi and Tamil would be included in the paper. Although the paper in its initial stages had included these languages, they had to be discontinued later due to technical difficulties. Despite those difficulties not being overcome, publication in these languages was to be resumed for the duration of the struggle: “that being, in our judgment, the least that we must do, even at some inconvenience to ourselves, in honour of communities whose members have made such sacrifices in a struggle of this kind.” 93

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

With the conclusion of the satyagraha struggle, Gandhi received instructions from his political mentor in India, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, to return to India. Gandhi also felt that his mission in South Africa was over and that it was indeed time to return. Indian Opinion had functioned as an inseparable part of the satyagraha movement from 1906 to 1914, issuing directives to the resisters, publishing news of the boycott of registration and other acts of civil disobedience, and presenting views on different aspects of satyagraha (Anand 2007: 31). Gandhi left South Africa on 18 July 1914. Before departing, he gave a detailed account of the satyagraha and the gains that had been achieved in an article titled “The End of the Struggle” (Indian Opinion, 8 July 1914, CW 12: 448–52). He concludes by stating that the Government had displayed a desire for justice and that the leading members of Parliament have also been actuated by the same desire in their speeches. It would also appear from the speeches of the ministers, and especially from that of General Smuts, that he is inclined to deal justly in future. He further advises the community “to profit by this desire, and this it will be able to do only if it has unity, manly spirit and regard for truth.” En route to India, Gandhi wrote for the “Golden Number” of Indian Opinion (CW 12: 460–2) the very significant article titled “The Theory and Practice of Passive Resistance,” which was released on 1 December 1914. Providing a detailed account of passive resistance, he referred to it as a force that may be used by individuals as well as by communities. It may be used as well in political as in domestic affairs. Its universal applicability is a demonstration of its permanence and invincibility. It can be used alike by men, women, and children. It is totally untrue to say that it is a force to be used only by the weak so long as they are not capable of meeting violence by violence . . . the greater the spirit of Passive Resistance in us, the better men we will become. Its use, therefore, is, I think, indisputable, and it is a force which, if it became universal, would revolutionise social ideals and do away with despotisms and the ever-growing militarism under which the nations of the West are groaning and are being almost crushed to death, and which fairly promises to overwhelm even the nations of the East. . . . Passive Resistance is the noblest and the best education.  .  .  . It should be an essential of real education that a child should learn that, in the struggle of life, it can easily conquer hate by love, untruth by truth, violence by self-suffering. It was because I felt the force of this truth, that, during the latter part of the struggle, I endeavoured, as much as I could, to train the children at Tolstoy Farm and then at Phoenix along these lines. 94

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

Gandhi also traces the origins and historical development of the passive resistance struggle in an article in the same issue of Indian Opinion titled “The Struggle and What it has Meant” (CW 12: 632–42). In conclusion, he writes, The movement commenced with a demand for the repeal of the Transvaal Act 2 of 1907. The Act was repealed and its threatened extension to other parts of South Africa was completely prevented. At the beginning, racial legislation against Indians was threatened, so as to drive them from the Colony. The Settlement has removed the possibility of racial legislation against Indians throughout the Empire. The system of indentured immigration from India, that had been regarded almost as a permanent feature of South African economics, has been ended. The hated £3 tax has been repealed and its attendant misery and insult destroyed. Vested rights, that were tending everywhere to disappear, are to be maintained and protected. The bulk of Indian marriages, that had never previously received the sanction of South African law, are henceforth to be fully recognised in law. But above and beyond all this is the new spirit of conciliation that has resulted from the hardships, the sufferings, the sacrifices of the Passive Resisters. The flag of legal racial equality has been kept flying, and it is now recognised that Indians have rights and aspirations and ideals that cannot be ignored. The struggle has more than proved the immense superiority of right over might, of soul-force over brute-force, of love and reason over hate and passion. India has been raised in the scale of nations, her children in South Africa have been ennobled, and the way is now open to them to develop their capacities in peace and concord, and thus contribute their quota to the building up of this great new nation that is arising in the South African sub-continent. Manilal Gandhi, Gandhi’s son, took charge of the press and Indian Opinion after Gandhi’s departure and edited the paper until his death in 1956. Gandhi’s advice to young Manilal was, “You should write what is the truth in Indian Opinion; but do not be impolite and do not give way to anger. Be moderate in your language. If you err, do not hesitate to confess it” (Bhattacharyya 1965: 42). With the demise of Manilal, his wife Sushila became manager of Phoenix and editor of Indian Opinion. The English section was renamed Opinion to reflect “a new sense of nationhood” transcending cultural and racial barriers. Sushila ran Opinion for several years despite persisting financial problems. However, it was finally closed down in August 1961 (Chakravarty 2007: 121). In 1985, Phoenix settlement became the victim of political rivalry between the Inkatha Party and the United Democratic Front. After rioting, about 8,000 local people took control of the 95

M E D I AT E D I N T E RV E N T I O N S I N S O U T H A F R I C A

land (Desai 2009a: 438). In 2000, it was restored and officially reopened by Nelson Mandela. The 100-acre Phoenix settlement has since been rebuilt as a Gandhi memorial. Narayan Desai (2009a: 580) writes that Gandhi’s legacy to South Africa was the “method of fighting injustice. . . . (He) sowed the seeds of dignity and self-confidence that even the apparently weaker sections could fight the might of governments.” The media was a partner in this long walk towards justice. Beginning with counteracting anti-India propaganda and providing information to newspapers on the problems of Indians, and then moving on to the establishment of his own journal, Gandhi made use of the mass media in his fight against injustice and exploitation. During his 21 years in South Africa, Gandhi had contributed much to mediating conflict and social change in the region, and the print media were an integral part of this journey.

96

4 SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER Gandhi and the Press in India

By the time of his return to India in January 1915, Gandhi was already a familiar name in many parts of the country as having led a struggle against discriminatory laws in South Africa. On his return, his mentor Gopal Krishna Gokhale advised him to first travel throughout India with “his ears open and his mouth shut” and get to know the country, as he had spent less than four years there between 1888 and 1915. During his travels, Gandhi observed that there was strong opposition to the oppressive colonial rule and a demand for representative institutions, the methods of the Indian National Congress had become ineffective, and terrorist movements for independence were becoming popular. His travels also convinced him of India’s degenerate status: That the people had become deeply divided, caste-ridden, selfish, demoralised, and lacking in social conscience and civic virtues. He felt that unless the country was rejuvenated, it could not win or sustain its independence (Parekh 2005: 10–11). Gandhi opined that the East India Company was able to establish its rule in India because of the support extended to it by the people of India. In his words, “the English had not taken India, we have given it to them” (Gandhi 1939: 34). He argued that the Empire had to be fought not only at the political level but also simultaneously at the socioeconomic, cultural, and attitudinal levels, which required the active participation of the masses. It was based on this understanding that the struggle and philosophy of the Indian national movement lay. Gandhi’s role as a political leader and mass communicator whose political strategy and techniques of struggle moved millions to political action needs to be inter alia understood in this larger context (Chandra 1988: 3–28). As Parthasarathy (1997: 119) points out, Gandhi’s rise in Indian politics and his assumption of the leadership of the national movement acted as an elixir to Indian journalism. It received a major fillip as never before in its history. The increasing influence of the vernacular language Press reached its peak after Gandhi took over the leadership of the movement. The colonial powers resorted to every possible method to suppress the Press, but

97

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

it refused to be cowed. Although some papers were forced to close down permanently, others rose again and again. At a public meeting held under the auspices of the Indian Press Association on 24 June 1916 “to uphold the liberty of the Press and protest against the Press Act of 1910,” Gandhi vociferously criticised the Act. Pointing out that it was a waste of time to hold such meetings, he stated that something should be done so that their complaint would reach the ears of the government: I beg to appeal to the Government to do everything that is just and righteous; if that is done, there would be no necessity for these meetings. . . . My special request to them is on behalf of the newspaper writers. I say, “Do not harass the respectable editors and proprietors.” I further say,“Treat us as generously as you would the English people.” We the people of India are not a race of hypocrites. . . . To my newspaper-writer brethren I say, “Say openly whatever you have to say. . . .” That is our duty. We should rely on ourselves to expatiate on our grievances, but we must not forget that we have to do that under certain restrictions born of politeness and sobriety. (CW 13: 283) As he had done in South Africa, Gandhi began to use the print media to generate awareness and mobilise the people. The manner in which he engaged with the print media during some of the major conflicts, in the struggle for independence, and in his search for social change is of particular significance.

Champaran, Ahmedabad, and Kheda In the early nineteenth century, European planters had forced the tenant farmers in Champaran in Bihar into agreements whereby they had to cultivate indigo on three-twentieths of their holdings (known as the tinkathia system). By the end of the nineteenth century, synthetic indigo had been invented in Germany, leading to a sharp fall in prices. As a price for releasing the farmers from the obligation of cultivating indigo, the planters attempted to obtain increased rents and other illegal dues. Although resistance had surfaced in the early twentieth century, the exploitation continued (see Chandra et al. 1989: 178). A local resident, Rajkumar Shukla, managed to persuade Gandhi to go to Champaran to study the problem. On his arrival there in 1917, Gandhi was issued a notice by the superintendent of police to leave immediately. Gandhi responded that he did not intend to comply with the order and would leave Champaran only after his inquiry was completed. He was issued a summons to appear for trial the next day. In the course of his interrogation in court, as to why he had disregarded the order served to him to leave the place immediately, Gandhi responded that it was “not for want of respect for lawful authority, but in obedience to the higher law of 98

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

our being, the voice of conscience” (Gandhi 1927: 380–4). The case was withdrawn, and Gandhi was later made a member of the official inquiry committee to look into the complaints of peasants. He began meeting with the peasants and meticulously collected evidence from them. Yet, he did not want any publicity for his work or support from the Press. He explains in his autobiography: Indeed the situation in Champaran was so delicate and difficult that over-energetic criticism or highly coloured reports might easily damage the cause which I was seeking to espouse. So I wrote to the editors of the principal papers requesting them not to trouble to send any reporters, as I should send them whatever might be necessary for publication and keep them informed. I knew that the Government attitude countenancing my presence had displeased the Champaran planters, and I knew that even the officials, though they could say nothing openly could hardly have liked it. Incorrect or misleading reports, therefore, were likely to incense them all the more, and their ire, instead of descending on me, would be sure to descend on the poor fear-stricken ryots and seriously hinder my search for the truth about the case. Occasional “confidential and not for publication reports” on the situation in Champaran were sent to the editors of sympathetic papers by Gandhi in order to enable them to write with an understanding of on-the-ground realities. He also wrote confidential notes to co-workers, district officials, and leaders of public opinion, as he had “no desire to invite a public discussion of the question unless it becomes absolutely necessary” (see CW 13: 390). According to the editors of The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, six such reports were written, four of which are available in The Collected Works (see CW 13: 390–4; 407–10; 426; 444–6). In one of these confidential notes, Gandhi clarified that the evidence collected from the farmers “is of an inflammatory nature and a heated newspaper discussion of the evidence is bound to create an atmosphere which will interfere with the conducting of a dispassionate inquiry” (CW 13: 445). Gandhi issued a statement to the Press saying that public agitation was not necessary as long as he was carrying on the inquiry (see The Leader, 23 April 1917, CW 13: 377–8). A second statement issued on 29 May 1917 related to the on-going court proceedings. He also wrote letters to The Pioneer and Associated Press, admonishing them for misrepresentation of the facts. Besides these, Gandhi had written only one other article – on the language question – during the period 1 April–31 July 1917. For a statistical account, see Figure 4.1. A few newspapers, such as The Leader and The Pioneer, reported empathetically on the events in Champaran. However, Gandhi chastised the 99

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

4 2

4

2

Statements

2

Speeches quoted Total

2

Letters

1

0

Articles

On Champaran

Figure 4.1 Gandhi in the Press on Champaran (1.4.1917 to 31.7.1917)

Statesman for its misrepresentations (CW 14: 150). The enquiry committee unanimously asked for an abolition of the tinkathia system. Subsequently, the government adopted the Champaran Agricultural Act 1918, whereby those who had been forced to let their land for indigo cultivation were given some relief and the tinkathia system was abolished by law. Gandhi felt that he had prevented the struggle from being politicised and that Champaran provided the country with “its first direct object-lesson in civil disobedience” (Gandhi 1927: 384). The condition of mill workers in Ahmedabad was soon brought to Gan­ dhi’s attention. Since August 1917, a “Plague Bonus,” equivalent in some cases to 80 per cent of a worker’s wages, had been paid to the mill workers to dissuade them from fleeing the town, which had been affected by plague. By January 1918, the plague had subsided and the mill owners wanted to discontinue the practice, but the workers resisted the move. They contended that the cost of living had more than doubled during the war (World War I) and the bonus served to only partially off-set their loss in purchasing power (Nanda 1989: 102). The British collector asked Gandhi to work out a com­ promise. Gandhi persuaded both sides to agree to arbitration by a tribunal, but the mill owners withdrew from the agreement. They offered a bonus of 20 per cent and threatened to dismiss those who did not accept it. On the basis of a study of the cost of production, the profits of the industry, and the cost of living, Gandhi advised the workers to go on strike and suggested that they would be justified in demanding a 35 per cent increase in wages (Chandra et al. 1989: 179). The strike was organised on the principles of satyagraha. Gandhi visited the houses of workers and held public meetings to educate them about the struggle. He also decided to issue “instructive leaflets” every day in order to 100

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

spread awareness of the principles and significance of the struggle. Seventeen leaflets were issued which were also read out at public places in the evenings (for details, see CW 14: 214–69). The leaflets were issued in the name of Anasuyabehn Sarabhai, but Mahadev Desai (1951: 9–10) reveals that they were in fact written by Gandhi. Reports of Gandhi’s speeches deliberately were not issued to the Press. The idea was to communicate with the workers and mill owners in order to resolve the conflict rather than to publicise the issue. When the workers began to show signs of weariness, Gandhi began a fast to rally them. He also consulted the mill owners from time to time and entreated them to do justice to the labourers. The mill owners subsequently agreed to arbitration by a third party, and a compromise settlement was reached. It was only at the end of the 21-day strike that Gandhi issued a lengthy statement to the Press summarising the whole struggle (see CW 14: 283–4). He begins the statement thus: “Perhaps I owe an explanation to the public with regard to my recent fast.” Besides this statement, only his first speech to the mill workers was quoted in Gujarati (17 February 1918, CW 14: 185–6). For a statistical account, see Figure 4.2. The case of Kheda also came before Gandhi at around this time. The widespread failure of crops in the district had led to an almost famine-like situation. Under the land revenue rules, the peasants were entitled to a total suspension of revenue if their crop was worth 4 annas or less. However, according to official figures, the crop was said to be over 4 annas and appeals for remission of the land revenue were ignored by the government. As appeals and petitions had failed, Gandhi advised the peasants not to pay the land revenue and to resort to satyagraha (Gandhi 1927: 403–4). This was the first instance of civil disobedience in India. Gandhi visited the village

7

6

1 Statements

1

1 Speeches quoted Total

0

Letters

0

0

Articles

On Ahmedabad

Figure 4.2 Gandhi in the Press on the Ahmedabad mill workers strike (1.2.1918 to 30.4.1918)

101

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

to prepare the people for the struggle. He issued a statement to the Press, calling upon the media and the public to come to the assistance of the peasants not so much in terms of money but “as the voice of a strong, unanimous and emphatic public opinion” (see The Hindu, 1 April 1918; Young India, 3 April 1918, CW 14: 292). As one of the parties was the administration, Gandhi issued statements to the Press and sought the help of friendly dailies to put forth his views and show how unjust the administration was. As a fight for justice against an oppressive administration, he felt that the Kheda satyagraha had to be highlighted to the fullest extent possible (Chadda 2010: 32). While the government considered its authority to be final, Gandhi felt that the authority of the people was supreme. For instance, in his speech on the Kheda situation in Bombay, which was reported in The Bombay Chronicle, Gandhi states, People possess the same rights as the authorities have, and public men have every right to advise the people of their rights. The people that do not fight for their rights are like slaves (“Hear, hear”), and such people do not deserve Home Rule. When authorities think that they can take anything from the people and can interfere, a difficult situation arises and if such a situation arises, I must plainly say that those who have given the people the right advice will stand by them till the end. . . . We can have only two weapons on occasions like this: revolt or passive resistance, and my request is for the second remedy always. (CW 14: 183) Until then, Gandhi had refrained from involving the Press in the struggle, but now he made use of circulars, leaflets, statements, and letters (see, for example, CW 14: 387–91; CW 14: 338–40). Some papers such as The Bombay Chronicle, Gujarati, Prajabandhu, and Young India reported his speeches in detail. Gandhi, however, made it a point to chastise editors for misreporting. In his letter to the editor of Indian Social Reformer (CW 14: 309), Gandhi wrote, I wish this letter would prick your conscience, stimulate your inquiring spirit, bring you to Kaira and see the campaign in working. I would then not only be prepared to submit to, but would invite, your report no matter how adverse it may be to the cause. I shall have the satisfaction of knowing that you have at least studied the question. You owe this to yourself, to a friend, and to the nation. If you cannot give this much time to the cause, you must have no business to hold any opinion on the Kaira affair. Gandhi also repudiated incorrect government statements (see, for example, “Reply to Government Press Note on Kheda Crisis,” New India, 9 May 102

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

1918, CW 14: 387–91). However, there were limitations to how much he could get published. There were instances of newspapers not publishing his statements and letters despite those being furnished to them. On hearing of the government’s decision that the revenue should be recovered only from those peasants who could pay, the movement was withdrawn. During the period of the Kheda struggle (1 February–30 April 1918), Gandhi issued six statements and one letter to the Press. His speeches were quoted in seven reports. Besides these and one on the Ahmedabad mill workers strike, Gan­ dhi had issued only two other statements to the Press on other issues during this period (see Figure 4.3). Gandhi (1927: 405) pointed out that because the Press was kept out of the campaign in Champaran (with only one statement being issued), it attracted few visitors from outside and prevented the struggle from being politicised. Similarly, in the case of the Ahmedabad strike, Gandhi treated it as an inter­ nal problem between the mill owners and the workers that needed to be resolved and did not require publicity. However, media interactions during the Kheda satyagraha were in contrast to the aforementioned cases (see Fig­ ure 4.4). As a fight for justice against an oppressive administration, Gandhi strove for media and public support for the peasants by issuing statements, copies of speeches, and letters to the Press. He clearly made strategic use of the double-edged sword of the media.

Rowlatt Act and Satyagrahi In 1919, the Government sought to pass a set of new coercive measures through the Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act, popularly known as the Black Act or Rowlatt Act, which was named after the president of the committee upon whose report it was based. The act sought to perpetuate the extremely repressive powers conferred on the government during the

18

9 6

7

1 Statements

Speeches quoted

1 Letters

Total

0

0 Articles

On Kheda

Figure 4.3 Gandhi in the Press on the Kheda satyagraha (1.2.1918 to 30.4.1918)

103

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

7 7 6 6

4 4

2 2

2 2 1 1

1 1

1 1

0 0 Champaran Champaran Statements Statements

0 0

0 0

0 0

Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Speeches Speeches quoted quoted

Kheda Kheda Letters Letters

Articles Articles

Figure 4.4 Juxtaposing Gandhi’s contributions to the Press on Champaran, Ahmedabad, and Kheda

First World War, doing away with ordinary legal procedures and authorising imprisonment without trial. Gandhi launched a major offensive to convince the public that this was an attack on their liberty and to fight against it being passed. He made extensive use of the print media, utilising the services of newspapers and journals which were friendly to his cause. A summary of the Rowlatt Bills was published in Gujarati (9 March 1919, CW 15: 110–18) together with Gandhi’s arguments that the bills were subversive of the principle of the liberty of the subject and destructive of the elementary rights of an individual . . . it is the duty of every thinking Indian to save the people from this danger, a duty one can discharge only by offering satyagraha. Copies were sent to the Press, including to those newspapers and editors who did not support the cause, with a covering letter asking for their opinion. The specific “Instructions to Volunteers” which were published simultaneously in Bombay Chronicle and Young India (12 March 1919, CW 15: 118–20) reflected the essence of Gandhi’s philosophy of satyagraha. Gandhi issued a “Letter to the Press on the Satyagraha Movement” calling for a day of protest all over the country on 6 April. He called upon the people to observe it as a day of humiliation and prayer; observe a 24-hour fast; suspend all work, except as may by essential in the public interest; and hold public meetings in all parts of India, including villages, at which resolutions praying for a withdrawal of the measures should be passed (see The 104

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

Hindu, 24 March 1919, CW 15: 145–6). Gandhi’s call was published by all leading papers, as were his speeches in different parts of the country advocating for the cause (see CW 15: 152–65). In a subsequent letter to the Press, he stated that “the movement depends for its success entirely upon perfect self-possession, self-restraint, absolute adherence to truth and an unlimited capacity for self-suffering” (The Bombay Chronicle, 4 April 1919, CW 15: 175–6). He provided the Press with a schedule of the demonstrations to be held on 6 April, along with detailed directions to the demonstrators so that violence could be avoided (see The Bombay Chronicle, 4 April 1919 and 5 April 1919, CW 15: 177–8). B. G. Horniman, who was the editor of The Bombay Chronicle, participated in the demonstrations and saw to it that the paper carried reports of all of Gandhi’s activities. In addition, civil resistance began in Bombay with the sale of certain books that had been banned as seditious by the government. These included Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj and Sarvodaya (Nanda 2008: 175). Several newspapers were forced to stop publication and owners were prosecuted. In protest, Gandhi started an unregistered newspaper, Satyagrahi, with its first issue appearing on 7 April 1919. The Bombay Chronicle publicised this fact by reproducing its entire contents. Beginning with a request to readers to “read, copy and circulate among friends, and also request them to copy and circulate,” he declared that Satyagrahi would be published every Monday. It read, This paper has not been registered according to law. So there can be no annual subscription. Nor can it be guaranteed that the paper will be published without interruption. The editor is liable at any moment to be arrested by the Government and it is impossible to ensure continuity of publication until India is in the happy position of supplying editors enough to take the place of those arrested. We shall leave no stone unturned to secure a ceaseless succession of editors. It is not our intention to break for all time the law governing publication of newspapers. This paper will, therefore, exist so long only as the Rowlatt legislation is not withdrawn. (“Satyagrahi-I,” The Bombay Chronicle, 9 April 1919, CW 15: 190–1) The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre in Amritsar on 13 April 1919, whereby a crowd of non-violent protestors was fired upon by the British Indian Army under the leadership of General Dyer, marked another turning point in the freedom struggle. In view of the ensuing disturbances and violence, Gandhi suspended the civil disobedience movement. In his “Press Statement on Suspension of Civil Disobedience,” he confessed that when I embarked upon a mass movement, I underrated the forces of evil and I must now pause and consider how best to meet the situation. 105

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

I would be untrue to satyagraha, if I allowed it by any action of mine to be used as an occasion for feeding violence for embittering relations between the English and the Indians. Our satyagraha must therefore now consist in ceaselessly helping the authorities in all the ways available to us as satyagrahis to restore order and to curb lawlessness. We can turn the tragedies going on before us to good account if we could but succeed in gaining the adherence of the masses to the fundamental principles of satyagraha. Satyagraha is like a banyan tree with innumerable branches. Civil disobedience is one such branch, satya (truth) and ahimsa (non-violence) together make the parent trunk from which all innumerable branches shoot out. We have found by bitter experience that whilst in an atmosphere of lawlessness, civil disobedience found ready acceptance. Satya and ahimsa, from which alone civil disobedience can worthily spring, have commanded little or no respect. Ours then is a Herculean task, but we may not shirk it. We must fearlessly spread the doctrine of satya and ahimsa and then, and not till then, shall we be able to undertake mass satyagraha. (The Hindu, 21 April 1919, CW 15: 243–4) Gandhi suspended the publication of Satyagrahi on 22 April, resuming it after six days. With the suspension of satyagraha, he used the columns of Satyagrahi to educate the people on the meaning, significance, and philosophy of satyagraha (Chadda 2010: 51–3). Gandhi also fought hard to defend those editors and papers that were being harassed and prosecuted by the government.

