E-Book - Mahatma Gandhi

Five Fallacies … 121different from what obtained in the days of Gandhi for twobasic reasons: one, the country is free and no longer fighting aforeign government; two, today the government is ademocratically elected government. It is, therefore, suggestedthat if Gandhi was with us today, he would himself haverevised his methods of Satyagraha.The two factors of change are cited to imply thatSatyagraha as we knew it in the days of Gandhi is not relevanttoday, and it on that basis that it is suggested that Gandhi wouldhave revised his methods. One thing must be readily admitted.No one, indeed, no one, can say what specific course of actionor programme Gandhi would have advocated in any givensituation today. But it should also be admitted that what Gandhihas said and visualised about the 'universality' of Satyagrahagives us some idea of what he might have said today. Gandhihimself discovered, innovated upon and demonstrated manyforms of Satyagraha in South Africa and India, to meet thedifferent situations that arose. If all that is being said is that onemust choose the form that fits the situation that one faces, andnew forms too may occur or may become necessary, one willfind it impeccable (though not very new), although no newform has yet been added to the armoury by anyone.But to go back to the question of the two factors ofchange, and whether they warrant change in the concept ormethods of Satyagraha, let us look at what Gandhi told theHunter Commission (appointed by the British Governmentafter Jallianwala Bagh and the incidents in the Punjab). AnIndian member of the Commission, Pandit Jagat Narayan,asked Gandhi these very questions, perhaps to give Gandhi anopportunity to justify Satyagraha on the ground that theGovernment was 'foreign', and did not have an electoralmandate, and it was therefore legitimate to resort to such extralegalmethods against it. Gandhi’s replies are certainlyunambiguous and revealing, whether one finds or does not find