Young India and Navajivan B. G. Horniman, the editor of The Bombay Chronicle, was a strong critic of the government, but he did not support any act of violence and had advised Gandhi to suspend the civil disobedience movement (Nayar 1994: 288). Yet he had to pay the price for his association with Gandhi. Precensorship was imposed on The Bombay Chronicle, and for many days it came out with its editorial columns blank. Horniman was arrested and deported to England on 26 April 1919. Gandhi treated Horniman’s deportation as an attack on the freedom of the Press and fought strongly against it. As in South Africa, circumstances once again took Gandhi towards journalism. When Horniman was deported to England, Gandhi was asked by the directors of The Bombay Chronicle to take up the responsibility of editing the paper. However, the government suspended the publication of the paper. Gandhi’s friends Umar Sobhani and Shankarlal Banker (members of the Home Rule League), who managed The Bombay Chronicle, also controlled

106

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

the weekly, Young India, and suggested that, in view of the suppression of the paper, Gandhi should now take up the editorship of Young India and convert it into a biweekly. Gandhi readily accepted this suggestion. On 7 May 1919 the first issue of Young India, New Series (a biweekly, issued every Wednesday and Saturday), came out. The Gujarati monthly Navajivan Ane Satya, which was run by Indulal Yajnik and similarly had the financial backing of Sobhani and Banker, was also placed at his disposal. Beginning 7 September Navajivan began to appear as a weekly (Gandhi 1927: 440). Gandhi was the editor of both journals, Mahadev Desai was the publisher, and Shankarlal Banker was the printer. Under the title “Our Aim,” Gandhi wrote in Navajivan (7 September 1919, CW 16: 92–5) that it will be run so as to see that the animosity between the ruler and the ruled is replaced by friendship and the distrust between them by trust, that there is unity of heart between Hindus and Muslims, that India achieves economic freedom and that, all over the country, there is nothing but love. . . . The manager, the editor, the assistant editor, and the other members of the Navajivan set-up have pledged to tell the truth exactly as they see it without fear of the Press Act. Navajivan will never hesitate to say what needs to be said for fear of forfeiting security or exposing its staff to personal risks. But in telling the truth, it will not depart from courtesy. Navajivan will contain no careless statement, no unnecessary adjective. In fact, truth needs no embellishment by way of adjectives. The art which lies in a plain statement of facts is not to be found in facts disfigured by superfluous adjectives. While the English Young India was meant for nationwide readership, Navajivan was targeted at a Gujarati audience. Gandhi assumed the responsibility of editing the two weeklies, clearly because of his desire to reach out and communicate with the people. Although he had his limitations with regard to fluency in Gujarati, he also had his own reasons for accepting the editorship of Navajivan (Desai 2009b: 161). He wrote in his autobiography (1927: 441), Through these journals I now commenced to the best of my ability the work of educating the reading public in Satyagraha. . . . Incidentally these journals helped me also to some extent to remain at peace with myself for; whilst immediate resort to civil disobedience was out of the question, they enabled me freely to ventilate my views and to put heart into the people. Thus I feel that both the journals rendered good service to the people in this hour of trial, and did their humble bit towards lightening the tyranny of the martial law.

107

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

Similarly, in a statement “To the Subscribers and the Readers” in the first issue of Young India (8 October 1919, CW 16: 223), Gandhi specified its policy: Apart from its duty of drawing attention to injustices to individuals, it will devote its attention to constructive satyagraha as also sometimes cleansing satyagraha. Cleansing satyagraha is civil resistance where resistance becomes a duty to remove a persistent and degrading injustice such as the Rowlatt Act. Rajmohan Gandhi, historian and grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, writes that with the emergence of Young India and Navajivan, “Gandhi now possessed what he had hoped for from the moment of his return to India: vehicles to communicate his message. Most of the leading articles were written by Gandhi or under his supervision” (Gandhi 2007: 226). On 8 October, Young India was published as a weekly from Ahmedabad. In his autobiography (1927: 441), Gandhi explained that it would have been inconvenient as well as expensive to publish the two weeklies from two different places. Hence, Young India was shifted to Ahmedabad from which Navajivan was being published. There were also other reasons for the change, as Gandhi himself explained: I had already learnt from my experience of Indian Opinion that such journals needed a press of their own. Moreover, the press laws in force in India at that time were such that, if I wanted to express my views untrammelled, the existing printing presses, which were naturally run for business, would have hesitated to publish them. The need for setting up a press of our own, therefore, became all the more imperative. Gandhi’s experience in running Indian Opinion and the norms and values that he had adopted for it also applied to Young India and Navajivan. While they reflected Gandhi’s philosophy of life, they were essentially organs of the struggle. Gandhi did not accept advertisements and wanted to use every inch of the papers to teach his readers about satya and satyagraha. Desai (2009b: 162–3) contends that it is possible to gauge the impact of Gandhian thought on the politics of the country from the fluctuations in the number of subscribers of Navajivan and Young India. The access to communication technology that Gandhi had gained via Satyagrahi, Young India, and Navajivan provided him with vehicles to communicate his message and to contest the colonial communication order. This was reflected in the fact that he was able to publish only 14 statements, speeches, and letters in the Press during the three months of the Kheda satyagraha when he sought maximum publicity for the issue, in contrast to 108

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

the total number of 53 that he published in the three months after taking over the editorship of Young India and 89 in the three months after taking over that of Navajivan also (see Figure 4.5). Gandhi instructed the writers of Navajivan to write short, precise essays based on facts without arguments or adjectives. Writings were to be free from all exaggeration or hearsay. He felt that exaggeration was an impediment in his quest for truth and that adjectives were also a limitation. He did not want facts to be cloaked in imagination. Consequently, those who

07.05.19 to 16.08.19

Others, 22 Others, 22

Total 53 Young India, Young India, 31 31

07.09.19 to 06.12.19 Others, 14 Others, 14

Navajivan, 32 Navajivan, 32

Total 89

Young India, Young India, 43 43

Figure 4.5 Gandhi’s contributions to the Press after taking over the editorships of Young India and Navajivan

109

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

worked with Gandhi in his newspapers “learnt precision, purity of language, the highest standards of journalism, openness towards the opponent and the ability to express in polite but firm language” (Desai 2009b: 163–4). Gandhi’s views on journalism were further revealed in a letter to an employee on the editorial staff of Young India (28 April 1920), wherein Gandhi advised him, “To be accurate, original and strong you must become a deep student. . . . Go in for depth, walk round your subject, walk into it, walk through it” (CW 17: 378). Gandhi wrote in Navajivan, 2 November 1924, (CW 25: 281), “vehement writing, even if it is charged with truth, is no answer to violent action.” On 5 March 1920, at a meeting of the Indian Press Association in Bombay, Gandhi proposed a resolution demanding the repeal of the Press Act, which was reproduced in Navajivan. He vociferously argued in the most metaphorical terms, It is said of the ostrich that when it sees any danger, it buries its head in sand and imagines that there is no danger and gets caught in the end. Through the Press Act, the Government has put itself in the condition of the ostrich. If public feeling is against the Government, it can find expression only through the medium of newspapers. By suppressing the expression, one cannot change the feeling. To keep the Press Act alive is to behave like the meteorologist who, after smashing his barometer, would know the state of atmospheric pressure. By putting it on the statute-book, the Government has damaged the machine which indicates the direction and the state of the current of popular feeling, and consequently it can no longer keep itself informed about the exact state of public feeling. The only course for the Government, therefore, is to repeal the Press Act and it is the duty of the public to strive for its repeal. (Navajivan, 14 March 1920, CW 17: 88) While journalists who were sympathetic to the Raj were granted official assistance and recommended for official honours, some provincial governors forbade Gandhi from even talking to journalists (Scalmer 2011: 39–40).

Khilafat, non-cooperation movement, and Mappila Rebellion Britain’s role in the defeat of Turkey in the First World War, the Treaty of Sevres, and the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire offended the sentiments of the Muslims in India. They felt that the power of the Sultan of Turkey, who was also regarded by many as the Caliph or the religious head of the Muslims over the religious places of Islam, should not be undermined. A Khilafat Committee was formed in India, and countrywide agitation was 110

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

organised. Gandhi viewed the agitation as an opportunity to forge HinduMuslim unity and to bring the Muslim masses into the national movement. However, his stance received intense criticism from various quarters (Chandra 2009: 287; Chandra et al. 1989: 184–5). Gandhi wrote letters to the Press as well as articles in Navajivan and Young India on the question of Khilafat. He emphasised that it was the duty of every citizen to know what the problem was and its solution. He wrote on the significance of Khilafat Day, which was observed on 19 October 1919, and the need for Hindus to join the Muslims in fasting, prayer, and hartal (see CW 16: 206–7, 230–1). His speeches and articles highlighted the fact that the government had wounded Muslim sentiments as it had never done before, and it was the duty of Hindus to stand with them. He pleaded that it was “the bounden duty of the Hindus and other religious denominations to associate themselves with their Mohammedan brethren. It is the surest and simplest method of bringing about the Hindu-Mohammedan unity” (see Young India, 4 October 1919, CW 16: 207). Gandhi wrote numerous articles and published his speeches on HinduMuslim unity. In his “Speech at Rawalpindi” reproduced in Navajivan, 19 July 1920 (CW 18: 63), Gandhi stated, If the Hindus understand that the seven crore Muslims are their fellow countrymen and that they will not be able to live at enmity with them, they will see that it is their greatest duty to live with Muslims and die with them. In February 1920, Gandhi suggested to the Khilafat Committee that it adopt a programme of non-violent, non-cooperation to protest against the government’s stance (see Chandra et al. 1989: 184–6). Both the congress and Khilafat sought to paralyse the government and attain independence through non-cooperation. Gandhi elaborated on “How to Work Non-cooperation” with specific details in his journals (see Young India, 5 May 1920, CW 17: 389–92; Navajivan, 4 July 1920, CW 18: 4–7). In September 1920 the non-cooperation movement was launched, which lasted for two years. The movement was inspired by the simple, yet volatile idea that the colonial state in India was sustained due to the cooperation of the Indians. If they withdrew their cooperation and set up alternative institutions, the colonial state would disintegrate (Chakrabarty 2007: 84). Gandhi argued that British imperialism had done great harm to the sociocultural and economic fabric of India. Therefore, the hegemonic alien power had to be fought not only at the political level but also simultaneously at the socioeconomic, cultural, and attitudinal levels (Kaushik 2001: 46). He felt that the British were able to sustain their rule in India not through force, but because of the support extended by the people of India. In his words, “The English have not taken India, we have given it to them. They are not in India 111

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

because of their strength, but because we keep them” (Gandhi 1939: 34). He further declared in Young India, It is as amazing as it is humiliating that less than one hundred thousand white men should be able to rule three hundred and fifteen million Indians. They do so somewhat undoubtedly by force but more by securing our cooperation in a thousand ways and making us more and more helpless and dependent on them as time goes forward. Let us not mistake reformed councils, mere law-courts and even governorships for real freedom or power. They are but subtler methods of emasculation. The British cannot rule us by mere force. And so they resort to all means, honourable and dishonourable, in order to retain their hold on India. (“Swaraj in One Year,” 22 September 1920, CW 18: 270–3) The Indian national movement, as Chandra (1988: 3) points out, was “not merely a conglomeration of different struggles or an amalgam of pragmatic politics, but was based on a specific, though largely untheorised, strategy of struggle for a basic change in state power.” This was structured and realised during the Gandhian phase of the movement. Gandhi’s political practice was based on a complex understanding of the colonial state in India as well as the society, polity, and political forces in Britain. The basic elements of this strategy consisted of a long, drawn-out, hegemonic struggle alternating between phases of extra-legal mass movements and political activity, carried on within the legal space but without losing the goal of complete independence. Chandra argues that this strategy bears a close resemblance to the strategy of “war of position” or the struggle for the hearts and minds of the people, as theorised by Antonio Gramsci, the Italian Marxist thinker. To arouse the masses and rely upon their energy and creativity, as well as the ideal of non-violence, were basic to Gandhian strategy. The national movement constantly sought to expand its influence among the people through different channels, as well as different movements and phases. In Gramscian terms, the struggle alternated between phases of “war of manoeuvre” and “war of position.” But both phases were focused on expanding the influence of the national movement among the people. While the basic strategies were the same, the tactics differed in different phases and over time. The effectiveness and validity of the strategy, as well as the strength of the movement based on it, lay in the active participation of the masses. Hence, they had to be politicised, mobilised, and brought into politics. Mass participation and mobilisation were the needs of the hour. Because the British ruled primarily not by force but by a carefully evolved belief system or ideology, through which the consent of the people was obtained, it was necessary to change this belief system. As such, the battleground was one of ideas. The national 112

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

movement also sought to weaken the hegemony of colonial ideology among the British people and win the support of non-congress leaders and public opinion within India (Chandra 1988: 16–28). Gandhi’s attitude towards the Empire during the non-cooperation movement is reflected in Young India (7 March 1920, CW 17: 76), where he writes, “my goal is friendship with the world and I can combine the greatest love with the greatest opposition to wrong.” Gandhi now became a major force in the Indian freedom movement, and he used his newspapers to publicise and guide the non-cooperation movement. He also wrote extensively in friendly newspapers and sought their help to support the cause. For instance, in his letter to the editor of The Hindu on 8 January 1921, Gandhi solicits his support, adding that “if we are to achieve Swaraj inside of one year, we need all the strength that can be given to the movement” (CW 19: 205). He wrote in Young India (19 January 1921, CW 19: 239) that India cannot be free as long as it “voluntarily encourages or tolerates the economic drain which has been going on for the past century and a half.”This was his “secret of swaraj.” In a similar vein, he wrote in Young India (12 January 1928, CW 35: 457), “My ambition is much higher than independence. Through the deliverance of India, I seek to deliver the so-called weaker races of the earth from the crushing heels of Western exploitation in which England is the greatest partner.” By 1921 the non-cooperation movement had gained impetus. Major criticisms began to arise from people who believed that if they did not cooperate, the plight of the common man would become even worse with no one to defend his rights. So also with regard to the issue of students leaving their schools and colleges, eminent leaders including Rabindranath Tagore and the editors of the Amrita Bazar Patrika and The Hindu strongly voiced their dissent. Gandhi made it a point to publish letters critical of the movement (see, for example, “Neither a Saint nor a Politician,” Young India, 12 May 1920, CW 17: 405–9) and responded to these criticisms through the columns of Young India and Navajivan. He encouraged a public discussion on these issues and presented the arguments of both sides so that members of the public could come to their own decisions. Instead of replying to letters personally, he started the practice of publishing his replies in the columns of his papers (except in the case of very personal letters). Thus emerged the public Gandhi, whose life now became an open book. All barriers to communication had been broken down, and Gandhi was accessible to all. When he took over Navajivan it had 600 subscribers, while at the peak of the movement it reached 40,000. The non-cooperation movement thrived on the excellent communication skills of Gandhi (Chadda 2010: 59–71). Gandhi’s article addressed, “To Every Englishman in India,” stated, Some of my Indian friends charge me with camouflage when I say we need not hate Englishmen whilst we may hate the system they have established. I am trying to show them that one may detest the 113

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

wickedness of a brother without hating him. . . . You are as much slaves of the system as we are. . . . You should be able to live in India as an integral part of its people and not always as foreign exploiters. (Young India, 13 July 1921, CW 20: 366) In 1921, the Malabar region of Kerala witnessed riots and communal violence between Hindus and Muslims. Several peasant upsurges had occurred in Malabar throughout the nineteenth century against the revenue policy introduced by the British administration. The main centres of the revolts, or Mappila riots, were in south Malabar where the majority of the population were peasants or tenants and were mainly Muslims belonging to the Mappila (or Moplah) community, who were the main participants in these upsurges. In 1881, a special commissioner appointed to enquire into the issue concluded that the real cause of the unrest was the mistaken revenue policy of the British Government. According to this policy, the landlords or Janmi, who were largely Hindus, were considered to be the real lords of the soil and the Mappilas were not entitled to any rights on the land. Intermittent Mappila outbreaks continued until the beginning of the twentieth century. Poverty, agrarian grievances, and religious bigotry contributed to the continued discontent and defiance among the Mappilas, often leading to violent outbreaks. The Khilafat movement had its impact on the Muslim population of Malabar. Gandhi and Maulana Shaukat Ali visited Malabar to invigorate the national movement and organise Khilafat committees. The progress of the Khilafat movement in certain taluks alarmed the government, which imposed restrictions and a reign of terror against the Mappilas, resulting in violent clashes between the police and the Mappilas. Martial law was declared and the consequent violence by the Mappilas lost the support of the Hindus. Those engaged in the violence were Muslim tenants who were harassed and exploited by Hindu landlords. The latter helped the police to ferret out leaders, thus provoking violence by the Muslims. Scholars point out that it was initially an agrarian conflict. However, the uprising that had begun against the British soon turned into a communal conflict (Menon 1996: 357–61). About 10,000 people lost their lives in this rebellion, which is considered to be one of the bloodiest uprisings in the history of British rule in India. While the British blamed the congress and Khilafat organisations for the outbreak of violence, these organisations accused the administrative officers of Malabar of having deliberately instigated the violence by the Mappilas. Gandhi’s attitude towards the Mappila Rebellion brought to the fore a major bone of contention between him and the Mappila community – the issue of non-violence or Ahimsa. While acknowledging that the rebellion caused him great pain and was a setback to his struggle, he did not consider calling off non-cooperation. In his first article on the Mappila Rebellion (“Moplah Outbreak,” Young India, 4 September 1921), Gandhi 114

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

acknowledged that non-cooperators in Malabar were not “in full control” of the non-cooperation movement, but he declined to accept any responsibility for the outbreak. Although he felt that the Mappilas had not absorbed the message of non-violence, he appealed for public sympathy for them for the injustice they faced from the authorities. It was not non-cooperation, he argued, but the government that was to blame. This argument was supported by the administration’s heavy handedness and refusal to allow Gandhi and others into the area to try to calm the people. Gandhi wrote, A change of heart has not been brought about in them to such an extent that they will never resort to violence. . . . It is rightly said that the atman is our only enemy as also our only friend. The complete victory of non-violent non-co-operation will be possible only if we conquer this enemy inside us. (see Navajivan, 4 September 1921, CW 21: 48) Referring to the issue again in Young India (8 September 1921, CW 21: 70), Gandhi wrote “violence and non-violence are two incompatible forces destructive of each other. Non-violence for its successes therefore needs an entirely non-violent atmosphere.” Whereas at the time of the Kheda and Ahmedabad satyagrahas Gandhi had only written statements and letters to the Press, he wrote ten, fullfledged articles on the Mappila rebellion in Young India and Navajivan during September 1921–January 1922. Access to a means of communication had certainly made a difference. At the same time, he felt that he had not dealt sufficiently with the rebellion in the columns of Young India, attributing this to the orders that were in force which prevented him from visiting the region, although he wanted to do so in order to discover the truth (see “The Meaning of the Moplah Rising,” Young India, 20 October 1921, CW 21: 320). He felt that the Mappila revolt would be a test of friendship for Hindus and Muslims, elucidating, We . . . have neglected our ignorant countrymen all these long centuries. We have not felt the call of love to see that no one was left ignorant of the necessity of humaneness or remained in want of food or clothing for no fault of his own. If we do not wake up betimes, we shall find a similar tragedy enacted by all the submerged classes. In a later article titled “Love Not Hate,” Gandhi wrote, I believe in loving my enemies. I believe in non-violence as the only remedy open to the Hindus, Mussalmans, Sikhs, Parsis, Christians and Jews of India. . . . We must by our conduct demonstrate to every 115

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

Englishman that he is as safe in the remotest corner of India as he professes to feel behind the machine gun. (Young India, 8 December 1921, CW 21: 551) The visit by the Prince of Wales to India in November 1921 led to violence between the supporters of the Raj and those of Gandhi, who had called for a boycott of the visit. Gandhi went on a fast, breaking it only after the violence had subsided. He wrote a series of articles in Young India on non-cooperation and non-violence and expressed his displeasure at newspaper reports of his speeches. He wrote in Young India (8 December 1921, CW 21: 537), Reporters have rarely succeeded in reporting my speeches correctly. Indeed the best thing would be not to report speeches at all, except when they have undergone revision by the speakers themselves. If this simple rule were followed much misunderstanding could be avoided. The government sought to curb the non-cooperation movement through various methods, including attempts to control the Press. It ceased to provide advertisements to over 300 nationalist papers, including Young India and Navajivan. Several papers were asked to furnish security deposits or were forced to cease publication. Gandhi wrote on “Liberty of the Press” and urged the editors concerned to follow the example of the editor of the Independent and “publish their views in writing” (see Young India, 12 January 1922, CW 22: 177–8). He further suggested, Let us first break the idol of machinery and leaden type. The pen is our foundry and the hands of willing copyists our printing machine. . . . Let us use the machine and the type whilst we can, to give unfettered expression to our thoughts. But let us not feel helpless when they are taken away from us by a “paternal” Government watching and controlling every combination of types and every movement of the printing machine. But the handwritten newspaper is, I admit, a heroic remedy meant for heroic times. . . . We must do something more. We must apply civil disobedience for the restoration of that right before we think of what we call larger things. The restoration of free speech, free association and free Press is almost the whole swaraj. At the same time, he continuously expressed the hope that editors would take special care in the selection of news and that they do not put in a single fact which cannot be fully substantiated and that they do not indulge in criticism that is calculated to excite hatred. . . . They must be specially restrained in the choice of language. It would be terrible if written newspapers were to indulge 116

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

in undisciplined language. So long as the country is under the spell of non-violence, every word uttered or written in anger or malice retards our progress. (Young India, 23 February 1922, CW 22: 450–1) When violence broke out at Chauri Chaura (in today’s Uttar Pradesh), where a mob set fire to a police station causing the death of several constables trapped inside on 4 February 1922, Gandhi was shocked and troubled. He suspended the non-cooperation movement. His article on “Non-violence” (Young India, 9 March 1922, CW 23: 24–5) clarified his thoughts, emphasising that complete non-violence is complete absence of ill will against all that lives. . . . Our non-violence need not be of the strong, but it has to be of the truthful. . . . Our non-violence must not breed violence, hatred and ill will. On hearing of his imminent arrest and the possible destruction of his weeklies, Gandhi wrote in another article, in the same issue of Young India, that these journals were “insistently preaching nothing but peace and goodwill. Extraordinary care is taken to give nothing but truth, as I find it, to the readers” (CW 23: 58). Gandhi was arrested on 10 March 1922 on charges of writing four seditious articles in Young India that sought to create disaffection towards His Majesty’s government. The articles in question were “Disaffection a Virtue” (15 June 1921), “Tampering with Loyalty” (29 September 1921), “A Puzzle and its Solution” (15 December 1921), and “Shaking the Manes” (23 February 1922). The charges were later modified to drop the first article. In the article “Tampering with Loyalty” (CW 21: 221–3), Gandhi declares that it is “sinful for anyone, either as soldier or civilian, to serve this Government which has proved treacherous to the Mussulmans of India and which has been guilty of the inhumanities of the Punjab.” He further clearly asserts that, Sedition has become the creed of the Congress. Every nonco-operator is pledged to preach disaffection towards the Government established by law. Non-co-operation, though a religious and strictly moral movement, deliberately aims at the overthrow of the Government, and is therefore legally seditious in terms of the Indian Penal Code. In “A Puzzle and its Solution” (CW 22: 28–9), Gandhi further declares, We are challenging the might of this Government because we consider its activity to be wholly evil. We want to overthrow the 117

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

Government. . . . We desire to show that the Government exists to serve the people, not the people the Government. He concludes by pointing out that,“This is a fight to the finish. It is a conflict between the reign of violence and of public opinion. Those who are fighting for the latter are determined to submit to any violence rather than surrender their opinion.” In “Shaking the Manes” (CW 22: 457–8), Gandhi queries how there could be “any compromise whilst the British Lion continues to shake his gory claws in our faces?” He argues that no empire that has been intoxicated with power and plundered weaker races has lived long in this world, and the “‘British Empire,’ which is based upon organised exploitation of physically weaker races of the earth and upon a continuous exhibition of brute force, cannot live if there is a just God ruling the universe.” At the “Great Trial,” as it came to be known, held on 18 March, the judge called upon the accused to plead to the charges. Gandhi pleaded guilty and with the court’s permission read out his prepared statement, which was reproduced in Young India (23 March 1922, CW 23: 115), to “explain why from a staunch loyalist and co-operator” he had “become an uncompromising disaffectionist and non-cooperator.” The judge reluctantly sentenced Gandhi to six years’ imprisonment, adding that if the government decided to release him sooner, he would be the happiest person. Gandhi’s incarceration lasted until 1924, when he was released on medical grounds. It was during this time that he wrote his memoir – Satyagraha in South Africa. From 1922 to 1924 when Gandhi was in Yervada jail, Young India and Navajivan were edited by C. Rajagopalachari, Jairamdas Daulatram, and George Joseph. Although the editorial responsibility was shared by others, the publications continued to carry Gandhi’s name as editor. When Devadas Gandhi and Rajagopalachari met Gandhi in prison, he instructed them not to make his prison life a subject of discussion in the Press (Nanda 2008: 242). During his absence, the circulation of Young India had decreased from 21,500 to 3,000. After his release from prison, Gandhi resumed the editorships of Young India and Navajivan; the first issue under his editorship was brought out on 3 April 1924 (Tendulkar 2016b: 127). In his first article, “For the Readers Past and Present of Young India” (3 April 1924, CW 23: 341), he wrote with anguish: We pledged ourselves to be non-violent towards each other and our opponents, whether administrators or co-operators. We were to appeal to their hearts and evoke the best in them, not play upon their fear to gain our end. Consciously or unconsciously the majority of us – the articulate portion – have not been true to our pledge. We have been intolerant towards our opponents.  .  .  . The pages of Young India can only, therefore, illustrate the utility and the 118

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

necessity of non-violence in dealing with the questions that engage public attention. So much for the central policy of Young India. The original Gujarati version of Satyagraha in South Africa was serialised weekly in Navajivan from 13 April 1924 until 22 November 1925. This was followed by weekly instalments of his autobiography, which appeared in Navajivan from 29 November 1925 to 3 February 1929. The English version appeared almost simultaneously in Young India. It was around the time of Gandhi’s release from prison that the Vykom (later renamed Vaikom) satyagraha took place in the erstwhile princely state of Travancore. Vykom was a small village in Travancore, and the Namboothiri community, which belonged to the priestly Brahmin class, had total control over the celebrated Mahadev temple and its rituals. They enforced strict norms of untouchability. The untouchables were not even permitted to use the roads surrounding the temple beside which the Brahmins lived. The congress leaders of Kerala sought Gandhi’s consent and advice to start a satyagraha with the ultimate objective of removing untouchability. The immediate objective of the satyagraha was to gain access to the roads surrounding the temple. They decided to enter these roads on 30 March 1924. Gandhi kept a close watch on the developments and often wrote about the satyagraha in Navajivan and Young India. This helped to spread the news of the developments across the country (Desai 2009b: 361–4). Gandhi had written and spoken vehemently against the practice of untouchability. He considered untouchability to be a perversion of Hinduism and fought to eradicate it. For instance, he wrote in Harijan, To make any persons crawl on their stomachs, to segregate them, to drive them to live on the outskirts of the village, not to be concerned whether they live or die, to give them food left over by others – all this certainly cannot be religion. We are inflicting upon untouchables an outrage grosser than that in the Punjab against which we have been protesting. That an untouchable cannot live in our neighbourhood and cannot own land, that an untouchable must, on seeing us, shout: “Please keep at a distance, do not touch me,” and should not be permitted to sit with us in the train – this is not Hinduism. This is Dyerism. (6 February 1921, CW 19: 331) A few months later he wrote in Young India (25 May 1921, CW 20: 136) that, Swaraj is a meaningless term if we desire to keep a fifth of India under perpetual subjection, and deliberately deny to them the fruits of national culture. . . . We deny to the most deserving among His creatures the rights of humanity. 119

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

Referring to the Vykom satyagraha, Gandhi wrote in Young India, Vykom, of which till lately no one outside Travancore, at most the Madras Presidency, knew anything, has suddenly leapt to fame because it has become the seat of Satyagraha. The Press contains bulletins of the daily progress of the movement from day to day. It has been undertaken on behalf of the untouchables of Travancore. The movement has given us another word to describe the condition of the suppressed classes. It is unapproachability. These poor countrymen of ours may not only not touch any other caste Hindus, but they may not even approach them within a stated distance. The leaders of the movement, with a view to remedying the evil, have taken up only a fragment of the evil, hoping no doubt that, if they deal with it successfully, they will have dealt it a death-blow at least in that part of India in which direct action is now going on. In the prosecution of the campaign some of the staunchest workers of Malabar have been imprisoned, including my predecessor, George Joseph. As most of the leaders have been imprisoned, an appeal has been made to the leaders all over India to come to the rescue. Whether such an appeal can or should be met or not need not be considered for the moment, as Madras seems to be responding whole-heartedly. There can now be no receding. The struggle may last long if orthodox Hindu opinion is actively hostile to the movement. The satyagrahis are certain to break down the wall of prejudice no matter how strong and solid it may be if they continue firm but humble, truthful and non-violent. They must have faith enough in these qualities to know that they will melt the stoniest hearts. (“Notes,” 17 April 1924, CW 23: 457) In an interview with The Hindu (17 April 1924, CW 23: 440) on the Vykom satyagraha, Gandhi stated, “the whole of the Indian Press can give due prominence to the movement and I am glad to notice that it is receiving such prominence.” He wrote in Young India, A word now to the organisers of Vykom Satyagraha. The challenge of the goondas must be taken up. But the satyagrahis must not lose their heads. The khaddar dress of the volunteers is said to have been torn from them and burnt. This is all most provoking. They must remain cool under every provocation and courageous under the hottest fire. Loss even of a few hundred lives will not be too great a price to pay for the freedom of the unapproachables. Only the martyrs must die clean. Satyagrahis, like Caesar’s wife, must be above suspicion. (3 July, CW 24: 346) 120

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

In Young India of 18 September (CW 25: 163), Gandhi stated that “the satyagrahi seeks to convert his opponent by sheer force of character and suffering.” He reminded the satyagrahis that the purer they were and the more they suffered, the quicker the progress. He advised them to not only “bear such hardships cheerfully” but also “actively love his persecutors.” He pointed out that the persecutors “honestly believed that the reformer is doing something sinful and therefore resort to the only means they know.” Gandhi travelled to the region from 8 to 15 March 1925 with the aim of declaring his sympathies with the satyagrahis, and he provided guidance to the movement through letters, articles, and personal interviews. It was in this context that he famously wrote in Young India on 19 March 1925 (CW 26: 326–7): Vykom is a test case so far as Travancore and, for that matter, Malabar is concerned. It affects the common rights of more than one sixth of the entire population of Travancore. Those therefore who are interested in the removal of the curse of untouchability cannot but read the Dewan’s address with interest. I do not propose to comment on it this week as it would be unfair to do so in view of the fact that I am to have the honour of meeting him before this will have been printed and in view of the further fact that I have not at the time of writing completed my investigations. . . . I make bold to state that from the very outset satyagraha at Vykom was intended to be an educative force and never an instrument of coercion of the orthodox. It was for that reason that the fast against the orthodox was abandoned. It was to avoid coercion of the Government by embarrassment that the barricades have been scrupulously respected. It was for that reason that no attempt was made to dodge the police. It has been recognised that what appears to the reformers as a gross and sinful superstition is to the orthodox a part of their faith. The satyagrahi’s appeal has therefore been to the reason of the orthodox. But experience has shown that mere appeal to the reason produces no effect upon those who have settled convictions. The eyes of their understanding are opened not by argument but by the suffering of the satyagrahi. The satyagrahi strives to reach the reason through the heart. The method of reaching the heart is to awaken public opinion. Public opinion for which one cares is a mightier force than that of gunpowder. However, critics point out that Gandhi obstructed the logical expansion of the movement. His role created predicaments because of his goal of securing agreement from upper castes. He did not understand that the organizing by untouchable 121

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

communities was ultimately as important as the attitudes of the orthodox. (King 2015: 225–6) Gandhi had emphasised the need for a change to be brought about in the attitudes of the upper castes. He had written in Young India (2 April 1925, CW 26: 439) that the pace of reform need not be forced. Public opinion should be carefully cultivated and the majority should be converted before the reform can be successfully carried out. . . . Once the idea of pollution by the touch of a person by reason of his birth is gone, the rest is easy and bound to follow. In his talk to the residents of Satyagraha Ashram, Vykom (Young India, 19 March 1925, CW 26: 270–1), Gandhi had stated, The struggle for the opening of the roads round the temple which we hold to be public to the unapproachables is but a small skirmish in the big battle. . . . I have found that mere appeal to reason does not answer where prejudices are age-long and based on supposed religious authority. Reason has to be strengthened by suffering and suffering opens the eyes of understanding. Therefore there must be no trace of compulsion in our acts. We must not be impatient, and we must have an undying faith in the means we are adopting. The satyagraha lasted for about 15 months. It helped to ensure that the untouchable communities were allowed to use the roads leading to the temple. This led to the opening of the roads leading to many temples in Kerala and created the atmosphere for the temple entry of the untouchables, which was achieved at a much later stage. Travancore was the first state to enact a law granting rights to untouchables to enter and worship in Hindu temples (Desai 2009b: 372). Beginning in the early 1920s, Gandhi had drawn the attention of international news reporting and, the mass movement in India gradually became news all over the world. However, newspapers in the United States relied on Reuters, which was selective in its reporting on Gandhi. One of the first positive news reports about Gandhi in the United States was a sermon by Rev. John Haynes Holmes, a Unitarian pastor who had helped form the American Anti-Enlistment League in 1915, the War Resisters League, and the American Civil Liberties Union. In his sermon in New York in April 1921, he described Gandhi as the greatest living person in the world. This had an impact, with the news about India and Gandhi improving considerably. Holmes had chanced upon an article on Gandhi and began to correspond 122

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

with him. He also began receiving the weekly copies of Young India (Scalmer 2011: 64). The African-American intellectual W. E. B. Du Bois, a founder of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and an important figure in American literature, wrote an article in the March 1922 issue of the NAACPs official journal, The Crisis, which praised Gandhi and the non-cooperation movement. He felt that the new method of nonviolent struggle could be used to liberate African Americans. On its 20th anniversary in 1929, The Crisis featured a front-page message from Gandhi to “the 12 million Negroes,” with a comment from Du Bois that “Agitation, non-violence, and refusal to cooperate (are) leading all India to freedom.” Other African-American publications and newspapers also praised Gandhi. In December 1921 the Chicago Defender, one of the largest and most influential Black newspapers in the United States, called Gandhi the “greatest man in the world today” (Cortright 2007: 38–9). The misinformation by the British about the conditions in India and the nature of the freedom struggle understandably frustrated the leaders of the freedom movement. In 1922 itself Gandhi had written, “In its very nature it (the struggle for self-rule) has to depend upon growing world opinion in its favour. When I see so much misrepresentation of things in general in the American and European Press I despair of the message of the struggle ever reaching the Western world” (see Scalmer 2011: 42).

Communal problems and nation building Gandhi was elected president of the Indian National Congress in 1924. By then he was deeply disturbed by the increasing conflict between Hindus and Muslims and was convinced that swaraj could not be achieved unless Hindus and Muslims learned to live in peace with each other. He was extremely critical of newspapers that fanned the flames of communalism and resorted to misrepresentations (see, for example, Young India, 10 April 1924, CW 23: 401; Young India, 28 May 1931, CW 46: 236; Harijan, 28 April 1946, CW 84: 39). He appealed to the readers of Navajivan (13 April 1924, CW 23: 411): At such a time your duty and mine is to try our best to put out this fire. It is my firm conviction that there is no cause for disunity and cleavage between us. Each adhering to his own religion, we can maintain mutual brotherliness. I therefore hope that you will try to promote friendship between our two communities. Never accept without examination and scrutiny all that may be written against either Hindus or Muslims. He often wrote in Young India and Navajivan about Hindu-Muslim unity. In a long article in Young India (29 May 1924, CW 24: 136–54) titled 123

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

“Hindu-Muslim Tension: Its Cause and Cure,” Gandhi wrote, “For me the only question for immediate solution before the country is the HinduMussalman question.” He concluded with a prayer that the readers of Young India would pardon him for devoting practically the whole of Young India to the question of Hindu-Muslim unity. He will readily do so if he holds with me that there is no question more important and more pressing than this. In my opinion, it blocks all progress. Navajivan carried it as a special issue. Gandhi had hoped that newspapers would contribute to resolving the Hindu-Muslim conflict but was disappointed with them. He felt that systematic attempts were being made to widen the rift between Hindus and Muslims and that certain newspapers belonging to each of these communities only served to spread misunderstanding by inflaming passions through exaggeration and distortion. Other newspapers often followed suit (Desai 2009b: 302). Gandhi issued a statement to the Associated Press of India, which was later published in Young India, announcing a 21-day fast with a strong appeal to both communities: The recent events have proved unbearable. My helplessness is still more unbearable. My religion teaches me that whenever there is distress which one cannot remove, one must fast and pray. . . . Nothing evidently that I say or write can bring the two communities together. I am therefore imposing on myself a fast of 21 days. . . . As a penance I need not have taken the public into my confidence, but I publish the fast as (let me hope) an effective prayer both to Hindus and Mussalmans, who have hitherto worked in unison not to commit suicide. I respectfully invite the heads of all communities, including Englishmen, to meet and end this quarrel which is a disgrace to religion and to humanity. (Young India, 25 September 1924, CW 25: 171) During the fast, the editorial responsibilities of Young India were given to C. F. Andrews and those of Navajivan to Mahadev Desai. In 1925 Gandhi continued to write on the Hindu-Muslim problem in Young India, arguing that it would not have taken this form if the country had understood his method. According to Gandhi, the doctrine of non-violence held the key not only to the political freedom of the country but also to peace between communities (Nanda 1989: 146, 2008: 257). Gandhi then travelled across the country and devoted his time to the task of “nation building.” He wrote extensively on spinning and weaving and the philosophy of khadi in Young India and Navajivan. He believed that khadi was a response to the three diseases of communalism, caste, and economic 124

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

inequality. Khadi-related activities gave equal opportunities to both Hindus and Muslims and brought them closer, as they also did for the upper castes and the untouchables. Khadi also reduced the inequalities between the rich and the poor, established the importance of labour, and was peaceful and environmentally friendly (Desai 2009b: 456). Each issue of Young India began to devote several pages to listing people and the number of yards of yarn they had spun. In March 1925, Gandhi reproduced in Navajivan (CW 26: 312) several criticisms raised by a reader: it had become like a monthly magazine, publishing articles largely on khadi and the spinning wheel; Mahadev Desai was writing on Gandhi’s tours with no space for other articles; while focusing on education, it had no plans as such for it; and it was probably the most expensive weekly in the world, as its price had not decreased even when the cost of paper had decreased. Gandhi responded in detail to each of these criticisms, accepting them while giving his perspective. He pointed out that the focus on spinning and khadi needed to continue as swaraj was not in the immediate offing and that the education scenario was indeed dismal. With regard to the cost of the paper, he stated, I regard the subscribers as partners in Navajivan. I insist on publishing it only as long as a certain minimum number of persons subscribe to it. I also propose to meet its expenses through subscriptions alone and not through advertisements. Hence its subscribers can, if they so desire, put an end to its publication.  .  .  . There is no need now to show why the price of Navajivan cannot be reduced. Nevertheless, I would add that those who subscribe to Navajivan are its owners, and the profits earned by it are not private but public income. Navajivan cannot be made a monthly as it does not contain merely articles; it is a weekly record of progress towards swaraj. Referring to the extent of money spent on the purchase of British goods, Gandhi emphasised in Young India of 6 June 1929 (CW 41: 21) that such purchases would only bring ruin to the peasants of India. He also reminded the readers that more than half of these purchases was of British cloth, which could easily be manufactured in the cottages of India and would “stop this terrific drain from the country.” It was also around this time that Gandhi made another change in his clothing. Up until then he wore a khadi kurta, a turban, and a long dhoti. At a meeting in Madurai, some students complained to him that wearing khadi clothes was too expensive. Consequently, he simplified his dress even further and began to wear just a small dhoti. By the end of 1925, Gandhi began writing his autobiography in Gujarati. One chapter per week was published in Navajivan from 29 November 125

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

1925 to 3 February 1929. This was followed by an English translation by Mahadev Desai and later by Pyarelal, which was published in Young India beginning on 3 December 1925. In introducing this venture, Gandhi wrote, “I simply want to tell the story of my experiments with truth. It is true the story will take the shape of an autobiography.  .  .  . My purpose is to describe experiments in the science of satyagraha and not at all to describe how good I am” (Tendulkar 2016b: 217). In the first issue of Young India in 1926, Gandhi announced his decision to suspend his touring activities for one year. During this period he kept in touch with people all over the country through Young India. Each chapter of his autobiography that was published in Young India generated worldwide interest (Tendulkar 2016b: 217). Holmes’ journal Unity also published his autobiography in a similar, serial form (Rudolph 2006: 99). In 1928 the British government sent a seven-member parliamentary commission headed by Sir John Simon to review the Montague-Chelmsford reforms of 1919 regarding the introduction of self-governing institutions in India. The lack of even one member from India caused a major outcry. Various organisations announced a boycott of the commission. The Press reported on the boycott actions and was ecstatic when the commission was forced to return without achieving its objectives. Lala Lajpat Rai’s death the same year, which was followed by the killing of a police officer in retaliation, as well as the dropping of bombs on the floor of the assembly by Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwas Dutt, resulted in Gandhi’s response in the article “The Cult of the Bomb” in Young India: Every time violence has occurred we have lost heavily, that is to say, military expenditure has risen . . . the masses in whose name, and for whose sake we want freedom, have had to bear greater burdens without having any return whatsoever therefor (sic). . . . If we would only realise that it is not by terrorizing the foreigner that we shall gain freedom, but by ourselves shedding fear and teaching the villager to shed his own fear that we shall gain true freedom, we would at once perceive that violence is suicidal. From violence done to the foreign ruler, to violence to our own people, whom we may consider to be obstructing the country’s progress is an easy natural step. Whatever may have been the result of violent activities in other countries and without reference to the philosophy of non-violence, it does not require much intellectual effort to see that if we resort to violence for ridding society of the many abuses which impede our progress, we shall but add to our difficulties and postpone the day of freedom. We can establish independence only by adjusting our differences through an appeal to the head and the heart, by evolving organic unity among ourselves, not by terrorising or killing those 126

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

who, we fancy may impede our march, but by patient and gentle handling, by converting the opponent, we want to offer mass civil disobedience. (Young India, 2 January 1930, CW 42: 62–3) Desai (2009b: 529) draws attention to the fact that Gandhi’s writings became sharper as the government became more repressive. In his article “Clearing the Issue” (Young India, 30 January 1930, CW 42: 432–4), Gandhi put forth 11 suggestions to the government for reforms, including prohibition, reduction of land revenue, abolition of the salt tax, reduction of military expenditure, etc., which he felt were “very simple but vital needs of India.” If fulfilled, there would be not be any civil disobedience and the congress would participate in any conference that was called. Scalmer (2011: 35–6) points out that the most serious critics of Gandhi acknowledged his awareness of the “full value of publicity,” self-conscious display, and theatrical calculation. Western newspapers hinted at “narcissism when they published pictures of Gandhi ‘reading the newspaper telling of his activities’ or ‘scanning the news for reports of his campaigns.’” Gandhi’s fasts were also sometimes criticised as being self-serving or publicity stunts. Given the fact that the Reuters News Agency was owned by the British, such interpretations were not surprising.

Civil disobedience and salt satyagraha On 31 December 1929, a pledge to achieve complete independence for India (Purna Swaraj) was taken at the Lahore session of the Indian National Congress. This was followed by the Independence Day declaration of 26 January 1930, which catalogued the injustices of the British rule. Subsequently, Gandhi wrote to the Viceroy, Lord Irwin, putting forth his 11 demands including the abolition of the salt tax. The government law forbidding Indians to make their own salt made them dependent on a British monopoly for something that was a basic necessity of life. Resentment at the salt law had a long history. Earlier people could pan their own salt or pick it up out of natural deposits. However, the British acquired a monopoly over this and salt was legally available only from the government through guarded depots. Its price included a levy whereby the government was able to tax everyone. As early as 1844, there were protests against the tax, which affected even the poorest of the poor. By 1930, the deteriorating world economic situation was felt in India, giving rise to popular unrest. Gandhi felt that some form of civil disobedience was necessary in order to prevent growing discontent. The leaders discussed the form of civil disobedience that should be launched. Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhash Chandra Bose suggested setting up a parallel government, while Sardar Patel proposed a march to Delhi or a countrywide breaking of land laws. Gandhi on the other hand, envisaged 127

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

a long, drawn-out movement into which the masses could be incorporated. He felt the British government would suppress a parallel government or a march to Delhi. After weeks of deliberation, he came up with a simple but novel suggestion. Salt was one of the cheapest commodities which everyone bought and used as a matter of routine. To Gandhi, it was the perfect symbol of colonial exploitation affecting all Indians alike, especially the poor, while also highlighting the inhumanity of the British Empire. By focusing on the salt tax, Gandhi expected to mobilise international support, or at least to expose the exploitation of the Indian people under the Empire (Chakravarty 1995: 394). Gandhi’s choice of salt amused many, but it proved his genius. He wrote extensively in Young India and Navajivan on the economic implications of the salt tax for the poor. Gandhi always took care to communicate with those who disagreed with him before he put any of his plans into action. He was also particular about informing the opponent about the steps that the satyagrahis would be taking so as to allow for the possibility of a negotiated settlement. He promoted the satyagraha approach to fighting political oppression, focusing on the ill effects of British rule through regular articles in Young India and Navajivan (Chadda 2010: 118–28). In an article in Young India titled “To the Indian Critics” (23 January 1930, CW 42: 422), Gandhi wrote, “The days of being satisfied with costly toys is over. It is the substance that India wants.” The substance according to him was that “British domination must cease. British administration, that is costing the country far beyond its means, must end now, not in the remote future.” Similarly, he addressed appropriate articles to militants as well as Englishmen. The 27 February issue of Young India carried his article titled “When I am Arrested” (CW 42: 496–8). He concludes with the call that while every effort “imaginable and possible should be made to restrain the forces of violence, civil disobedience once begun this time cannot be stopped and must not be stopped so long as there is a single civil resister left free or alive.” He further adds a word of caution that a votary of satyagraha should find himself in one of the following states: 1. In prison or in an analogous state; or 2. Engaged in civil disobedience; or 3. Under orders at the spinning-wheel, or at some constructive work advancing swaraj. Concluding an article on the “salt tax” in the same issue (27 February 1930, CW 42: 501), Gandhi points out, The illegality is in a Government that steals the people’s salt and makes them pay heavily for the stolen article. The people, when they become conscious of their power, will have every right to take possession of what belongs to them. 128

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

The same issue of Young India also stipulates “Some Rules of Satyagraha” (CW 42: 491–3). On 2 March 1930 Gandhi, as was his wont, wrote to the Viceroy, Lord Irwin, that before embarking on civil disobedience he was approaching him to find a way out (see CW 43: 2). The contents of the letter were not disclosed to the public, and Gandhi was agitated at the conjectures being put forth by the Press. He wrote in Young India (6 March 1930, CW 43: 14–15), I wish these correspondents and the news agencies will, instead of making the publication of news a matter merely of making money, think of the public good. . . . Premature publication of news indirectly obtained by means not always straight ought not to be the function of journalists. Gandhi was particularly agitated that certain papers, especially The Times of India, were distorting his views. He asked newspapers to send only reporters who could speak his dialect as ignorant reports harmed him as well as the cause. All of the relevant details regarding the proposed march to break the Salt Law (Dandi March) were published in Navajivan and Young India. Prior to the commencement of the march, the Press in England ridiculed Gandhi and the proposed movement. These reports were dutifully reproduced in the pro-British Indian Press (Weber 2009: 431, 448). Gandhi emphasised “The Duty of Disloyalty” in Young India (27 March 1930, CW 43: 132–4): a man to prove himself not guilty of disaffection must prove himself to be actively affectionate. In these days of democracy there is no such thing as active loyalty to a person. You are therefore loyal or disloyal to institutions. . . . It is then the duty of those who have realised the awful evil of the system of Indian Government to be disloyal to it and actively and openly to preach disloyalty. Indeed, loyalty to a State so corrupt is a sin, disloyalty a virtue. . . . Disobedience of the law of an evil State is therefore a duty. Violent disobedience deals with men who can be replaced. It leaves the evil itself untouched and often accentuates it. Non-violent, i.e., civil, disobedience is the only and the most successful remedy and is obligatory upon him who would dissociate himself from evil. Gandhi organised the Dandi March on 12 March, bringing together a group of 78 ashramites at Sabarmati, Ahmedabad. Through the pages of the Gujarati Navajivan, Gandhi provided a detailed schedule as well as instructions on logistics such as food and accommodation (see CW 43: 33–5). The satyagrahis came from all sections of society and reached Dandi on the shores of the Arabian Sea on 5 April. They broke the Salt Law on 6 April by boiling 129

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

sea water and manufacturing salt. Chandra et al. (1989: 272) point out that “by picking up a handful of salt, Gandhi inaugurated the Civil Disobedience Movement, a movement that was to remain unsurpassed in the history of the Indian national movement for the countrywide mass participation that it unleashed.” Little salt was made in Dandi, but the success of the march as noted by Gandhi’s associate Prof. J. C. Kumarappa lay in the fact that their “primary object was to show the world at large the fangs and claws of the Government in all its ugliness and ferocity. In this we have succeeded beyond measure” (see Weber 2009: 513). As Pasricha (2002: 321) highlights, it was an excellent example of Gandhi’s communication style. By travelling over 200 miles for a period of 24 days, Gandhi and his group of satyagrahis united a nation of about 350 million against the British Empire. He met thousands of people on the way and conveyed the message of swaraj by addressing wayside public meetings. Gandhi had permitted Press representatives to join the group on the condition that, before asking the villagers for anything, they would seek Gandhi’s permission as he and his volunteers were “living on alms” given by the villagers. He explained that they had come for public service, which in this context meant publicising the cause of the people (Chadda 2010: 125). A question that looms large is whether Gandhi had intentionally timed this event to attract an international audience. A milestone in the history of India’s telecommunications with the West was around the time of the salt march. Gonsalves (2010: 19–20) argues that Gandhi was possibly wellinformed about the developments in cable technology, taking advantage of it for wider publicity. In 1929, a combined cable-radio company had been created that linked Britain to its colonies and to the United States. Gonsalves emphasises the probability that Gandhi may have availed of the innovations in cable telecommunications to ensure international Press coverage of the march for another reason. His long interaction with the British government had made him aware of the British sensitivity to maintaining a dignified image before the world. “Exposing its unjust claim on India would be a perfect way to embarrass it and awaken the conscience of the world.” Gonsalves points out that Gandhi’s classic message sent out by cable from Dandi on 5 April reveals his “superb mastery of adapting content, language and style to the constraints of the new medium. It was crisp, cogent and poetic: ‘I want world sympathy in this battle of Right against Might’” (CW 43: 180). Gandhi’s plan to raise world opinion against British imperialism seemed to work. India’s struggle for independence soon emerged on the front pages of international journals. On reaching Dandi, Gandhi gave a statement to the Associated Press, complimenting the government for its non-interference during the march. The only interpretation I can put upon this non-interference is that the British Government, powerful though it is, is sensitive to world 130

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

opinion which will not tolerate repression of extreme political agitation which civil disobedience undoubtedly is, so long as disobedience remains civil and therefore necessarily non-violent. (5 April 1930, CW 43: 179) The international media had not paid much attention to the Indian freedom movement, but the salt satyagraha became front page news all over the world and marked a major milestone in the reporting on India. Gandhi sent a message to the people of the United States through S. A. Brelvi, a correspondent for the Eastern News and Press Agency, New York, which was published in The Bombay Chronicle (7 April 1930, CW 43: 180): I know I have countless friends in America who are in deep sympathy with this struggle but mere sympathy will avail me nothing. What is wanted is concrete expression of public opinion in favour of India’s inherent right to independence and complete approval of the absolutely non-violent means adopted by the Indian National Congress. In all humility but in perfect truth I claim that if we attain our end through non-violent means India will have delivered a message for the world. Reports of the momentous occasion on the morning of 6 April, as Gandhi picked up a handful of untaxed salt, were quite different in the nationalist Press and the British newspapers [for a detailed analysis, see Weber (2009: 448–52)]. An American correspondent, Webb Miller of the United Press who was present when groups of non-violent satyagrahis were beaten by British officers, put out a graphic report of the events that caught world attention. It subsequently became a classic account of the practice of nonviolent resistance, and it was seen by millions as recreated in Richard Attenborough’s Oscar award–winning film, Gandhi. Miller’s report of the satyagrahis being beaten appeared in more than 1,300 newspapers around the world. It was also read into the Congressional Record in Washington. The authorities censored initial reports of Indian protesters passively accepting the blows of the police. When some reporters circumvented the ban or when the officers of the Raj eventually let the stories pass, it only enhanced interest. The work of the censor ironically elevated that which was not completely suppressed. Such scarce and delayed items were given a privileged status. The New York Times published more than 500 articles that referred to Gandhi in that 12-month period alone. In 1931, this rose by half again in metropolitan broadsheets devoted to serious coverage of international affairs. Time magazine made Gandhi its Man of the Year for 1930. African-American newspapers also evinced considerable interest in Gandhi at this time. The salt satyagraha triggered the most intense discussion of Gandhi and his methods in the metropolitan world. Over the decades, a 131

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

clear pattern in reporting had become evident. Violence and disobedience brought Gandhi into the news. Reporters took greater interest in India when the Mahatma fasted (or went on “hunger strike,” as some Westerners preferred to put it), when pickets interfered with free commerce, when the streets were blocked by squatting satyagrahis, and when the symbols of British authority were openly challenged. (for details, see Scalmer 2011: 28–9) International media attention on Gandhi, which had to a certain extent waned over the mid-1920s, gained ground by 1929 and reached its peak with the salt satyagraha. Scalmer further reveals that one of Gandhi’s critics argued that, “his prestige owes much to the press photographer.” The image of Gandhi was seen in various acts: Cradling an infant, frowning, spinning, walking, reading, visiting, recovering from sickness, posing with celebrities, meeting with mill workers, speaking to crowds, raising funds, distributing alms, and so on. In contrast to Gandhi’s peaceful non-violent approach, the Press adopted martial language during the march. Mann (2017: 217–20) points out that, it was precisely the bellicose Press language that created the feeling of an imagined community becoming real in the national fight for freedom. . . . For the first time in the history of British India an all-Indian public was prepared by Congress strategy and vociferous Press promulgation to participate in a nationwide campaign and, at the same time, that public was put in a state of utmost excitement to follow the instructions given by its acclaimed leader, whom the Press turned into a national leader. Recognising the importance of propaganda in the struggle, the government and the progovernment Press on the one hand, and Gandhi, the congress, and the nationalist Press on the other tried to strengthen their positions through the media, their differing crowd estimates being a case in point (Weber 2009: 446). Each incident of violence affected Gandhi deeply, and he wrote in Navajivan: “This is a struggle between violence and non-violence. To the extent that I am non-violent in spirit, non-violent remedies will occur to me; and these I shall put before the people so long as I remain free” (27 April 1930, CW 43: 346–7). During the non-cooperation movement, the government had tried to place all nationalist newspapers under censorship, and consequently most of them had voluntarily suspended publication. On 27 April a Press Ordinance was issued making the printing of anything about the civil disobedience movement a criminal offence. Writing on the “Attack on Printing Presses” 132

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

(Navajivan, 4 May 1930, CW 43: 385–6), Gandhi expressed the hope that no one would be frightened “by the sword which the Viceroy has hung over the printing-presses.” He made his position clear in his advice to editors and printers of newspapers, stating that it was “the duty of the people to criticise the bureaucracy,” to wish that it be destroyed, to commit civil disobedience, to persuade government servants to give up their jobs and recruits to leave the army, and so on. Yet, under this law all of these acts were an offence, and the government could seize any press that was guilty of any one of these offences. Gandhi called on all editors and printers of newspapers to regard it as a sin to obey such a law. . . . Any press, therefore, which is served with a notice to furnish security should refuse to do so and prefer to close down the paper instead. If all the presses act in this manner, the Government’s Ordinance will remain unenforced. . . . If people observe this measure of self-restraint, they will find that the new Ordinance does not remain in force for long. Newspapers can be brought out hand-written and, if people now feel a burning desire to work for the welfare of the country, countless such newspapers can be brought out every day. (4 May 1930, CW 43: 386) In an interview with The Bombay Chronicle on 29 April about the Press Act, which was reproduced in Young India under the title “Veiled Martial Law,” Gandhi reiterated, The time for tame submission to the dictation from British rulers is gone forever. I hope that the people will not be frightened by this ordinance. The Press men, if they are worthy representatives of public opinion, will not be frightened by the Ordinance. . . . I would, therefore, urge Press men and publishers to refuse to furnish securities, and if they are called upon to do so, either to cease publication or to challenge the authorities to confiscate whatever they like. When freedom is actually knocking at our door and when for the sake of wooing it, thousands have suffered tortures, let it not be said of the Press representatives that they were weighed and found wanting. (8 May 1930, CW 43: 352–3) Gandhi had earlier expressed his “Congratulations to Delhi Journalists” (The Bombay Chronicle, 1 May 1930, CW 43: 355) for their brave gesture to suspend the publication of their newspapers when they were asked to furnish security. He also expressed his hope that other papers would follow this courageous example. Gandhi’s arrest in May 1930 did not make the movement subside, with thousands of his supporters continuing the campaign and 133

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

making salt illegally along India’s seacoast. Many of them were beaten up and over 60,000 were arrested. On his way to Yervada Jail in Pune, Gandhi was asked for a message by a reporter of the Daily Telegraph, to which he responded, “Tell the people of America to study the issues closely and to judge them on their merits” (CW 43: 400). Within a month, 67 nationalist papers and about 55 printing presses, including Navajivan, were shut down under the Press Ordinance. Young India and Navajivan continued to appear in cyclostyle form. Young India reappeared in print beginning in March 1931 (Tendulkar 2016c: 45, 65). According to Parthasarathy (1997: 128) by July 1930, over 130 papers had been asked to pay heavy securities and nine of them had to suspend publication. It was estimated that the government collected Rs. 2,50,000/in deposits. Deposits were often forfeited as fast as they were deposited. By August, the government had suppressed 92 journals. Although there were many courageous fighters in the language Press, many of them perished in the battle. The Indian Press Ordinance (1930), like the Press Act of 1910, increased the power of the government to deal with ostensible acts of terrorism and inflammatory literature. The ordinances continued to be in force until the Gandhi-Irwin Pact of March 1931. The government consistently maintained that it did not impose any censorship on outgoing messages. However, the experiences of foreign correspondents, particularly that of Webb Miller, revealed the censorship that was being exercised by the government. These actions served to alienate American opinion. Time noted that American journalists feared British censorship because they doubted “that the Gandhi story can be covered now, while it is a story” (Weber 2009: 455–6). When Gandhi was released from jail in January 1931, the Associated Press of India sent out a press release quoting Gandhi’s message to the people of India: “I have come out of jail with an absolutely open mind, unfettered by enmity, unbiased in argument and prepared to study the whole situation from every point of view” (see The Hindu, 28 January 1931, CW 45: 125). A few weeks later, in a statement to the Press in the context of the on-going communal violence, Gandhi wrote, I do not believe in retaliation. . . . I would implore everyone to avoid the language of anger and hatred for, without doing any good to anybody, it can only add fuel to the fire that has hardly yet died out. (CW 45: 395) He lamented in an article on “Poisonous Journalism:” I have before me extracts from journals containing some gruesome things. There is communal incitement, gross misrepresentation and incitement to political violence bordering on murder. It is of course 134

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

easy enough for the Government to launch out prosecutions or to pass repressive ordinances. These fail to serve the purpose intended except very temporarily, and in no case do they convert the writers, who often take to secret propaganda, when the open forum of the Press is denied to them. The real remedy is healthy public opinion that will refuse to patronise poisonous journals. We have our journalists’ Association. Why should it not create a department whose business it would be to study the various journals and find objectionable articles and bring them to the notice of the respective editors? The function of the department will be confined to the establishment of contact with the offending journals and public criticism of offending articles where the contact fails to bring about the desired reform. Freedom of the Press is a precious privilege that no country can forgo. But if there is, as there should be, no legislative check save that of the mildest character, an internal check such as I have suggested should not be impossible and ought not to be resented. (Young India, 28 May 1931, CW 46: 236) In a statement to Reuters in September 1931, Gandhi unveiled the India of his dreams. He vowed to work for an India in which the poorest shall feel that it is their country in whose making they have an effective voice; an India in which there shall be no high class and low class of people; an India in which all communities shall live in perfect harmony. There can be no room in such an India for the curse of untouchability or the curse of intoxicating drinks and drugs. Women will enjoy the same rights as men. Since we shall be at peace with all the rest of the world, neither exploiting nor being exploited, we should have the smallest army imaginable. All interests not in conflict with the interests of the dumb millions will be scrupulously respected, whether foreign or indigenous. Personally, I hate distinction between foreign and indigenous. This is the India of my dreams for which I shall struggle at the next Round Table Conference. I may fail, but if I am to deserve the confidence of the Congress, I shall be satisfied with nothing less. (CW 47: 388–9)

Round Table Conferences and persecution of the Press The British Government organised three Round Table Conferences in London from November 1930 to 1932 to address the Indian demand for independence. Gandhi was sent to the Second Round Table Conference as 135

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

the only representative of the congress, but it did not prove to be fruitful. He also received very negative press coverage. He made it a point to give interviews and articles to the British Press, such as Textile Mercury, Manchester Guardian, Jewish Chronicle, and Spectator. In a statement to the Press on 1 December, Gandhi explicitly stated, How I wish public opinion here was moved in the right direction. I am sure if the honest Indian version of the whole affair came to light as to what is happening in Bengal today, it would not, at any rate, be tolerated. (CW 48: 376) In a statement to the Press from London, Gandhi warned the public against “being affected or agitated by newspaper reports” (see The Hindu, 15 October 1931, CW 48: 150). In an interview with Reuter on 5 December, Gandhi stated, The English people should believe me when I say that, if it falls to my lot to fight them, I will be engaged in the fight, never out of hatred but most surely out of love, even as I have fought some of my dearest relations. Hence I am determined to make every effort to continue cooperation as far as it is consistent with national selfrespect. (CW 48: 389) Furthermore, in an interview in the Bristol Evening News on 5 December (CW 48: 390), Gandhi stated, “My last words to England must be: ‘Farewell and beware! I came a seeker after peace. I return fearful of war. I do not want war, but I fear that circumstances are driving me towards it.’” On his way back to India, Gandhi wrote in Young India (31 December 1931, CW 48: 434) under the title “A Retrospect” that the greatest handicap of the British ministers was that they were being “spoon-fed on one-sided and hopelessly false statements and anti-nationalist opinions received by them from their agents in India ever since the commencement of the British Raj. For the Ministers this information is generally gospel truth.” With the increasingly active role of the Indian Press, the government passed the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act of 1931. Owners of printing presses and publishers of newspapers had to deposit a security which would be forfeited in case of incitement to violence. The government could seize and forfeit presses that produced unauthorised newspapers. Other restraints included the prohibition of the publication of congress propaganda, including messages from those who had been arrested or were in jail and notices and advertisements of meetings, processions, and other activities that tended to promote the civil disobedience movement (Mahajan 2006: 136

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

494–5). In 1932 the provisions of this act were further elaborated in the Criminal Amendment Act of 1932, and the freedom of the Press was further curtailed. The prosecution of Press correspondents and the forfeiture of securities from newspapers were used as deterrents. Six months after the resumption of civil disobedience, the Secretary of State for India stated in the House of Commons on 4 July 1932 that action had been taken under the Press Laws against 109 journalists and 98 printing presses. In November 1932, the Free Press Journal of Bombay had its security of Rs. 10,000/forfeited for reproducing an article on untouchability from a 1930 issue of Young India (Nanda 2008: 336). Many papers had to stop publication due to their failure to deposit security. Gandhi pondered how to educate the people for an all-India satyagraha. He wrote extensively in Young India and Navajivan on non-violent resistance and the duties and responsibilities of satyagrahis. On Gandhi’s arrest in January 1932, the publication of Navajivan and Young India was discontinued.

Harijan: the viewspaper In August 1932, the British government granted separate electorates for untouchables through the Communal Award, as had been demanded by B. R. Ambedkar. Gandhi, who was then imprisoned in Yervada Jail, began a fast against it. Discussions with Ambedkar and other Dalit leaders finally resulted in the Poona Pact. Gandhi then began to focus on issues of social change, particularly the question of untouchability. In February 1933, while still in jail, Gandhi had started the Harijan Sevak Sangh (Servants of Untouchables Society), a society to help Harijans, and Harijan, a new weekly to replace Young India. Gandhi declared that Harijan would “be solely devoted to the Harijan cause and will scrupulously exclude all politics” (CW 55: 169). This policy continued until 1937, when Gandhi explained that given the circumstances facing the country and the Congress Party, “I need offer no apology for crossing the self-imposed limit in the conduct of Harijan” (Tendulkar 2016d: 169). The paper was to be published from Poona with the financial assistance of G. D. Birla and the editorship of R. V. Shastri. The inaugural issue of Harijan, dated 11 February 1933, had a print run of 10,000 copies. Gandhi wrote seven articles on various aspects of the problem of untouchability. The Hindi edition, Harijan Sewak (servant of Harijans), was published the same month, and the Gujarati edition, Harijan Bandhu (brother of Harijans), came out in March (Chadda 2010: 150–68). The British authorities did not object to this; they were happy that Gandhi was now preoccupied with the question of untouchability rather than with swaraj and non-cooperation. Thus, Gandhi was the managing editor of a newspaper with a nationwide circulation while a prisoner in a cell. For a short while there were even Urdu, Bengali, and Tamil editions (Payne 1997: 448). In an article titled “Why ‘Harijan’?” 137

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

(Harijan, 11 February 1933, CW 53: 266), Gandhi explained why he had “adopted the name ‘Harijan’ for ‘untouchable.’” The name was not coined by him. On the other hand, several “untouchable” correspondents had complained against Gandhi’s use of the word “asprishya” in Navajivan, which literally meant untouchable. Gandhi then invited them to suggest a better name. One of them suggested the name Harijan, which was used by the first known poet-saint of Gujarat. “Harijan” means “a man of God.” All the religions of the world described God pre-eminently as the Friend of the friendless, Help of the helpless and Protector of the weak. The rest of the world apart, in India who can be more friendless, helpless or weaker than the forty million or more Hindus of India who are classified as untouchables? If, therefore, any body of people can be fitly described as men of God, they are surely these helpless, friendless and despised people. (Harijan, 11 February 1933, CW 53: 266) However, in June 1946, in a speech at a prayer meeting in Delhi, Gandhi revealed that, “if he had to rename his weekly he would call it not Harijan but ‘Bhangi’ i.e., sweeper, that being more in tune with his present temper and the need of the hour as he understood it” (CW 84: 347). Gandhi’s writings on untouchability were addressed to both the upper castes as well as the untouchable community. Gandhi had approached Ambedkar for a message for the inaugural issue of Harijan. Ambedkar had openly challenged Gandhi’s support of the varnashram system, which he believed was the source of caste discrimination. Ambedkar’s response was that he believed that it would “be a most unwarranted presumption on my part to suppose that I have sufficient worth in the eyes of the Hindus which would make them treat any message from me with respect.” On the other hand, he felt it desirable that the Hindus should know his views on “the momentous issue of Hindu social organisation with which you have chosen to occupy yourself. I am, therefore, sending you the accompanying statement for publication in your Harijan” (CW 53: 260). The statement read, The outcaste is a bye-product (sic) of the caste system. There will be outcastes as long as there are castes. Nothing can emancipate the outcaste except the destruction of the caste system. Nothing can help to save Hindus and ensure their survival in the coming struggle except the purging of the Hindu faith of this odious and vicious dogma. (CW 53: 260) Gandhi published both the covering letter as well as the statement in Harijan (11 February 1933, CW 53: 259–60). Both formed the introductory part of 138

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

his own article in response to Ambedkar, which was titled “Dr. Ambedkar and Caste.” Gandhi argued that the caste system has its limitations and its defects, but there is nothing sinful about it, as there is about untouchability, and if it is a bye-product (sic) of the caste system it is only in the same sense that an ugly growth is of a body, or weeds of the crop. It is as wrong to destroy caste because of the outcaste, as it would be to destroy a body because of an ugly growth in it, or a crop because of the weeds. The outcasteness, in the sense we understand it, has, therefore, to be destroyed altogether. It is an excess to be removed, if the whole system is not to perish. Untouchability is the product, therefore, not of the caste system, but of the distinction of high and low that has crept into Hinduism and is corroding it. The attack on untouchability is thus an attack upon this “high-and-low”ness. The moment untouchability goes, the caste system itself will be purified, that is to say, according to my dream, it will resolve itself into the true varnadharma, the four divisions of society, each complementary of the other and none inferior or superior to any other, each as necessary for the whole body of Hinduism as any other. (CW 53: 259–60) Gandhi concludes his article by expressing the hope that “we shall all find ourselves in the same camp. Should it prove otherwise, it will be time enough to consider how and by whom varnashrama is to be fought.” In fact, the article had commenced by stating, “Dr. Ambedkar is bitter. He has every reason to feel so.” Apart from well-known personalities, the common public also wrote on issues relating to the community in Harijan. It published graphic descriptions of the miserable conditions in which the outcastes lived, revealing that in some parts of the country they were denied access to village wells, water taps, schools, and post offices. They were prevented from using umbrellas, wearing sandals, and riding horses or cycles; menfolk were prevented from wearing a dhoti below their knee, and womenfolk could not wear clean clothes or jewellery (Nanda 2008: 353). Articles and suggestions on better methods of scavenging, tanning, and hygienic working conditions poured in. Announcements of loans for deserving Harijan students and the opening of schools where Harijans could study without discrimination were also frequently made in these journals. There were also a number of articles on hand-pounding rice, village cleanliness, nutritious food, cow milk versus buffalo milk, from waste to wealth through night soil, etc. Useful extracts from books were published for the benefit of all. Books on rural problems were reviewed, and rural uplift programmes in other countries were narrated (Bhattacharyya 1965: 56–7). 139

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

Upon the completion of one year of its existence, Gandhi, in a note “To Subscribers” (Harijan, 9 February 1934, CW 57: 130), reasserted the journal’s objectives, pointing out that it devotes itself solely to the Harijan cause. Even so it eschews all matters which may be calculated to bring it in conflict with the Government. It eschews politics altogether. These limitations were essential, if it was to be a paper controlled by a prisoner. He highlighted the fact that Harijan is a views-paper as distinguished from a newspaper. People buy and read it not for amusement but instruction and regulating their daily conduct. They literally take their weekly lessons in nonviolence. . . . Care is being exercised to avoid all exaggeration or sensational matter. Adjectives and adverbs are well-weighed before being used. And they know that I am ever ready to acknowledge errors and mend them. (Harijan, 19 July 1942, CW 76: 289) In addition to the debates with Ambedkar on the question of caste, Harijan published the views of Rabindranath Tagore, who also had his differences with Gandhi especially after the Poona Pact, which Tagore lamented,“will be a source of perpetual communal jealousy leading to a constant disturbance of peace and fatal break in the spirit of mutual cooperation in (Bengal)” (see Chakrabarty 2006: 118). Chakrabarty (2006: 131–2, 175–6) points out that Harijan was Gandhi’s contextualised response to contemporary social, economic, and political issues and was a unique literary commentary on nationalism in India. Notwithstanding its stated objective of dwelling only on social issues, Harijan virtually became a text of Gandhi’s social and political thought in the context of one of the largest nationalist struggles of the twentieth century. The issues raised and dealt with in Harijan were not new but were a re-articulation in a changed political context when Gandhi no longer remained the main leader of the nationalist movement. The issues on which he focused in Harijan were varied and multidimensional, their significance being that they provided a blueprint for a future India that was organically linked with its socioeconomic and cultural circumstances. It was replete with Gandhi’s articles on non-violence as the most appropriate means to launch and sustain a successful satyagraha campaign against social and political oppression. He also wrote on his system of alternative education or Nayee Talim, his critique of the machine civilisation of the West which he felt was inappropriate to eradicate poverty in India, his theory of self-sufficient village republics, and so on. His writings 140

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

in Harijan provided explanations for his actions which reflected a specific way of life. He wrote about the “Constructive Programme,” a plan which he prepared for national regeneration focusing on different aspects of life, including Hindu-Muslim unity, removal of untouchability, use of khadi, development of village industries, craft-based education, equality for women, health education, use of indigenous languages, adoption of a common national language, economic equality, development of workers’ organisations, integration of tribal people into mainstream political and economic life, a code of conduct for students, assistance for lepers and beggars, cultivation of respect for animals, a ban on alcohol, etc. Gandhi felt that the Constructive Programme and well-planned satyagrahas would be the key to India’s moral regeneration and political independence, which had to go together (Parekh 2005: 10–11). Harijan soon became a major source of news for the Press. Most Indian and foreign news agencies competed with each other in quoting from Gandhi’s articles. What he wrote every week in Harijan became front page stories (Parthasarathy 1997: 127). A major theme in Gandhi’s writings and speeches was the need for caste Hindus to do penance and make reparations for the untold hardships to which they had subjected the Harijans for centuries. In keeping with his basic philosophy of non-violence, Gandhi was opposed to exercising compulsion even on the orthodox supporters of untouchability, whom he described as sanatanists. Even they had to be won over by persuasion, by appealing to their reason and their hearts (Chandra et al. 1989: 293–4). Thus, Gandhi made effective use of print media for furthering his cause. In November 1933, he went on an all-India tour to campaign against untouchability. Harijan printed a list of donors and collectors for the cause of Harijans as well as a set of draft rules as to how the money should be used. In an article in Harijan headlined in capital letters “CASTE HAS TO GO,” Gandhi made his position clear that “the sooner public opinion abolishes it, the better.” He argued that “the most effective, quickest and the most unobtrusive way to destroy caste, is for reformers to begin the practice themselves and where necessary take the consequences of social boycott” (16 November 1935, CW 62: 121–2). Gandhi returned to Wardha in August 1934 upon completion of his Harijan tour and soon retired from the Congress Party. He proposed the establishment of the All India Village Industries Association (AIVIA). His observation of the large-scale poverty and unemployment in the country during his Harijan tour led to an interest in reviving the village economy and making it self-sufficient. He published a series of articles in Harijan beginning in November 1934 on rejuvenating the agrarian economy. In December 1934, the AIVIA formally came into existence, and Gandhi began to discuss in detail the various aspects of its organisation and work in Harijan. In 141

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

October 1935 came the famous appeal by Ambedkar to the members of the Depressed Classes. Accordingly, discussions with leaders of the Depressed Classes and the issue of converting to another faith also became subject matter for Gandhi’s writings. Following Gandhi’s tour of Travancore in January 1937, after its ruler had issued a proclamation regarding the opening of temples to Harijans, there was an increased focus on Harijans and the question of temple entry. Articles on khadi also were often published in his journals. Gandhi’s speeches delivered at various khadi stores and exhibitions were published. Detailed reports on the tours made by AIVIA workers for the sale of khadi and other swadeshi articles were also given wide publicity. The economic soundness of khadi was often questioned, and Gandhi replied to this question with reference to village employment. He also wrote articles advocating a humane environment for the khadi workers and a market for their products. Health and hygiene, prevention and cure of diseases, the care of the sick and invalids, the evils of drinking, gambling, and bribery, unscrupulous and obscene advertising, etc. were other major concerns for Gandhi (Chadda 2010: 183–5). In 1933, in response to C. F. Andrews’ suggestion that he concentrate on the removal of untouchability, Gandhi responded that, You will find at one time in my life an emphasis on one thing, at another time on other. But that is just like a pianist, now emphasizing one note and now other. But they are all related to one another. (CW 55: 199) Gandhi wrote extensively on diverse issues besides untouchability in Harijan as well as in Young India, ranging from truth, non-violence, and satyagraha to brahmacharya, bread labour, swadeshi, respect for all religions, hygiene and diet, decentralisation, industrialism, machinery, trusteeship, agriculture, cow protection, khadi and spinning, education, the evils of alcohol and drugs, panchayati raj, village industries, swadeshi, cattle farming, village sanitation, language, birth control, and so on. While expressing his dissatisfaction with the capitalist system, he revealed, The masses at the present time do not regard the landlords and Princes as enemies. But it is necessary to make them aware of the wrong which is being done to them. I do not teach the masses to regard the capitalists as enemies, but I teach them that the latter are doing themselves harm. My followers have never told the people that the English or that General Dyer are bad, but that they are the victims of a system and that it is necessary to destroy the system and not the individual. (Young India, 27 November 1931, CW 48: 243) 142

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

Gandhi’s concern for weaker sections of society, particularly women, was very much evident in his writings. He wrote extensively on ending various forms of violence against women, such as female infanticide, sati, the dowry system, and the purdah system, and also advocated for their rights to equality, education, property, franchise, etc. (see Young India, 25 November 1926, CW 32: 89–90; 3 February 1927, CW 33: 44–5; 21 June 1928, CW 36: 444–5; 17 October 1929, CW 42: 5–6; Harijan, 23 May 1936, CW 62: 435–6; 2 December 1939, CW 70: 381–2). He was also instrumental in bringing women into the public sphere, especially into the freedom movement. He wrote, “what is all the education worth if on marriage they are to become mere dolls for their husbands and prematurely engaged in the task of rearing would-be manikins” (Young India, 7 October 1926, CW 31: 80)? He also emphasised that,“women must have votes and an equal legal status” (Young India, 21 July 1921, CW 20: 410). At the same time, he adhered to the traditional stereotype of women taking care of the household. Although he did write that, “it is good to swim in the waters of tradition, but to sink in them is suicide” (Navajivan, 28 June 1925, CW 27: 308), he argued that he did not envisage the wife, as a rule, following an avocation independently of her husband. The care of the children and the upkeep of the household are quite enough to fully engage all her energy. In a wellordered society the additional burden of maintaining the family ought not to fall on her. The man should look to the maintenance of the family, the woman to household management; the two thus supplementing and complementing each other’s labours. (Harijan, 12 October 1934, CW 59: 147) Several years later, he again opined in Harijan (24 February 1940, CW 71: 207–8): The duty of motherhood, which the vast majority of women will always undertake, requires qualities which man need not possess. She is passive, he is active. She is essentially mistress of the house. He is the bread-winner, she is the keeper and distributor of the bread. She is the caretaker in every sense of the term. The art of bringing up the infants of the race is her special and sole prerogative. Without her care the race must become extinct. In my opinion it is degrading both for man and woman that women should be called upon or induced to forsake the hearth and shoulder the rifle for the protection of that hearth. In essence he argued that, “women in the new order will be part-time workers, their primary function being to look after the home” (Harijan, 16 March 1940, CW 71: 324). 143

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

The Second World War, satyagraha, and Press censorship As the threat of another world war emerged in 1938, Gandhi reasserted that his faith in non-violence remains as strong as ever. I am quite sure that not only should it answer all our requirements in our country, but that it should, if properly applied, prevent the bloodshed that is going on outside India and is threatening to overwhelm the Western world. (Harijan, 23 July 1938, CW 67: 197) With the outbreak of the Second World War, the Viceroy, Lord Linlithgow, announced that India was at war and sought the cooperation of all parties in the war effort. The congress ministries in the various provinces resigned in protest against the declaration of war without the consent of the people’s representatives, and Gandhi launched his Individual Satyagraha to oppose the war effort. The government of India issued an order under the Defence of India Rules prohibiting the printing and publishing of any matter that would directly or indirectly foment opposition to the prosecution of the war to a successful conclusion; this included meetings and speeches. The Indian Press strongly protested against the order (Parthasarathy 1997: 142–4). After the outbreak of war, Gandhi appealed to the British to adopt the method of non-violence instead of that of war. In his article “To Every Briton” in Harijan on 6 July 1940 (CW 72: 229), Gandhi wrote, I appeal to every Briton, wherever he may be now, to accept the method of non-violence instead of that of war for the adjustment of relations between nations and other matters. Your statesmen have declared that this is a war on behalf of democracy. There are many other reasons given in justification. You know them all by heart. I suggest that at the end of the war, whichever way it ends, there will be no democracy left to represent democracy. This war has descended upon mankind as a curse and a warning. It is a curse inasmuch as it is brutalizing man on a scale hitherto unknown. All distinctions between combatants and noncombatants have been abolished. No one and nothing is to be spared. Lying has been reduced to an art. Britain was to defend small nationalities. One by one they have vanished, at least for the time being. It is also a warning. It is a warning that, if nobody reads the writing on the wall, man will be reduced to the state of the beast, whom he is shaming by his manners. I read the writing when the hostilities broke out. But I had not the courage to say the word. God has given me the courage to say it before it is 144

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

too late. . . . I want you to fight Nazism without arms or, if I am to retain the military terminology, with non-violent arms. When the Government sent a notice in November that no account of Vinobha Bhave’s arrest should be reported in the Harijan, Gandhi announced that he was suspending the publication of Harijan, Harijanbandhu, and Harijan Sevak. In a “Statement to the Press” (24 October 1940, CW 73: 125), he announced, I cannot function freely if I have to send to the Press Adviser at New Delhi every line I write about satyagraha. It is true that the notice is only advisory, and that therefore I am not bound to act up to it. But the consequence of disregard of advice is also stated in the notice. I have no desire to risk a prosecution against the Editors. The three weeklies have been conducted in the interest of truth and therefore of all parties concerned. But I cannot serve that interest if the editing has to be done under threat of prosecution. Liberty of the Press is a dear privilege, apart from the advisability or otherwise of civil disobedience. The Government have shown their intention clearly by the prosecution of Shri Vinoba Bhave. I have no complaint to make against the prosecution. It was an inevitable result of the Defence of India Rules. But the liberty of the Press stands on a different footing. I am unable to reconcile myself to the notice which although in the nature of advice, is in reality an order whose infringement will carry its own consequence.  .  .  . Let everyone become his own walking newspaper and carry the good news from mouth to mouth. Gandhi also announced his intention to refund the money of the subscribers who had paid in advance for Harijan. In the issue of 10 November, he clarified that the suspension would continue as long as the gagging of the Press lasted, as “it constitutes a satyagrahi’s respectful protest against the gag.” He added that subscribers are entitled to the refund of the balance of their subscription. This would be done as soon as a request by postcard was received. Those who do not ask for a refund will have their paper sent to them if it is resumed. If it is not, the unused balance will be spent in covering any loss that may be caused in winding up. And then the balance, if any, will be sent to the Harijan Sevak Sangh for use in the service of Harijans. If Harijan is not resumed within six months, it will be deemed to have been finally wound up. (CW 73: 140–1) He wrote a similar letter to the readers of Harijanbandhu (CW 73: 144–6) suspending the publication of that paper. Although his own journals were 145

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

discontinued, Gandhi continued to make use of other newspapers and journals. During the three-month period immediately after the suspension of the Harijan dailies, Gandhi’s contributions to other newspapers, including The Hindu, The Hindustan Times, The Hitavada, Bhavnagar Samachar, and The Bombay Chronicle, in the form of statements to the Press, letters to the editor, interviews, and extracts of letters to third parties totalled a significant number of 35. However, in their determination to silence Gandhi, the government started applying the Press censorship laws to all dispatches sent by him to newspapers. Standing instructions were also given to Reuters and the Associated Press to immediately telegraph the government copies of articles by Gandhi in any publication (Nanda 2004: 139). In his “Letter to Newspaper Editors” (28 January 1941, CW 73: 304–5), Gandhi wrote, “We have become so used to the Press gag that we hardly know that there is a partial paralysis of the Press. In the name of ‘war effort’ all honest expression of opinion . . . is effectively suppressed.” He went on to cite his own experiences wherein his statements to the Press on the continuance of the civil disobedience movement and payment of fines by satyagrahis were suppressed as being “prejudicial” and “containing incitement to carry on anti-war civil disobedience.” He further appealed to the Press not to succumb to the gag but to assert its independence by publishing all the satyagraha news in its fullness. Of course it is open to the Editors to criticise and condemn the movement or the statements that may be issued. Editors can signify their disapproval of the gag by either publishing the offending statements and risking prosecution or even confiscation of the Press or by stopping publication of their papers altogether by way of protest. These are only two out of many ways for signifying your disapproval. On 4 February 1941, the standing committee of the All India Newspaper Editors Conference (AINEC), which was formed in 1940, adopted a resolution requesting the government “ordinarily not to ban publication of statements issued by Mahatma Gandhi and in cases where they are inclined to take such a step, they should consult the Central Press Advisory Committee before passing any order thereon” (see Parthasarathy 1997: 146). Defending the decision to impose censorship, Reginald Maxwell, the Home Member, argued that the government’s decision was based on two objective considerations. Firstly, disruptions of this character “are infectious and news of what has occurred in one place may lead to its repetition in a number of other places which might otherwise have remained quiet.” Secondly, “much that has occurred would, if it were known to the enemy, be of great value to his plans for an invasion of this country” (Chakrabarty 2007: 151). The Harijan weeklies were resumed in January 1942, and in its first editorial Gandhi wrote that the country

146

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

had reached a stage where “it is no longer merely a question of resisting war effort. These are questions which confront war-resisters as well as warmongers,” such as “questions of dealing with scarcity of food and clothing, looting and bread-riots, etc.” He explained that the paper would “deal with the day-to-day problems that face the people” (“Why,” Harijan, 18 January 1942, CW 75: 212–13). He nevertheless issued an appeal “To Every Briton” in Harijan (17 May 1942, CW 76: 98–100) asking every Briton to support him in his “appeal to the British at this very hour to retire from every Asiatic and African possession and at least from India.” He concludes with a plea for a “bloodless end of an unnatural domination and for a new era.” The British Intelligence agency had deputed secret service agents to report on Gandhi. One report filed by an agent on 26 May 1942 pointed out that reports from independent sources indicated that Gandhi intended to launch some kind of a mass movement in the near future. It noted that Gandhi had more recently been displaying extreme and increasing bitterness. He had been deliberately stressing the racial issue in Harijan. The report stated that the suppression of Harijan, which Gandhi seemed to expect in the near future, would constitute the signal for launching the campaign. Consequently, reports indicated that the movement could be started in one or two months’ time (Desai 2009d: 27). When questioned about this by a representative of The Hindu, Gandhi responded that he never believed in secrecy and that the “British authority will have a full knowledge of anything I wish to do before I enforce it” (CW 76: 163). In June, the American journalist and writer Louis Fischer spent a week with Gandhi at Sevagram. Realising the seriousness of Fischer’s questions, Gandhi suggested that Fischer give him written questions to which he could answer through Harijan. Fischer consented, resulting in a large, authentic record of their conversations (Desai 2009b: 1–2). Referring to the ongoing world war, Gandhi stated, I see no difference between the Fascists or Nazi powers and the Allies. All are exploiters.  .  .  . America and Britain are very great nations, but their greatness will count as dust before the bar of dumb humanity, whether African or Asiatic. . . . They have no right to talk of human liberty and all else unless they have washed their hands clean of the pollution. (“Important Questions,” Harijan, 14 June 1942, CW 76: 187–8) In response to anxious enquiries on what he would do if Harijan was suppressed, Gandhi responded that it would not be an easy matter to suppress a paper that was now being published in English, Hindi, Urdu (two places), Tamil, Telugu (two places), Ooriya, Marathi, Gujarati, and Kanaree (two

147

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

places). The government would only incur more ill-will in the people by suppressing such a popular paper. He further pointed out, Harijan is a views-paper as distinguished from a newspaper. People buy and read it not for amusement but instruction and regulating their daily conduct. They literally take their weekly lessons in non-violence. It cannot pay the authorities to deprive the people of their weekly food. And Harijan is not an anti-British paper. It is pro-British from head to foot. It wishes well to the British people. It tells them in the friendliest manner where in its opinion they err. (Harijan, 19 July 1942, CW 76: 288–9) His concluding remarks are reflective of the true spirit of his style of writing. He reveals that without needing any pressure from outside, I am using the greatest restraint in the choice of printing matter.  .  .  . Care is being exercised to avoid all exaggeration or sensational matter. Adjectives and adverbs are well-weighed before being used. . . . I am ever ready to acknowledge errors and mend them. A week later he appealed “To Every Japanese” (CW 76: 312) to refrain from their “imperial ambitions.” He pleaded, Even if you win you will leave no legacy to your people of which they would feel proud. . . . I have an undying faith in the responsiveness of human nature. . . . It is that faith which has prompted this appeal to you. Interestingly, this was published in three Japanese newspapers – Nichi Nichi, Yomiuri, and Miyako (see CW 76: 312).

Quit India movement Seeing that the region was faced with problems both internally as well as externally, Gandhi felt that it would be able to face the situation only with the withdrawal of the British. His letter to the Congress Working Committee included the “Quit India” resolution. This demanded the withdrawal of the British from India, failing which a mass struggle based on non-violence would commence. He believed that the people of India were now ready for such a non-violent struggle. The Quit India resolution was formally approved by the All India Congress Committee (AICC) in Bombay on 7 August 1942. The government imposed severe restrictions on the Press. Correspondents were to register themselves with the local authorities; restrictions were 148

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

placed on the number of messages to be sent, on the size of headlines, and the space to be devoted to the disturbances. This made it difficult for any news relating to the movement to be reported. In his speech at the AICC in Bombay, Gandhi appealed to newspaper editors that if the government placed any restrictions on the freedom of the Press, they should stop running their newspapers and inform the government that they would resume publication only in a free India. In response to this call, most of the newspapers in Calcutta, Delhi, Bombay, and Madras suspended publication. Gandhi was arrested on 9 August along with Jawaharlal Nehru, Maulana Azad, and several other congress leaders and imprisoned in the Aga Khan Palace in Pune. The news of these arrests resulted in violent reactions in various parts of the country. Soon after Gandhi’s arrest, Navajivan Press was seized and all the issues of Harijan, both old and new, were destroyed (Tendulkar 2016f: 184). Two more issues of Harijan were brought out on 16 and 23 August, and then its publication remained suspended until 10 February 1946 (Nayar 1997: 363–4). Gandhi expressed his happiness at the way the Indian Press as a whole reacted to the Quit India resolution. According to him, The acid test has yet to come. I hope that the Press will then fearlessly represent the national cause. It is better not to issue newspapers than to issue them under a feeling of suppression. At the same time, I do not want them to be blind followers of Congress and to endorse what their reason or conscience rebels against. The national cause will never suffer by honest criticism of national institutions and national policies. The danger to be guarded against is the inflaming of communal passions. The forthcoming movement will mean nothing, if it does not end in bringing communal harmony and honourable peace with the British people. . . . I do hope, therefore, that the Press will warn those who have the nation’s cause at heart against countenancing violence either against the British people or among ourselves. (“What Editors Can Do,” Harijan, 9 August 1942, CW 76: 360) In a “Message to the Country” (9 August 1942, CW 76: 403), Gandhi stated, Everyone is free to go to the fullest length under ahimsa. Complete deadlock by strikes and other non-violent means. Satyagrahis must go out to die not to live, they must seek and face death. It is only when individuals go out to die that the nation will survive. Karenge ya marenge (Do or Die). The Quit India campaign became a people’s movement which saw tremendous mass participation. Women, students, and peasants became the heart 149

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

of the movement. But the lack of a specific plan and experienced leadership resulted in increased chaos and violence. The congress had made plans for the movement, but its members were arrested before the Congress Working Committee could approve it. Gandhi was arrested before he could declare publicly the detailed plans that were made. Although there were no communal clashes, thousands were injured and killed. The movement was crushed within a couple of months. But the brutal repression resulted in the growth of underground networks, the emergence of parallel governments in various parts of the country, and a decline in loyalty to the British government by its own officers. People also attacked the offices of the British-controlled newspapers. The government issued warnings to the British owners of papers that were sympathetic to the congress and Gandhi. It was also critical of the BBC for its coverage. The viceroy could not tolerate any adverse editorial comment in any newspaper (Desai 2009d: 79–81). The Press had to undergo various hardships that were inevitable in times of war – the worst being the lack of newsprint, as its availability was controlled by the government. Newspapers were forced to reduce the number of pages they published. Newspaper owners formed an association called the Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society (IENS), which negotiated with the government for a fair share for all papers in the allotment of newsprint (Parthasarathy 1997: 148). A conference of suspended newspapers was held, and with the exception of the National, Harijan, and one or two others, the suspended newspapers resumed publication in 1943 (Natarajan 1955: 175–6). Tendulkar (2016e: 174) points out that every line of Gandhi’s writings in Harijan was scrutinised and he was inundated with letters. Gandhi often wrote to individual editors, sometimes acknowledging a point in their criticism and at other times explaining his point of view in great detail. His earnestness clearly showed his anxiety to remove misunderstandings rather than silence any criticism (Natarajan 1955: 175–85). In February 1943, while imprisoned in the Aga Khan Palace, Gandhi undertook a fast in response to the government pressure on him to condemn the violence of the people during the Quit India movement. It was also a protest against the government’s attempt to hold him responsible for the outbreak of violence. Gandhi refused to condemn the violence of the people because he saw it as a reaction to the much greater violence of the state (Chandra et al. 1989: 465). The fast resulted in raising public morale and provided an opportunity for increased political activity. The Quit India movement placed the demand for independence on the immediate agenda of the national movement. Desai (2009d: 131–2) writes that when Gandhi was allowed to receive newspapers while imprisoned at Aga Khan Palace, he asked for The Dawn, the mouthpiece of the Muslim League, which he rarely missed reading. The paper once carried a report of a speech by Jinnah in which he was reported to have asked what could prevent Gandhi from writing directly to him, continuing that 150

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

if Gandhi were indeed to write such a letter, the government would not dare to stop it. On 4 May, Gandhi wrote to Jinnah addressing him as Qaid-e-Azam: I have followed the proceedings of the League as reported in The Dawn columns. I noted your invitation to me to write to you. Hence, this letter. I welcome your invitation. I suggest our meeting face to face rather than talking through correspondence. But I am in your hands. (CW 77: 75) The government, however, declined to forward the letter to Jinnah, stating that they were not prepared to give facilities for political correspondence or contact to a person detained for promoting an illegal mass movement. Gandhi was finally released in May 1944 on medical grounds. After a meeting with Jinnah on 13 September 1944, Gandhi was accosted by journalists asking for information. He responded, You should leave us absolutely alone or if you can read our hearts and faces you must submit what you have written to one of us. Otherwise you should be absolutely silent if you want to serve India and humanity. (CW 78: 98) At a prayer meeting two weeks later, Gandhi referred to the leakage of correspondence between him and Jinnah and its unauthorised publication in certain sections of the Press. Pointing out that he had warned the Press against indulging in conjectures as it would harm the cause, he stated, “Journalism, like every institution, had its own code of ethics” and that he himself “followed a different code of ethics even in the field of journalism” (CW 78: 133). The ban against Harijan and Harijan Bandhu was removed in January 1946, and they resumed publication the next month. The first few issues were entirely devoted to promoting Hindu-Muslim harmony, the emancipation of Harijans, and the promotion of khadi and village industries. These papers became the vehicles for disseminating his writings and speeches. With the Quit India movement bringing many more people into the congress fold, the readership of the weeklies increased greatly. Everyone wanted to know what Gandhi had to say. By February 1946, Navajivan Press was printing 60,000 copies of Harijan, 40,000 copies of Harijan Bandhu, and 25,000 copies of Harijan Sevak (Guha 2018: 771). In April 1946 in the midst of rumours, alarms, and threats of communal riots, Gandhi again reiterated at a prayer meeting: The newspaperman has become a walking plague. In the East, as in the West, the newspapers are fast becoming the people’s Bible, the Koran, the Zend Avesta and the Gita, rolled into one. All that 151

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

appears in papers is looked upon as God’s truth. For instance, a newspaper predicts that the riots are coming, that all the sticks and knives in Delhi have been sold out, and the news throws everybody into a panic. That is bad. Another newspaper reports the occurrence of riots here and there, and blames the police with taking sides with the Hindus in one place and the Muslims in another. Again, the man in the street is upset. (Tendulkar 2016g: 97) Writing on the “Atom Bomb and Ahimsa” in Harijan (7 July 1946, CW 84: 394), Gandhi countered the argument that the atom bomb would bring in ahimsa as nothing else could: It will, if it is meant that its destructive power will so disgust the world that it will turn it away from violence for the time being. This is very like a man glutting himself with dainties to the point of nausea and turning away from them only to return with redoubled zeal after the effect of nausea is well over. Precisely in the same manner will the world return to violence with renewed zeal after the effect of disgust is worn out. In July 1946, when asked by a journalist about his vision of an independent India, Gandhi elaborated: Independence must begin at the bottom. Thus, every village will be a republic or panchayat having full powers. It follows, therefore, that every village has to be self-sustained and capable of managing its affairs even to the extent of defending itself against the whole world. . . . This society must naturally be based on truth and nonviolence.  .  .  . In this structure composed of innumerable villages, there will be ever-widening, never-ascending circles. Life will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom. But it will be an oceanic circle whose centre will be the individual always ready to perish for the village, the latter ready to perish for the circle of villages, till at last the whole becomes one life composed of individuals, never aggressive in their arrogance but ever humble, sharing the majesty of the oceanic circle of which they are integral units. . . . In this picture every religion has its full and equal place. (Harijan, 28 July 1946, CW 85: 32–3) In June 1946, exasperated at the role of the Press in the communally charged atmosphere of the country, Gandhi declared at a prayer meeting that if he was “appointed dictator for a day in the place of the Viceroy,” he would stop all newspapers. He appealed to newspapermen “to put a curb on their pen.” 152

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

Failing this, he pointed out that, “it was up to the public to shed their craving for ‘potted’ news and to cease to patronise papers that purveyed it or at least cease to be misled by what might appear in them” (CW 84: 347). The previous month he had in fact appealed to newspapermen “not to spread false news,” pointing out that “it was their duty to teach people to be brave and not instil fear into them” (CW 84: 119). Again at a prayer meeting in January 1947, he expressed his sorrow that, “there was poison administered to the public by some newspapers. Newspapers today had almost replaced the Bible, the Koran, the Gita and the other religious scriptures” (CW 86: 389). Again, on 26 March 1947 when he was asked for a clarification regarding his reported correspondence with the viceroy in an interview with the Press, Gandhi responded that, “whoever had concocted the message had done no service to the cause of Indian independence or honest journalism.” He further warned that, “journalism which is rightly called the Fourth Estate should never degrade itself by becoming a means of making money. This caution is doubly necessary at the present critical time in the history of the country” (CW 87: 160). A few weeks later, he again raised the issue of the conjectures of the Press with regard to his differences of opinion with the Congress Working Committee. He stated at a prayer meeting, it is a trick of their trade to create panic among the people and thus increase their sales. It is a very wicked thing to indulge in in order to fill this wretched tummy. I have also been a journalist and in those African jungles where there was none to bother about the Indians I had done a lot of journalistic work. If for earning their livelihood these people fill the pages of their newspapers and thereby harm the interests of India, then, they must give up journalism and find some other occupation for their livelihood. In the English language the Press is called the Fourth Estate. The Press can help or harm the country in so many ways. If the newspapers do not maintain a healthy attitude, what purpose would be served by India becoming free? (CW 87: 265) A few weeks later he again appealed to the Press “to refrain from publishing reports which would incite one against another” (Bihar Samachar, 18 April 1947, CW 87: 293). Gandhi began a series of editorials in Harijan on “things of eternal value” from June 1947 onwards.

The final years During the last phase of his life, Gandhi increasingly made use of fasting and prayer meetings for the dissemination of his ideas, especially that of communal harmony. His speeches at prayer meetings were widely reported in the Press. Conflicts between the Indian National Congress and the Muslim 153

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

League ultimately resulted in Mohammed Ali Jinnah withdrawing his support for the Cabinet Mission Plan. The viceroy invited Jawaharlal Nehru to form a government on 12 August, following which Jinnah declared 16 August 1946 as “Direct Action Day” to achieve Pakistan. Communal riots began in Calcutta and spread to other areas where thousands lost their lives. Gandhi devoted himself to fight this violence and visited Noakhali in East Bengal where the worst riots were taking place. Several journalists followed him, reporting on his activities and prayer meetings. When India became independent on 15 August 1947, Gandhi did not go to Delhi to participate in the celebrations. In the midst of his fight against communal violence in Bengal, he did not see any cause for celebration. However, his appeals for peace failed, and he began a fast unto death on 2 September, which succeeded in ending the violence there. He then returned to Delhi where riots were occurring between the two communities. In a statement to the Press, he wrote, I must apply the old formula “Do or Die” to the capital of India. I am glad to be able to say that the residents of Delhi do not want the senseless destruction that is going on. I am prepared to understand the anger of the refugees whom fate has driven from West Punjab. But anger is short madness. It can only make matters worse in every way. Retaliation is no remedy. It makes the original disease much worse. I, therefore, ask all those who are engaged in the senseless murders, arson and loot to stay their hands. (Harijan, 21 September 1947, CW 89: 166) A few weeks later, Gandhi expressed his sorrow at the partition of India and the poison of communalism: The division was avowedly by reason of religious cleavage. Behind it might be economic and other causes. They could not have brought out the cleavage. The poison that fills the air arose also from the same communal cause. Irreligion masquerades as religion. (Harijan, 26 October 1947, CW 89: 348) In the meantime, with increasing differences between him and his closest associates, Gandhi had written to Sardar Vallabhai Patel, “I feel that Harijan should now be stopped. I do not like leading the country in an opposite direction” (24 July 1947, CW 88: 409). He had also written to Jivanji D. Desai, the manager of Harijan, “We may have to decide to close down Harijan altogether. . . . I have no heart in some of the things our leaders are doing today. At the same time I cannot see myself opposing them too strongly” (28 July 1947, CW 88: 446). A month later, in an article titled “Is Harijan Wanted?” Gandhi sought the opinions of the readers of both Harijan and 154

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

Harijanbandhu as to whether they wanted the papers to be continued, as he felt that now that freedom from British rule had been achieved the papers were no longer wanted. He therefore called upon the readers to give their frank opinions as to whether they still required Harijan “to satisfy their political or spiritual hunger.” They were to send in their answers in any of the languages in which they received the weekly. They were also to elaborate on the reasons why they needed it, if their answer was yes (Harijan, 31 August 1947, CW 89: 82–3). He subsequently revealed, in an editorial titled “My Duty” (28 September 1947, CW 89: 216), that a majority of the readers wanted the papers to be continued. As the trustees of the Navajivan Trust also did not want it to be stopped, this activity “seems at present to be destined to continue till the last breath.” He continued to write for Harijan until the last days of his life. Fasting as an important mode of communication for Gandhi was particularly evident during the later phase of his life. He undertook his last fast against communal violence from 13 to 17 January 1948. He asked Pyarelal to look after Harijan during the fast. He had earlier relieved the latter of the responsibility of editing Harijan when he was posted in Noakhali, although he (Pyarelal) continued to be its editor on paper. Desai (2009d: 457) points out that, “this signalled that he wanted to reach out to the world during his fast through his chosen medium.” Mountbatten’s press attaché, who was present throughout the period of Gandhi’s last fast in Delhi and closely watched the public reaction, wrote in his diary, “You have to live in the vicinity of a Gandhi fast to understand its pulling power” (Kripalani 1968: 188). Following the fast, there was a major surge in Gandhi’s popularity at the international level. The Times of London, the Washington Post, and other newspapers commented on its impact. So also on 29 January he was interviewed by Margaret Bourke-White, photographer for Life magazine. Writing on the Western Press coverage of Gandhi, Scalmer (2011: 44–50) points out that it was like a mountain shelf: a sudden and small peak in the early 1920s; a deep valley; a towering summit over 1929–32, perhaps double the size of its nearest neighbours; an incomplete fall; a plateau; and then a smaller peak in the early 1940s, lasting until Gandhi’s death in 1948. Each peak related to a period of popular struggle for swaraj: The noncooperation movement in 1919, the salt satyagraha in 1930, and the Quit India movement in 1942. Revisiting the patterns of attention and description in the international media, Scalmer points out that it was the disruption of political order that gained the spotlight, even if this was followed by censorship. Drama was required for the Indian campaigns to become newsworthy. The boycott of foreign cloth gained significant coverage only when Gandhi 155

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

organised a bonfire of English garments; the anti-liquor campaign provoked attention when female picketers took a stand. It was such departures from love and kindness that were eagerly reported in the daily Press. Scalmer reveals that for those familiar only with the image of the saintly Mahatma, a glance at the international media of that time could come as a shock. For decades, the newspapermen of the West almost uniformly depicted Gandhi as a kind of agitator. He was explicitly labelled an “agitator saint,” a “dangerous agitator,” a “spell binder,” and a “ringleader”. . . . When he addressed supporters, it was seldom presented as a lecture or talk, but invariably sketched as an “exhortation,” an “inflammatory” utterance, a “provocative challenge,” or a “harangue.” His chief endeavour was apparently “to stir up trouble” not to educate or inform. His speeches were thought “violent” sometimes “very violent” and, occasionally, “bitter and violent.” (Scalmer 2011: 50) At the same time, Parthasarathy (1997: 149–50) points out that Indian journalists nursed a grievance that congress leaders practised discrimination in the sense that they were more willing to talk to foreign journalists than to their own countrymen. For instance, when Gandhi was in prison in 1930, he gave an interview to George Slocombe, a correspondent for the Daily Herald of London, who was able to get Gandhi’s terms for settlement with the government. His dispatch, which was also published in The Hindu, hit international headlines. Gandhi conveyed a new offer of settlement to the government through another British correspondent, Stewart Gelder, to whom he gave an exclusive interview in 1943. This was, however, rejected. Indian correspondents covering the Simla Conference of Indian leaders convened by the Viceroy, Lord Wavell, in July 1945 failed to get any information from any of the Indian leaders attending the conference on what took place and why it failed. However, a foreign correspondent, Preston Grover of the Associated Press of America, was successful in getting interviews with Gandhi, Nehru, Azad, and Jinnah. Nehru denied the charge that congress leaders were being discriminatory, stating that there were certain “special circumstances” for such exclusive interviews being given to foreign journalists. Responding to the criticism that he showed a weakness for foreign journalists and that his important announcements were released through international news agencies, Gandhi wrote in Harijan (21 April 1946, CW 84: 2) under the title “Indian Pressmen v. European:” An Indian journalist complains that our great men have a weakness for foreign journalists to the extent of excluding Indians at their Press conferences, and wonders whether I am myself free from this weakness. For myself, I can say, without fear of contradiction that 156

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

I have never been guilty of such partiality. Having suffered a good deal for the crime of being an Asiatic, I am not likely to be guilty of such weakness. And I must say that I know of no such example as my friend adverts to, if only because public men can ill afford to face a boycott by Indian Pressmen. What has happened with me and, so far as I am aware, with others too is that they and I have found it necessary at times to give special interviews to foreign journalists when it has been found necessary in the interest of the common cause to get messages across the seas. It is impossible in the present circumstance to do otherwise. It would be as foolish to invite a boycott by foreign journalists as by Indian. Any industrious person will find out that Indian journalists have been more often than not preferred by Indian public men again for the sake of the common cause. There were several threats to his life during these months, and the government offered him personal protection which he rejected. On 30 January 1948, he was shot dead while walking towards his prayer meeting in the gardens of Birla House in New Delhi. Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, a close associate of Gandhi, wrote after his death, To those of us who had the privilege of working with Gandhiji every week when the Harijan was being edited by him, it seems strange to be writing for its columns without submitting the same to the searching gaze of that prince of journalists. The care and thought he bestowed on whatever he himself wrote, the eagle eye with which he vetted every word of what even a man like Mahadev Desai wrote, his insistence on right expression, on the adherence to truth where facts were concerned, on the necessity of not using one word more than necessary, his appreciation of good literary style, his ruthless weeding out of much or wholesale discarding of what one thought was good, all these are never to be forgotten lessons. But the remembrance of them makes one pause and wonder whether any one of our poor efforts can ever come up to the high standard of journalism which was Gandhiji’s incomparable contribution to public life. (Harijan, 11 April 1948, cited in Bhattacharya 1969: 202–3) On 15 February 1948, under the signature of C. Rajagopalachari, the then governor-general of India, Harijan announced the following: “The Harijan was Bapu’s voice. And when his body has been consigned to the elements, the Harijan cannot go on. Any attempt to continue it must take a different shape” (see Bhattacharyya 1965: 69). It continued for some time with Kishorelal Mashruwalal and later Maganbhai P. Desai as editors, until it ceased publication in March 1956 (CW 53: 226). 157

S P E A K I N G T R U T H TO P OW E R

The Indian Press played a crucial role during the freedom struggle, and the specific role played by Gandhi in this context cannot be denigrated. The history of Indian journalism after 1915 reveals the major influence of Mahatma Gandhi. During the freedom struggle, Gandhi made use of the print media to reach out to all sections of the people. He utilised the media according to the nature of the conflict – based on the extent of publicity that was required to assist in transforming the conflict. The search for truth was evident in every case where he used the media. With the emergence of Young India and Navajivan, Gandhi came to possess the necessary instruments to communicate his message of social change more effectively. He was to a large extent instrumental in bringing the issue of untouchability to the centre stage of the Indian national movement inter alia by his extensive writings on the subject in Harijan, in addition to his tours and personal contact programmes. The Press as an instrument of satyagraha emphasised the path towards peace and swaraj through non-violence and keeping the adversary informed of one’s actions, and served to bring to the fore his vision of an ideal society.

158

5 EPILOGUE Mediating conflict and social change Gandhi’s way

Gandhi’s engagement with mass media, which extended over a span of five decades, reflects the interrelation between media, power, conflict, truth, and social change. It also provides insights into the significance of print media in the development of the public sphere. A historical overview of this engagement further reveals the history of communication as one of struggle for the creation of alternative modes, with colonial communication strategies on the one hand and contestations of the same on the other. The emergence of Indian-owned newspapers and the vernacular Press, together with movements for social, political, and religious reform, particularly after the second half of the nineteenth century, saw the Press becoming a vehicle of anti-colonial dissent, criticising misrepresentation, and contributing to the development and growth of nationalist feelings. By the end of the nineteenth century, the Press in India was at the forefront of advocating social reform and political independence, and the struggle for freedom of the Press was emerging as an integral part of the struggle for independence. Mahatma Gandhi’s emergence at the forefront of the national movement provided a major impetus for Indian journalism. He built on the foundations laid by his predecessors but with his own nuanced approach and contributions. His engagements with mass media as well as his contestations of the colonial communication order were clearly a reflection of his philosophy of life, especially his views on truth, non-violence, transformation of conflict, and social justice. They were also based on his understanding of the society and polity of India and South Africa, as well as those of the Empire and its structures of colonial power and domination. He felt that no substantial change could come over any society without mass awakening. Public opinion to him was a force mightier than that of gunpowder and a prerequisite for non-violent strategies for conflict transformation, social change, and peace building. He wrote, “Experience has shown that mere appeal to the reason produces no effect upon those who have settled convictions. . . . The method of reaching the heart is to awaken public opinion” (CW 26: 327). The raising of popular consciousness and appeals to the “hearts and minds” of the people played a central role in Gandhi’s practices, and the 159

EPILOGUE

print medium was an integral part of this process. It occupied a pivotal space in Gandhi’s social and political interventions, and he made elaborate use of it to reach out to all sections of the people. Some common trends can be found running through Gandhi’s engagement with the Press over the years. He used his writing as a medium to generate awareness on various social issues, to highlight and protest against injustices, and to build bridges to resolve or transform conflicts in different parts of the world, particularly in South Africa and India. Gandhi made extensive use of newspapers to voice his grievances in South Africa about the treatment of the Indian community and the hardships that it faced. He used Indian Opinion not only to draw the attention of the authorities to the injustices faced by Indians and the misrepresentations in the Press but also to reach out to the members of the community, to generate awareness of their rights and responsibilities, and to teach them the philosophy of satyagraha. Indian Opinion was critical not only of the shortcomings of the authorities but also those of the Indian community. His objective was not mere criticism but to help overcome social injustice. The causes that Gandhi’s writings sought to serve in India ranged from political and social to economic and ethical within the larger framework of the quest for swaraj. Gandhi felt that the effectiveness of the national movement lay in the active participation of the masses. Mass participation and mobilisation were therefore the needs of the hour. The national movement constantly sought to expand its influence among the people through different channels, as well as different movements, and mass media were one of the important channels through which the movement could expand its influence (Chandra 1988: 24–8). Gandhi wrote in The Hindu in 1935, “In our march towards our goal, I know that journalism will play a most important part in shaping the destinies of our country” (CW 26: 371). With the emergence of Young India and Navajivan, Gandhi came to possess his own instruments to communicate his message to the people of India. He wrote extensively on questions of communal harmony, the caste system, rural development, the status of women, health and hygiene, poverty and unemployment, and so on. He was to a large extent instrumental in bringing the issue of untouchability to the centre stage of the Indian national movement inter alia through his extensive writings on the subject. He also sought to draw the attention of readers from cities to villages based on the perspective that India lives in its villages. Gandhi’s writings were a contextualised response to contemporary social, economic, and political issues, within the larger framework of his faith in truth and non-violence. As a publisher, Gandhi involved himself in all levels of work related to publishing of the newspaper. He was concerned not only with good writing and publishing but also with ensuring that the paper was published and dispatched on time and that proper accounts were maintained. He considered poor printing to be an act of himsa (violence). Gandhi’s journals, 160

EPILOGUE

except for Indian Opinion in its initial stages, did not solicit advertisements. Through Navajivan, Gandhi proved that a paper could pay its way through subscriptions and need not depend on advertisements. The proprietors of Young India also came to agree with his views. Gandhi believed that readers were more important than the proprietor and that they held almost the same responsibility as the publisher or editor of the paper. Therefore, in the journals that he founded and edited, he devoted much space for letters and comments from readers, with his critics often outnumbering his admirers in these contributions. He believed that the freedom of the Press was “a precious privilege” of both journalists and readers alike.

Journalism in pursuit of truth and conflict transformation The quest for truth, which was the underlying principle of Gandhi’s life and philosophy, was clearly reflected in his engagement with mass media. Journalism for Gandhi was a mission rather than a profession. He wrote in Young India (2 July 1925, CW 27: 322) that he had taken up journalism not for its sake but merely as an aid to what I have conceived to be my mission in life. My mission is to teach by example and precept under severe restraint the use of the matchless weapon of satyagraha which is a direct corollary of non-violence and truth. The manner in which Gandhi engaged with and reported conflicts and sought to bring about social change and justice was a reflection of his adherence to truth in communication. Gandhi’s engagement with mass media offers a communication methodology for transforming conflict. Gandhi considered most conflicts to be structural in nature, having an impact on society as a whole. As such it was necessary to educate the public on the social implications of unjust structures and ensure the participation of the larger community in the process of resolving these conflicts. He also felt that that the success of non-violent methods of resolving or transforming conflict was contingent on enlightened public opinion. His engagement with mass media was a reflection of these perspectives. The newspapers that he edited or was closely associated with in South Africa and India were intended to educate the victims together with the perpetrators of injustice, as well as to publicise his ideas about a new social order based on truth, non-violence, freedom, and justice (Mathai 2013: 63). Gandhi used journalism as a medium of communication to spread his message, especially that of peace and non-violence, to reach out to opponents, and to build bridges between adversaries. He used the Press to educate the people on the philosophy of satyagraha and the responsibilities of a satyagrahi. As an instrument of satyagraha, the Press emphasised the path 161

EPILOGUE

towards peace and the alternative to conflict and violence. The Press became an essential part of the satyagraha philosophy of keeping the adversary informed of one’s actions. He did justice to the perspective of the opponent, devoid of confrontation. The underlying principle of Gandhi’s engagement with an opponent in a conflict was to keep the channels of communication open, avoid intimidation, and remove all obstacles to dialogue (Gonsalves 2010: 15). His papers were filled with discussions on non-violence. He also advised the same to other editors, writing in Young India (9 March 1922, CW 23: 35) that he hoped that “there will be the strictest adherence to truth and there will be no violence or provocative language used.” Right from his first writings in The Vegetarian, there was a consistent regard for the truth with a correspondingly strong urge to dispel common misperceptions and fight misrepresentations. Whereas in The Vegetarian he wrote on the festivals and foods of India in their social context, dispelling the prevailing preconceived notions of Indian society, his first letter to the editor in South Africa sought to remove misperceptions about Indians wearing turbans. Within a few days of his arrival in South Africa, he began to challenge common misconceptions and misrepresentations about the Indian community through letters to the editor, gradually moving on to writing articles, open letters to the Press and the public, and pamphlets and finally publishing his own newspaper – Indian Opinion. He also gave interviews and made use of cable and telegraph to voice his grievances about the treatment of Indians in South Africa and the hardships that they faced. He used Indian Opinion to draw the attention of the authorities to the injustices faced by the Indian community, as well as to reach out to that community. He also sought to build bridges between Indians and the British government and between Indians and the White community in South Africa. Gandhi’s writings in Indian Opinion were exercises in truth, non-violence, and bridge building. He sought and advocated stepping into the shoes of the adversary to find out points not only of difference but also of agreement. As Pyarelal (1986: 81) points out, in many respects Indian Opinion established a new style in journalism that has come to be associated with Gandhi ever since. Gandhi used journalism as a medium of communication for building bridges between himself and the opponent. His austerity of style and phrasing tended to make the mind of the adversary receptive. He did not try to hide adverse facts or take advantage of any weakness in the opponent’s presentation of his or her case, but frankly admitted the faults of his client or the weakness, if any, in his case rather than leave it to his adversary to detect it. The aim was not to score a debate point or to get the better of the adversary in an argument but to win his or her cooperation in the search for truth and justice, which needed to be a common ground between them. Indian Opinion was Gandhi’s weapon in the satyagraha movement in South Africa. Throughout the satyagraha campaign, all plans and activities were fully reported in the paper. Gandhi felt that this was necessary not only 162

EPILOGUE

to keep the Indians informed of developments but also to keep the White community informed of the reactions of Indians to various developments and their plans and programmes of action. Because the movement was based on truth and non-violence, there was no room for secrecy in it (Nayar 1989: 390). He wrote, “Indian Opinion was an open book to whosoever wanted to gauge the strength and the weakness of the community, be he a friend, an enemy or a neutral” (Gandhi 1950: 145). Gandhi’s return to India in 1914 witnessed an enhanced understanding and careful use of the Press. Gandhi’s engagement with the colonial system and his contestations of the same were clearly a reflection of his ideals. He realised that the Empire had to be fought not only at the political level but also at the social, economic, cultural, and attitudinal levels. The participation of the masses was indispensable, and the Press could play a major role in this. Young India and Navajivan became his vehicles to contest the colonial system. They sought to replace the distrust and animosity between the ruler and ruled and between Hindus and Muslims with trust and friendship. They sought to promote the cause of satyagraha, appealing to the hearts of the opponents and evoking the best in them rather than playing to their fears. Young India essentially catered to a countrywide readership in English, while Navajivan, being in Gujarati, was focused on a Gujarati clientele. Satyagrahi, the unregistered paper of 1919, was published with the specific intention of defying the Rowlatt Bills and consequently the British Government in India, while Harijan, Harijan Bandhu, and Harijan Sewak focused on the causes of the backward communities in India. All of these journals reflected Gandhi’s philosophy of life and adhered to the norms adopted by Indian Opinion, especially those of truth, non-violence, and conflict transformation as well as his policy of openness to the opponent and keeping open the channels of communication. The divergence in the nature and amount of publicity given to the three conflicts he was initially drawn into in India – the Champaran and Kheda satyagrahas and the Ahmedabad mill workers strike – revealed his strategic use of the double-edged sword of the Press. The publicity given to each issue was commensurate with the cause that he sought to espouse. There was no question of generating publicity for publicity’s sake. This varied nature in which he used the media was further reflected in conflict situations ranging from the non-cooperation movement, the Mappila Rebellion, the Chauri Chaura incident, the Vaikom satyagraha, the questions of untouchability and communalism, the salt satyagraha, the Quit India movement, and the issues of partition and independence. All of these reflected his cautious use of the media, free from exaggeration or hearsay and based on facts. While in some cases, such as Kheda, Vaikom, and the Salt Satyagraha, he called for maximum publicity, in others, as in the cases of Champaran, Ahmedabad, and discussions with viceroys, he preferred to be discreet. He was vociferously critical of media conjectures, which in certain circumstances could 163

EPILOGUE

be detrimental to the common good. He always made it a point to address those on both sides of the conflict, as well as to inform opponents directly or through his writings before beginning any satyagraha. He wrote extensively on non-violent resistance and the duties and responsibilities of satyagrahis. During India’s struggle for independence, Gandhi’s writings reflected a scrupulous regard for facts, seeking to combat common misconceptions in the Empire, with the objective of hastening Indian independence through non-violent methods. He drafted Press releases for journalists and news agencies and sent informative cables to expatriate Indians in the metropole (Scalmer 2011: 63–5). The search for truth and conflict transformation were evident in the way Gandhi used the media in all of the conflicts in which he was involved, as well as in the larger conflict with the Empire. Contestations of colonialism through non-violent means would not have been possible without shaping the hearts and minds of the people. Gandhi played a central role in engendering domestic and international public opinion against the colonial system, and mass media were a crucial means towards the ends of obtaining swaraj or independence, as well as of achieving socioeconomic development. The national movement sought to weaken the hegemony of colonial ideology among the British people and influence public opinion and to win the support of non-congress leaders and influence public opinion within India. The mass media and Gandhi’s usage of the same were an integral part of this process (Chandra 1988: 28). Gandhi was extremely critical of newspapers that fanned the flames of communalism, inflamed passions, and resorted to misperceptions. He felt that the duty of the journalist was to promote friendship and to scrutinise all that may be written against either community. He devoted almost an entire issue of Young India and Navajivan each to the cause of Hindu-Muslim unity. He was particularly despondent that some newspapers only served to spread misunderstanding through exaggeration and distortion, imploring that the language of anger and hatred be avoided as well as the incitement of one against the other. He was also agitated by conjectures put forth by the Press at crucial moments, pointing out that he wished that correspondents and news agencies would “instead of making the publication of news a matter merely of making money, think of the public good” (Young India, 6 March 1930, CW 43: 14–15).

Reflecting self-restraint, sober reasoning, and openness The editors of The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi write in their preface to the first volume, that although it covers a period when Gandhi was only in his twenties, “the writings and speeches show remarkable selfrestraint and moderation, strict conformity to truth and a desire to do full justice to the viewpoint of the opponent – characteristics which remained with him through life” (CW 1: xix). Gandhi himself admitted that his 164

EPILOGUE

journals became for him a training ground for self-restraint, which was reflected in his vocabulary and choice of topics (see Young India, 2 July 1925, CW 27: 322). His language was always measured and restrained, and he showed a willingness to hear the other side. Scholars have acknowledged that Gandhi’s ability to communicate in a language that was accessible to all further contributed to his mass appeal. His writings were free of any bitterness, malice, or exaggeration. They were scholarly and polite. He wrote short, precise essays based on facts and free from exaggeration which he felt was an impediment in the search for truth. He exhorted journalists and publicists to “curb your pen and tongue. Exercise the strictest economy of words, but not of truth. Restrain your expression, but not the inner light which should burn brighter with increasing restraint” (CW 25: 574). He often reiterated that whatever needs to be said should be done so, but with politeness and sober reasoning. At a public meeting organised by the Indian Press Association in protest against the Press Act of 1910, Gandhi stated, “We should rely on ourselves to expatiate on our grievances, but we must not forget that we have to do that under certain restrictions born of politeness and sobriety” (CW 13: 283). In his message to the editor of The Independent on the occasion of the publication of its first issue, Gandhi felt that, “too often in our journals as in others do we get fiction instead of fact and declamation in place of sober reasoning” (30 January 1919, CW 15: 81). His advice to journalists was to write only what can be substantiated and to use restrained language, as every word written in anger retards progress. Writing in Navajivan on 2 November 1924 (CW 25: 238), Gandhi said, “vehement writing, even if it is charged with truth, is no answer to violent action.” Gandhi instructed the writers of Navajivan to write short, precise, factual essays without arguments, adjectives, exaggeration, or hearsay. Exaggeration was an impediment and adjectives a limitation in his quest for truth. He did not want facts to be covered by imagination. He made it a point to verify all facts before publishing a report. His advice to an employee on the editorial staff of Young India, as published in the paper (28 April 1920, CW 17: 378), calls for reiteration: “To be accurate, original and strong you must become a deep student. . . . Go in for depth, walk round your subject, walk into it, walk through it.” Those who worked with Gandhi on his newspapers revealed that they learnt precision, purity of language, openness towards the opponent, and the ability to express ideas in polite but firm language (Desai 2009b: 163–4). Writing on “Gandhi’s Theory of Non-violent Communication,” Bode (1994: 15–17) points out that Gandhi had experienced various forms of censorship and was an outspoken proponent of the right to free speech and expression. He did not favour any restrictions on a person’s freedom to express his or her opinions, irrespective of however wrong they may be. Gandhi played an interventionist role in the media policy of the government 165

EPILOGUE

and was able to show by example how to resist the Empire’s attempts to regulate the Press. He refused to accept any restrictions on his papers and made it clear that he would rather close them down than submit to the government’s intrusion into the liberty of the Press. At the same time, he did not oppose some kind of internal check from within the media community. He also felt that in order to address any abuse of freedom, “the real remedy is healthy public opinion that will refuse to patronise poisonous journals” (Young India, 28 May 1931, CW 46: 236). Gandhi requested the editors of other newspapers to express their views without fear, in accordance with their conscience. In his message to the editor of the newspaper The Independent, he expressed the hope that, “your writings would be worthy of the title you have chosen for your journal,” adding that he further hoped that together with “a robust independence” would be self-restraint and adherence to the truth (30 January 1919, CW 15: 81). Gandhi’s newspapers were open even to his critics. He published their criticisms and proceeded to answer them, sometimes resulting in contentious exchanges. Jamnalal Bajaj once complained that Gandhi gave more space to his critics than to his adherents. Gandhi responded that he did not have to convert the converted and preferred to listen to his critics in order to try to remove their doubts (Nanda 2007: vii). The “freer and fuller the criticism,” Gandhi argued, “the lighter and better will my work be” (see Scalmer 2011: 66). Gandhi felt that journalism, like every institution, had its code of ethics. As Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, who had been associated with Harijan for many years, wrote, Gandhi’s high standards of journalism were his “incomparable contribution to public life” (Harijan, 11 April 1948, cited in Bhattacharya 1969: 202–3).

Treading the Gandhian path The mainstream media landscape in the contemporary world provides yet another terrain to understand Gandhian journalism and his use of the Press in mediating or transforming conflict. The world of mass media has witnessed tremendous transformation since the time of Gandhi. However, many of these changes have only reinforced the issues that he had highlighted decades ago. The increasingly market-driven media are constrained in what they report by their need to sell their product to readers and advertisers, often resulting in sensational and trivialised reporting. Money and power filter news and marginalise dissent to the advantage of the government and dominant private interests, with advertisement revenue often deciding editorial policies. Similarly, mainstream news narratives of conflict tend to reflect processes of polarisation, sensationalism, securitisation, demonization of enemies, and decontextualisation of the conflict. 166

EPILOGUE

As Gupta (n.d.) points out, Today, when there is widespread concern over the growing influence of market forces on media, and regret over journalism being no longer a social service, Gandhi’s views on values of journalism bring to bear on the profession of journalism the force of ethics and morality. Through his writings and journals, Gandhi not only propagated his views, but in the process he laid down a standard for journalists to emulate. Some of Gandhi’s ideals, such as avoiding advertisements and expecting newspapers to survive on subscriptions alone, may not be universally feasible in the contemporary media world, given the costs of production and publication. The question of ownership structures will also continue to be a determining factor in media practices, policies, and performance. Yet, the relevance of the Gandhian approach to mass communication and social change can be understood in the context of the emergence of various alternative forms of journalism, the ongoing discussions on media reform, and the ethics of journalism that he practised, including the manner in which he used the media in situations of conflict. Drawing upon Gandhi’s engagements with the Press, Ravish Kumar, recipient of the Ramon Magsaysay Award for Journalism, contends that Gandhi was a citizen journalist whose reflections on the media are very much relevant for today’s divisive media (National Herald 2019). Today’s notions of Peace Journalism, Non-violent Journalism, Development Journalism, Constructive Journalism, and Citizen Journalism that reject mainstream approaches to journalism can all be seen as part of the Gandhian tradition or the kind of communication that Gandhi evolved, where the media are used to build bridges and promote conflict transformation and development. The basic precepts of these different perspectives of mass communication and journalism were inherent in Gandhi’s engagements with mass media from his days in London and South Africa in the late nineteenth century and in India in the first half of the twentieth century. They are also evident in his engagements not only with the papers with which he was identified– Indian Opinion, Satyagrahi, Young India, Navajivan, or Harijan – but also with the innumerable other newspapers and journals with which he was associated or wrote in, as well as in his interactions with the government and media systems. Gandhian journalism is an ethics-based journalism, be it as writer, editor, or publisher, or whether it be with regard to language, style, content, use of advertisements, quality of the finished product, cost of subscription, or the responsibilities of a journalist. His writings were exercises in truth and nonviolence, believing as he did that journalism was a means to serve the public, a tool to protest against injustice, a medium to unite the people, and a means to do justice to the perspective of the opponent without confrontation. 167

EPILOGUE

Gandhi’s communication practices are of particular significance for movements for conflict transformation and social change, as well as for those in the media profession. His engagement with the media, as evidenced in this study, offers a communication methodology for conflict transformation. Contemporary discussions on media reform would do well to draw from Gandhi his notions of journalism as a means of service – to discover the truth, generate social awareness, highlight injustices, and build bridges to transform conflict – by dispelling misconceptions and misrepresentations and maintaining a scrupulous regard for facts, openness to criticism, and strict adherence to the truth, self-restraint, and sober reasoning. The need to rediscover these principles of Gandhian journalism is indeed imperative in the contemporary digitally divided, profit-oriented, sensation-seeking, posttruth world. Gandhi’s engagements with mass media make manifest how the media can facilitate the transformation of conflict and pave the way towards peace and social change.  

168

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anand, Y. P. (2007): “History of Indian Opinion,” in The Editor Gandhi and Indian Opinion: Seminar Papers, New Delhi: National Gandhi Museum. Anderson, Benedict (2006): Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London: Verso. Bandopadhyaya, Anu (n.d.): M.K. Gandhi: Author, Journalist, Printer-Publisher, Ahmedabad: Navajivan Press. www.mkgandhi.org/j.a.p/j.a.p.htm. Last date of access: 20 July 2020. Barker-Plummer, Bernadette (2005): “Framing UN in International War News,” Peace Review, Vol 17, No 4, pp 365–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402650500374629 Bayly, C. A. (2009): “The Indian Ecumene: An Indigenous Public Sphere,” in Arvind Rajagopal (ed.), The Indian Public Sphere: Readings in Media History, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp 49–64. Bera, Saumendranath (2005): “Confronting the Colonial Communication Order: Gandhiji, the Green Pamphlet and Reuter,” in Amiya Kumar Bagchi, Dipankar Sinha and Barnita Bagchi (eds.), Webs of History: Information, Communication and Technology from Early to Post-Colonial India, New Delhi: Indian History Congress and Manohar Publishers, pp 209–30. Bernstein, William (2013): Masters of the Word: How Media Shaped History, London: Atlantic Books. Bhattacharya, Bhabani (1969): Gandhi the Writer, New Delhi: National Book Trust. Bhattacharyya, S. N. (1965): Mahatma Gandhi: The Journalist, New Delhi: Manak Publications. Blix, Hans (2004): Disarming Iraq, New York: Pantheon. Bode, Robert A. (1994): “Gandhi’s Theory of Nonviolent Communication,” Gandhi Marg, Vol 16, No 1, April–June, pp 5–30. Bondurant, Joan V. (1965): Conquest of Violence, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Bonea, Amelia (2016): The News of Empire: Telegraphy, Journalism, and the Politics of Reporting in Colonial India c.1830–1900, New Delhi: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199467129.001.0001 Bose, Nirmal Kumar (1972): Studies in Gandhism, Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House. Brantlinger, Patrick (2008): “Literature and the Empire,” 19th Century U.K. Periodicals, Detroit: Gale. www.gale.com/intl/essays/patrick-brantlinger-literatureempire. Last date of access: 27 July 2020.

169

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brown, Judith M. (2011): “Gandhi as Nationalist Leader: 1915–1945,” in Judith M. Brown and Anthony Parel (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Gandhi, New Delhi: Cambridge University Press, pp 51–70. Brown, Rebecca M. (2010): Gandhi’s Spinning Wheel and the Making of India, Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203852705 Castells, Manuel (2008): “The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication Networks, and Global Governance,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol 616, No 1, pp  78–93. https://doi. org/10.1177/0002716207311877 ——— (2010): The Rise of the Network Society, Vol. 1, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444319514 Chadda, Kusum Lata (2010): Gandhi: The Master Communicator, New Delhi: Kanishka Publishers. Chakrabarty, Bidyut (2006): Social and Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi, Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203008508 ——— (2007): Mahatma Gandhi: A Historical Biography, New Delhi: Roli Books. Chakravarty, Nikhil (1995): “Mahatma Gandhi: The Great Communicator,” Gandhi Marg, Vol 16, No 4, January–March, pp 389–97. Chakravarty, Sumit (2007): “Gandhiji, Indian Opinion and Its Editors,” in The Editor Gandhi and Indian Opinion, New Delhi: National Gandhi Museum, pp 108– 24. Chand, Tara (1967): History of the Freedom Movement in India: Volume II, New Delhi: Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Chandra, Bipin (1988): Indian National Movement: The Long Term Dynamics, New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House. ——— (2009): History of Modern India, Hyderabad: Orient Blackswan. Chandra, Bipin, Mridula Mukherjee, Aditya Mukherjee, Sucheta Mahajan and K. N. Panikkar (1989): India’s Struggle for Independence, New Delhi: Penguin Books. Chomsky, Noam (2007): Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies, New Delhi: Viva Books. The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (CW) Vol. 1–98 (1969–94), New Delhi: Publications Division, Government of India. Copley, Antony (1987): Gandhi: Against the Tide, New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Cortright, David (2007): Gandhi and Beyond: Nonviolence for an Age of Terrorism, New Delhi: Viva Books. Curle, Adam (1971): Making Peace, London: Tavistock Publications. Dalton, Dennis (1998): Nonviolence in Action: Gandhi’s Power, New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Desai, Mahadev (1951): A Righteous Struggle, Ahmedabad: Navajivan. Desai, Narayan (1999): My Gandhi, Ahmedabad: Navajivan Trust. ——— (2009a): My Life Is My Message: I Sadhana, Hyderabad: Orient Blackswan. ——— (2009b): My Life Is My Message: II Satyagraha, Hyderabad: Orient Blackswan. ——— (2009c): My Life Is My Message: III Satyapath, Hyderabad: Orient Blackswan. ——— (2009d): My Life Is My Message: IV Svarpan, Hyderabad: Orient Blackswan.

170

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Galtung, Johan (1992): The Way Is the Goal: Gandhi Today, Ahmedabad: Gujarat Vidyapith. ——— (1996): Peace by Peaceful Means, London: Sage Publications. ——— (1998): “High Road, Low Road: Charting the Course for Peace Journalism,” Track Two, Vol 7, No 4. https://journals.co.za/docserver/fulltext/track2/7/4/ track2_v7_n4_a4.pdf?expires=1599115879&id=id&accname=guest&checksum =450364AEAD7148E1A9F36632E36D9215. Last date of access: 22 July 2020. ——— (2003): “Peace Journalism,” Media Asia, Vol 30, No 3, pp 177–80. https:// doi.org/10.1080/01296612.2003.11726720 Gan, Barry L. (2005): “Pressed into War,” Peace Review, Vol 17, No 4, pp 341–8. Gandhi, M. K. (1927): An Autobiography or the Story of My Experiments with Truth, Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House. ——— (1939): Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule, Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House. ——— (1950): Satyagraha in South Africa, Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House. ——— (1955): Ashram Observances in Action, Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House. Gandhi, Rajmohan (1997): The Good Boatman: A Portrait of Gandhi, New Delhi: Penguin. ——— (2007): Mohandas: A True Story of a Man, His People and an Empire, New Delhi: Penguin Books. ——— (2017): Why Gandhi Still Matters: An Appraisal of the Mahatma’s Legacy, New Delhi: Aleph Book Company. Gonsalves, Peter (2010): Clothing for Liberation: A Communication Analysis of Gandhi’s Swadeshi Revolution, New Delhi: Sage. ——— (2012): Khadi: Gandhi’s Mega Symbol of Subversion, New Delhi: Sage. Guha, Ramachandra (2003): “Gandhi the Journalist,” The Hindu, 8 June. ——— (2013): Gandhi before India, New Delhi: Penguin. ——— (2018): Gandhi: The Years that Changed the World, Gurgaon: Penguin Random House. Gupta, V. S. (n.d.): Mahatma Gandhi and Mass Media. www.mkgandhi.org/mass_ media.htm#:~:text=Gandhi%20looked%20upon%20journalism%20as,pen%20 serves%20but%20to%20destroy. Last date of access: 24 July 2020. Habermas, Jürgen (1991): The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ——— (2006): “Political Communication in Media Society: Does Democracy Still Enjoy an Epistemic Dimension? The Impact of Normative Theory on Empirical Research,” Communication Theory, Vol 16, No 4, pp  411–26. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00280.x Herman, Edward S. and Noam Chomsky (1988): Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, New York: Pantheon. Herman, Edward S. and Robert W. McChesney (1998): The Global Media: The New Missionaries of Corporate Capitalism, New Delhi: Madhyam Books. History of Resistance and the Black Press (2017): The Journalist: Context Matters. www.thejournalist.org.za/pioneers/history-of-resistance-and-the-black-press/. Last date of access: 29 July 2020.

171

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hofmeyr, Isabel (2013): Gandhi’s Printing Press: Experiments in Slow Reading, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hyslop, Jonathan (2011): “Gandhi 1869–1915: The Transnational Emergence of a Public Figure,” in Judith M. Brown and Anthony Parel (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Gandhi, New Delhi: Cambridge University Press, pp 30–50. Iyer, Raghavan N. (2000): The Moral and Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi, New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Jeffrey, Robin (2010): India’s Newspaper Revolution: Capitalism, Politics and the Indian Language Press, New Delhi: Oxford University Press. ——— (2012): Media and Modernity: Communications, Women and the State in India, Ranikhet: Permanent Black. Joseph, Teresa (2014): “Mediating War and Peace: Mass Media and International Conflict,” India Quarterly, Vol 70, No 3, September, pp 225–40. https://doi.org/1 0.1177%2F0974928414535292 Juergensmeyer, Mark (2002): Gandhi’s Way: A Handbook of Conflict Resolution, Berkeley: University of California Press. Kantey, Mike (1990): “Publishing in South Africa,” African Bibliography, Vol 1989, pp vi–xx. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266673100005183 Kaul, Chandrika (2006): “Introductory Survey,” in Chandrika Kaul (ed.), Media and the British Empire, Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ——— (2014): Communications, Media and the Imperial Experience: Britain and India in the Twentieth Century, London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi. org/10.1057/9781137445964 ——— (2018): Reporting the Raj, New Delhi: Viva Books. Kaushik, Asha (2001): Politics, Symbols and Political Theory: Rethinking Gandhi, New Delhi: Rawat Publications. Khan, Yasmin (2011): “Gandhi’s World,” in Judith M. Brown and Anthony Parel (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Gandhi, New Delhi: Cambridge University Press, pp 11–29. King, Mary Elizabeth (2015): Gandhian Nonviolent Struggle and Untouchability in South India: The 1924–25 Vykom Satyagraha and the Mechanisms of Change, New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Kishwar, Madhu P. (1985): “Gandhi on Women,” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 20, No 40, 5 October, pp 1691–702. Kripalani, Krishna (1968): Gandhi: A Life, New Delhi: National Book Trust. Kulkarni, Sudheendra (2012): Music of the Spinning Wheel: Mahatma Gandhi’s Manifesto for the Internet Age, New Delhi: Amaryllis. Kumar, Keval J. (2013): Mass Communication in India, Mumbai: Jaico Publishing House. Lederach, John Paul (1995): Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures, Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. ——— (1997): Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies, Washington, DC: U.S. Institute of Peace. Lynch, Jake (2008): Debates in Peace Journalism, Sydney: Sydney University Press. Lynch, Jake and Annabel McGoldrick (2005): Peace Journalism, Stroud: Hawthorn Press. Mahajan, V. D. (2006): Modern Indian History, New Delhi: S. Chand.

172

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Manchanda, Rita (2001): Reporting Conflict: A Radical Critique of the Mass Media by Indian and Pakistani Journalists, Kathmandu: SAFHR. Mann, Michael (2017): Wiring the Nation: Telecommunication, Newspaper-Reportage, and Nation Building in British India, 1850–1930, New Delhi: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199472178.001.0001 Marshall, Lauren Young (2017): Rewriting Empire: The South African War: The English Popular Press and Edwardian Imperial Reform, Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Virginia for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. https://libraetd.lib.virginia.edu/public_view/8g84mm45s. Last date of access: 13 July 2020. Mathai, M. P. (2009): “Hind Swaraj: A Very Short Introduction,” in M.P. Mathai and John Moolakkattu (eds.), Hind Swaraj, New Delhi: Gandhi Peace Foundation. ——— (2013): “Conflict Resolution and Gandhi,” in V. Suryanarayan and Teresa Joseph (eds.), Conflict Resolution in South Asia, New Delhi: Reference Press. Menon, A. Sreedhara (1996): A Survey of Kerala History, Chennai: S. Viswanathan. Mermin, Jonathan (1999): Debating War and Peace: Media Coverage of US Intervention in the Post-Vietnam Era, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Mishra, Prem Anand (2012): “Sartorial Is Political: Gandhi’s Experiments with Clothing: Imitation, Loyalty and Rebellion,” Gandhi Marg, Vol 34, No 2&3, July– December, pp 307–20. Moolakkattu, John S. (2012): “Foreword,” in Peter Gonsalves (ed.), Khadi: Gandhi’s Mega Symbol of Subversion, New Delhi: Sage, pp xv–xviii. ——— (2013): “Conflict Resolution: The State of the Field and Implications for Practice,” in V. Suryanarayan and Teresa Joseph (eds.), Conflict Resolution in South Asia, New Delhi: Reference Press, pp 18–35. Mukhopadhyay, Ishta (2005): “History of Communication for Development,” in Amiya Kumar Bagchi, Dipankar Sinha and Barnita Bagchi (eds.), Webs of History: Information, Communication and Technology from Early to Post-Colonial India, New Delhi: Indian History Congress and Manohar Publishers, pp 231–44. Nanda, B. R. (1989): Mahatma Gandhi: A Biography, New Delhi: Oxford University Press. ——— (2004): In Search of Gandhi: Essays and Reflections, New Delhi: Oxford University Press. ——— (2007): “Gandhi the Editor,” in The Editor Gandhi and Indian Opinion: Seminar Papers, New Delhi: National Gandhi Museum, pp v–viii. ——— (2008): Mahatma Gandhi: A Biography Complete and Unabridged, New Delhi: Oxford. Natarajan, J. (1955): History of Indian Journalism, New Delhi: Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India. National Herald (2019): “Magsaysay Lecture Delivered by Ravish Kumar: Media and Citizens Under Pressure,” 15 September. www.nationalheraldindia.com/india/ magsaysay-lecture-delivered-by-ravish-kumar-media-and-citizens-under-pressure. Last date of access: 8 July 2020. Nauriya, Anil (2006): The African Element in Gandhi, New Delhi: National Gandhi Museum. ——— (2007): “Gandhi’s Indian Opinion: For Satyagraha Beyond Indian Causes,” in The Editor Gandhi and Indian Opinion: Seminar Papers, New Delhi: National Gandhi Museum, pp 44–79.

173

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Nayar, Sushila (1989): Mahatma Gandhi: Volume iv: Satyagraha at Work, Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House. ——— (1994): Mahatma Gandhi: Volume v: India Awakened, Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House. ——— (1997): Mahatma Gandhi: Volume viii: Final Fight for Freedom, Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House. Orwell, George (1949): “Reflections on Gandhi,” Partisan Review, London, January. www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-otherworks/reflections-on-gandhi/. Last date of access: 10 July 2020. Otis, Andrew (2018): Hicky’s Bengal Gazette: The Untold Story of India’s First Newspaper, Chennai: Tranquebar. Parekh, Bikhu (2005): Gandhi: A Very Short Introduction, New Delhi: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780192854575.001.0001 Parel, Anthony (1969): “Symbolism in Gandhian Politics,” Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol 2, No 4, December, pp 513–27. ——— (1997): “Editor’s Introduction,” in Anthony Parel (ed.), Gandhi: ‘Hind Swaraj’ and Other Writings, New Delhi: Cambridge University Press. Parthasarathy, Rangaswami (1997): Journalism in India: From the Earliest Times to the Present Day, New Delhi: Sterling Publishers. Pasricha, Ashu (2002): “Gandhi the Communicator,” Gandhi Marg, Vol 24, No 3, October–December, pp 315–26. Payne, Robert (1997): The Life and Death of Mahatma Gandhi, New Delhi: Rupa. Pyarelal (1965): Mahatma Gandhi, Volume I: The Early Phase, Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House. ——— (1980): Mahatma Gandhi, Volume II: The Discovery of Satyagraha – On the Threshold, Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House. ——— (1986): Mahatma Gandhi, Volume III: The Birth of Satyagraha – From Petitioning to Passive Resistance, Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House. Ram, N. (1997): “Foreword,” in Rangaswami Parthasarathy (ed.), Journalism in India: From the Earliest Times to the Present Day, New Delhi: Sterling Publishers. Robinson, Piers (2000): “The Policy-Media Interaction Model: Measuring Media Power During Humanitarian Crisis,” Journal of Peace Research, Vol 37, No 5, pp 613–33. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0022343300037005006 Rudolph, Lloyd I. and Susanne Hoeber Rudolph (2006): Postmodern Gandhi and Other Essays: Gandhi in the World and at Home, New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Scalmer, Sean (2011): Gandhi in the West: The Mahatma and the Rise of Radical Protest, New Delhi: Cambridge University Press. Switzer, Les (1997): “The Beginnings of African Protest Journalism at the Cape,” in Les Switzer (ed.), South Africa’s Alternative Press: Voices of Protest and Resistance, 1880s–1960s, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 57–83. Switzer, Les and Donna Switzer (1979): The Black Press in South Africa and Lesotho: A Descriptive Bibliographic Guide to African, Coloured and Indian Newspapers, Newsletters and Magazines 1836–1976, Boston: G.K. Hall and Co. Tendulkar, D.G. (2016a): Mahatma: Life of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi: Volume One: 1869–1920, New Delhi: Publications Division, Government of India. ——— (2016b): Mahatma: Life of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Volume Two: 1920–1929, New Delhi: Publications Division, Government of India.

174

BIBLIOGRAPHY

——— (2016c): Mahatma: Life of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Volume Three: 1930–1934, New Delhi: Publications Division, Government of India. ——— (2016d): Mahatma: Life of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Volume Four: 1934–1938, New Delhi: Publications Division, Government of India. ——— (2016e): Mahatma: Life of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Volume Five: 1938–1940, New Delhi: Publications Division, Government of India. ——— (2016f): Mahatma: Life of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Volume Six: 1940–45, New Delhi: Publications Division, Government of India. ——— (2016g): Mahatma: Life of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Volume Seven: 1945–1947, New Delhi: Publications Division, Government of India. Terchek, Ronald J. (2011): “Conflict and Violence,” in Judith M. Brown and Antony Parel (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Gandhi, New Delhi: Cambridge University Press. Tharoor, Shashi (2016): An Era of Darkness: The British Empire in India, New Delhi: Aleph. Thomas, Pradip Ninan (2019): Empire and Post-Empire Telecommunication in India: A History, New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Tomaselli, Keyan G. (2002): “A Brief History of South African Journalism, Mass Communication and Media Education,” African Communication Scholars Association, Vol 4, No 1, Winter, pp 111–35. Touwen, Carien J. (2011): Resistance Press in South Africa: The Legacy of the Alternative Press in South Africa’s Media Landscape, January. https://carienjtouwen. wordpress.com/essays/resistance-press-in-south-africa/. Last date of access: 13 July 2020. Vilanilam, J. V. (2003): Growth and Development of Mass Communication in India, New Delhi: National Book Trust. ——— (2005): Mass Communication in India: A Sociological Perspective, New Delhi: Sage. Weber, Thomas (1991): Conflict Resolution and Gandhian Ethics, New Delhi: Gandhi Peace Foundation. ——— (2009): On the Salt March: The Historiography of Mahatma Gandhi’s March to Dandi, New Delhi: Rupa and Co. Wolfsfeld, Gadi (2001): “The News Media and Peace Processes: The Middle East and Northern Ireland,” Peaceworks, No 37, Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace. www.usip.org/sites/default/files/pwks37.pdf. Last date of access: 15 July 2020. ——— (2004): Media and the Path to Peace, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

175

INDEX

Adam, John 6 advertisement 3, 50, 60, 61, 63, 73, 76, 90, 108, 116, 125, 136, 161, 166–7 African Chronicle 60 ahimsa 22–4, 28, 30, 39, 106, 114, 149, 152 Ahmedabad 98–103, 108, 115, 129, 163 Aiyar, P. S. 18, 60 All India Village Industries Association (AIVIA) 141–2 Ambedkar, B. R. 137–9, 142 Amrita Bazar Patrika 12, 57, 113 Andrews, C. F. 124, 142 Anglo-Indian newspapers 4, 20, 57 Anglo-Indian Press 3, 11 Ashram Observances in Action 43 Asiatic Registration Act 74–80, 86 Associated Press of India 20, 99, 124, 130, 134 Bajaj, Jamnalal 166 Banerjee, Surendranath 5, 12, 39 Bangabasi 57 Bayley, Butterworth 6 Bengalee 12 Bengal Gazette 2, 4 Bentinck, Lord William 5, 7 Bhattacharya, Gangadhar 4 Bhave, Vinobha 145 Black Africans 14, 80–2, 86 Black-owned Press 15–18 Boer War 14, 58–9, 61, 68 Bolts, William 2 Bombay Chronicle, The 102, 104–6, 131, 133, 146 Bose, Nirmal Kumar 26 Bose, Subhash Chandra 38, 127 Brahmo Samaj 7

British Intelligence agency 147 Buckingham, James Silk 4, 5, 6 Canning, Lord 8 caste system 138–9, 160 censorship 3, 6, 132, 134, 144, 146, 155, 165 Censorship of the Press Act 3 Champaran 98–103, 163 Champaran Agricultural Act 100 Chauri Chaura 117, 163 Chicago Defender 123 civil disobedience 27–8, 79, 93–4, 100–1, 105–7, 116, 127–35, 137, 145–6 Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, The (CW) 21–30, 34–7, 39–42, 45–50, 52–5, 59, 62–6, 70–1, 74–6, 78–95, 98–108, 110–25, 127–49, 151–7, 159–62, 164–6 colonial communication 1–20, 108, 159 Colonial Indian News 18, 60 communal problems 123–7 communication media power 1 conflict 23–9, 101, 118, 135, 140, 153, 158–68; resolution 24–5, 28, 33; transformation 23, 28–9, 42, 159, 161, 163–4, 167–8 Constructive Programme: Its Meaning and Place 43, 44 contestations 1–20, 159, 163, 164 copyright 46, 58 Criminal Amendment Act 137 Crisis, The 123 Critic, The 68 Daily News, The 47, 76 Daily Telegraph, The 47, 56, 134

176

INDEX

Harijan Sevak Sangh 137, 145 Hastings, Warren 2, 4, 5 health 141, 142, 160 Hicky, James Augustus 2, 4 Hind Swaraj 21, 43, 44, 70, 89, 106 Hindu, The 56, 113, 120, 146, 147, 156, 160 Hindu-Muslim 111, 123–4, 141, 151, 164; communal harmony 33, 149, 153, 160; communal violence 114, 134, 154–5 Hindustan 45 Holmes, John Haynes 122, 126 Horniman, B.G. 105, 106 hygiene 59, 142, 160

Desai, Mahadev 40, 44, 101, 107, 124–6, 157 Desai, Narayan 38, 42, 44, 49, 52, 54, 60, 66, 81, 96, 108, 127, 150, 155 Digdarshan 5 “Direct Action Day” 154 Doke, Joseph 77, 89 Dube, John 18 Du Bois, W. E. B. 123 East India Company 2, 7–8, 97 education 5, 7, 8, 9, 15–18, 21, 59, 79, 125, 140–3 Englishman, The 57 European Press 6, 8, 123 Fasts, Gandhi 27, 31–3, 39, 101, 104, 111, 116, 121, 124, 127, 132, 137, 150, 153, 154, 155 Fischer, Louis 147 Fourie, Abraham 15 Freedom of the Press 2, 4, 12, 13, 15, 106, 135, 137, 149, 159, 161; Liberty of the Press 98, 116, 145, 166 Galtung, Johan 25 Gandhi, Chhaganlal 68, 77 Gandhi, Maganlal 77, 80, 89 Gandhi, Rajmohan 32, 44, 108 Gandhi: A Patriot in South Africa 89 Gandhi-Irwin Pact 134 Ghosh, Aurobindo 7, 32 Ghosh, Motilal 12 Gladstone, William 11 Gokhale, Gopal Krishna 12, 94, 97 Government Gazette 14 Gqoba, William Wellington 17 Gramsci, Antonio 112 Great Trial 118 Green Pamphlet 29, 43, 55–8 Grievances of the British Indians in South Africa: An Appeal to the Indian Public, The 43, 56, 82 Guide to London 44 Gujarati 101, 102, 104 Gupta, Devtosh Das 29 Harijan 22, 40, 46, 119, 145–58, 163, 166, 167; viewspaper 137–43 Harijanbandhu 137, 145, 151, 155, 163 Harijans 33, 137, 139, 141, 142, 145, 151 Harijan Sevak 145, 151, 163

Imvo Zabantsundu 17–18 “Inconsistencies” 22, 41 indentured labour 36, 48, 52, 54, 55, 59, 64, 74, 86, 93 Independent, The 116, 165, 166 India 1–10, 12–14, 19–20, 29–31, 33–6, 39–40, 42–4, 46–9, 51–7, 59, 61–2, 93–5, 97–8, 107–8, 110–17, 122–32, 134–8, 140–1, 153–4, 159–64 Indian Ambulance Corps 58–9 Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society (IENS) 150 Indian community 49, 54–5, 59–60, 63–6, 71, 75, 77, 80, 85, 87–9, 93, 160, 162 Indian Franchise – An Appeal to Every Briton in South Africa 43 Indian Franchise Bill 51–5 Indian National Congress 9, 11, 20, 59, 89, 97, 123, 127, 131, 153 Indian Opinion 18, 44, 46, 60–74, 76–95, 108, 160–3 Indian Press 3, 5, 6, 8–13, 56, 74, 78, 120, 129, 136, 144, 149, 158 Indian Press Act 13, 134 Indian Press Association 98, 110, 165 Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act 136 Indian Press Ordinance 134 Indian renaissance 5 Indian Social Reformer 102 Indian World 18, 60 Indians’ Relief Bill 93–6 Indo-Anglian newspapers 4 international news agencies 19–20, 156 International Printing Press (IPP) 58–67, 89, 90, 92

177

INDEX

Irwin, Lord 127, 129, 134 Isigidimi Sama Xhosa 17 Jabavu, John Tengo 17–18 Jallianwala Bagh 105 Jinnah, Mohammed Ali 150–1, 154, 156 journalism: Gandhi’s views 45–6, 65, 72, 110, 134, 151, 153, 161–6; growth, nineteenth century 3–12; growth, twentieth century 12–13 Kaffir 16, 81–5 Kallenbach, Herman 90, 91 Kaur, Rajkumari Amrit 157, 166 Kesari 12 khadi 31, 34–7, 124–5, 141, 142, 151 Kheda 37, 98–103, 108, 115, 163 Khilafat 110–14 Kingdom of God is Within You, The 21 Koranta ea Becoana 18 Leader, The 99 leaflets 100–2 letter writing 42 London 2–3, 7, 20–2, 38–9, 46–8, 54, 57, 61, 75–6, 89–90, 135–6 London Indian Chronicle 89 Lovedale Mission Press 15 Lytton, Lord 10, 11 Lytton’s Press Act 13 Madras Standard, The 56 Mahratta 12 Malabar 114–15, 120 Mappila Rebellion 110–16, 163 ‘mass mode’ of communication 12 mediated interventions, South Africa 47–96; Asiatic Registration Act 74–80; Black Africans, cause of 80–7; Gandhi’s return to India 93–6; Indian Franchise Bill 51–5; Indian Opinion 60–7; Indians’ Relief Bill 93–6; International Printing Press 58–67; moulding, journalist 48–51; newspapers and Green Pamphlet 55–8; Phoenix 68–74; satyagraha 74–80; “Satyagraha Again” 87–93; transforming theory to practice 68–74 medium, Gandhi 29–30; fasting, silence, prayer meetings and padayatras 32–3; letter writing, pamphlets and books 42–5; newspapers and

journalism 45–6; oratorical practices 38–40; sartorial communicative practices 34–7; symbolic expressions 30–2; textual interventions 40–1 message, Gandhi 22–9 Metcalfe, Sir Charles 7, 74 Metcalfe Act 8 Miller, Webb 131, 134 Mirat-ul-Akhbar 5–6 Munro, Sir Thomas 6 Muslim League 150 Naoroji, Dadabhai 5, 8, 54 Narasimhan, Bharati 30 Natal Advertiser, The 49–50, 54–7, 60 Natal Indian Congress (NIC) 55, 58, 60, 61 Natal Mercury, The 49, 51–4 Natal Witness, The 54 National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) 123 nation building 123–7 Natives Land Act 86–7 Navajivan 44, 46, 106–11, 113, 115, 116, 118, 119, 123–5, 128, 129, 132, 134, 137, 138, 158, 160, 161, 163–5 Navajivan Press 44, 149, 151 Nazar, Mansukhlal Hiralal 61, 63, 65, 77 Nehru, Jawaharlal 4, 127, 149, 154, 156 news agencies 19, 129, 141, 156, 164 newspapers 2–13, 16–20, 40–3, 45–50, 53–8, 60, 62–5, 73, 103–5, 110, 122–4, 133, 136–7, 146, 148–53, 159–62, 164–7 Newspapers (Incitement to Offences) Act 13 Noakhali 33, 154–5 non-cooperation movement 110–23, 132, 163 non-violence 21, 23, 24, 26, 28, 30, 39, 72, 77, 87, 106, 112, 114–17, 119, 123, 124, 126, 132, 140, 141, 142, 144, 148, 158, 159, 160–3 non-violent communication 165 Notes on the Grievances of the British Indians in South Africa 56 Open Letter: To the Hon’ble Members of Natal Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly 43, 52–4, 57, 81 openness 164–6

178

INDEX

ordinance 74–5, 132–4 Orwell, George 30 “Ourselves” 66, 69, 92 padayatras 32–3 Pall Mall Gazette, The 47 pamphlet 6, 9, 11, 17, 29, 40–3, 55–8, 61, 63, 90, 162 passive resistance 79, 93–5, 102 Patel, Sardar Vallabhai 127, 154 Peace Journalism 167 persecution, Press 11–13, 135–7 Phoenix settlement 21, 68–74, 77, 91, 94–6 Pioneer, The 10, 55, 57, 99 plague 67, 82, 100 “Poisonous Journalism” 134 Polak, Henry 68, 77, 89 political consciousness 11, 13 Poona Pact 137, 140 Prarthana Samaj 7 prayer meetings 32–3, 138, 151–4, 157 precensorship 3, 4, 106 Press, India: alternative modes of communication 11–13; Europeans and 3; history 1; journalism growth, nineteenth century 3–5; language Press, rise 5–8; origins 2–3; persecution 11–13; revolt of 1857 8–11; social reform movements 5–8 Press, South Africa 14, 18, 58; mission stations and colonial powers 14–17 Press censorship 144–8 press freedom 5, 45 Pringle, Thomas 15 print-elite mode 9, 40 public opinion 3, 5, 10, 28–9, 37, 41, 43, 48, 62, 69, 70, 99, 102, 113, 118, 121–2, 131, 133, 135–6, 141, 159, 161, 164, 166 public sphere 29, 31, 40, 143, 159 Pyarelal 40, 42, 66, 72, 77, 126, 155, 162 Quit India movement 148–53, 155, 163 Quit India resolution 148–9 racial discrimination 8, 49, 57, 81 radio 39 Rajagopalachari, C. 118, 157 Rast Goftar 8 religion 4, 6, 14, 22, 34, 36, 42, 47, 48, 54, 119, 123, 124, 138, 142

Reuter(s) 19–20, 57, 127, 136, 146 Revolt of 1857 8–9 Ripon, Lord 11, 51 Round Table Conferences 22, 39, 135–7 Rowlatt Act 103–6 Roy, Raja Ram Mohun 4, 5, 6 rural development 160 Ruskin, John 21, 36, 68–70, 85 Rustomjee, Parsee 91 salt satyagraha 127–35, 155, 163 sanatanists 141 sanitation 59, 73, 142 sartorial communicative practices 34–7 Sarvodaya 85, 105 sati 5, 6, 7, 143 satyagraha 25–9, 31–2, 71–2, 74–80, 87–9, 92–4, 100–1, 104, 106–8, 119–22, 128–9, 144–8, 160–1, 163–4 Satyagraha in South Africa 43, 44, 61, 73, 90, 118, 119 Satyagrahi 103–6, 108, 163, 167 Second World War 144–8 Section 124A 9, 12 sedition 9, 13 self-restraint 164–6 semi-barbaric life 50–1 “Shyness My Shield” 30 silence 32–3 sober reasoning 164–6 social change 159–68 social reform movements 5–8 South Africa 14–18, 20–1, 25, 27, 36, 42–4, 46–9, 51, 53–67, 70–3, 75–7, 79–86, 88–98, 118–19, 159–62 South African Commercial Advertiser 15 South African Journal 15 Statesman 9, 51, 57, 100 Stewart, James 15, 17 Story of My Experiments with Truth, The (1927) 21, 33, 40, 44, 45, 47, 56, 63, 68, 69, 107, 108 Swadeshi 12, 31, 36, 37, 142 Swaraj 31, 34, 36, 39, 45, 113, 123, 125, 130, 137, 155, 158, 160, 164 symbolic expressions 30–7, 46 symbols 30–1, 34–5, 40, 46, 132 Tagore, Rabindranath 113, 140 telegraph 3, 9, 11, 19–20, 54, 162 Tendulkar, D.G. 150 Thoreau, Henry David 70

179

INDEX

Tilak, Bal Gandhadhar 12, 32 Times, The (London) 38, 49, 51, 56, 75–6, 155 Times of India, The 9, 29, 51, 53, 59, 129 Tolstoy 21, 42, 58, 69, 70, 89, 90, 91, 94 Transvaal Indians 48–9, 54, 74–9, 87–9, 93 Travancore 119–22, 142 treading, Gandhian path 166–8 trustees 91, 155 trusteeship 142 truth 22–3, 25–9, 33, 35, 39–41, 43–6, 72, 87, 89, 94–5, 97–168 United States 17, 122–3, 130–1 Unto this Last 21, 36, 68, 70, 85 untouchability 119, 121, 135, 137–9, 141–2, 158, 160, 163 untouchables 119–20, 122, 125, 137–8 Vaikom (Vykom) 119–22, 163 Vegetarian, The 47, 51, 71, 162

“Veiled Martial Law” 133 vernacular Press 3, 8, 10–11, 13, 159 Vernacular Press Act 10–11 village 13, 34, 51–2, 104, 139–42, 151–2, 160 violence 13, 23–5, 36–7, 44, 78–9, 94, 105–6, 114–18, 126, 128, 132, 150, 152, 154, 162 Vyavaharik, Madanjit 58, 61, 65, 67, 68 Wahhabi movement 9 Washington Post, The 155 West, Albert 67, 68, 77 women 17, 26, 29, 34, 93, 135, 139, 141, 143, 149, 160 Xhosa 15, 17–18 Yervada jail 22, 118, 134, 137 Young India 28, 40, 44, 46, 104, 106–13, 115–26, 128, 129, 133, 134, 136, 137, 158, 160–5

180